2010 Evo Tyre Test - now with added KU31.

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.
Click to expand...

:confused::confused::confused:

There is a 9s difference between a 911 Turbo and a GTR at the ring, but that is over a lap time of 7 mins 30s (ish).

A gap of 9 seconds over just a minute would equal around 65 seconds if multiplied out over a 7 mins 30 second lap, so over a minute slower! That is Audi S5, BMW 335i, Focus ST territory - slight difference to the GTR!
 
Remember he sold it because it was a money pit, oh no wait because it was 'boring' compared to his mk3 Golf, lol you get the idea.
 
[TW]Fox;17556454 said:
Remember he sold it because it was a money pit, oh no wait because it was 'boring' compared to his mk3 Golf, lol you get the idea.
Click to expand...

that car made me a tidy sum after refurbed wheels, tyres (eaglel f1s dontcha know) and the cambelt/stat/water pump job, and it was boring to drive. you seem to have a great recollection of what was going on last year, what made that car a money pit?
 
Rotty said:
not convinced re a tyre test which only uses 1 model of test car
Click to expand...

I hear the ku31 gains epic wet weather ability when fitted to the Cayman.

They did other cars earlier in the year. Car choice makes a difference but it won't make a rubbish tyre awesome.
 
I use these tyres, and it just confirms what I already thought..

A good price/performance tyre for the road.

I use my car on the road, not the track. It's a comfortable and predictable tyre
 
jon- said:
They used a different car earlier in the year for the RWD test...
Click to expand...

I would still say they should use a selection of each type, obvioulsy this would cost but I have seen huge differences in the same type of tyre when fitted to different cars
 
Confirms what you already thought? It was the worst tyre in almost every way.

You call it value I call it trading ability for cost.

As for the road track comment. Just LOL. It's not a race track, its designed to replicate wet road handling in controlled conditions.
 
[TW]Fox;17556487 said:
I hear the ku31 gains epic wet weather ability when fitted to the Cayman.

They did other cars earlier in the year. Car choice makes a difference but it won't make a rubbish tyre awesome.
Click to expand...

Trust me I won't be fitting them, PS2s do fine for me :)
 
I am glad that I bought the Eagle F1 Assymetric now, however it looks like they have killed any fuel savings I have made from my ECU.

Damm tyres.
 
[TW]Fox;17556487 said:
I hear the ku31 gains epic wet weather ability when fitted to the Cayman.

They did other cars earlier in the year. Car choice makes a difference but it won't make a rubbish tyre awesome.
Click to expand...

the T1-R was the odd one for me, a great tyre on an Impreza but when I fitted some to the M3 they were so bad I changed them in under 3 months ( not sure how 4wd v rwd came into the equation )
 
[TW]Fox;17556348 said:
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.
Click to expand...

hm i dont think thats a fair way to compare what people are saying.

you can get within 12% performance margin for 50% of the cost price.

a wan li could get within 30% for 40% of the cost, but you arent considering a minimum performance threshold. for some people 9/10 of the performance is good enough...but 7/10 is not - even if it was much cheaper than the Khumos which is unlikely they would be quite as cheap.

its not purely about price/performance ratio. the ratio helps but you have to be 'half decent' to be considered at all imo.

same with car performance, you might accept a car that is 9/10 the performance, say a BMW 335 instead of a M3 because it costs much less....but then you might be able to buy a 320 for much less still but as it only provides 5/10 the performance then its not suited to what you want (example completely figurative but you must understand what im trying to say here)
 
There seems to be a lot of too-ing and fro-ing in this thread but I don't see a massive amount of disagreement compared to the overall result from the mag.

KU31's or (insert your brand here) might be good enough for you or your car but generally you get what you pay for when it comes to tyres. I think we can all agree on that.

Personally I buy the best I can afford, end of. Why??? because I'd find it very very difficult to forgive myself if due to being a cheapskate I was responsible for an accident or injury that could have been avoided by a better tyre choice.
 
Rotty said:
the T1-R was the odd one for me, a great tyre on an Impreza but when I fitted some to the M3 they were so bad I changed them in under 3 months ( not sure how 4wd v rwd came into the equation )
Click to expand...

Makes sense, tyres are part of the suspension. Honda's hate soft sidewall tyres for example, Slip angles are designed to generate heat within the tyre, if go for a soft tyre it ends up deforming the sidewall rather than the tread blocks.

The Megane will require very different driver inputs to a RWD car in this case, so it is fair to expect that itwill also require different tyre characteristics. Slow in fast out doesnt put the same loads into the tyres, nor the same requirements, as an understeering car on the power being asked to provide lateral and longitutidinal grip.

I quess this is a discussion between people who read magazines, digest the information and believe it to be fact, and people who understand vehicle dynamics. Personally I believe the review and would use it to make an informed choice if I was buying tyres for a Megane, anything more than that is nothing more than a gamble on if they tyres work well on a different car.
 
[TW]Fox;17556498 said:
Confirms what you already thought? It was the worst tyre in almost every way.
Click to expand...

Worse than tyres that cost a considerable amount more, yes.

I'd still like to see a tyre test with a full range tested, from the very worst to the very best.

For me, they give a lot more confidence than the T1R did.




I've never said they were the best tyre in the world, just that they are good value for money
 
Wierdly enough, issue 149 has a 1 page advert on the CSC 5 tyre

And Issue 148 has another general continental advert.

Did they even adjust pressure or did they all just go to the manufacturers recommended pressure (for the recommended tyre) and assume that was the best for each tyre?
 
You put CS5's on an M3 and then tell me they win.

They suck bottoms massively, so much so that several owners have removed a brand new set after 1000 miles and gone back to CS3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom