pcs2k

Checked with Bridgestone Australia and S03's might arrive in August. I was told the one to suit S2000 for the back tyres are 245/45/r16. My nephew in US said that the S03's have better grip in wet weather and the person from Bridgestone said we should get better milage as well. I don't think it is as good in dry weather conditions compare to the S02's. It is also cheaper than the S02's. Any comments from anyone?

DavidM

Following is just IMHO as I have never used the S03s myself or heard about them 1st-hand. Though, from what I read the S03s have LESS grip (in the dry) then the 'regular' S02s, let alone the OEM S02s which are extra-sticky. If that is the case then I'd say they will have less grip in the wet (wet meaning no standing watter) while the temperatures are reasonably warm. It seems though that the S03s will have better grip in standing watter and in cold-temperatures.

What leads me to believe the above is reading what the guys in US say as well as seeing the tyre-tests on tyre-rack. Last thing that lets me believe this is the last PCOTY as they had the new HSV R8 there with the S03s as well as a HSV GTO (300kW one) and an SS Commodore. Even though the R8 returned superior numbers in all the acceleration tests (compared to the SS), the SS happened to be faster around Winton. That is with it's 'smaller' tyres, less agressive suspension, less power and smaller/weaker brakes. It was quicker by only a few 10th but strill quicker ... their comment was that that R8 was just "lacking grip". At the same time they had the 300kW HSV GTO which was shod with P-Zero tyres and that lapped good 3secs quicker then the SS. Main differerence between the R8 and the GTO was the 'extra' 45kW and the tyres.

Also, just more 'fuel for the fire' - when they had the S02s shod HSV Clubsport (ie. less agressive suspension and inferior brake package to the R8) a year or so ago at Phillip Island, it lapped over 2 secs quicker then the SS (1:56.45 vs 1:58.57).

swells65

With 45s on the back, wouldn't you have a smaller wheel/tyre diameter which would affect the speedo reading?

speedyclip

I have 03's on my S2000 -- 205 for the front and 245 for the rear -- they are much better in wet -- require about 200-300 miles to break in -- and yes, there is a slight difference in the speedo reading, but not enough to worry about. I now have 13,000 miles on them and the 02's were shot well before this mark.

swells65

Speedyclip,
Sheesh, I got more than 5,000 more miles on my first set of S02's

And I have already done a similar amount on my current set and they still won't wear away!

DavidM

With 45s on the back, wouldn't you have a smaller wheel/tyre diameter which would affect the speedo reading?

OME tyres are 225/50/16. That means that you have 112.5mm or tyre height (when new).

The 245/45/16 will have 110.25mm tyre height (when new).

So there is only 2.25mm difference in the radius of the tyre when it's brand new ... concidering that the tyres vary the radius by good 15mm+ depending on how worn they are (ie. thread depth), the 245/45/16 will cause less 'speedo error' then a ~20% worn OME tyre.

naishou

Further to that, don't read too much into the tyre dimension specs written on the sidewall. Even tyres of the same size will vary in the number of revs per kilometre. Not only don't they meet the dimensions exactly but they compress different amounts at the contact patch. Even air pressure makes a difference. The OEM S02 is rated at 840 revs per mile (US data sorry) and the 245/45R16 S03 is 847 revs per mile. That's only 0.8% different which is less than 1km/h at freeway speeds. Your speedo will read slightly higher so it won't result in any unexpected speeding fines.

The OEM 225/50R16 is actually very close in size (tread width and actual section height) to most 245/45R16 tyres.

bmoyes

Why on earth would you be worried about tyre life on an s2k anyway? When you've just forked out 70k+ for the car, a couple of grand each year on tyres is a small price to pay for top performance.

Everything I've read woudl indicate that the s03 is not a suitable tyre for the s2k (besides the fact that it's the wrong size), it's a pretty generic sports tyre that's never going to out perform the OEM S02. Except maybe in snow.

DavidM

The OEM 225/50R16 is actually very close in size (tread width and actual section height) to most 245/45R16 tyres

I just measured (with a ruler) the width of some tyres to back-up what Naishou just said:
OME S02 225/50/16 = 222mm contact-patch
Falken Azenis RS 225/50/16 = 220mm contact-patch
S02 235/40/18 = 205mm contact-patch
S03 235/40/18 = 215mm contact-patch

So it looks like a 245 width S03 tyre will have roughly the same contact-patch as OME S02.

pcs2k

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bmoyes
[B]Why on earth would you be worried about tyre life on an s2k anyway? When you've just forked out 70k+ for the car, a couple of grand each year on tyres is a small price to pay for top performance.

Well you are spot on, I was just relating to what the representitive from bridgestone said. He also indicated that this tyre uses latest compound and technology. Thats why I wanted to know whether this is a better tyre than the S02's. As quoted by speedyclip in the US "they are much better in wet", it does have some advantages.

Anyway thanks for all the technical data. Very informative. You guys do know alot.