Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Motor have run their annual tyre test, this year the results seem to be more relevant to us....they tested 18' performance tyres ;)

Tests were dry stopping, wet stopping and wet and dry lap times of a track at DECA.

Results:

DL - Dry Lap

DS - Dry Stop 100-0km/h

WL - Wet Lap

WS - Wet Stop 80-0km/h

Goodyear Eagle F1 WL 16.54s, WS 38.1m, DL 45.32s, DS 39.6m, Avg Price $462

Bridgestone Potenza Re040 WL 16.92s, WS 41.3m, DL 44.79s, DS 44.5m, Avg Price $413

Dunlop SP Sport 9000 WL 16.83s, WS 37.8m, DL 46.49, DS 46.1m, Avg Price $485

Pirelli P Zero Nero WL 17.02s, WS 34.7m, DL 46.09s, DS 42.7m, Avg Price $491

Falken GRB FK451 WL 17.21s, WS 32.4m, DL 45.36, DS 37.7m, Avg Price $383

Toyo Proxes T1-S WL 17.13s, WS 44m, DL 45.53s, DS 40.3m, Avg Price $411

Hankook Ventus Sport K104 WL 17.23s, WS 34.5m, DL 45.16s, DS 39.6m, Avg Price $333

Michelin Pilot Sport WL 17.32s, WS 38.8m, DL 44.83s, DS 43.2s, Avg Price $589

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/28744-which-tyres-motor-magazine-test/
Share on other sites

And which tire did they award the winner?

They didn't have a "winner" as such, but interestingly the second cheapest tyre, falken fk451, was best in both wet and dry braking tests.

The guys at motor seem to say you cant go past the Hankooks, which is a good thing since they are the cheapest tyre there.

That was how i read it. Being a tight ass and all :cheers:

Even though the website says they have a shitload of sizes in the k104 they only seem to have 18s and some 17s atm though.

Melb (dunno about other states) has a Goodyear tyre deal - buy 4 for the price of 3...

Picked up a set of Goodyear Eagle F1 GSD3 - $245/each x 3 + $40 4w align = $775.

These German made GSD3s are substantially better than the Thailand made GSD2 - with improvements made in all aspects of the tyre too!

Otherwise I probably would have settled for the cheaper Kuhmo 712s @ 190each but then would have to buy 4...

In Jan 2003 motor mag ran their annual tyre test on the top 13 performance tyres

1) Dunlop Formla FM901 cost $1150

2) Pirelli P Zero Nero cost $1320

3) Bridgestone Potenza S-03 cost $1180

4) Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3 cost $1516

5) Firestone SZ50 cost $884

6) Hankook Ventus K104 $688

7) Michelin Pilot Preceha $1350

8) BF Goodrich Profiler G $1140

9) Avon ZZ3 $940

10) Toyo Trampio GU:WN $892

11) Simex SM9300 $700

12) Kumho ECSTA Supra712 $780

13) Federal 589 $632

Fooey that list above is from the last test of which the Michelin Preceda's won. I have been using them for around 6mths and they are fantastic.

I guess i'll have to take a read of the latest Motor Mag during my lunch break on Monday to read over this latest set of tests.

Just got a set of Michelin Pilot sports on the car today;

235/40/18

265/35/18

still scrubbing them in, but they seem excellent under braking. they squeal a bit, but i think that is just the silicon coat of the new tyre wearing off

Don't know about the tests in the first post, as far as I can see they all lapped more than twice as fast in the wet as they did in the dry and they all stopped quicker in the wet than the dry, seems just a little odd???

The thing I find funny I've tried top line tyres and cheaper (use more for bunrouts ) lower range tyres and find the Falkens and slighlty cheaper ones to be crap in the wet. Mind you I have to say, rear tyres don't last but my question why 80-0km/h in the wet test and not a 100-0km/h test. ?

Don't know about the tests in the first post,  as far as I can see they all lapped more than twice as fast in the wet as they did in the dry and they all stopped quicker in the wet than the dry, seems just a little odd???

Me thinks the collumns got shifted in the translation. I had Bridgestone Potenzas on my SSS which I liked. Choice magazine did a test that included them and hey actually had the same stopping distance in the wet and the dry and in the dry they were I think 2nd best.

haha, I think I got the columns the right way around? The wet and dry tracks were different, wet was much shorter from memory. And the dry braking test was from 100, the wet from 80 :D

  • 2 weeks later...

My last set of tyres were the Yokihama 539's. I thought they were great, really progressive at and beyond the limit of traction without any nasty characteristics. I also measured 1g cornering with an accelerometer around the big round about at the end of Centenary highway and Ipswich Rd.

I've now upped the anti with a set of Bridgestone R compound RE540S, now they have grip. Reduced my lap times by over 2secs.

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, the latter. No diff should have a centre replaced without checking clearances because its unlikely to be the same as whatever came out. Not that that stops most people just checking a new centre in
    • Major thread necro but how bad of a job is it to DIY? Looking at it online it looks like if you reuse your ring and pinion as long as those are in good condition it should be fine to just pull the axles/front cover and replace the diff that way? Or should I be replacing everything and doing preload measurements/gear mesh testing like the factory service manual mentions for the rear diff?
    • in my list I had the R33 GTR as the best Skyline. Infact I had all GTR's (33>34=32), the NSX, the GTO, the 300ZX, the 180SX, the S15 better than the FD RX7. I had the MR2 and the A80 as 'just' better. I also think the DC5R Integra looks better but this is an 01 onwards car. I also think the FC>FD. It's almost like aesthetics are individual! The elements @GTSBoy likes about the FD and dislikes about the 180 are inverse in my eyes. I hate the rear end of the FD and it's weird tail lights that are bulbous and remind me of early hyundai excels. They are not striking, nor iconic, nor retro cool. The GTO has supercar proportions. I maintain these look much better in person (like the NSX) especially with nice wheels and suspension which is mandatory for all cars pretty much. Some (or all) of these you have to see in person to appreciate. You can't write a car off until you see one in the flesh IMO. Like most people we probably just like/dislike cars which represent certain eras of design or design styles in general. I also think the 60's Jag E type looks HORRIBLE, literally disgusting, and the 2000GT is nothing to write home about. FWIW I don't think the Dodge Viper Gen1's have aged very well either. You can probably see where I rate bubbly coupes like the FD. I know we're straying now but the C4 and C5 absolutely murder the Viper in the looks department as time goes on, for my eyes. Wouldn't surprise me if people who love the FD, also love the MX5, Dodge Viper, Jag E Type, etc etc.
    • I used to hate R31s, and any of the other Nissans that led up to it, and any of the Toyotas with similar styling, because of the boxiness. They were, and remain, childish, simplistic, and generally awful. I appreciate R31s a lot more now, but only the JDM 2 door. The ADM 4 door (and any other 4 door, even if they are unique compared to our local one) can eat a bowl of dicks. The Aussie R31 is also forever tarnished by their association with stereotypical bong clutching Aussie R31 owners of the 90s and early 2000s. I think the Nissans of the 70s (other than 120Y/180B/200B) are far superior looking to the 80s cars. The 240K era Skylines are boss. The same is broadly true of Toyotas. Hondas don't ever register in my thinking, from any era. Mitsus are all horrid shitboxen in any era, and so also don't register. Subarus are always awful, ditto. Daihatsus and Suzukis also don't generally register. They are all invisible. I think the SW20 MR2 looks fiddly. The 3000GT/GTO is like that but way worse. Too many silly plastic barnacles and fiddly gimmicks ruined what could have been a really nice base shape. Kinda-sorta looks like a big heavy ST165 Celica coupe (and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I think the 180SX is dreadfully bland. It's not bad looking. But it has no excitement to it at all. It's just a liftback coupe thing with no interest in its lines, and bad graphical elements (ie wide expanses of taillight plastic on the rear garnish). The S13 Silvia is a little better - getting closer to R32 shapes. But still....bland. S14? Nope. Don't love it. S15...a little better. Probably a lot better, actually. Benefits from not being like a shrunk in the wash R34 (where the S13 was a shrunk in the wash R32 and the S14 looked like a Pulsar or something else from the stable on Nissan mid 90s horrors). The Z32 was hot as f**k when it came out but hasn't aged as well as the A80. Keep in mind that I think the R33 is the most disgusting looking thing - and out of all the previous cars mentioned is objectively closest to my precious R32. It's just....real bad, almost everywhere you look. And that is down to the majority of what was designed in the 90s being shit. All Nissans from that era look like shit. Most other brands ditto. In that context, the FD absolutely stands out as being by far the best looking car, for reasons already discussed. Going behind the aesthetics, the suspension alone makes it better than almost any other car.  
    • If they just called it the "Mazda Tiffany", it would have been spot on.
×
×
  • Create New...