Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have a set of cheap Firestone 255/17s on the back of my car. I hate them. They dont grip for shit, especially for 255s. But then again you get what you pay for. Quality 255s cost alot more than 200 bucks unforunately.

Im thinking of downsizing to a quality 235 tire if its possible to such as the Bridgestone Potenza GIII. A good 235 tyre like this will easily outperform a dodgy 255 for sure.

As Roy13 & Phantom said, Bridgestone tyres kick ass, I had S-02's on my R33 (255/40/17) and they were awesome, but yes they are bloody expensive ($450+ each) and last f*ck all.

I've got Yokohama GP DNA's on my R32 now and they've lasted ages and I reckon they're pretty close to the Bridgy's.

I bought some new wheels (255 x 40 x 17) and they came with Bridgestone "Grid II's"...

Anyone know if they are sold here in Australia? (interested to see how much they go for)

Also does anyone know how the new range of BF Goodrich are??

Anyone got them?

Regards

Rob

I have Toyo Tranpaths on the back of mine. They were very grippy when I got the car, but now they're almost down to the tread markers they're not quite so good (lost traction on dyno at >200kw for one). They are still pretty good in the wet though.

I wanted to get Toyo Proxes to replace but like all good tyres in this size they are >$450 a pop. If I don't have a spare $900 to burn when the tyres are at an end I might have to pick something cheaper.

Originally posted by Maxx

Go for the G3, good grip and longer life then the s-03.  

IMO don't buy the falken fk451s(GRB), they are only a bit cheaper than G3 but preform not as good, a lot noisey and the ride quiality is bad.

I was just looking at the Bridgestone Australia site and I looked up the G3 and SO3 specs. I couldn't find any listing for a 255 wide tyre in the G3 section, but did find one for the SO3. Do you know where to get a 255 G3 from in Australia?

I got Kumho Supra 712s in 255/40/17. When the car got off the boat, it had completely BALD yokohamas (dun wanna think what they had been doing with my car before it got here). I didnt go the Kumho 711s cos their tread pattern looked shittier than the 712s

They are pretty good price and are not too bad at the moment (only driven a couple of thousand on em so far). What does everyone think of this tyre?

Originally posted by JimX

I was just looking at the Bridgestone Australia site and I looked up the G3 and SO3 specs. I couldn't find any listing for a 255 wide tyre in the G3 section, but did find one for the SO3. Do you know where to get a 255 G3 from in Australia?

:D the last time i ring up bridgestone tyre centre, they told me the widest G3 available is 235, if u want to go wider, S-03 is the only way, never had S-03 b4, but i heard from friends they are REALLY good tyre.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Great interview on damper settings and coil selection by HPA https://www.facebook.com/HPAcademy/videos/30284693841175196/?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&fs=e
    • Yeah, it was a pretty deep dig.
    • The values for HID colour are also defined ~ see https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2006L02732/latest/text  ~ goto section 3.9 onwards ....
    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...