Which is the better tire overall?
 

Just wondering?

Must be a loaded question :lmao:

What about the Pilot Super Sport? Why are you only asking about the PS2?

:cheers:

I plan to give the Rivals a try in the spring in the 18's... 315 front 335 rear. Gotta see for myself if they are the real deal.

My falkens are tired and may be going to rivals, 245s on 17 all the way around.

Super Sport 300 Tread Rating
PS2 220 Tread Rating (Stickier)

Comparing a Michelin product to a BFG is not even fair. At least offer up a Pirelli or Continental lol

Are you basing this solely on treadwear rating?

PS2's are OLDSCHOOL now. They came out in like 2004.



FWIW, Tirerack recently ran this comparison test:

BFGoodrich g-Force Rival
Dunlop Direzza ZII
Yokohama ADVAN Neova AD08 R
Bridgestone Potenza RE-11A

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/...y.jsp?ttid=172

Cliff's notes: The Direzzas had the fastest lap time; the Rivals had the overall best Dry Track rating.

Good info... too bad those other tires are all in bicycle sizes. :rolleyes:

Well, that somewhat limits your tire choices, doesn't it? I was talking to a couple people last weekend with smaller cars (FRS/BRZs, I think) who tried out all of the popular tires at a test event. All of the little import car guys running Rivals seem to say that they're good tires, but that they take getting used to, for one reason or another. The Dunlop ZII guys said they managed a faster overall time on the Rivals, but missed the precision and confidence that the ZIIs gave. I guess it is all a moot point for you, well... maybe not. The limited sizes in the other brands wouldn't stop Rob from running them on his Torino. :lol:

Well as you know we often have to choose between the size we want to run and what is available. It's nice to see the Rival is a targeted tire for the segment. Would be nice if other options would emerge.

The treadwear ratings mean pretty much zilch as far as consistency.

Speaking of arbitrary treadwear numbers, the SCCA guys have a hunch that we'll be seeing more 200TW tires soon because rules are changing and limiting street tire classes to 200TW instead of 140. I have no idea how true that is, but Hancook has already changed their popular tire from 140 to 200, supposedly because it was wearing better than expected. Still that is really only good news for us guys with little bicycle tire sized 295s.

Imagine that the Rival wins in all their categories and there the exclusive distributor, of them, Huh? what a coincidence

ps2 might be old now but thats what im running. Im a area sales manager for NTB and to me its pretty hard to beat the ps2. If they made the super sport in my size i would buy it. The ps2 has more tread depth than the rival, the tread width of the ps2 is .5" more also.

So more tread and wider tread width i just cant see how the rival can beat the ps2. Now the rival is cheaper but for me i was able to get the ps2 cheaper than ever other tire.

Somebody needs a TW rating explanation:lmao:

I can stretch a 225 onto my 13" rears.:D

:cheers:

Im thinking about running 245s on my 17x8 and 255s on my 17x9.5

I have both tires here and just looking at tread pattern the ps2 should be the better "4 seaons" tire.

PS2's are an Ultra HPS >summer< tire... and not recommended in cold weather climates. There is no '4 season' about them.

In respect to a 245x40x18 on a 18x8 on the daily driver.

Hot and dry, like here in Vegas... they are very predictable, even on the threshold. They exhibit gentile departure characteristics at the slip rate and come right back to you with light steering input. However, they suck in cold weather... and do not drive them in a spirited manner with standing water or in sluury/snowy conditions. Not very forgiving by any means with a chassis that isn't very compliant.

In my opinion, the PSS tire overall... is even better than the PS2 in hot and dry climates with the same characteristics noted above. Don't get me wrong... I LOVE my PS2's... but the "driver" will be seeing a new set of PSS's in about another 10-12k miles of my level of abuse. Which seems to be just about every time I strap the car on.

Another thing with both of the Michelin offerings... then tend to 'tramline' noticeably on concrete surfaces.

On another note: I too am somewhat interested in thrashing a set of Rivals. I have had excellent results with BFG's product line.

Tough decision...

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....el=Ventus+R-S3
The Hankook is 200TW now (up from 140) but has not been changed. The hankook is a amazing tire with decent size choices.

http://www.tirerack.com/images/tires...srs3_ci2_l.jpg

Michelin PS2

It depends on what you are going to do with the car,and what you can afford.Performace tires are usaully a softer compound than dailey drivers.

I just finished the USCA event in Fontana CA and one of my Rival tires is coming apart on the shoulder. I have run pretty much all tires out there including R-compounds and never experienced this problem. The performance was on par with some of the better 200 tread wear tires out there, but I may be concerned about the construction and durability of the tires. Here is another thread I posted pics of the tire that is coming apart on the shoulder

https://lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php4?t=46576

Here's a good test result..... 2012 Stielow wins the OUSCI in Mayhem... in 2013 he runs the same track, same car, and I think he ran 2 seconds slower on the Rival tire...

Good point! I ran Nitto NT-05's, then went to Hankook RS-3's, OMG what a much better tire. I would run them now, but they don't make a 315/30/18. Looks like Falken may be getting a try.

There's a decent list of 'players' winning on Falken's. Sizes are somewhat limited though. They'd be my next tire if they made 18/245/40 - 18/275/40.

Out of curiosity, what areas made the Hankook's much better than the Nitto's?

The best tire is always the brand you don't have on your car. :lol: I'm a big fan of Michelin on my cars, BFG's on my 4x4's.

BOOM! There's the answer.

And he wasn't lookin' too happy with his tire choice that day.

The PCA AutoX'ers love them.

2.4 seconds.

Even Mark might say, comparing track results a year apart may not be a "good test". Wasn't it really cold last November?

Which spring was that again? :lostmarbles:

Ha. Don't you see the bright side here? By being tardy to the party I get to let others' tires literally fall apart first. :mock:

Tire Rack is sending me a new tire. We will run these until they are finished, or they fall apart, again... I will try and follow up on how they hold up

Please offer one up Ron. What tires are you currently running?:king:

Here's one straight out of Tirerack.

Treadwear Grades

UTQG Treadwear Grades are based on actual road use in which the test tire is run in a vehicle convoy along with standardized Course Monitoring Tires. The vehicle repeatedly runs a prescribed 400-mile test loop in West Texas for a total of 7,200 miles. The vehicle can have its alignment set, air pressure checked and tires rotated every 800 miles. The test tire's and the Monitoring Tire's wear are measured during and at the conclusion of the test. The tire manufacturers then assign a Treadwear Grade based on the observed wear rates. The Course Monitoring Tire is assigned a grade and the test tire receives a grade indicating its relative treadwear. A grade of 100 would indicate that the tire tread would last as long as the test tire, 200 would indicate the tread would last twice as long, 300 would indicate three times as long, etc.

The problem with UTQG Treadwear Grades is that they are open to some interpretation on the part of the tire manufacturer because they are assigned after the tire has only experienced a little treadwear as it runs the 7,200 miles. This means that the tire manufacturers need to extrapolate their raw wear data when they are assigning Treadwear Grades, and that their grades can to some extent reflect how conservative or optimistic their marketing department is. Typically, comparing the Treadwear Grades of tire lines within a single brand is somewhat helpful, while attempting to compare the grades between different brands is not as helpful.

Traction Grades

UTQG Traction Grades are based on the tire's straight line wet coefficient of traction as the tire skids across the specified test surfaces. The UTQG traction test does not evaluate dry braking, dry cornering, wet cornering, or high speed hydroplaning resistance.

The Traction Grade is determined by installing properly inflated test tires on the instrumented axle of a "skid trailer." The skid trailer is pulled behind a truck at a constant 40 mph over wet asphalt and wet concrete test surfaces. Its brakes are momentarily locked and the axle sensors measure the tire's coefficient of friction (braking g forces) as it slides. Since this test evaluates a sliding tire at a constant 40 mph, it places more emphasis on the tire's tread compound and less emphasis on its tread design.

In 1997, the UTQG Traction Grades were revised to provide a new category of AA for the highest performing tires in addition to the earlier A, B and C grades. Previously the A grade had been the highest available and was awarded to tires that offered wet coefficients of traction above 0.47 g on asphalt and 0.35 g on concrete. Today the grades and their traction coefficients are as follows:

Traction
Grades Asphalt
g-Force Concrete
g-Force
AA Above 0.54 0.41
A Above 0.47 0.35
B Above 0.38 0.26
C Less Than 0.38 0.26

Unfortunately the immediate value of this change to tire buyers will be limited. Use of the AA grade will first be seen on new tires that are introduced after the standard was enacted and will then appear later on tires that have had the required wet traction all along, but were introduced when the single A was the highest available grade.

Based on this, tread wear rating has nothing to do with how sticky the tire is. My understanding is that tires with lower TW rating usually consist of softer compound, which may lead to beliefs that lower TW rating means stickier tire.

I appreciate that Rickpaw however I was being sarcastic with my response to the guy who runs kdw2's and R triple 8's comment.

rickpaw

You posted a proper explanation of TW :thumbsup: but I don't think the message got through.

I could be wrong we'll see. :popcorn2:

:cheers:

Tread wear ratings are only relative to the manufacturer and their product line. You can't compare tread wear ratings from one company to the next - that's not how this works.... that's not how any of this works.