2010 Evo Tyre Test - now with added KU31.

The Kumho tyre had 10% less performance than the winning Contis according to the test

Despite costing only 56% of the cost of the Conti.

90% of the performance for 56% of the cost.
 
Matt82 said:
The Kumho tyre had 10% less performance than the winning Contis according to the test

Despite costing only 56% of the cost of the Conti.

90% of the performance for 56% of the cost.
Click to expand...

We have just spent 2 pages discussing why that's a flawed way of looking at it.

And its 12.5% anyway.

It's not news that the only strength of happy shopper tyres is that they are cheap.
 
Last edited:
Add me to the "staggered more people don't realise a quality tyre isn't just about hooning it like a loon" list, please :p
 
and 9s a lap, thats like trying to debate whether a GTR is better than a 911 Turbo based on its nurburgring time, when in reality, mortals like us without the skill of cheif test driver Mr Somethingorother Suzuki wont get within country miles of the testers pace.

nearly all the performance for a fraction of the cost, absolute no brainer to me. sure it might aquaplane sooner or stop a car length later but i rarely, if ever, drive on the ragged edge on the road.
 
I'd rather a brand new Kumho than a 2mm Contisport in the wet anyway. This reviews are also based on one car, quite how you can read these results to another car is surprising, especially on the handling times.

Sure the water clearing capacity may be relevant for the wet braking but only if you are using a car with similar weight, similar braking weight transfer and similar sizes (width of a tyre has a big effect on 'water pumping' from the tyre/road interface).
 
Matt82 said:
and 9s a lap, thats like trying to debate whether a GTR is better than a 911 Turbo based on its nurburgring time, when in reality, mortals like us without the skill of cheif test driver Mr Somethingorother Suzuki wont get within country miles of the testers pace.

nearly all the performance for a fraction of the cost, absolute no brainer to me. sure it might aquaplane sooner or stop a car length later but i rarely, if ever, drive on the ragged edge on the road.
Click to expand...

You consider significantly worse braking performance a no brainer? Even mere mortals sometimes have to emergency stop ;)

Tyres are the single biggest safety point on your car, the easiest to keep well managed and the easiest to screw up by fitting anything but the best tyres you can find.

If you're prepared to compromise your safety (and that of other road users) to save a bit of cash, fair enough, but don't claim it's a good choice.
 
But by the same token, if you want awesome performance in standing water you wouldnt go for 225 - 255 width tyres in the first place.
 
what amuses me is about all this is that most car manufacturers fit worse tyres than the kumho as standard to models in their range.

Simply because the tyre manufacturers dont make top of the range performance tyres in those sizes.

If it was a matter purely of every day safety you'd be expecting the koren cars with their little wheels to be littering the kerbs of britain in horrific accidents.
 
Matt82 said:
The Kumho tyre had 10% less performance than the winning Contis according to the test

Despite costing only 56% of the cost of the Conti.

90% of the performance for 56% of the cost.
Click to expand...

What i find funny is that this forum is populated by many who have "performance cars" that cost massively more to run/buy than their non performance counterparts, but only offer 10-20% more in the way of performance. They apply this logic to their cars, but not to the tyres for some reason?

You used to have an S4. Why didn't you just get the non bi-turbo 2.8 V6 which would have cost half the amount, but it would have given you more than 50% of the performance?
 
Last edited:
Gaygle said:
You used to have an S4. Why didn't you just get the non bi-turbo 2.8 V6 which would have cost half the amount, but it would have given you more than 50% of the performance?
Click to expand...

i compared the running costs vs performance

running costs = roughly the same. fairly steep for mediocre 2.8 performance or fairly steep for bi-turbo giggles. plus the s4 is "something a bit different"

so in an odd way, the same logic applied in terms of bang per buck
 
Gaygle said:
What i find funny is that this forum is populated by many who have "performance cars" that cost massively more to run than their non performance counterparts, but only offer 10-20% more in the way of performance. They apply this logic to their cars, but not to the tyres for some reason?
Click to expand...

who do you recon falls into that catagory in particular? i think there are plenty of components that become limiting factors before tyres/mechanical grip does
 
Matt82 said:
i compared the running costs vs performance

running costs = roughly the same. fairly steep for mediocre 2.8 performance or fairly steep for bi-turbo giggles. plus the s4 is "something a bit different"

so in an odd way, the same logic applied in terms of bang per buck
Click to expand...

Mmmm...they don't really have similar running costs though do they? If the turbo's go -£3000, diverter valves - £150 each(?), manifold on the bi turbo was another weak spot right, something used to come away from it and if it went through the turbo's it was game over?

Sorry to take the thread off topic, but i don't know how you can bitch about an extra £300 for high performing tyres that only offer 15% more, yet you'll happily buy an S4 which has the potential to cost thousands and thousands over a lesser model yet only provides ~20% more performance.
 
I am going to buy some Wan li, even better price performance ratio. Plus the results suck as I don't have a megane, I bet the KU31 wins on a Focus.
 
[TW]Fox;17556263 said:
It's nothing like that. 9 seconds a lap around a 1 mile track is an age.

You constantly tell us how hard you drive BTW.
Click to expand...

no i dont. i dont go to the ragged edge where "if i get understeer now im taking a trip into the scenery", i always try to keep a margin for error, hence so far ive not fallen off the road, despite the way i drive when i get the chance

if you or i took the renault out, i highly doubt the lap times would mirror evo's results because to get the extra margin out of the contis will take the extra tallent.
 
valve = £23 from vag... thats how far you are from the mark

Gaygle said:
Mmmm...they don't really have similar running costs though do they? If the turbo's go -£3000, diverter valves - £150 each(?), manifold on the bi turbo was another weak spot right, something used to come away from it and if it went through the turbo's it was game over?

Sorry to take the thread off topic, but i don't know how you can bitch about an extra £300 for high performing tyres that only offer 15% more, yet you'll happily buy an S4 which has the potential to cost thousands and thousands over a lesser model yet only provides ~20% more performance.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom