That .1 could make a difference but its hard to tell, maybe check the tread width to..considering you have the BC set on a hard setting you might be ok..anyways i hope it works out, plus everyone else can use your set up as a reference.(wink)
Help me choose between 2 tires: Hankook vs. Falken
- Thread starter MM BOOST
- Start date
If it rubs, then I will jack the car up and shave the inner fenders down! I will find a way to make it work, lol. But I never had a rub issue before with the 235s + 8.5" with NO spacers. When I put on 5mm spacers, it rubbed soooooo slightly, that it merely took the dirt off the fact of the tire...no rubber was shaved down. So I think by removing the spacers I should be fine. Plus those tires are gonna look aggressive/meaty under there 
okay new question. $540 shipped for both hankook and the falken 615's....but a lot of people are saying get the Dunlop Direzzas Star Specs. Are these tires REALLY worth the extra $172 ($712 shipped) over either the hankooks or the falkens? I've read great reviews for all 3 tires, so that makes this very hard.
The Star Specs are the by far the best performing of the tires mentioned. And the cost difference should not be that much. There is a $50 rebate going on for the Star Specs right now and Discount Tires direct beats Tireracks delivered price on these tires (don't forget when checking that DTD prices include shipping, where you have to add shipping cost to TR prices.)
Check this recent thread for more arguments pro and con:
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123770921
That is the price I am using man. I am getting whichever tire I decide on from DTD. Tirerack is just too rich for my blood. I am on somewhat of a budget...me and the fiance are trying to get our home soon and we getting married in december, so I have to be smart about my spending. Thanks for the help man. These tires are really worth an extra $172 in COMPARISON to the other 2 tires I posted?
If you autocross or track a lot, I believe they are. But if you don't, you have to ask yourself how hard you drive the car on a daily basis.
This is why I chose the Hankooks, the Dunlops are more of a racing tire, that's what it's marketed for. I don't need a loud tire with low tread rating if I'm not going to use it to its limits on a regular basis.
I don't track the car. Matter of fact, I have never tracked the car. But I do like to have fun on occasion, but I daily drive the car 28 miles to work one way each day and I sometimes have fun on my commute. I just wonder how the hankooks compare to the falken 615's. Its worth mentioning that the 235/40/18 I planned on getting with the Falken 615's come with the reinforced sidewalls, so that is a plus. I just wonder how much of a difference that makes?
Here is a question for you... Did your car come with Potenza RE050s on it? And if so, were you happy with the amount of grip they gave you?
The RE050 tires have a tread wear rating of 140. The Hankook V12s are 280. What that means is obviously that the Hankooks are going to last longer but maybe not quite as obvious is that they are going to have no where near as much grip as the original RE050s simply because they are made of a harder compound of rubber. The Falken's and Star Specs are rated at 200 which is closer to the RE050 spec, plus they are newer tire designs which are getting better at providing high grip without sacrificing as much in tread wear compared to the old RE050 tires.
And before someone starts complaining that you cannot compare tread wear ratings across brands, let me tell you that you can when the difference is a factor of two!
So the Hankooks will last longer (probably not double the life of the RE050s) but they will not provide as much grip or handle as well as the Falcons or Star Specs or even your old OEM Potenza RE050s. Factor in the wet performance of the Star Specs plus the ability to autocross on them if you choose to and I think the Star Specs are the big winner here.
The RE050 tires have a tread wear rating of 140. The Hankook V12s are 280. What that means is obviously that the Hankooks are going to last longer but maybe not quite as obvious is that they are going to have no where near as much grip as the original RE050s simply because they are made of a harder compound of rubber. The Falken's and Star Specs are rated at 200 which is closer to the RE050 spec, plus they are newer tire designs which are getting better at providing high grip without sacrificing as much in tread wear compared to the old RE050 tires.
And before someone starts complaining that you cannot compare tread wear ratings across brands, let me tell you that you can when the difference is a factor of two!
So the Hankooks will last longer (probably not double the life of the RE050s) but they will not provide as much grip or handle as well as the Falcons or Star Specs or even your old OEM Potenza RE050s. Factor in the wet performance of the Star Specs plus the ability to autocross on them if you choose to and I think the Star Specs are the big winner here.
That was an excellent post man, thanks for breaking it down like that. I really think I am going to go with the falken's, it seems like the perfect balance for me. I think the direzzas are just going to be overkill for me. I can't justify almost an extra $200, especially since I won't be using those tires for their intended purpose. And yes, when I bought my car, I got it used with 5k miles, still had the stock tires and they seemed decent. I've read thousands on top of thousand of reviews for all 3 tires and what I have come up with is this: Hankooks are a nice tire that will last a long time with good grip, but makes the car feel "squishy/squirmy" through turns, which is not something that will bode confidence in spending $540. The direzzas are badass tires that will light up the track, but are a bit harsher ride and loudest of the bunch. The falkens are aggressive looking, proven tire that has loads of dry grip and holds it's own in the wet, and has a hair bit softer sidewall, so they ride better for daily commute and aren't as loud. I can get the Falken's for $560 shipped, and then an $80 mail in rebate, so for $480 for a PROVEN set of tires, I think that is a great deal, especially in my situation. Unless something comes to surface before friday that really changes my mind, I do believe I am going with the falken.
Thanks for all the replies guys. This has really helped me out and I am sure it will help out in the future. I still have a few more days before I purchase, so keep the opinions coming!
Thanks for all the replies guys. This has really helped me out and I am sure it will help out in the future. I still have a few more days before I purchase, so keep the opinions coming!
Okay MM Boost, I got my Hankooks on today and man they ride nice compared to the Bridgestones..im gonna agree with the fact that they are alittle soft, but its kinda hard to tell because of my set up..Im running Eibach springs with stock struts...my wheels are a 18x8 38 et..and im running the 215-45's to avoid any rubbing. I think the stretched tire along with the softer springs and shocks+ plus a more aggressive offset is alot of it..so yeah Falkens are probably your best bet. 
martispeed
Member
- :
- 91 Rx7
Well not exactly correct. The tread wear ratings are just ratings within a brand. You can't compare between brands at all. A 180 for one may last longer then a 300 from another. Tire companys just have it there to compare between their tires...
In my best Maxwell Smart voice - "I asked you not to complain about that chief!"
Seriously, there is not that much difference between one brand and another. I have done a bunch of homework on this. There is no way any companies 180 rated tire will outlast another companies 300 rated tire if they are used in the same manner. There is maybe a worst case difference of about 15% between manufacturers. So, one companies 180 may outlast another's 200, but not by much. Please don't make me pull out the big guns and start slinging data all over you...
Okay MM Boost, I got my Hankooks on today and man they ride nice compared to the Bridgestones..im gonna agree with the fact that they are alittle soft, but its kinda hard to tell because of my set up..Im running Eibach springs with stock struts...my wheels are a 18x8 38 et..and im running the 215-45's to avoid any rubbing. I think the stretched tire along with the softer springs and shocks+ plus a more aggressive offset is alot of it..so yeah Falkens are probably your best bet.
Thanks for the review man! Exactly why I have decided on the Falken's. They will be ordered Friday and mounted on my magnesium blue rota svn's next weekend! (cabpatch)
martispeed
Member
- :
- 91 Rx7
Hey i wasnt trying to start anything haha. Im just saying there isnt a national/international way to nuber the rating. So you cant really compare... the numbers ARE just within the companys. Although im sure MOST of them are fairly close, I wouldnt bet money on a 200 wear rating from summito to last as long as a 200 from BF goodrich or a Bridgestone. For example, my Re-01 r's have lasted me longer then my general exclaims did, and
I have done many more autox's on the Bridgestones then I did on the Generals... Generals tread wear rating 380... Bridgestone RE01R 180. Im sorry to throw some facts at you haha
Post picks as soon as you can!
already decided? hmm, i've had my hankooks for about 5 days now. i lub em.
i cant compare em to falkens since i havent driven on em, but then again im coming from Capitol Negotiators.
so pretty much ANYTHING's better... lol!
but honestly, i did about a month of research. these ended up being my choice due to many many reviews based on wet & dry performance, tread life, and cost. it was the best balanced. scored 2nd highest in car& driver 2010 review line-up only to the star-specs.
personally, i couldnt ask for better... great traction, low road noise, and supposedly fairly good life to em.
I spose the real review should come after a few months....
anyway good luck with the falkens!
i cant compare em to falkens since i havent driven on em, but then again im coming from Capitol Negotiators.
so pretty much ANYTHING's better... lol!
but honestly, i did about a month of research. these ended up being my choice due to many many reviews based on wet & dry performance, tread life, and cost. it was the best balanced. scored 2nd highest in car& driver 2010 review line-up only to the star-specs.
personally, i couldnt ask for better... great traction, low road noise, and supposedly fairly good life to em.
I spose the real review should come after a few months....
anyway good luck with the falkens!
Thanks for the review man. Yes, I decided the falken's will be the tire for me. I don't want a squishy/squirmy side wall, I want something that will plant me in the turns. Plus I LOVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVE the tread pattern on these tires, and I've read just as many good reviews for the falkens as I did the hankooks. When it all comes down to it, its just personal preference that you gotta go off of. Everyone's taste is different, so what is perfect for one person, could be awful for another. Plus, I did read the C&D review over and over, but basically I have come up with this...they did not use the reinforced version of the Falken's which has more rigidy and less sidewall flex/better handling characteristics...plus...since when is C&D the bible for tire reviews? haha...but anyways, everyone's reviews have helped and I have made my decision. hopefully my taxes clear tomorrow morning or friday morning and I can get these tires ordered. I am so pumped.
Yes, I will have pictures up after next week. This saturday I am doing all appearance mods that I've been saving up the past few months plus painting some new pieces, and then next weekend is all installation of suspension/transmission parts. I am stoked!
Yes, I will have pictures up after next week. This saturday I am doing all appearance mods that I've been saving up the past few months plus painting some new pieces, and then next weekend is all installation of suspension/transmission parts. I am stoked!
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-comparison_tests/falken_azenis_rt-615_page_5
I realize that it has been discussed that Car and Driver did not think much of the 615's in their comparo. But the data was objective and it was a side-by-side comparison with the other typical choices.
Look at wet braking distance differences -- pretty scary:
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezf...lication/3cbfd12148fbdde827bd86ecd0eaf943.pdf
Is there still time to rethink the choice?
I realize that it has been discussed that Car and Driver did not think much of the 615's in their comparo. But the data was objective and it was a side-by-side comparison with the other typical choices.
Look at wet braking distance differences -- pretty scary:
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezf...lication/3cbfd12148fbdde827bd86ecd0eaf943.pdf
Is there still time to rethink the choice?
Last edited:
Not exactly. Sure their test revealed those results. But here is the thing with these tires...they have been around for quite a few years and every website that I have seen reviews on, they are 4 to 5 star ratings. Thousands on top of thousands of positive reviews of people praising the tires. If they was THAT BAD, no one would post such good reviews and no one would buy them. I think these tires will be sufficient for what I am looking for. I don't want the squishy feel of the hankooks, and the dunlops are over kill. I think these falken's will be a nice balance of both tires. plus, it is a great price. I will post my review once I get them.
