Although not available in OE 16" sizes I'm considering these for use with the aftermaket 17" wheels I currently am using. If anyone's used this tire on their S, please share your impressions, compared to OE SO 2's. Dry grip and noise level are of particular interest to me. Jim, if you have any comments, please share. Thanx.

 

I have driven them and they are about as good as it gets for the dry but they will be a little harsher riding and not as good in the wet. If you drive the car hard it is a good choice. You may also want to look at the Kumho MX. They were included in a test with the KD and they were real close. For the price difference I would do the Kumho myself.
If I can help let me know.

Jim 877-522-8473-364

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/max_perf.jsp

 

Thanx for the reply Jim. I'm currently using MX's, 225/255's I purchased from The Tire Rack about 8,000 miles ago. For the price I've got no major complaints. Just anticipating the day when I'll need to replace them.

 

IMO and in reference to dry traction, MX's don't even compare to KD's. MX's are not the greatest in the rain either.

MX's are also inferior to S-03's.

The KD's are closer to an entry level R compound tire and provide more grip.

For the price go with S0-3's over MX's. They will outlast the MX's by a long shot.

KD's will also be great for CA weather.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Asura
IMO and in reference to dry traction, MX's don't even compare to KD's.

 

I am neither a tire expert nor a vendor, but I just wanted to give my 2 pennies as I have had ten sets of tires on my car, and I have had an opportunity to drive a few S2K's with different tires fairly aggressively for comparison purposes. The S-03's will leave MX's behind in the rain. No match there. I didn't mention s-02's since Mayhem was inquiring about 17's. There are Boxster OEM S-02's, but they are sized 205/50-17 and 255/40-17. Unless you like understeer, these are probably not the best idea.

Regarding dry grip, as Mayhem inquired, the KD's will not breakaway like normal street tires. The only downside to KD's is that they tend to run a little narrow when comparing similar sized tires produced by other manufacturers. Therefore pick you sizes carefully. 225/255 will give you a touch of oversteer (not a bad thing).

Perhaps it was my experience with MX's that was different to everyone else's. The rears didn't last 8,000 miles. Considering that they had to be replaced earlier than expected, the total cost of these tires used for the same amount of mileage compared to a set of S-03's or KD's is therefore higher.


Did anyone here get better mileage out of their MX's?

 

Thanx for the replies all. I rarely drive my S in the rain, so wet performance is not a concern for me. Just not that brave. I really have no complaint with the MX's except for the funky scroll designs on the sidewall, and the that they tend to get noisy with the normal S camber wear. In response to your question about mileage Asura, I've got about 8K miles on mine and have about 35-40% remaining rears, and maybe 60% front. Lot's of those miles have been on the freeway since I was using the car as a commuter for about 6 months. That may explain why they're hanging in there pretty well on mileage. Based on your comments about the KD's I'll probably give them a try next. Thanx again.

 

I agree with you. The 'ricer' flames on the side of the tires are an eye sore. If I knew they were there in the first place, I would probably have not ordered the tires to start with. Some highly creative marketing tactics that are apparently lost on the consumers.

Take care

 

I've been running the KDs for some time in 17 225/255 size. In the dry, they stick well, communicate well, and I find them quite predictable. They've held up very well to occassional track days also. I think that compared to the OEM SO2, they provide less absolute adhession, but with a more communicative and predictable break-away. In the wet...well, it's a good thing you don't plan on driving in the rain much. I've driven them in wet conditions often (my car is my daily driver) and in pouring rain I'm hydroplanning before I hit the double-nickel limit (especially when they're worn down a bit). The KDs are not impossible to drive in the wet, but you need to pay attention, keep the speeds reasonable, and stay smooth. Overall, a great 17 inch tire for someone looking for very strong dry performance.

 

DANGER! DANGER! WILL ROBINSON!!

Have you compared the actual width of the BFGs to your S02s? I think you will be amazed! You will have to get some old specs because BFG and Michelin (same co) are so undersized they have quit publishing tread width specs.

i have run the KDs and you get terminal oversteer since even at a 255 the rear tires are almost a half an inch narrower than the S02s.

The 225s for the front are only a smidgen narrower than the S02s.

I went thru 3 different alignments trying to compensate and all I did was lower the overall grip.

With that said if they could be bought with the proper widths & diameter I liked the tire. It had a progressive breakaway, was quiet and worked well in the wet, it was just that the balance of the car was so off that there was no way to compensate.

On the street you would never notice the difference, but like so many tires all their nasty habits show up on the autocross or track.

The tire itself isn't bad, it is just that they don't make the proper sizes for us.