Shift9303

Both are great tires. RE71RS will be faster but RT660s will still be competitive locally. Doesn't hurt to start out with RT660s and save some cash to put towards other mods. RT660 will last longer and the grip levels are close enough unless you're the very pointy end of the pack.

seawolfxix

TireRack says they do their own measurement to avoid variation between manufacturers: https://www.tirerack.com/upgrade-gar...re-tread-width

I checked a couple 17” sizes for comparison, and the measurements between Falken & Bridgestone were very close. 225/50R16 has the largest variation that I’ve seen so far.

Jub

Ok, either way, what do you seek to accomplish in comparing the widths?

Shift9303

Don't sweat the small details. Compound will usually trump width differences. In my experience RT660 has very square shoulders while RE71RS has a more rounded profile. If their measurements are accurate notice how the section width are the same for both however the tread width is wider for the RT660. That means the shoulders are more square. I think my RT660s were ~8mm wider than my old RS4 and probably around 4mm wider than my current RE71RS. Doesn't change the fact that the RE71RS is faster.

I also like how the listed rev per mile is different between the two tires despite the same listed overall diameter.

seawolfxix

I would assume that a wider tread width would equal more ground contact and (all else being equal) more grip, so the wider margin between these two manufacturers for this specific tire size intrigued me.

This is the kind of response I was looking for. Makes sense

Jub

There may be less differential between RT660 and RE71RS at this size than others. As Shift said, compound is going to trump width differences for the most part. I have no doubt the RE71RS would be the faster tire. I'm not convinced the Falken wears that much better but I haven't run the RE71RS yet. The Falkens delaminate more than any other 200tw tire, are prone to heat cycling (all probably are), and don't wear like stone. RE71RS are going to cost more to run but I do think they'll be faster. Whether that's worth it to you is your question to answer. I just am not convinced that a RT660 is going to be on par for grip or necessarily last longer than a RE71RS.

Shift9303

You're right that RT660s still aren't the best wearing tire. In my experience (sample size of one) they still "fall off" pretty hard like most other super 200s and the grip drops noticeably after they've heat cycled too many times. They're not like RS4s where they'll heat cycle slowly and gradually enough that it's hard to immediately notice the grip difference. It's hard for me to compare RT660 and RE71RS directly as my usage between the two has been different however my ass-pull gut feeling is that the RT660s will last longer. How much of it is at peak grip is up in the air for me however if you want to stretch the tire out as far as possible it probably still is the better choice.

I got around 9K miles out of the RT660s. I was still above the last wear bar but replaced them early because of a nail. Mostly street miles and around 30-40 auto X runs. I think I started feeling the grip fall off at around 6k miles. I did less competition last year and more weekend cruising because of work. Right now my RE71RS are at 3.5K miles and I'm starting to feel the grip fall off. I'm getting more understeer and I've had to dial back my front sway bar settings. I'm about 1mm above the first wear bar. That said I have way more aggressive driving miles on them so far. Probably about 160 minutes worth of track time and around 50-60 auto X runs. So they've definitely seen more abuse than the RT660s and maybe you could make the argument they've handled the abuse better.

Either will serve you well and get you addicted to grip.