“Very Good”!

Excellent
Choice
Aug. 2009
225/40R18
Hankook Tire Scores Impressive 2nd Place Ranking
In Leading Us Automotive Magazine
!
”
d
oo
G
ery
V
“
• Outstanding overall marks in handling
for both wet and dry conditions
Awaken your passion for the open road. When you’d rather take
the road less traveled, there is nothing Hankook tires can’t handle.
Now who’s in control?
Hankook Tire Head Office : #647-15 Yeoksam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-080, Korea
Tel : 82-2-2222-1000
• Highest score for braking in wet conditions
• Best in terms of low noise levels
Fax : 82-2-2222-1100
ALIASES
budget high performance
REASON FINGERPRINTED
various autocross crimes, jaywalking, donuts,
loitering in parking lots
Ventus, Ecsta, Invo,
Mickey, Minnie, Goofy,
Grumpy ol’ Shel, Csaba
O
R
I
ALIBI
wear bars,
sipes,“Live Long” tattoo
IDENTIFYING MARKS
C/D tech department
RACE
SEXY
too hot or too cold
WHO CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA?
8/2009
LEAVE BLANK
FBI
OK
TYPE OF TIRES FINGERPRINTED
DATE
TYPE OR PRINT ALL INFORMATION IN BLACK
LEAVE BLANK
TIRE TEST
DIAM
YES often
TEMPERAMENT AND ATTITUDE
yes, plus we get to wring out a BMW 3-series for
three days. greatest car ever
EYES
HAIR
blk
BLK
PLACE OF TEST
South Bend, IND
LEAVE BLANK
aggressive to sloppy
SERIOUSLY?
AVG WGT
17” XX.X
PREVIOUS CRIMES
felony understeer
BOXERS? BRIEFS?
CLASS.
them boys gotta breathe
SUSPECTS’ GRASP OF SITUATION
RAMPABILITY
cogent to unconscious
you got some Fix-a-Flat?
REF.
KNOWN GANG AFFILIATE?.
member, WRX STI
Bridgestone
Potenza
RE760 Sport
BFGoodrich
g-Force
T/A KDW
1.
2.
Dunlop Direzza
Sport Z1 Star
Spec
3.
Falken Azenis RT615
4.
Hankook Ventus
V12 Evo
5.
Outperform the Competition in Key Magazine Tests.
Kumho Ecsta XS
6.
Ling Long L688
7.
Michelin Pilot
Sport PS2
8.
Nitto Invo
9.
Yokohama
S.drive
10.
THE UNUSUAL
SUSPECTS
could any of these NINE AFFORDABLE SUMMER TIRES have
knocked off THE EXPENSIVE MICHELIN PS2?
BY DAVE VANDERWERP
PHOTOGRAPHY BY RICH CHENET
caranddriver.com
AUG
2009
03
TIRE TEST
When in doubt, it seems, add adjectives.
Just as the EPA tacked on “ultra” and then
“super” in creating ever-more-stringent-sounding
categories for its low-emissions vehicle ratings,
the tire business is continuously inventing variations of its high-performance segment. There
are now five categories of street tires designated
exclusively for summer driving—grand touring;
and high, ultra-high, maximum, and extreme
performance. This category list is arranged in
increasing dry-road capability, and those capabilities tend to produce trade-offs on tire wear,
noise, wet performance, or all of the above. It
makes our noggins ache trying to grasp how it
is possible for a category to better “maximum,”
and don’t say we didn’t warn you if there soon
appears a “colossal” or, even better, an “extreme
super colossal” performance category.
Summer tires are one of the easiest and most
effective ways to increase a car’s performance.
When shopping for them, we usually consider
those in the top three performance categories,
so that’s what we did for this test, with one
catch—we set a price limit of $140 each in a
225/45R-17 size. Naturally, the goal was to see
which of the nine tire models gathered here is
best at chomping the pavement and generating
quick lap times.
At the time of this test, Michelin, Goodyear,
and Toyo didn’t have any tires that qualified for
our criteria, so we turned to their subsidiaries—
BFGoodrich, Dunlop, and Nitto, respectively—as
well as low-price specialists such as Hankook,
Kumho, and Falken. This also marks the debut
of a Chinese brand in a C/D tire test. While more
than 10 percent of tires sold in the U.S. are now
manufactured in China by well-known companies, Chinese brands themselves are just starting
to have a presence. Steady growth seems likely,
however, considering the cut-rate prices: The
TYPICAL
SELLING
PRICE
SERVICE
DESCRIPTION
UTQG TREADWEAR rating
WEIGHT, lb
TREAD DEPTH,
1/32 in
DIRECTIONAL
BEST IN TEST
Ling Long L688
$57
94W
280
23.1
9
yes
Hankook Ventus V12 Evo
$106
94Y
280
22.9
10
yes
Yokohama S.drive
$115
91Y
300
22.6
10
yes
Nitto Invo
$117
91W
260
24.6
10
no
Kumho Ecsta XS
$120
91W
180
23.1
7
no
Falken Azenis RT-615
$121
94W
200
24.2
7
no
BFGoodrich g-Force
T/A KDW
$126
90Y
300
23.9
10
yes
Bridgestone Potenza
RE760 Sport
$132
94W
340
25.9
10
no
Dunlop Direzza Sport
Z1 Star Spec
$137
90W
200
25.7
10
yes
Michelin Pilot Sport
PS2 benchmark
$192
91Y
220
22.9
10
no
tire brands, by price
Ling Long L688s cost just $57 each.
Some makers offer more than one tire model
below our price cap, and in that case, we chose
the one in the higher-performing category. And
to see how this popular, lower-priced contingent
performs compared with more expensive tires,
we brought along one of our blue-chip favorites: the Michelin Pilot Sport PS2, which sells
for $192 apiece.
As with our most recent tire test [December
2005], we partnered with the Tire Rack for its
expertise as well as our desire to use a nonpartisan facility. Clearly standing out from the competition, the company operates an impressive
fleet of 3-series BMWs and Porsche Cayennes
for its own tire testing and education of its sales
force and generously allowed us to use a couple
of the balanced, predictable, and pleasing 328i
coupes for our test—the red one for dry driving,
the silver for the wet.
quid pro quo
NOTES
Service description: The two-digit number (90 to 94, in this case) specifies the load rating; the higher this number
is, the more weight the tire can carry. The letter is the speed rating: W means 168 mph; Y is for 186 mph.
UTOG tread-wear rating: This rating compares a tire’s wear with that of a reference tire. For example, a 340 rating
estimates tire life at 3.4 times that of the reference tire, which scores 100.
Directional: Tires with a directional tread pattern can be mounted in only one direction, which limits their ability to
be rotated.
04
AUG
2009
We’d like to reward Spencer
Geswein’s expert assistance with an
unqualified plug. Aside from providing
independent testing, training, and
coaching services (www.full-lock.
com), Geswein and business partner
Brian Smith are also involved in
the operation and development of
Carolina Motorsports Park (CMP)
in Kershaw, South Carolina. With
2.28 miles of asphalt, 14 turns,
three track configurations, and a
wet/dry skidpad, plus a dedicated
karting track in the works, CMP has
much to offer. The recent addition of
Palmetto Motorsports Club allows
enthusiasts to enjoy plentiful track
time and first-rate facilities at an
affordable price. CMP even has
trackside condos available (www.
carolinamotorsportspark.com).
caranddriver.com
MICHELIN PILOT SPORT PS2
We’ve always been impressed with the Tire
Rack’s staff, many of whom are involved in racing
and are genuine car nuts. Consider the vehicular arsenal parked in front of the company’s
530,000-square-foot warehouse in South Bend,
Indiana, while we were there: an E39 BMW M5,
an Audi S6, a Corvette Z06, a BMW Alpina B7,
and a passel of other cars we’re fond of.
A further benefit of this arrangement is that the
Tire Rack sells most of the brands in the test; thus
we could use tires from the company’s inventory and circumvent the possibility of tiremakers
cheating by sending us a customized version of
the requested tire.
After each set of tires was broken in according
to the Tire Rack’s criteria, three different maneuvers were conducted, each in wet and dry conditions: braking from 50 mph to a standstill, laps
around a 0.3-mile autocross course, and runs
around a 200-foot-diameter skidpad. The listed
braking results are an average of six stops (after
two stops to get the tires warm). On the autocross
course, two drivers took three laps each, and the
best time for each driver was added together.
One driver performed two laps in each direction on the skidpad, and the best run in each
direction were averaged, which is our normal
procedure. To eliminate any potential bias, neither
test driver knew which particular tire was being
evaluated.
Hankook offered three identical sets of “control” tires to be interspersed among the test tires.
If identical results could be achieved with the
control tires at different times throughout the day,
we could be confident in the consistency of the
data and that changes in the track surface due
to temperature or any number of other factors
caranddriver.com
weren’t affecting lap times. But if the times were
shifting, we could use that data to adjust the
results accordingly.
We also included a four-mile street loop to
measure interior noise and note subjective
behaviors such as sound quality, impact harshness, and steering feel.
The two drivers were the author and, once
again, Spencer Geswein—engineer and former
racer and Michelin tire tester. His finely calibrated backside and expert driving skills provided another opinion on the subjective nuances
among the tires, and he rated each candidate
in three areas: grip, precision, and progressiveness.
Summer tires are not designed to be driven
in temperatures below about 50 degrees and
certainly not in snow or ice. To us, they are
about maximum dry-weather performance, with
enough capability in the wet to get through a
sudden downpour. So we skewed the results to
favor the dry-pavement champs, giving double
the weight to those tests, even though summer
tires generally outperform all-season rubber in
wet capability as well.
After three days of testing, we were left with a
bundle of lap times and even more notes, clothes
that reeked of rubber, and left-knee bruises from
bracing hard against the door during the highg driving. And we were surprised by how vast
and noticeable the differences were among the
tires, even to relatively inexperienced tire testers
such as ourselves. Despite what some onlookers
thought, we still call this work.
BMW M3; Porsche 911, Boxster,
and Cayman; Chevrolet Corvette
ZR1; Cadillac CTS-V. A list of some
of our favorite cars? Yes. And they all
wear Michelin PS2s, which is probably
one of the reasons many C/D staffers
consider the PS2 their favoritesummer
tire and a good enough reason to
use it as our benchmark in this test.
After which, we were understandably
surprised that the pricey PS2s didn’t
dominate the dry portion of the
test, finishing only midpack in both
autocross time and braking. Geswein
thought excessive understeer held
back the lap times. Still, the PS2s
pulled an above-average 0.92 g on
the skidpad and exhibited a very surefooted, predictable demeanor. Unlike
most of the other tires, the PS2s were
responsive to steering inputs at the
limit and would tuck back in nicely
after their grip was exceeded. Another
positive is pleasant ride quality, noted
in the street-driving portion.In the wet,
the benchmark PS2s showed their
mettle, feeling the most connected to
the road and reeling in the quickest
lap time—beating the Ling Longs’ dry
time—and generating a heady 0.88 g
on the skidpad, which was as high as
two of the competitors’ best efforts in
the dry. The PS2s’ wet performance
was certainly impressive, but we’d like
more dry capability from an expensive
summer tire.
—DV
AUG
2009
05
NIT
DUN
LIN
BFG
TIRE TEST
59
SOUND LEVEL,
AUTOCROSS
50
dry MPH, dBA
TIME,
BRIDGESTONE
61 seconds
KUMHO
HANKOOK
61 59.0
DUNLOP
59.3
YOKOHAMA
61
BRIDGESTONE
FALKEN
6259.6
FALKEN
KUMHO
62 59.8
HANKOOK
MICHELIN BENCHMARK
62 59.8
BRIDGESTONE
60.1
NITTO
62
MICHELIN
BENCHMARK
60.1
63
DUNLOP
YOKOHAMA
60.3
LING
LONG
63
NITTO
60.5 64
BFGOODRICH
LING LONG
61.1
SOUND LEVEL,
50 MPH, dBA
BRIDGESTONE
HANKOOK
YOKOHAMA
NITTO
INVO
FALKEN
Ling Long L688
61
61
61
KUMHO
SOUND LEVEL,
AUTOCROSS
50
dry MPH, dBA
TIME,
BRIDGESTONE
61 seconds
KUMHO
HANKOOK
61
DUNLOP
YOKOHAMA
61
BRIDGESTONE
FALKEN
FALKEN
KUMHO
62
62
Unfortunately, the Nittos’ performance was
less inspiring. They were second from the bottom
NITTOLong proves that 62
This Ling
a complete tire in both dry lap time and braking, with both drivers
DUNLOPmore than just a tread63
design involves
pattern, reporting a soft feeling at the limit and that they
becauseLING
the LONG
L688’s V-shaped layout is63essen- were difficult to drive precisely because the grip
BFGOODRICH
tially a copy
of Yokohama’s AVS Sport tire. 64 would taper off in a nonlinear fashion. This led
Consistently
finishing
last in62all of the
perforto65more oversteer than most of the other tires
59
60
61
63
64
mance categories, the Ling Longs’ dry autocross exhibited, and even though they had an average
performance was so far behind the other tires’ skidpad run (0.91 g), the Invos left both drivers
that we had to round its score up to zero to keep wishing for more grip.
it from being negative. Geswein used the words
Things were better in the wet, where Geswein
“hard” and “skatey” to describe the Ling Longs’ ranked the Invos tops for precise responses, tied
feel. Their
best showing was on the skidpad, with the Dunlops and the benchmark Michelins.
dry
where an 0.88-g effort tied the Yokohamas’ for The tires’ predictability inspired confidence,
BFGOODRICH 79.9
last.
although their lap time was still exactly in the
ThingsDUNLOP
got worse in the
wet, where slip-and- middle.
80.3
slide behavior
required a 80.7
conservative effort to
KUMHO
Fairly quiet on the street loop, the Invos were
stay between
the cones. The
HANKOOK
81.1 Ling Longs were below average in the dry and average in the wet,
a full five seconds
off the autocross
pace and which put them in eighth place. Nitto does offer
BRIDGESTONE
81.8
needed 22MICHELIN
more feet—1.5
BENCHMARK3-series
81.9 car-lengths— a higher-performance tire, the NT05, which conto stop from
50 mph than did the
best Hank- ceivably could have fared better but is not availYOKOHAMA
83.3
ooks.
able in the size specified for our test.
85.3
FALKEN
On the street loop, we were irritated by a lowNITTO
86.9
speed drone, and these were the only tires to
LING LONG
88.5
7 Falken Azenis RT-615
squeal under semi-aggressive cornering.
76 tires,
78 the
80parent
82 company,
84
86
90
Aside from
Shan-88
Despite suffering from noticeable understeer,
dong Ling Long, in Zhaoyuan, China, also spe- the Falken Azenis still achieved an above-average
cializes in cement. Is this a strategic advantage? dry autocross time, tying the Hankooks and just
We’re not sure, but the Ling Longs showed the bettering the benchmark Michelins. But their dry
least wear after testing—we nicknamed them braking and skidpad figures weren’t as compelthe “Livewet
Longs”—so there may be a connection. ling.
But even though they cost half the price of many
Having the least amount of tread depth in
85.1 less than half the
competingHANKOOK
tires, they scored
the test likely didn’t help the Falkens’ wet perDUNLOP
85.6
points of even
the eighth-place
tire. To us, that formance, and the results were considerably
BFGOODRICH
doesn’t qualify
as a value,86.6
even at $57.
below average. It was difficult to make use of
BRIDGESTONE 87.0
the tires’ peaky grip and, as in the dry, promiMICHELIN
87.0
nent understeer. While fraternizing in the per8 Nitto
Invo
YOKOHAMA
87.9
formance depths with the greasy Kumhos and
If we rated
tires on tread design,
the Nitto Invos Ling Longs, the Falkens were far more reassuring
NITTO
91.2
would score
high. The slashes that95.0
crisscross to exploit.
KUMHO
intriguinglyFALKEN
through the tread had us envisioning
98.0
Although reasonably hushed according to the
a vicious Star
LINGWars
LONGlight-saber showdown taking sound-level
107.2
meter, the Azenis seemed very stiff,
place right there on the edge of the tire.
making them noisy over expansion joints and
59
60
57
dry
wet
62 59.8
60.1
62
60.1
63
60.3
63
60.5 64
61.1
61
58
BRAKING,
50-0 MPH, feet
59.0
59.3
6259.6
62 59.8
HANKOOKBENCHMARK
MICHELIN
BRIDGESTONE
NITTO
MICHELIN BENCHMARK
DUNLOP
YOKOHAMA
LING LONG
NITTO
BFGOODRICH
LING LONG
62
59
63
64
60
61
65
62
BRAKING,
AUTOCROSS
50-0
feet
TIME,MPH,
seconds
BRAKING,
50-0 MPH, feet
BFGOODRICH
79.9
MICHELIN
60.7
DUNLOP
80.3
DUNLOP
60.8
KUMHO
80.7
HANKOOK
61.0
HANKOOK
81.1
BFGOODRICH
61.3
BRIDGESTONE
81.8
YOKOHAMA
61.5
MICHELIN
BENCHMARK
81.9
NITTO
61.9
YOKOHAMA
83.3
BRIDGESTONE
62.5
85.364.2
FALKEN
FALKEN
NITTO
86.9
KUMHO
65.4
LING
LONG
88.5
LING LONG
65.8
62
76
06
59
78
60
80
61
82
62
84
63
86
64
88
65
90
66
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
caranddriver.com
AUG
2009
wet
FALKEN AZENIS RT-615
62
9 LingMICHELIN
Long
L688
BENCHMARK
BRAKING,
50-0 MPH, feet
dr
YOKOHAMA S.DRIVE
BFGOODRICH G-FORCE KDW
producing audible tire hum. But this also allows was the loudest in our test and had a belowfor a precise, connected feel in the dry that makes average ride.
Aside from nailing the braking test, the KDWs
these tires seem extremely sporty, which could
dry were average in dry performance. And despite
provide an ego-boost benefit for slow drivers who
tying the benchmark PS2s in lap time, the KDWs
have an elevated sense of their abilities.
KUMHO
felt softer, like59.0
the Hankooks, but with slightly
DUNLOP
more precision. 59.3
Geswein said the BFGs “need
6 Yokohama S.drive
BRIDGESTONE
59.6 They were slower than
more lateral firmness.”
FALKEN
59.8
average
to
recover
once their limit had been
Aside from being the only tire to contain a
HANKOOK
59.8 in transitions than the
exceeded and sloppier
period within its name, the Yokohamas stood
BRIDGESTONE
60.1
best.
out in just one category: weight. At 22.6 pounds,
MICHELINThe
BENCHMARK
60.1
KDWs were third
overall in the wet, and
each S.drive tire is 3.3 pounds lighter than the
AUTOCROSS
TIME, seconds
YOKOHAMA
60.3
although their tail-happy behavior
made pushing
heaviest here, the Bridgestones, a not insignifiwere both rewardcant savings of 13.2 pounds per set.
NITTOthe limits slightly trickier, they
60.5
ing and fun to drive, with above-average
grip
In the dry, the Yokohamas had a relatively
LING LONG
61.1
agreeable feel—Geswein called them “above and lap time.
57
58
59
60
61
62
For a tire launched in 2002—the KDW was
average without any significant highlights or
faults”—but the results didn’t corroborate. Their the oldest tire model in our test—an overall finish
autocross time was third from the bottom, and exactly in the middle seems respectable.
they tied the Ling Longs for the least grip around
the skidpad.
wet 4 Bridgestone
The S.drives were predictable and progresPotenza RE760 Sport
sive in the wet, but their resulting smooth behavior
MICHELIN
60.7
Right behind the two dry-track animals—the
wasn’t as compelling as the best. With a fourthDUNLOP
60.8
place finish in the autocross and on the skidpad, Kumhos and the Dunlops—were the Bridgestone
HANKOOK
61.0
and fifth place in braking, the Yokohamas were Potenza RE760 Sports, snagging the third-best
BFGOODRICH
61.3
lap time on the autocross course. Geswein
marginally above average.
YOKOHAMA
61.5
While the S.drives are very quiet, their lack of rated them above average in precision, which
NITTOhe described as a61.9
“crisp and direct” feel, although
performance and the rubbery on-center steering
BRIDGESTONE
both testers noticed62.5
that the RE760s felt like they
behavior they caused on the street loop seem to
were down on grip during our64.2
laps. Indeed they
be at odds with the priorities of enthusiasts. FALKEN
KUMHO
65.4 at just 0.90
were, grinding around the skidpad
LING LONG
g, second from the bottom. And65.8
“grinding” is
the appropriate term because the Bridgestones
4 BFGoodrich g-Force
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
T/A KDW
suffered from more understeer than most. They
Fun fact: The BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KDW were also down on braking grip, finishing fifth.
In the wet, the RE760s were generally below
was the first tire to be made in a 24-inch size,
average, but their lap time was well above those
which, in 2004, retailed for $720. Each.
The KDW’s extroverted tread design, consist- of the three worst-performing tires, striking us as
ing of large ovoid shapes, made it a perfect match having sufficient chops in the wet for a summer
for the similarly brash Dodge SRT-4 Neon, on tire. They were noticeably less linear than the
which it was an OE fitment. But this differentiator Hankooks or the benchmark Michelins but still
seems to wreak havoc on comfort, as this tire exhibited reasonable balance and poise.
AUTOCROSS
TIME, seconds
caranddriver.com
59
57
60
61
62
63
64
BF
DU
KU
HA
BR
MI
YO
FA
NI
LIN
65
BRIDGESTONE
RE760
58
59 POTENZA
60
61
62
dry
wet
76
BRAKING,
AUTOCROSS
50-0
feet
TIME,MPH,
seconds
we
BFGOODRICH
79.9
MICHELIN
60.7
DUNLOP
80.3
DUNLOP
60.8
KUMHO
80.7
HANKOOK
61.0
HANKOOK
81.1
BFGOODRICH
61.3
HA
DU
BF
BR
BRIDGESTONE
81.8
YOKOHAMA
61.5
MICHELIN
BENCHMARK
81.9
NITTO
61.9
YOKOHAMA
83.3
BRIDGESTONE
62.5
85.364.2
FALKEN
FALKEN
NITTO
86.9
KUMHO
65.4
LING
LONG
88.5
LING LONG
65.8
NI
KU
FA
LIN
76 59 78 60 80 61 8262
75
wet
8463
8664
88
65
MI
YO
90
66
BRAKING,
50-0 MPH, feet
HANKOOK
85.1
DUNLOP
85.6
BFGOODRICH 86.6
BRIDGESTONE 87.0
MICHELIN
YOKOHAMA
87.0
87.9
NITTO
KUMHO
FALKEN
LING LONG
75
80
91.2
95.0
98.0
107.2
85
90
95
100
105
110
AUG
2009
07
TIRE TEST
SOUND LEVEL,
50 MPH, dBA
BRIDGESTONE
HANKOOK
YOKOHAMA
FALKEN
The RE760s’ slightly worse performance
seemed to be a trade-off spent on improving
comfort. (There are, perhaps, drivers more dispassionate than us who may not prioritize lap
times.) This soothing high-performance tire was
tops in the subjective drive loop, tangibly calmer
than any of the others, and tied the Hankooks and
the Yokohamas for least interior noise.
ments: predictable, well balanced, forgiving,
easy to drive fast. It was obvious to the drivers
that there were places on the autocross course
where they could push harder because the Kumhos simply could take more abuse. The Ecstas
thwacked the skidpad for 0.94 g and singed the
track with a 59.0-second lap time—both best of
the day. Even the level of road noise was better than average. We were starting to smell our
dry
winner.
3 Kumho Ecsta XS
In the wet, however, the Kumhos were nothing
KUMHO
59.0
The Kumho Ecsta XS is a very conflicted tire. short of diabolical, which kept them from victory.
DUNLOP
59.3
After the dry testing, we were spewing compli- They had slightly more grip than the last-place
BRIDGESTONE
59.6
AUTOCROSS
TIME, seconds
FALKEN
59.8
HANKOOK
59.8
SKIDPAD, g
dry
BRIDGESTONE
MICHELIN BENCHMARK
YOKOHAMA
NITTO
60.1
60.1
60.3
60.5
LING LONG
57
59
60
wet
61
62
KUMHO: 0.94 MICHELIN: 0.88
AUTOCROSS
HANKOOK: 0.93wet HANKOOK: 0.87
TIME, seconds
DUNLOP: 0.92 MICHELIN
DUNLOP:
0.86
60.7
MICHELIN: 0.92 DUNLOP
BFGOODRICH:
0.85
60.8
HANKOOK
61.0
BFGOODRICH: 0.91 YOKOHAMA: 0.84
BFGOODRICH
61.3
FALKEN: 0.91 NITTO: 0.82
YOKOHAMA
61.5
NITTO: 0.91 NITTOBRIDGESTONE:
61.90.80
BRIDGESTONE
BRIDGESTONE: 0.90 FALKEN: 0.80 62.5
FALKEN
64.2
LING LONG: 0.88 KUMHO: 0.77
KUMHO
65.4
YOKOHAMA: 0.88 LING LING
LONG LONG: 0.73
65.8
59
60
61
62
63
64
62
KUMHO
MICHELIN BENCHMARK
62
62
NITTO
DUNLOP
LING LONG
BFGOODRICH
62
59
60
63
63
64
61
62
63
64
65
Ling Longs but were, in fact, more difficult to drive
because once they let go, there was a long, hairy
slide before recovery, and the point at which they
would give up was impossible to predict. Around
thedry
constant-radius turn, they kept us guessing,
with a tendency to flip-flop between understeer
andBFGOODRICH
oversteer for79.9
no apparent reason. The first
DUNLOP
word
in our notes 80.3
summed it up: “Wow.”
KUMHO
Want
to go fast 80.7
at a track? The Ecsta XS is
yourHANKOOK
tire. Just be very81.1
cautious if it rains.
BRIDGESTONE
81.8
MICHELIN BENCHMARK 81.9
BRAKING,
50-0 MPH, feet
2 Hankook
Ventus
V12 Evo
YOKOHAMA
83.3
61.1
58
61
61
61
65
“Deceptively
quick” is a good85.3
summation
FALKEN
of the
Hankook Ventus V12 Evos because
NITTO
86.9 they
often
didn’t
feel as strong as they actually were,
LING
LONG
88.5
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
KUMHO ECSTA XS
particularly in the dry. Their fourth-place autocross time wasn’t spectacular, but they did outlap
the benchmark Michelin PS2s. Geswein said the
Hankooks felt “somewhat soft” and “imprecise,”
although they were forgiving, yielding consistent
laps with no surprises. Despite that feeling of
softness, the V12 Evos somehow managed a
second-place skidpad run of 0.93 g and were
above average in braking. Hankook just launched
a new extreme-performance Ventus R-S3 model,
which wasn’t available in time for this test but
likely has sharper dry responses.
In the wet, however, the V12s were as sporty
and connected as they come, with grip second
only to the PS2s’ and the best braking. The Hankooks were extremely consistent, likely because
they were so well-behaved, which made them
easy to drive quickly. Subjectively, they felt the
best around the track, even though their time
HANKOOK VENTUS V12 EVO
trailed slightly behind the Dunlops’.
With above-average wet and dry performances, and tying for quietest on the street loop,
the V12 Evo is an impressive and well-rounded
summer tire. And, at $106, it’s a bargain, too.
1 Dunlop Direzza
Sport Z1 Star Spec
It took only a matter of seconds on the dry
autocross to realize the Dunlop Star Specs were
strong tires. Both the Dunlops and the Kumhos
felt head and shoulders above the other tires,
including the benchmark Michelin PS2s. We were
impressed with how the Star Specs have huge
grip that is available immediately, even before
they warm up, which lends credence to Dunlop
marketing them as autocross tires.
Although 0.3 second behind the Kumhos
DUNLOP STAR SPEC
on the dry autocross, the Star Specs create a
reassuring connection between the tires and
the steering wheel. Geswein summed up their
predictable and planted feel by saying they were
“rewarding to drive hard,” and the Star Specs
also excelled while transitioning from braking
to cornering to accelerating, which left us with
satisfyingly smooth laps.
After the staggering dry performance, we
were shocked that the Star Specs didn’t sacrifice
much in the wet, knuckling down to produce the
best lap time—just a 10th off the PS2s’—despite
being a touch peaky.
The only flaws we could find with the Dunlops
were slight: above-average noise and a slight ride
penalty, things we are regularly willing to sacrifice for performance when it comes to cars. The
star graphic on the sidewall evidently designates
more than just its name.
l
BRAKING,
50-0
MPH,
feet
compelling
roundup
possible.
But
We carefully sifted through the
wet
available choices to present the most
space
and time
HANKOOK
85.1constraints, along
with
fluctuating
prices, meant that
DUNLOP
85.6
some tires were left out, including
BFGOODRICH 86.6
the Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric,
BRIDGESTONE
Sumitomo
HTR 87.0
Z III, General Exclaim
MICHELIN
UHP,
and Fuzion87.0
ZRi. The Tire Rack
has
test results as
well as 145,000
YOKOHAMA
87.9
user
and more at
NITTOreviews on these91.2
www.tirerack.com.
KUMHO
95.0
FALKEN
98.0
LING LONG
107.2
66
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
BENCHMARK TIRE
08
AUG
2009
caranddriver.com
caranddriver.com
AUG
2009
09
Ultra High Performance
The new power in sports driving
A new concept in ultra high performance tires that delivers superb control and braking.
Experience unrivalled comfort during high-speed driving.
Solid center rib block
The solid rib block in the center enhances braking performance.
It also ensures optimal ground contact pressure and control
response at high speeds for excellent handling.
Efficient water drainage thanks
to wide linear groove and Y-shape pattern design
Wide linear grooves and an aggressive Y-shape pattern design effectively channels water away from the tire.
This means safe driving on rainy roads.
Y-shape pattern
Improved water drainage
Wide linear grooves
Improved water drainage
High-density
nylon reinforcement belt
Optimized structure featuring a high-density nylon
belt leads to even distribution
of ground contact pressure during cornering.
3D effect on block edge
Diverse angles on the block edge
result in a sophisticated design with
a three-dimensional effect.
Ground contact pressure is evenly
distributed for optimal handling
and braking.
Existing products
pattern provides more even ground contact when cornering versus existing products.
Performance Map
Existing products
Competitor A’s product