best tire for a 16x7 wheel???
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Joined
·
1,833 Posts
Hrm daily driving - I'd say Kumho 712s in a 205/45x16" or a 215/40x16" size.
Joined
·
2,548 Posts
Ive been VERY happy with my Falken Azenis in all types of weather, so if you dont mind replacing them fairly often, its the tire that i'd get.
yeah ive heard good things about the kuhmo 712's but do they make them in a 205/40/16? i cant use a 205/45, cause it rubs - bad. 
i was definately thinking about those, though. do they last long?
ive also heard good things about the azenis, but why do you have to replace them so often? just short tread life or what? how much are they? thanks for all the replies, everyone.
i was definately thinking about those, though. do they last long?ive also heard good things about the azenis, but why do you have to replace them so often? just short tread life or what? how much are they? thanks for all the replies, everyone.
Joined
·
1,833 Posts
For a 16x7" wheel I don't recommend the Azenis in the 215/45x16" size - they rubbed bad for me.
That is why I recommend Kumho. I had the 215/40x16" on a 16x7.5" rim with 43mm offset and that didn't rub.
So depending on what offset you have for your 16x7" you should be ok.
That is why I recommend Kumho. I had the 215/40x16" on a 16x7.5" rim with 43mm offset and that didn't rub.
So depending on what offset you have for your 16x7" you should be ok.
Joined
·
150 Posts
i've had the Kumho 712s 205/45/16 on 16x7 wheels for a few months now, 8 track days and daily driving, still good tread. The front outside edges are starting to wear, but thats normal for track time. GREAT wet traction tire too, even in a downpour.
Yes, Kumho 712s come in 205/40/16....i opted for the 45s just to get that extra sidewall for daily driving.
The Azenis wear faster due to a softer compound. And after driving a few cars with Azenis, the Kumhos seem a _distant_ second, despite the fact they are real good.
Yes, Kumho 712s come in 205/40/16....i opted for the 45s just to get that extra sidewall for daily driving.
The Azenis wear faster due to a softer compound. And after driving a few cars with Azenis, the Kumhos seem a _distant_ second, despite the fact they are real good.
Joined
·
136 Posts
RE:
They are pretty good for treadwear 300 tires. Very good straight away tractions! However, compare to my last tire Yoko A520, RE730 is more comfy to roll on, and hellot longer tread than A520. But cornering, I would say A520 is better, handling A520 is better, responce A520. Over all, if youa re looking for performance with some comfort, than RE730 is probalby your choice.
If not, I would vote for A520.
Kumho Ecsta 712 is good, but A520 is just a little better. check out www.tirerack.com
SE730!? I think it's RE730, treadwear 300 right? Traction AA, Temperature A right?mockujin said:yea dude i have the same tire there kyool maybe u need some sway bars for the bigger tire... but i was planning to use Bridgestone SE730's my friend has them and they perform excellent!!!!
They are pretty good for treadwear 300 tires. Very good straight away tractions! However, compare to my last tire Yoko A520, RE730 is more comfy to roll on, and hellot longer tread than A520. But cornering, I would say A520 is better, handling A520 is better, responce A520. Over all, if youa re looking for performance with some comfort, than RE730 is probalby your choice.
If not, I would vote for A520.
Kumho Ecsta 712 is good, but A520 is just a little better. check out www.tirerack.com
OK, so Discount Tire sells online:
Falken Azenis for $70/tire
Kumho Ecsta Supra 712s for $69/tire
(Tirerack, $60/tire)
On the Kumho's, I assume that the WR rated ones with a UTQG mileage rating of 280, the VR's at 340.
The Falkens are rated at 200.
Assuming $30 shipping and $60 mount, match, balance
Set of Falkens $370
Assuming 100 UTQG = 10k miles
Falkens = $185/10k miles
Set of Kumhos: $330
WR = $118/10miles
VR = $97/10k miles
I have three questions:
1) Are the UTQG ratings for these tires realistic or do the Azenis wear faster than most 200 UTQG rated tires?
2) What are the Azenis like to live with in the rain (no ice, etc. here), and noisewise?
3) Is it worth the cost difference? Honestly, my current mileage is about 18k/year. I guess the answer is along the lines of what is it worth to win?
(Also, do the WR rated Kumhos grip better than the VR ones?)
Falken Azenis for $70/tire
Kumho Ecsta Supra 712s for $69/tire
(Tirerack, $60/tire)
On the Kumho's, I assume that the WR rated ones with a UTQG mileage rating of 280, the VR's at 340.
The Falkens are rated at 200.
Assuming $30 shipping and $60 mount, match, balance
Set of Falkens $370
Assuming 100 UTQG = 10k miles
Falkens = $185/10k miles
Set of Kumhos: $330
WR = $118/10miles
VR = $97/10k miles
I have three questions:
1) Are the UTQG ratings for these tires realistic or do the Azenis wear faster than most 200 UTQG rated tires?
2) What are the Azenis like to live with in the rain (no ice, etc. here), and noisewise?
3) Is it worth the cost difference? Honestly, my current mileage is about 18k/year. I guess the answer is along the lines of what is it worth to win?
(Also, do the WR rated Kumhos grip better than the VR ones?)
Joined
·
2,548 Posts
1) Yes, they are fairly equal to other 140-200 treadwear tires....meaning they dont last a whole lot of time.shorthand said:
2) I love them in the rain unless there is STANDING water. At the National Tour in Ft. Myers, i managed to BEAT Richard West in the wet. Richard won the 2001 National ProSolo Title in STS.
3) Do you want to do well, or do you want to win? Who you are racing, and on what surfaces will determine if its worth the cost. For me, it was worth it to have 2 sets of wheels, one with Kumho 712s for the street, and one set with Falkens to race on....but thats me. Everyone is different. I'm willing to go to extreme distances to race, you may not.
4) yes, the Z/W rated ones ARE stickier than the V rated ones, but dont last as long.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
