BimmerFest BMW Forum banner

Are you considering this tire as a replacement option?

  • Hell yes

    Votes: 5 35.7%
  • Maybe, after some more reviews

    Votes: 5 35.7%
  • Probably not unless they start sellin like a cheap (but hot) *****

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • My last Kumhos exploded so no, never

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Head-In-Sand Dumbass
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So I finally got around to replacing my rear Pilot Sports (which, btw, were basically bald for all intents and purposes; yet they were still pullin strong!). I was waiting for Tirerack to get the 245/40/17 in stock in the Kumho Ecsta MX and as soon as they did, I had 2 on the way.

So right now I've got pilot sports up front, ecsta mx's in the back. I'm running 35/38psi front/rear, which seems to be a very stable setup and could probably use 1-2psi more to be honest.

It's worth noting that the tires I got were Z-rated, not Y, so if that concerns you contact Tirerack to make sure you get Y. Personally I couldn't care less... oh and for the record I'm comparing the MX to my pre-bald Pilot Sports, when they still had some life in em. =)

Size: 245/45/ZR17
Quantity: 2
Price: $134 each ($260 shipped fedex 2-day)

Dry traction
These things are grippy as hell. I've been buzzing around town now for about 2 weeks with them on and I've got about 1000 miles down on them now. Let's put it this way: with the Pilot Sports, a 3500rpm clutch dump resulted in a moderate amount of wheel spin (enough to make me lift off the throttle to regain traction). With the MX's, the car just bogs! Too much traction for 3500rpm, you need to dump at around 4000 or so. The car feels extremely planted on turns and really doesn't understeer that much. I was expecting some additional understeer and it's just not there. I think the MX's break loose a bit later than the Pilot Sports, but they do so a little quicker and with less warning, so you have to be a little more careful. It's real easy to get overconfident. That may be the only minus for these tires and like the G35, they make up for it in price.

Wet traction
Now this was one thing I always was fond of with regards to the Pilot Sports... extreme wet traction. Traction like "Hi it's raining but it feels like I'm driving/swerving/cornering on dry pavement." I've always been impressed, but I must say the MX does at least as good of a job at keeping the car stable (if not better) as the Pilot Sports could ever hope to do. Hydroplaning? What's that? I hit about a 4"-deep puddle and while I could feel the front tires momentarily loose composure, the rears never lost it. No DSC, no squiggly rear end, nothing. Very cool though! :thumbup:

Wet cornering traction is also excellent... from what I could tell they definitely hold longer on water than the Pilot Sports (which tend to seem like they're rolling away from you when you get on it hard on wet pavement). I found that doing a wet pavement doughnut was also quite difficult as the tires just didn't want to break loose. I had to keep it all the way up at about 6k to keep em spinning. There was no extreme throttle-off oversteer snap either. Once off the throttle the car seemed to just hunch down and settle into a straight-line direction... this of course is probably due to the suspension and not necessarily impacted by the tires. Just an interesting side note though. :)

Here are some photos of the tire itself. Note the interesting (weird, almost) tread pattern and how the sides of the tread blocks down the center are "scalloped" out from the water grooves... very interesting!

http://www.rit.edu/~cmb9808/330/8-29-02/
 

·
Rest in peace, Coach
Joined
·
9,106 Posts
No offense but I find this review somewhat "unscientific".

You are still running Pilot Sports up front, no? If so, a lot of what you described as pluses of the Kumhos can actually be still attributed to the Michelins up front. Most of your initial turn in, wet traction, cornering stability, depends on the traction of the front wheels since they govern steering and response.

Although the fact that it require a higher RPM dump to get the wheel slipping is a good sign. How does the sidewall compare to Pilot Sports?

If you've got the Kumho's all around then I'll just shut up now. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
Now, I want to see a back to back comparison between the
S-03s and the MX's. I need to replace my rears soon and I am 99.9 percent sure I want the S-03's but never hurts to see what else is out there.
 

·
Head-In-Sand Dumbass
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
The HACK said:
No offense but I find this review somewhat "unscientific".

You are still running Pilot Sports up front, no? If so, a lot of what you described as pluses of the Kumhos can actually be still attributed to the Michelins up front. Most of your initial turn in, wet traction, cornering stability, depends on the traction of the front wheels since they govern steering and response.

Although the fact that it require a higher RPM dump to get the wheel slipping is a good sign. How does the sidewall compare to Pilot Sports?

If you've got the Kumho's all around then I'll just shut up now. ;)
No no you're right, that's why I tried to maintain a high level tone throughout the "review", didn't wanna get too technical or scientific. See all of the above can also be attributed to crappy rear traction as you know, which I was fortunate to be able to experience with the bald pilots. All it takes is the slightest wheel spin.

My reasons for additional understeer were just that I figured these tires would grip better than the Pilot Sports overall, but I think they may shed a slight bit of cornering performance in favor for wet traction. Maybe I just need to play with the pressures more... again, can't really get TOO specific with it. :)

The sidewalls seem just as stiff, although when they were off the wheel they didn't really seem as such. Moderate pressure could bend them slightly. On the wheel you can't even see a dip in them though at 38psi. Ride comfort is the same, or at least unnoticeable.

The ass meter says yes, so I'll def. be replacing the fronts with more MXs when the time comes.
 

·
King of Rear Clunks
Joined
·
12,903 Posts
The HACK said:
No offense but I find this review somewhat "unscientific".

You are still running Pilot Sports up front, no? If so, a lot of what you described as pluses of the Kumhos can actually be still attributed to the Michelins up front. Most of your initial turn in, wet traction, cornering stability, depends on the traction of the front wheels since they govern steering and response.
I agree with Dan here. I still have my PZeros up front, and they still affect the way the car feels, way more so than the new ES100s I have in back. So far the only thing I can say about the ES100 is that it does ride stiffer than the PZeros.

As for wet performance, I think we've had at most a week's worth of rain since I bought this car.
 

·
Head-In-Sand Dumbass
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
*sigh*

Well you all take it with a grain of salt then. It wasn't intended to be some deep philosophical projection on how well these new tires will improve your sex life, nor was it intended to be a highly-involved theoretical explanation of how well the tire works... honest.

Like I said, I will have no problems replacing the remaining 2 Pilot Sports with these MXs when the time comes, and that's a price-independent decision! The price difference just makes it that much sweeter of a deal. :)
 

·
Here since day one
Joined
·
7,187 Posts
webguy330i said:
with the Pilot Sports, a 3500rpm clutch dump resulted in a moderate amount of wheel spin (enough to make me lift off the throttle to regain traction). With the MX's, the car just bogs! Too much traction for 3500rpm, you need to dump at around 4000 or so. The car feels extremely planted on turns and really doesn't understeer that much.
Forgetting your whole review for a second, please make it a clear point to post your vin number here when your lease is up so others don't make the mistake of buying your car used . . .

. . . I think I am more interested in how long your clutch lasts then I am in your tire interview ;)
 

·
The Original Dr. Phil
Joined
·
10,985 Posts
Re: Re: Kumho Ecsta MX - reviewed!

Alan F said:


Forgetting your whole review for a second, please make it a clear point to post your vin number here when your lease is up so others don't make the mistake of buying your car used . . .

. . . I think I am more interested in how long your clutch lasts then I am in your tire interview ;)
:lmao: :lmao:
 

·
OMGWTFBBQ
Joined
·
11,262 Posts
Re: Re: Kumho Ecsta MX - reviewed!

Alan F said:
. . . I think I am more interested in how long your clutch lasts then I am in your tire interview ;)
Tire interview? I missed that...suppose that I'll have to wait for the Special Edition DVD :dunno:
 

·
Head-In-Sand Dumbass
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Re: Re: Kumho Ecsta MX - reviewed!

Alan F said:


Forgetting your whole review for a second, please make it a clear point to post your vin number here when your lease is up so others don't make the mistake of buying your car used . . .

. . . I think I am more interested in how long your clutch lasts then I am in your tire interview ;)
Alan you ever-cynical bastard. :D

My clutch is doing great, and I plan on having it replaced anyhow at my 30k inspection since it pops and shudders like a beotch when it's cold (the clutch, not the air outside).

And we all know how beotches like to pop and shudder... :rolleyes: :p
 

·
Here since day one
Joined
·
7,187 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Kumho Ecsta MX - reviewed!

webguy330i said:


Alan you ever-cynical bastard. :D

My clutch is doing great, and I plan on having it replaced anyhow at my 30k inspection since it pops and shudders like a beotch when it's cold (the clutch, not the air outside).

And we all know how beotches like to pop and shudder... :rolleyes: :p
lol, so you don't think the pops and sudders have anything to do with dumping your clutch at 3500 rpms

;) :lmao:
 

·
A sudden sense of liberty
Joined
·
3,939 Posts
webguy330i said:

It's worth noting that the tires I got were Z-rated, not Y, so if that concerns you contact Tirerack to make sure you get Y. Personally I couldn't care less... oh and for the record I'm comparing the MX to my pre-bald Pilot Sports, when they still had some life in em. =)

http://www.rit.edu/~cmb9808/330/8-29-02/
From the pics, the tires you got are indeed "Y" rated. Note that the label says "P245/40 ZR 17 91Y." The last three characters are the load (91) and speed (Y) rating. The Z in front of the R is present on all tires rated for speeds higher than 149 MPH--a "W" rated tire would read P245/40 ZR 17 91W.

The genesis of this, according to a FAQ I read, possibly on the TireRack website, is that the Z rating was introduced to mean speeds over 149 mph, but as cars got faster, and cars were capable of maintaing speeds far higher than 149 mph for sustained periods of time, additional speed ratings were needed. Around the same time, speed ratings were moved from the seventh position to the final position.

These days, Z is retained as a marketing tool, and is the only character still displayed in that position. You won't see a P215/65 HR 16 anymore, for example--that same tire would be a P215/65 R 16 89H now.
 

·
Head-In-Sand Dumbass
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Re: Re: Kumho Ecsta MX - reviewed!

JST said:


From the pics, the tires you got are indeed "Y" rated. Note that the label says "P245/40 ZR 17 91Y." The last three characters are the load (91) and speed (Y) rating. The Z in front of the R is present on all tires rated for speeds higher than 149 MPH--a "W" rated tire would read P245/40 ZR 17 91W.

The genesis of this, according to a FAQ I read, possibly on the TireRack website, is that the Z rating was introduced to mean speeds over 149 mph, but as cars got faster, and cars were capable of maintaing speeds far higher than 149 mph for sustained periods of time, additional speed ratings were needed. Around the same time, speed ratings were moved from the seventh position to the final position.

These days, Z is retained as a marketing tool, and is the only character still displayed in that position. You won't see a P215/65 HR 16 anymore, for example--that same tire would be a P215/65 R 16 89H now.
Damn are you serious? When did this change go into effect? Thanks for the info. Someday I hope something in the way of standardized nomenclature will be, well, standard issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Re: Re: Kumho Ecsta MX - reviewed!

Alan F said:


Forgetting your whole review for a second, please make it a clear point to post your vin number here when your lease is up so others don't make the mistake of buying your car used . . .

. . . I think I am more interested in how long your clutch lasts then I am in your tire interview ;)
What are you a little girl - it's called being an enthusiast and having fun. These cars are designed to be driven hard. :thumbdwn:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts

·
Rest in peace, Coach
Joined
·
9,106 Posts
Sorry for "jumping" on you webguy...I didn't check this thread for a few days and boy, I was surprised at the turn of event that started from my initial post.

Really appreciate your effort at sharing your experience with the Kumhos with us. I will look forward to more review after you switch out the fronts to Kumhos as well.

Please don't take our comments too seriously. We all DO appreciate your time and effort.
 

·
Head-In-Sand Dumbass
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
The HACK said:
Sorry for "jumping" on you webguy...I didn't check this thread for a few days and boy, I was surprised at the turn of event that started from my initial post.

Really appreciate your effort at sharing your experience with the Kumhos with us. I will look forward to more review after you switch out the fronts to Kumhos as well.

Please don't take our comments too seriously. We all DO appreciate your time and effort.
It's all good, I appreciate your sincerity. And I know Alan's wheels will cost more to replace than my clutch. :D :p
 

·
Here since day one
Joined
·
7,187 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Kumho Ecsta MX - reviewed!

thaydith said:


What are you a little girl - it's called being an enthusiast and having fun. These cars are designed to be driven hard. :thumbdwn:
No need for insults bro . . . It's called

BUSTING BALLS !!!!

I know Chris (Webguy) well enough that he understood it !!

thanks for giving me a lesson in being an Enthusiast, I thought when I went through my first set of rear tires in 8000 miles I must have been babying my car :rolleyes:
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top