Hey people,

I have stock 15" rims with wheel covers which sucks, but I can't do anything about it atm. I have toyo proxies 4's on there right now which are 205/55r15's v-rated. They royally suck... The goodyear's that were 195/55r15 I had when I got it were SOOOOOO much better. So anyways, I need a change. I'm looking at Michelin Pilot exalto 205/55r15's. What's your guys opinions? What has served you well? I want something with good handling and still good tread life. Is 205/55r15 the best size? Let me know! Thanks!

II think 205/55/15 are best due to the surface area I personally love the kumho asx andd falken zIex 912 kumho lassted me longer though

>

X2 on the ziex912's. That lasted me 45k.

Cool, how do they feel? They good in corners? Responsive? How are they about hydroplaning?

>




There's not many choices in that size anymore. Mediocre Bridgestone OEM replacements are about $180 each. If you change to a different size with more availability, then the diameter and the offset may change, affecting the handling, wear on the bearings, and speedometer accuracy. I was tired of the stiff noisy ride from the original Michelins, so I found the Falken Ziex 912's. They transformed the Celica into a smooth comfortable car with still good handling. Although not as tight steering as the Michelins, it was definitely worth it. Now I can hear the radio and talk to my passenger on the freeway. Consumer Reports has detailed test ratings on tires, usually in the October issue. See the issue that just came out, and then go to the tire manufacturer's website to see if a tire you like is available in 205-55 15's. (It's usually not!). By the way, the Falken's rate highly for hydroplaning. I love the car now.

This post has been edited by LazyJ: Oct 2, 2012 - 3:46 AM

I had put Yokohama Avid V4S's on my stock 15's for autocross and they held up fairly well, grip wasnt fantastic, but they have lasted through countless events and still have tread on them.


Im not sure if Dunlop Direzza Z1 Star Specs come in 15's but I highly recommend them, tread wear is hit or miss with them

Lazy,

Which Michelins did you have? I was looking at Pilot exalto's. They look good, but they only claim 5,000 more miles than the falken's. I'm thinking their grip would be better though. What do you think? I don't mind a harsh ride.

and... I found these. What do ya think? http://discounttires.com/product_detail.ph...CFQoFnQod6HYASQ

This post has been edited by DouglasJaneway: Oct 2, 2012 - 11:40 PM

>


I can't remember but I think they were Pilot's. The reason they had such good steering response was probably that the rubber had gradually hardened after 12 years. If you look on Michelin's web site they don't even make a 55 aspect ratio tire anymore. Tires Plus has no tires in the size 205-55 15. I did consider the Direzza's. They should handle great. About Consumer Reports tire tests, it is the November isssue, and it should be on the shelves now. Just keep in mind the tires at the top of the list were the best for all seasons including winter snow and ice. I bought my Falken's just for summer tires. They are drivable in winter but not very good. Direzza's would be summer only.

Lazy,

Here are the Michelin's. http://www.samsclub.com/sams/michelin-pilo...5-87v/158834.ip

The difference I am seeing is a tread wear of 400 as opposed to the 360 on the Falken 912's. With the price difference though, the Falken's are looking to be the better option.

This post has been edited by DouglasJaneway: Oct 3, 2012 - 12:33 AM

Part II

Consumer Reports rates the Direzza's just average for hydroplaning, but for dry handling and braking are probably the best available in our size. The best handling tires I've ever owned are Dunlop D60-A2's, no longer available. What a tire! The best all around tire I've owned is Pirelli P400 (now called P4) but it's not available in 205-55 15. Both of those were on my '89 Celica ST. The Michelins were very good handling but stiff and noisy because they were so old. The Falken Ziex 912's seem fine so far, but I haven't driven them enough to rank their handling. I know they can't compare to my old Dunlops, but I will be happy if they are as good as the Pirelli's. You don't have many options for the 6-gen Celica, but a least you still have 2 good tires to choose from. Is there any snow in Chatanooga?
[/quote]

Not to speak of. I wouldn't drive my Celica in the snow anyways. That just seems like a bad idea. I mostly need something with really good grip, resistant to hydroplaning, and good tread wear (40,000 mile range). I'm just sick to death of my Toyo's. They were okay new but I think the side walls are flimsy or something because cornering is kinda floaty compared to the goodyears I had. Plus, I have maybe 10,000 on them and they're getting dangerous in wet weather.

>

It's on their website but I don't think that tire is available anymore, especially in 205-55 15.

It looks like falken's it is then...

Think it would mess things up to go with 205 50 15's? You get a lot more options that way.

This post has been edited by DouglasJaneway: Oct 3, 2012 - 11:44 AM

>
I've had the Kuhmo ECSTA 4X's on for 5K miles. I really like them so far. They're 205/55/15 with a 420/AA/A rating, and a limited 40k tread warranty.

Fuzzy

Thanks Fuzzy,

Now that I read reviews, the Kuhmo ASX seems to get much better wear ratings than the Falken 912's. I think I'm sold unless anyone has horror stories on the Kuhmo.

I have horror stories with Kumho and recently pulled the Ecsta ASX's off of the car. While the ASX's were better than the other sets of Kumho's I've had, they suffered from the same belt separation. When Kumho's go bad, they go really bad really fast. I had one tire on my IS 300 that was bad out of the factory. My Ziex's were far superior tires in all aspects.

Edit: I'm not saying avoid them at all costs. Just that you can't expect to reach the tire's expected life with Kumho.

This post has been edited by richee3: Oct 5, 2012 - 5:57 AM

>


I've seen this with the Kum-Ho's as well,. they suck in the long run even if you save a couple dollars up front.

Myself I recommend an upgrade... I've never been as satisfied as when I upgraded to 18" wheels and 225x40 18 92W tires... It's like my car has been re-geared, and now corners like a Ferrari.

Spend the money and roll Yokohama imho.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Now that its not 5 am and I'm half asleep, I'll elaborate. Sandusky nailed it, my issues with Kumho have always been in the long run. I remember three sets clearly and it seems like I had a fourth but I can't remember.

Set 1: 205/55/15 Ecsta on the Celica. Lasted 15k but were supposed to last 25k, had wires showing, no grip issues. Mild aggressive driving (heavy acceleration once a week.)

Set 2: 215/45/17 Solus on IS 300. Lasted 30k with a 50k warranty. One had a 2" blister and a smaller blister. No aggressive driving, apart from passing slow traffic.

Set 3: 205/55/15 Ecsta ASX on Celica. Lasted 30k. One was starting to act exactly like the blistered tire on the IS. Still had 20% tread left. Best set of the three. Moderate aggressive driving since the tires and the BEAMS came at the same time.

All three sets started out well. The Ecstas never really had grip issues but the Solus's did. All started out at around 4/10 for quietness, with 10 being loud. Kumhos are alright short-term tires but don't expect the best wear out of them. As I said earlier, my two sets of Falken Ziex 912's were better tires in every way. I haven't had any other Falkens to make a better comparison, unfortunately.

Wow, thanks guys. One thing I would like to point out is that the new Kumho 4x is supposed to improve on all of the aspects where the ASX sucked. I don't know if there is any truth to this, but that's what they say on all the reviews I've seen. Supposedly you can get a lot more wear out of them.

This post has been edited by DouglasJaneway: Oct 5, 2012 - 8:55 AM

>
I've put 5K on my 4X'S since March. They have a 40K warranty vs 30K for the ASX's.
The tires are supposed to be UHP. They're not designed for lots of miles. We have limited choices in the stock tire size.

Fuzzy

The last set I had were 4X's.

So, how do the 912's compare to the 4x's grip wise?

When we got a light snow and when it turned to slush, the Falkens weren't so great. I've never driven either set of Ecstas in the snow so no comparison there. Dry traction, the Falkens beat the ASX's out. Wet, no comparison at all... Falkens all the way. The ASX's only really gave me problems with understeer once, but I was pushing the car harder than pretty much any all-season tire for our cars could hold. The ASX's aren't terrible tires, but Kumho just seems to lack quality control. I drive a lot (30-35k a year) so a tire with good tread life matters more to me. 2/3 sets of Kumhos I've had disintegrated far too early and the ASX's were about to start having issues. Still, at a little over 30,000 miles, they were the longest lasting tire I've ever had.

It's too bad that our stock alloys are an odd size by today's standards. When I got my first Celica in '06, we had plenty of tire options. I'm glad I finally upgraded to 17" rims so I finally have more choices.

As richee3 states it is an odball size so I went ahead and went to 205 50 15 I don't have abs or anything so it didn't do any damage anywhere the sidewall is more stiff therefore less tireflex or canyons auto x and such but for a straight away I would want to jump back to the 55 profile but that's personal preference

Im buying a pair of Falken 912's later today, what do yall think? $73.99 made it the only local tire under $90.

Everything I read says they are crap in the snow but this is Texas, we totally shut down if we are lucky enough to get any snow.

I loved my 205/55/r15 Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 wideovals.

They lasted nearly 50k miles and survived 2 trips to the Dragon. Ask Richee3, I beat the crap out of those tires...

Firestone

>
Lol ok, so it was the 512's they had for $73 but they arent being manufactured anymore(didnt find out till he called falken), so I bit the bullet and bought 2 Ziex 912's for $93 a pop. Now I gotta wait for it to get shipped to them dammit.

Well isn't that a downer man I will tell you this much you will not be dissapointed imm going to buy another set soon as well I love the 912's wish I had some extra cash to get the azenis but I will have to wait

A few comments...

Personally, by switching to 205 50 15 I think you would lose more in handling from having the wrong geometry than you would gain from a wider choice of tires.

If you are on a budget, the Falken 512's ratings are almost as good as the 912's and were my second choice.

Regarding Kumho's, I looked in Consumer Reports Nov 2010 tire tests. Compared with the Falken 912's, the Ecsta ASX's are rated definitely not as bad as Falken's in snow and ice, but not quite as good in dry and wet handling and hydroplaning. Just like Richee3 said in his observations earlier.

Hope that helps.

This post has been edited by LazyJ: Oct 9, 2012 - 2:25 AM

I have nothing but an improvement by switching to a lower profile stopping distance is shorter g forces in the turns are lower in my opinion and it lowered the car about a half an inch