Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by JimX

Can you get decent tyres in 255/40/17 size for around or under $300? All of the big brands seem to be $450 each. There must be something almost as good for less.

not quite 255... but for brand.

I've got simex 215's. They handle 190rwkw 'ok'... but they aren't as bad as you'd think.

In the wet, well, can't do much, 215's dont go very far.

But in the dry they are very grippy indeed.

If i go easy on a launch and then hammer it once i get to 3000rpm then i barely wheels spin at all. Very impressed with the grip.

The cost under... $150

so for 235/255 i would think 250/350 wouldn't be far off at the worst.

I've seen other cars using them a bit lately now...

they might be worth a look?

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i had falken ziex 255/40/17s on my car from japan so dunno what they were worth, but they didnt really grip much, espcially when they started to wear. since my car is low, but not really low, the inner tread wears a lot faster because of the neg camber. when i replaced them, the inner tread was almost smooth and the outer tread was still 95% ;). in the dry in a straight line they just used to spin in 1st and all through 2nd, and my car is almost stock.

i still have the falkens on the front (235s), and they are fine for front tyres, no problems at all.

i recently purchased Dunlop FM901's 255/40/17 for the rear, $310ea fitted/bal. they are only really just wearing in now, theyve only done a couple of thousand kms. they havent spun once in the dry, and grip like hell in the wet too, i highly recommend these tyres if you can find some for a decent price.

Ended up going for a Sumitomo as i have heard only good things, soon will see $220 each unfitted 255/45/17. Would love the Ggrid II's but not available in Aus.

Brig S-03's are $430 a pop and gone by 20 thousand. Wouldn't mind looking into the Bridgstone RE 540 but dont think the size is compatable?

Hi,

Hey Roy13,

You mentioned you want Brigestone Grid II's..

I have them... I find them to be shit... (255x40x17).. They have to be really warm for them to operate well and even then I find it very easy to spin them...

Phantom,

Very interested to see the result of what is out on the market for around $300 each..

Rob

Originally posted by Phantom

i goin 265/35/18 now and i dont even wanna think how much they gona cost me.

Originally posted by JimX

Can you get decent tyres in 255/40/17 size for around or under $300? All of the big brands seem to be $450 each. There must be something almost as good for less.

I'm in the market for new tyres and I've found that Hankook seem to be the best value for money going round. I went into a tyre place asking for 255/35/18 Bridgestone S02s (@ ~$600ea) for the rear and was told that the Hankook K104 sport (265/35/18) out-performs them (many other tyre outlets have also backed this up). The best part was the Hankooks were $330ea!! A silica compound at that price impresses me :uh-huh: .

For anyone that's interested - I got prices for all 3 Falkens listed on their site.

The ST-115's are $289 each, and both the FK-451's and ZE-326's are $310 each. These were all in the size of 255/40/17.

I will be getting the 451's I think, I've got silica tyres on my motorcycle and I love them.

big call to say all tyres from a brand suck. have you ever tried their azenis? Have you done a lap of Eastern Creek in under 1.57 in your stock skyline on those tyres you say are better?

I totally agree that the z326s suck, they were on my car for compliance and were terrible, in fact I'm surprised that JimX was quoted the same price as for 451s.

Im happy with the 451s for both wet and dry performance.

Originally posted by Duncan

I totally agree that the z326s suck, they were on my car for compliance and were terrible, in fact I'm surprised that JimX was quoted the same price as for 451s.

Duncan, are you sure you're not confusing the ZE-326's with the ZE-502's? The latter are much cheaper I think. That's what Ben had on his for compliance (by the dealer) and I'm pretty sure they weren't an overly expensive tyre. They usually throw the cheapest tyres on they can find for compliance. Of course I could be wrong, maybe you got the number right and they do suck :P It's just that I know that the 502's are really bad.

on my rears i got a nankang ZIEX and a falken ZIEX? both are identical in tread, stiffness and dimensions.

i was under the impression that nankang was an asian branch of falken?

i find that they dont offer that much traction e.g. alot of wheelspin on launches, but i find that they work quite effectively in wet, although i am comparing their wet weather performance to thinner tyres, so might not be a fair assumption.

Thinner tyres will generally handle better in the wet (all other things being equal) because they can push the water out of the way a lot easier. That's why some fat wet weather tyres have HUGE vertical grooves in them, to try making them the equivalent of 2 smaller tyres.

So it's fair to compare a thicker tyre with a thinner one in wet weather. If anything the thicker one is at a disadvantage.

  • 1 month later...
Originally posted by Sumo

What do you guys think of Wan Li tyres? I can get the fitted for $175 for a 235/45/17 and was thinking about putting them on my steer.

I'd be reticient to put shithouse tyres on the front.

On the back, yeah because you guys are just gunna burn them up anyway.

I ended up with shithouse 245/45/17 at the rears for $155??? Hankook silica? Not too good IMO but I had two nails in the back so...

I'm after a set of 255/40/17 but I think I'll end up with Nankang NK2 as they seem to get high marks from the D1 teams (for the wrong reason I would imagine).

T.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...