S-02's v S-03's
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 7
S-02's v S-03's
Now that I have run S-02's for 1,000 miles I thought I would write up a comparison with the previous S-03's that I had fitted. These comments are based on my experience of running both of these tyre types on my S2000 driving mainly on A and B roads (and I do have other cars to use when the weather is too bad!). Anyway, for what it is worth:
Fitment:
When I bought my car it had 225 width S-03's fitted on the rear. Oversteer was quite noticeable and the back would let go without any provocation especially on some slow corners. After finding some good advice on this forum I changed the rears to 245/45 16 S-03's and this improved the rear end grip tremendously. Interestingly, when I had the S-02's fitted (225 width), I offered up one wheel with an S-03 and one with a S-02 and compared the tyre widths fitted. The 225 S-02 (OEM) is the same width fitted as a 245 S-03. I have at last changed to ES02JZ S-02's (see the technical faq and make sure you get the right sort of S-02).
In summary, if running S-03's make sure you use 245/45 16's on the rear for the width. If running S-02's make sure the type is "ES02JZ".
Dry Grip:
I have been a bit disappointed with the S-02's, but probably because I had been expecting (from reading comments on this forum) an improvement in dry grip. Going around some "favourite corners" at the same speed and in the same conditions the S-02's seem to have slightly less grip (the car will "drift" 2 - 3 feet whereas on the S-03's it stayed exactly on line). The grip level is still reasonably high but I definitely prefer the S-03's in this respect.
Wet Grip:
Here I had been expecting poor grip in the wet from the S-02's (again from reading this forum) but both tyres have performed the same on wet roads. I would hasten to add that I don't drive the S2000 quickly on wet roads; EG never above "normal traffic speed". I have not encountered standing water on the new tyres but I did once with the S-03's and these coped very well (flooded outside lane of the M25 at 80 mph). I can't comment (yet!) on the ability of the S-02's to resist aquaplaning in standing water.
"Tramlining":
The S-03's used to tend to follow lines (such as repair trenches, cracks in the surface, etc) in the road. The S-02's are much better in this respect and I haven't noticed any tendency for them to do this at all.
"Balance":
With the S-03's fitted the car felt slightly "pointy" and "twitchy" (although, strangely, I think I preferred this as the "turn in" felt better). With the S-02's the car feels perfectly balanced. To emphasise this point my wife said that she didn't like driving the car (during her "drive back from the pub duties!") on S-03's but she says that on S-02's; "it feels like a normal car now!"
Road Noise:
To my (tone deaf!) ears the road noise seems the same on either tyre type.
"Breakaway":
When the S-03's lost traction the "breakaway" was quite sudden (but the car could still be controlled as although sudden this was not too violent). With the S-02's this is much better as they tend to slide progressively (albeit they start sliding before the S-03's would have lost traction). I have to now use a bit more road in the corners for "drift".
Wear:
With my driving style I used up a set of rear S-03's in about 7,000 miles. In 1,000 miles on the S-02's the rears have worn down about 1.5mm and so I would say that the wear rates are very similar and I'm expecting 6-7k from the rears (and double from the fronts). I would recommend changing the fronts over on the rims when the rears are replaced to ensure they last as long as the second set of rears (my S-03 fronts would not have done so otherwise due to inside edge wear which I think is to be expected on this car).
Cost:
The rear S-03's cost me 30% more than S-02's (and from what I can gather on this forum this is to be expected). The S-02's cost
Fitment:
When I bought my car it had 225 width S-03's fitted on the rear. Oversteer was quite noticeable and the back would let go without any provocation especially on some slow corners. After finding some good advice on this forum I changed the rears to 245/45 16 S-03's and this improved the rear end grip tremendously. Interestingly, when I had the S-02's fitted (225 width), I offered up one wheel with an S-03 and one with a S-02 and compared the tyre widths fitted. The 225 S-02 (OEM) is the same width fitted as a 245 S-03. I have at last changed to ES02JZ S-02's (see the technical faq and make sure you get the right sort of S-02).
In summary, if running S-03's make sure you use 245/45 16's on the rear for the width. If running S-02's make sure the type is "ES02JZ".
Dry Grip:
I have been a bit disappointed with the S-02's, but probably because I had been expecting (from reading comments on this forum) an improvement in dry grip. Going around some "favourite corners" at the same speed and in the same conditions the S-02's seem to have slightly less grip (the car will "drift" 2 - 3 feet whereas on the S-03's it stayed exactly on line). The grip level is still reasonably high but I definitely prefer the S-03's in this respect.
Wet Grip:
Here I had been expecting poor grip in the wet from the S-02's (again from reading this forum) but both tyres have performed the same on wet roads. I would hasten to add that I don't drive the S2000 quickly on wet roads; EG never above "normal traffic speed". I have not encountered standing water on the new tyres but I did once with the S-03's and these coped very well (flooded outside lane of the M25 at 80 mph). I can't comment (yet!) on the ability of the S-02's to resist aquaplaning in standing water.
"Tramlining":
The S-03's used to tend to follow lines (such as repair trenches, cracks in the surface, etc) in the road. The S-02's are much better in this respect and I haven't noticed any tendency for them to do this at all.
"Balance":
With the S-03's fitted the car felt slightly "pointy" and "twitchy" (although, strangely, I think I preferred this as the "turn in" felt better). With the S-02's the car feels perfectly balanced. To emphasise this point my wife said that she didn't like driving the car (during her "drive back from the pub duties!") on S-03's but she says that on S-02's; "it feels like a normal car now!"
Road Noise:
To my (tone deaf!) ears the road noise seems the same on either tyre type.
"Breakaway":
When the S-03's lost traction the "breakaway" was quite sudden (but the car could still be controlled as although sudden this was not too violent). With the S-02's this is much better as they tend to slide progressively (albeit they start sliding before the S-03's would have lost traction). I have to now use a bit more road in the corners for "drift".
Wear:
With my driving style I used up a set of rear S-03's in about 7,000 miles. In 1,000 miles on the S-02's the rears have worn down about 1.5mm and so I would say that the wear rates are very similar and I'm expecting 6-7k from the rears (and double from the fronts). I would recommend changing the fronts over on the rims when the rears are replaced to ensure they last as long as the second set of rears (my S-03 fronts would not have done so otherwise due to inside edge wear which I think is to be expected on this car).
Cost:
The rear S-03's cost me 30% more than S-02's (and from what I can gather on this forum this is to be expected). The S-02's cost
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 14,723
Likes: 0
You might find that yous S02s grip a bit better in the dry once they are run in a bit. They also seem to wear slower as you get towards the bottom of the tread.
Turn in should be veyr good. Did you have your alignment checked out with the S02s?
Turn in should be veyr good. Did you have your alignment checked out with the S02s?
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 7
I've not checked the alignment but its the same as it was with the S-03's fitted so I think this is a fair comparison. I tend to check the tyre wear patterns rather than getting tyre places to check the alignment anyway (the wear was even on the backs and slightly more on the insides of the fronts - which is probably right for a RWD car not running much toe at the front).
The rears look pretty well worn in now (EG a "rough surface" all over) but I still don't think they grip quite as well as the S-03's. The 02's are not a bad tyre - it's just that I had expected more from them.
The turn in is not bad now, its just that is was a bit more pronounced before. I'm sure the car should be more like it is now and I'm happy with it
The rears look pretty well worn in now (EG a "rough surface" all over) but I still don't think they grip quite as well as the S-03's. The 02's are not a bad tyre - it's just that I had expected more from them.
The turn in is not bad now, its just that is was a bit more pronounced before. I'm sure the car should be more like it is now and I'm happy with it
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 14,723
Likes: 0
So this 'drift' in the dry? are we talking the rear here or understeer?
I haven't had my alignment done so it might be my car, but the rear seems very planted in the dry, turn in is good and if anything I get a little understeer if I chuck it into a roundabout hard.
I haven't had my alignment done so it might be my car, but the rear seems very planted in the dry, turn in is good and if anything I get a little understeer if I chuck it into a roundabout hard.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 7
Definitely the back. I've no doubt I could get a bit more "sticktion" by running more camber on the back wheels but, since this would probably wear the tyres out even quicker, I don't plan on doing this. I don't know what camber I'm actually running on the back but (visually) its a lot less than a car set to the "optimal settings". What rear camber are you running?
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 7
Be interesting to know.
I would guess that mine must be around 1 degree negative (because the rear wheels look a lot less canted over on my car than an S2000 that I parked next to that had the optimum 2 degrees negative setting, but yet you can still see some negative camber on mine). The other thing, of course, is how the front is set up. Here (from the tyre wear) I'm guessing my tracking is about parallel and any camber is not noticeable visually (here I'm guessing camber will give more grip and going slightly toe-out will give more"turn-in").
Anyway, like I said I'm still happy with the car as it is now, and a slight controlled drift is easy to live with and actually quite fun at times!
I would guess that mine must be around 1 degree negative (because the rear wheels look a lot less canted over on my car than an S2000 that I parked next to that had the optimum 2 degrees negative setting, but yet you can still see some negative camber on mine). The other thing, of course, is how the front is set up. Here (from the tyre wear) I'm guessing my tracking is about parallel and any camber is not noticeable visually (here I'm guessing camber will give more grip and going slightly toe-out will give more"turn-in").
Anyway, like I said I'm still happy with the car as it is now, and a slight controlled drift is easy to live with and actually quite fun at times!
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
From: Berkshire
Originally Posted by mikdys,Aug 18 2004, 12:48 PM
I would guess that mine must be around 1 degree negative (because the rear wheels look a lot less canted over on my car than an S2000 that I parked next to that had the optimum 2 degrees negative setting, but yet you can still see some negative camber on mine).
Since you seem to be adding on the miles fairly quickly, I'd suggest you give at least one set of tyres a shot with the Honda Optimal settings. For me I couldn't believe the difference, no more skipping over drain covers and unpridicable reaction to pot holes. In the dry I even find it very hard to get a bit of oversteer. It could be said its more boring, but all that extra grip make a world of difference.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 7
Originally Posted by shortbloke,Aug 18 2004, 10:15 PM
Should my ears be burning again?
Since you seem to be adding on the miles fairly quickly, I'd suggest you give at least one set of tyres a shot with the Honda Optimal settings. For me I couldn't believe the difference, no more skipping over drain covers and unpridicable reaction to pot holes. In the dry I even find it very hard to get a bit of oversteer. It could be said its more boring, but all that extra grip make a world of difference.
Since you seem to be adding on the miles fairly quickly, I'd suggest you give at least one set of tyres a shot with the Honda Optimal settings. For me I couldn't believe the difference, no more skipping over drain covers and unpridicable reaction to pot holes. In the dry I even find it very hard to get a bit of oversteer. It could be said its more boring, but all that extra grip make a world of difference.
I guess the optimal settings will give a lot more grip and I would consider using these but I really don't want the tyre wear rate to go up much more. How are your back tyres looking in terms of miles v tread depth (and are they wearing on the inside yet)?