Falken ZE912 or Kumho KU31
- Thread starter JamesRJ
- Start date
I see you have zero experience of the Falken 912's then
Whilst I cannot compare the KU31's with the 912's I can say they are way better than "cheap rubbish" they are a pretty decent mid range tyre which is quiet and has excellent wet weather grip.
I have zero experience of either, but I did quite a lot of research on them (the KU31s and FK452s, I did look into the 912s though) when I was looking for a new set of tyres for the 540i. In the end I bought a set of Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetrics, as the others just weren't cheap enough in comparison to warrant going for in my opinion ...except the 912s ...but they did not seem to have the performance I was after, based on the reading I did.
Last edited:
Now see this is the issue I had with both Falken and Kumho tyres, everyone has something different to say about them. This is why I went with what I already knew in the end and the one tyre that almost always gets praised, especially for wet weather performance. One the tyres are on it's a bit late to decide then.
Well having used them on a well modified 205 I can say they gave very good grip wet or dry, even with a large excess of power through the front wheels, I based my choice to buy not on internet reading but after speaking to people who had used them.
I have heard KU31's are very good for the money on internet reviews, but people I have spoken too who have used them and the 912's say they both excel in different areas, such as the Kumho's have a better response and the Falkens are better in the wet and quieter.
My point is they are a tyre that well outperforms its price point and is far from cheap rubbish, it depends what your requirements for a tyre are.
I have heard KU31's are very good for the money on internet reviews, but people I have spoken too who have used them and the 912's say they both excel in different areas, such as the Kumho's have a better response and the Falkens are better in the wet and quieter.
My point is they are a tyre that well outperforms its price point and is far from cheap rubbish, it depends what your requirements for a tyre are.
they are terrible in the wet
See, I have found the complete opposite, they are MUCH better in the wet than my previous T1-Rs.
I have wondered how much confusion there is with Kumho's because they have the KU31 (meant to be half decent) and the KH31 which are about half the price of the KU31.
I'd wonder how many user reviews confuse the two, I wouldn't put it past the stupidity of the public at large.
The other thing is wet weather comments - you never know just how many people slate a tyre in the wet because they expect a 'good' wet weather tyre to perform as it would in the dry too.
I'd wonder how many user reviews confuse the two, I wouldn't put it past the stupidity of the public at large.
The other thing is wet weather comments - you never know just how many people slate a tyre in the wet because they expect a 'good' wet weather tyre to perform as it would in the dry too.
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Sounds like an E46 with that tyre size.
I doubt there are many E46's left running on Pilot Sports, Potenzas or Contisport Contacts anymore They are all on cheap Falkens for half the price that people off the internet reckon are wikkid man.
It's the 452's that are the half decent Falkens.
I doubt there are many E46's left running on Pilot Sports, Potenzas or Contisport Contacts anymore
They are all on cheap Falkens for half the price that people off the internet reckon are wikkid man.It's the 452's that are the half decent Falkens.
At that size I'd be looking at the Falken 452 over the 912 - the 912 only becomes a sensible choice when you are looking at the smaller sizes (14" or lower) because there are minimal options in those sizes.
The 912 is not a bad tyre by any stretch, but enter the world of 15" or more and you now have access to another world of tyres - Falken 452, Kumho 31, Goodyear Eagle, Toyo Proxes etc etc - there is no longer any reason to opt for the 912 at this size.
The 912 is not a bad tyre by any stretch, but enter the world of 15" or more and you now have access to another world of tyres - Falken 452, Kumho 31, Goodyear Eagle, Toyo Proxes etc etc - there is no longer any reason to opt for the 912 at this size.
my fronts are 18months old and my rears a year, maybe its the ages thing rather than wear? or tbh i pulled out onto the a38 and the rear lit up, its never done that, maybe something on the road. But after that i feel the car was uneasy in the wet and aquaplaned over the next puddle.
Maybe they are more suited to the lighter cars?
They seem quite good on Kate's Mk2 Golf as well - but she says she doesn't find them as confidence inspiring as her previous Eagle F1s in the wet under braking. I'd have to agree.
I've got a pair of 912's on the front of my old sierra and yes, it was just because they were the cheapest branded tyre I could get and I've been surprised that they are actually pretty good. Had them on during last winter and they were fine.
Although I do have 452's on the M3, used to have KU31's on the std wheels and they are certainly entertaining in the wet.
Although I do have 452's on the M3, used to have KU31's on the std wheels and they are certainly entertaining in the wet.
You also had the option of proper tyres as well - Michelin Pilot Sport 3, Continental ContiSport Contact 3/5, Bridgestone Potenza RE050, Goodyear Eagle F1 Assymetric and Falken 452 yet you seemed not to take these options even though they are all better tyres.
I'm good
