Tyres for a S2k
03-05-2002, 07:05 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one thing, Azenis RS are NOT softer than the OEM S02. In fact they are about twice as hard with treadwear rating of 280 as opposed to 140 for the S02. This doesn't necessarily mean they have less grip but it's a fair indicator.
I don't agree with that ... despite whatever the 'ratings' might say. The RS is noticable softer ... they get 'sticky' much easier when driving on the road also you can see visiblly see the 'wear' mark when you take a an agressive corner. It rought up the tyre. Last of all I notice that when I drive over some gravel then it sticks to the tyre a lot longer then the S02s. Though, that could all mean that the tyre is 'stickier' and not softer ... if that is possible.
Another thing, wouldn't a tyre that is 'harder' wear less then a 'softer' one? I'm under the impression that I should not expect much more then 16,000km from the Azenis RS while I managed 21,000km from the S02s.
Also remember the Motor tyre tests say nothing at all about the Honda OEM S02 which is a completely different tyre from the S02 Pole Position and one that is tuned to the S2000.
Yep, that's right ... but the 'basic' S02s is already a good macth for the worlds best. btw, what is different about the OEM S02s besides the thead desing and width?
I don't agree with that ... despite whatever the 'ratings' might say. The RS is noticable softer ... they get 'sticky' much easier when driving on the road also you can see visiblly see the 'wear' mark when you take a an agressive corner. It rought up the tyre. Last of all I notice that when I drive over some gravel then it sticks to the tyre a lot longer then the S02s. Though, that could all mean that the tyre is 'stickier' and not softer ... if that is possible.
Another thing, wouldn't a tyre that is 'harder' wear less then a 'softer' one? I'm under the impression that I should not expect much more then 16,000km from the Azenis RS while I managed 21,000km from the S02s.
Also remember the Motor tyre tests say nothing at all about the Honda OEM S02 which is a completely different tyre from the S02 Pole Position and one that is tuned to the S2000.
Yep, that's right ... but the 'basic' S02s is already a good macth for the worlds best. btw, what is different about the OEM S02s besides the thead desing and width?
03-05-2002, 08:03 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DavidM
Another thing, wouldn't a tyre that is 'harder' wear less then a 'softer' one? I'm under the impression that I should not expect much more than 16,000km from the Azenis RS while I managed 21,000km from the S02s.
Another thing, wouldn't a tyre that is 'harder' wear less then a 'softer' one? I'm under the impression that I should not expect much more than 16,000km from the Azenis RS while I managed 21,000km from the S02s.
btw, what is different about the OEM S02s besides the thead design and width?
03-05-2002, 09:57 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most WRX owners report 25,000km from Azenis RS, though it's hard to compare between cars and drivers. All other things being equal the Azenis RS will last roughly twice as long as the S02.
If the Azenis RS last me longer then the S02s then I'll be extremly impressed :-) As I said, I'm expecting 16,000km from them and anything over that will be a bonus.
What what I heard, $20,000km is what the WRX guys were getting from them ... which is about 5,000km less then other tyres they have come across.
ps. It's the WRX guys who put me onto the tyres in the 1st place.
If the Azenis RS last me longer then the S02s then I'll be extremly impressed :-) As I said, I'm expecting 16,000km from them and anything over that will be a bonus.
What what I heard, $20,000km is what the WRX guys were getting from them ... which is about 5,000km less then other tyres they have come across.
ps. It's the WRX guys who put me onto the tyres in the 1st place.
03-06-2002, 12:23 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DavidM
[B]What I heard, 20,000km is what the WRX guys were getting from them ... which is about 5,000km less than other tyres they have come across.
[B]What I heard, 20,000km is what the WRX guys were getting from them ... which is about 5,000km less than other tyres they have come across.
03-06-2002, 04:48 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, my RE540S have a treadwear rating of 60!
hehe, from all the info I gathered over the last year, if I got the RE540s then I'd be looking at about 7000 - 8000km out of them ... that's too little for the money. Most people seems to put them on just for the track and they definatelly seem to be quicker then us with 'regular' tyres.
ps. I just had another though about the S02 vs OEM S02s. I had S02s on my MR2 and I was getting about 25,000km out of them. I figured that with the extra power of the S2000 that 21,000km out of the OEM S02s was expected .... though that was pressuming that they have the same rubber compound. Just looking at the Km that I've done it does not seem like there'd be that much difference in the cumpound.
Also, another thing, when I had S01s on the MR2 then I was lucky to get 21,000km out of them. That is odd as well as they were not as grippy as the S02s (standard onces). Odd that the S02s would grip more, be more progressive and last longer.
hehe, from all the info I gathered over the last year, if I got the RE540s then I'd be looking at about 7000 - 8000km out of them ... that's too little for the money. Most people seems to put them on just for the track and they definatelly seem to be quicker then us with 'regular' tyres.
ps. I just had another though about the S02 vs OEM S02s. I had S02s on my MR2 and I was getting about 25,000km out of them. I figured that with the extra power of the S2000 that 21,000km out of the OEM S02s was expected .... though that was pressuming that they have the same rubber compound. Just looking at the Km that I've done it does not seem like there'd be that much difference in the cumpound.
Also, another thing, when I had S01s on the MR2 then I was lucky to get 21,000km out of them. That is odd as well as they were not as grippy as the S02s (standard onces). Odd that the S02s would grip more, be more progressive and last longer.
03-06-2002, 02:27 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlackS2k, my near neighbour S2000 owner and I have both tried 3 different sets of street tyres each and we both agree that the only way that you'll get anything better than the original W-rated S02's is to go to a competition tyre such as the Bridgestone 540's, the Yokohama A032's or the Dunlop D91's.
The Bridgestone 540's probably have the better performance but the Dunlop D91's have the advantage of coming in exactly the right sizes for the S2000.
For your research the street tyres we tried were...
1 set each of the Original W-rated Honda-spec S02's
1 set Toyo's
1 set Michelin Pilot
1 set Z-rated Porsche-spec S02's
1 set Dunlop FM901's
The Toyo's were very "wobbly" when new and performed at their best at the end of their life (below legal tread depth).
The Z-rated Porsche-spec S02's were the only tyres that had a problem or vice in that they would let go suddenly with no warning. Most people (me included) who have tried them have had an unexpected spin.
I've currently got the Dunlop FM901's on my car. For fast country road driving they're quite OK. The only possible critisism I could make of them is that they just don't have the ultimate grip of the original W-rated S02's. The advantage of the Dunlops is that a set of 4 costs only $750 and they're very good in the wet.
The FM901's had an outing at Phillip Island when they were brand new (200Kms) and I could feel the tread blocks "walking" or moving around. However, 5000Kms later at Winton they were quite OK. The only problem was that the guy with the Bridgestone 540's passed me quite easily!
When the FM901's are worn out I think I'll do what Ben & Shaun have done. That is, put a set of competition tyres on and use them for normal street use. If I could find a second set of wheels at a reasonable cost I'd certainly go back to the Honda-spec S02's.
The Bridgestone 540's probably have the better performance but the Dunlop D91's have the advantage of coming in exactly the right sizes for the S2000.
For your research the street tyres we tried were...
1 set each of the Original W-rated Honda-spec S02's
1 set Toyo's
1 set Michelin Pilot
1 set Z-rated Porsche-spec S02's
1 set Dunlop FM901's
The Toyo's were very "wobbly" when new and performed at their best at the end of their life (below legal tread depth).
The Z-rated Porsche-spec S02's were the only tyres that had a problem or vice in that they would let go suddenly with no warning. Most people (me included) who have tried them have had an unexpected spin.
I've currently got the Dunlop FM901's on my car. For fast country road driving they're quite OK. The only possible critisism I could make of them is that they just don't have the ultimate grip of the original W-rated S02's. The advantage of the Dunlops is that a set of 4 costs only $750 and they're very good in the wet.
The FM901's had an outing at Phillip Island when they were brand new (200Kms) and I could feel the tread blocks "walking" or moving around. However, 5000Kms later at Winton they were quite OK. The only problem was that the guy with the Bridgestone 540's passed me quite easily!
When the FM901's are worn out I think I'll do what Ben & Shaun have done. That is, put a set of competition tyres on and use them for normal street use. If I could find a second set of wheels at a reasonable cost I'd certainly go back to the Honda-spec S02's.
03-06-2002, 02:33 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Melb, Aus
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
This may be a silly question but here goes.
We are buying new tyres and the tyre place have two options for wheel alignment
Silver - wheels aligned off the car
gold - wheels aligned on the car
My question is which is better for the S2K
CD
This may be a silly question but here goes.
We are buying new tyres and the tyre place have two options for wheel alignment
Silver - wheels aligned off the car
gold - wheels aligned on the car
My question is which is better for the S2K
CD
03-06-2002, 02:35 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DavidM, Whoops, sorry. I forgot to mention the Falken Azenis in my previous post. I should have included them with the 540's & A032's etc.
BTW, our Vic HSCCV Club President is a great fan of the Falkens and had them on his car for some time.
BTW, our Vic HSCCV Club President is a great fan of the Falkens and had them on his car for some time.
03-06-2002, 02:43 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris, are you talking about wheel alignment or wheel balancing?
Wheel balancing can be done on car but is probably much better to do it off car on proper modern equipment.
Wheel alignment is normally done on car. Perhaps some of our engineering or mechanical people can advise if it is possible to do a wheel alignment with the wheels off?
Jacob, Naishou, BillyBlue - what's the scientific answer here?
Wheel balancing can be done on car but is probably much better to do it off car on proper modern equipment.
Wheel alignment is normally done on car. Perhaps some of our engineering or mechanical people can advise if it is possible to do a wheel alignment with the wheels off?
Jacob, Naishou, BillyBlue - what's the scientific answer here?