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.
Judging by the problems people have calling insurance companies when they want to change their tyres you would think that almost all cars on the road may well be uninsured if they didn’t get the tyres the car originally came with. If a car has had several owners how would the current owner know what to put on?
I think you are fine putting on any tyre provided it fits the rim properly and not been modified which is often an insurance requirement any way.
For most of us the best bet is to replace the tyres with what they came with. Mazda spend millions developing their vehicles, I am sure they know better than us.
Even if you do the occasional track day (as i do) my standard Yoko’s cope very well both the track and roads.
Again most of us aren’t able to notice difference in some tyres over others unless they are the cheapest “ditch finders” you can buy.
Buy cheap rubber and it spits… ask many fathers out there who got it wrong
LV, whom I’m with for the up! gti did wider tyres (205/40/17 from 195/40/17) for 84p, with no admin fee. That 84p is pro rata though, given the policy is up in 6 or so weeks, so about £8 a year.
Personally I also would stick to the manufacturer’s recommended tyre size, based on my own experience of doing it.
If you read around about it, ‘changing size’ usually means they’re cheaper in an alternative size. So many spend £££thousands on a car, or pay £hundreds a month on fiance, to save a tenner a corner. And the word ‘save’ is maybe only initially.
I’ve just done it, (changed size) stupidly listening to internet heros, and although in my case the tyres were more expensive, changing to Pilot Sport 5 in 205 width, from ‘ditch finder’ Landsail LS338 (in 195 width), which the prior owner fitted, and it has been meh/vanilla at best. Braking, steering the same, PS5 winning on comfort (they’re new after all), but Landsails winning on cornering, less lean, and fuel economy to the part of about 4mpg. Over 6K miles, that equates to about £80 a year more, using RON99 at ~ £1.50, plus the ~ £8 a year insurance mod fee. If I’d known that switching from Landsails to PS5 would be vanilla, no real improvement, plus costing north of £80 a year ongoing for the privilege, you know what I’d have said
After my latest trawl through tyre reviews I’ve found that although the latest Kumbos are ‘A’ rated in the wet ( wet behaviour is my first priority) There is a lot of difference within that wet rating. I’m currently looking at Contact 6 for my preferred 16” wheels. It’s damn near an extra £200 currently but I’m ok with that.
I’ve some older Kumbos all round currently and they are great. I changed from Riken all round with plenty of tread ( a budget Michelin) when I bought an extra set of wheels. There was a noticeable difference in the cars behaviour. That did convince me to take tyres more seriously.
Most of us don’t get to compare many tyres in practise so we are mostly talking Sh!te anyways😀
