So if you get what you pay for in tires, why are the Kumho MX's
comparable to tires that costs twice as much? :)
DocWyte wrote:
They're black, round and cheap. That's about it.
They're not a very good performing tire in all out dry
performance. They're decent in the wet and wear
pretty well. You get what you pay for in tires.
The new Kumho MX is an outstanding performing tire,
putting up comparable performance to the S03 and Pilot
for about half the price.
-josh
--- Les Noriel <[email protected]> wrote:
I would agree with Eric. I've used them on my
Corrado in a 205/40ZR17 and they are smooth and
quiet. The grip is quite good compared to other
tires I have tried. I don't use them on the track so
I cannot vouch for their track worthiness, but on
twisty canyon roads they work well. I also don't
have any problems with hydroplaning in the rain.
They remain stable and straight when encountering
large amounts of H20.
Les
-------Original Message-------
From: Patrick Austin <[email protected]>
Sent: 05/29/03 08:32 AM
To: a2list <[email protected]>
Subject: [a2-16v-list] Kumho ECSTA 712's
Any opinions on the ECSTA's? $74/each, mounted
and balanced in
205/55/15...cheaper than I can get the Yokohama AVS
ES100's. The car
will see mostly street use with an occasional
autocross...Azenis would
probably wear a bit too fast and don't look like
they'd be very great in
the rain.
_______________________________________________
a2-16v-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.a2-16v.com/mailman/listinfo/a2-16v-list
For list archives, see listinfo link above.
_______________________________________________
a2-16v-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.a2-16v.com/mailman/listinfo/a2-16v-list
For list archives, see listinfo link above.
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
