I’ve though that. She hasn’t complained about them (I’ve found them fine too when I’ve driven it) grip wise, although she says she’s had better tyres for aquaplaning resistance. Still, if you detest tyre ‘fitters’ a great option.
Editing this to remark on the less grip/more longevity theory. I’ve had the misfortune to experience Continenal SportContact 5 as an OEM tyre on another car. Grip awful, light up the wheels at junctions and roundabouts the very mediocre throttle inputs and fine weather conditions, and the wear rate was awful, too.
Love the 17" PS71s on my ND as I did the older KU39s on my NC.
Asking what are the best tyres is a dangerous game. So any different answers will be given.
What I would say and most will agree is that the Kumhos are great tyres for the price and suit the MX-5. You won’t get better for the money and to get anything better will likely cost a whole lot more.
Who knows. I think they’re good and bought them again.
Wear size I had about 2.8mm on the rears, on bang on 16K miles, no rotation. Wear rate fair enough to me. I like the ride they give too. Were fine on just under 7 years (by the tyre date) too.
I was shown some Potenzas on a Mark 2 where they had cracked on the side walls where the tread starts. When I bought my Mark 3 it had 6-y-o Potenzas with no issues.
I currently run Uniroyal Rainsport 5 on my 2009 NC, 10k miles in and they are still fantastic, great all weather tyre and wearing not as quickly as I thought. Considerably cheaper than Michelin or Pirelli
I’ve a 3k car with a spare set of wheels. So when I get dreamy I fancy Michelin with them sexy thread patterns of the climate 2. Wet, slippery performance makes sense to me rather dry, unless on private ground or a track.
Michelin have always been a top tyre company for decades. This is about a rational choice as any other you may make.
We have huge choice and not much data that can be seen as objective.
So I think my choice of I like the name and the tread pattern may be as likely to produce a good result as any other….
Some may disagree🙂
I’ve got the 205/50 16 Kumho Ecsta HS52’s on my NC and have no complaints, they grip well in the dry and in the wet which is a big consideration living in Scotland. I’d happily buy them again.
My MK3 came with Yokohama’s on them. They are a great tyre, suitable for the road and been on a few track days with them, and have proved to have great grip and little wear, but then that depends on how you drive… poorly and you shred any tyre… but they have been great.
I was worried about their age recently and took the car down to my local tyre guy, he had a good look at them, and said they were fine and good to go for a while longer yet, with decent even wear.
As with all tyres keep the pressures correct, and have the wheels aligned properly and they last
I’ve got a 2006 NC and have Ecsta all round, excellent tyres great value (Black Circle) good wear rate, currently on 10k still plenty of tread left. Good grip both wet and dry, acceptable noise levels (who gives a shizz ) so yes I’ll recommend Kumho
Has anyone been refused a change of tyre from the original fitment, ie 205 45 r17 to 215 45 r17 on a NC3.5, by their insurance company? I have, today when I phoned to check they just said “no you can’t”
You’ll get all sorts of answers from posters and insurance companies.
Insurers run a business and I suspect this dictates the risk profile of any book they run.
I found this post from elsewhere from some years back.
“Mine told me it made no difference and I didn’t need to tell them as long as the tyres were an appropriate size for the wheels (ie, not stretched etc), were the same or better speed rating, were the same or higher load rating and finally if XL tyres were fitted by the factory, the new tyres must also be XL. The new tyres should have an overall diameter of no more than ±3% of the OEM ones”
That was then and it’s probably changed again now. You have a contract with the insurance company. They can put whatever it they want in the Ts and C’s.
