Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hiya, I am still deciding on what brand/type of tyre to fit to my R33 (which is stock at the moment), in a 255/40 on the rear and 235/45 on the front, but one question remains:

will I have less fun if I put a seriously grippy (and safe) tyre like the Bridgestone S03 on instead of some cheapie tyres?

I am not really interested in drifting, but I would like the ability to get a pretty serious rear end slide happening if I want, and maybe be able to fog it up a little at the lights.

I owned a WRX for 4 years and was afraid to pop the clutch or do any really violent launches for fear of breaking geabox/shafts etc (this one had about 180Kw at all wheels), so I am kinda looking forward to a car I can safely arc up without breaking stuff :)

If I go to a tyre like the S03, am I going to lose that ability? I get the impression these things are sooo damn grippy that I will need like 200rwKw to be able to break traction!

The S03 is my main pic for tyres at the moment (that or the P Zero Nero), but am I going about this all wrong and should I be going for something cheap and nasty so I can cut it up, like a Kuhmo Exta T712?

Any ideas?

Thanks

Conrad

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/3970-tyre-choice-fun-vs-practicality/
Share on other sites

Top end tyres have very soft compound. That's why they grip. However, they also wear out very quickly if you do burnouts and power slides as they were designed NOT to let cars get into these situations. If you want to smoke it up at the lights and slide around, hard compound tyres are the better option as they don't wear out as quickly as soft compound and also are cheaper.

a mates got kumho's on his 300zx and sometimes its fun, but other times just plain scary!! id be wanting to find a middle ground between these two. bald tyres can be ***n dangerous!!

also when racing you can always get the jump as he launches at 3000rpm and the back end is all over the place...

I used to have cheapies on the back of mine.

10% of the time they were fun.

90% of the time they were just plain frustrating.

One day I almost lost to a auto VN V6 because they tyres were that crap........:D :confused: :eek:

Got FM901's now. Much better.

J

I've got P zero Rossi 245.40.17 on 9ins rims at the back and I can break traction any time I like in 1st or 2nd. Just remember every day drives have to be usable in the wet too. I wouldn't put a hard compound on mine.

go with grippy tyre as going through corners fast is better than sideways. or just weight till it rains.

i have really hard compound tyres on and there a bitch in the wet and a pain at the drags the spin to easy. yet i've got 60,000km out of them in two years and there still 1/4 above the wear maker on the tyres.

Thanks fellas, I think I will be going with the Bridgestone S03's, the Dunlop 901's were my original choice but I have heard they are pretty noisy (even compared to other performance tyres).

Bummer, cause they look awesome and the S03's look pretty damn dull.

Thanks

Conrad

As you may see in another thread I have the Bridgestone S03's, sure they dont look spunk, but boy do they perform!! They are very insane.

I cant speak highly enough of these tyres, they grip better in the wet than they do in the dry, in the dry they stick like sh*t to a shovel, and in the wet, its like its on rails.

Through the mountains the car reacted like an AWD, and that was on both dry and wet roads, they are reasonably quiet tyres.. dont know how mileage will go, but they seem to be doing ok, I only drive her hard on the w/e.. and use the tyres for traction, not for smoke.

Just one thing to keep in mind, fun-wise, really grippy tyres break away and recover grip much more suddenly. I run both ends of the spectrum, Falken CR4Pos, and Dunlop Formula Rs - the Rs are great for getting round corners crazy fast, but the Falkens are more fun, and cost a hell of a lot less.

At best im only an average driver on the track, i was going to get Formula Rs for my next trip to the track, but when you say they break away, is it as predictable or rather violent.

Im guessing cornering speed is up, so will they be more inclined to catch out a novice driver. Good grip-let go-grip- me off into the infield???

Yep, they do take some getting used to, and the loss of grip is pretty sudden.

Basically, you can't change physics - the formula Rs let you pull much higher speeds and Gs around corners, so when they loose traction you're heading for the gravel faster (right Kel?).

Having said that, they're worth getting used to, you'd be amazed how much harder you can push than on average tyres. Its still quite possible to feel em going, you just need some practice.

I use em on the road sometimes (when I'm too lazy to take em off), and they really let me carve up traffic - quick off the lights too - I can use and extra 1500-2000 revs.....

Should say though, they are an extreme choice for the road, definately go something more mainstream for every day...

excited, excited, excited. Yeh im going to get the same Falkens as ive got now for the road, good in the wet, and they arent really that bad on the track.

They are getting better each track day as i think i have finally got them down to a reasonable tread depth.

Duncan, you highlight my concern... I want to have some fun safely, and thats why I was considering cheaper tyres over something like the Birdgestone S03's.

Which Falkens are peoples picks? the 451, or the ST115's?

If they are cheap and reasonably predictable in how they let go they might be more useful for me to learn the car - my last car was a WRX which gives you heaps of recovery ability when you get out of shape, I dont think I will have that much margin with the GTS-T.

The S03's might be more predictable than the Dunlops though as they arent race grade rubber.

Sheesh, hard call - either way its a reasonable investment and I will have them for some time, so I dont want to be cheesed off with them.

So what are peoples picks for good tyres?

I have so far:

P Zero (great grip, pricey)

S03 ( great grip, almost as pricey)

Dunlop 901's (great grip, noisey and pricey)

Falken 451 (so-so grip, reasonably priced)

Kumho Exta T712 (so-so grip, cheap)

Any others worth considering? If I dont go for the best grip money can buy for street work (like the PZero or S03), whats the next best value for money pick (that also rides well and isnt noisey) ?

Anyone? :)

On merit i cant really complain about the Falken 451 on my car. Ive done about 35000kms on them, too may track days where they have put up with my overdriving the car, im happy with wet weather grip, and they are quiet, economical and a good quality tyre.

One day @ Eastern Creek I commented the grip was hopeless, and when a Peter Finaly instructor drove my car he said it had good levels of grip. The car is EASY to slide about, im starting to think i posses a degree of car control. For the price they are a good performing, durable tyre.

My 2.2cents worth.

When I had brought my car it had Yokohama's on it. I was told that they were around $420 to replace (each) :eek:

As it was I was not very impressed with them and the car was very tail happy.

Even dangerous in the wet.

I looked around and on the day I was tossing up in the $200-300 price range.

When I spotted some Hankook's, having used hankooks on my old Van and the family car (Camry) they have always impressed me.

So any way I brought Hankook "Ventus K102's" Silica Compounds 225/50 16 92v''s

I am very very happy with them. They hold when you want them and break out when you want, and they smoke up when wanted.

At the recent skidpan day I noticed I was the only one leaving 2 nice dry lines around the track. There were quite a few cars there running far more expensive tyres.

Also on the last Mad mountain run I had a few comments on how the car handled as mine runs stock rims and suspension. All except one car I was able to keep up with and it was a much quicker Sky and they knew the road.

The cost of these tyers $150 :)

They have been on the car for around 8,000k's now and the fronts are still like new, the same can not be said for the rears which are @ 50% but that is due to many burnouts and much round-about work

For $300 for a pair try a set on th rears give it 1/2 an hour and you will be fitting them to the front.

falken grb 2's r the ones to gett the 451 wear out very quickly and have about the same grip as the grb 2's(although no longer built, thus hard to find)

115 wear out very quick

if you want all round eformance go the 512(these r not the zeix, he new model).. initially built as a average tyre that last forever but now recognised as quite a good performer

pete

anyone used Toyo Proxes TS1's?

i went prie hunting today and was told forget the bridgestone SO3's, because they don't last as long but they do perform well. The dunlop FM901's was told good but not the best performance. Then i was told to try the Toyo Proxes TS1's.

all where quoted at $380 a tyre for 255x40x17's

so anyone used them?

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...