This is a sort of update on a recent wet weather post which I thought I’d put here so as not to hijack that thread.
Current tyres are Yokohama 195/50 R16 84V dated 2018, deep tread but cracking. This forum responded with several good tips on replacements for the wet weather.
So yesterday I booked the car in for a service (mid-December) with a local main dealer. I asked them to source and fit a set of Uniroyal Rainsport 5.
Today one of their tech guys rang back to let me know that they could only get that model in an 88 weight. His advice was to rule that out, because it would affect the handling of the car which was set up for a lighter tyre.
He was very helpful and we went through the list of recommendations I got from everyone.
We went through Michelin, Dunlop, Kumho (the HS52 was recommended here). None of these any longer available in 84 weight.
I know they have to buy through their trade suppliers so maybe that affects the range they’ve got. Or maybe with modern cars being heavier there’s less demand for these types of tyres.
Yokohama V105, which I think is what I’ve got anyway, £70 or thereabouts.
A brand called Accelero which he wouldn’t recommend.
So there it is. As it stands I think I’m likely to go for option 2. I did ask about whether mixing the Continental Ultra and Premium together, 2 front or 2 back would be a good idea, but he wasn’t able to advise in that detail.
Any similar experiences lately, either contrasting or correlating?
+1 for the Continental Premium Contact 6 (not the 5).
NickD fitted four (215 45 17) for me last year, one word: Brilliant.
Whatever you decide on, for our little cars always buy four of the same: make, type, size, load, build date.
And if at a big rush-rush-rush place like KF or H, always Inspect them before fitting!!!
Cautionary tale.
Ages ago I had four new Dunlop Maxx, they were brilliant tyres, quiet and grippy.
Then a year later I bought a spare wheel to match the others and after much ringing around finally found somewhere (H) that could supply another Dunlop Maxx of the correct spec.
Big Mistake, I took their word for it and didn’t inspect it.
What came looked identical in some respects except for; tread pattern, load rating, and the “II” added to the number, and I didn’t notice until it was on the wheel. I thought about asking them to take it off again, but didn’t want my brand new unmarked £315 wheel wrecked in spite. Instead I haggled a big discount.
It was actually a completely different tyre with different published characteristics; even the contact point width measured about 5mm less! OK as a spare but not for significant driving. Bad words were said, silently.
I still have that unused Niseko wheel fitted with that virgin Maxx II tyre, both unused and still sealed in a plastic bag. I hope to swap it for a 25AE wheel, the Dunlop is too old to use now.
Fundamentally, I’m not happy with how my current tyres perform in the wet. Okay, they’re old, but whatever replacements I get I’d hope they’d age better than the ones I’ve got.
I’m not a tyre nerd and not fixated on stats but the Yoko ratings aren’t happy reading.
By the way, I suspect due to the fact I’m new to this I may have misled you as to the problem. The 84 vs 88 thing is not about the weight of the tyre, it’s a load rating which is part of the tuning of the suspension. So not for me to fiddle with, I don’t think.
Probably talking rubbish as I’ve never used any of those, but if you’re happy enough with the Yoko Advan Sports, like many seem to be, maybe get those again.
I’ve heard very good things about the Premium Contact 7 (and 6)
Personally I wouldn’t think in a million years of mixing tyres if you’re getting 4 in one go.
True, but try saying that to the ''17 Potenza despising crowd
I like those and got them again, as in ‘is there any reason not to fit the tyre Mazda did’, and suffered the wrath of doing so
That makes more sense. I instinctively prefer the correct load rating. You could say something similar perhaps in relation to the speed rating which presumably has an implication for the construction. My second set are 84W rather than 84V, and whilst they aren’t vastly different do not feel quite the same as the previous set and seem a bit more jiggly on a less than perfect surface.
I don’t think the reviews are objectively bad for the V105 although as an old tyre they will have dropped down the ratings. Most UHP tyres are biased towards dry handling but that doesn’t mean they are unacceptably poor at wet braking, handling and aquaplaning. There’s actually very little choice of UHP tyres in 195/50R16 - you won’t find any UHP Michelin or Goodyear for example just the ‘touring’ tyres.
If you prioritise wet braking than you might have reason to look elsewhere but I have never found it wanting. That said I do not use the car much from October to March, and I always drive to conditions, which many people seem not to bother with now judging by their motorway speeds in heavy rain!
I keep seeing stories of how terrible the Potenza S001 is but I’m not sure the tyre is the common factor!
A lot of MX5s are low mileage and old tyres of any make that harden enough to crack as many do will have lost their virtue and much of their grip. Get some brand new, over-size, Fandango GTs fitted and Hey Presto “the car is transformed!”
[tin_hat]
For what its worth I had my near new ND into Roddisons for a couple of jobs. One of the things he said was to dump the OEM tyres to improve the car. He mentioned using Conti,s.
Epilogue: I went with the Continental Ultra Contact, at £175.80 ea fitted.
The difference is remarkable! No more sideways skittering on corners. You can feel the connection with the road, and it’s a much more enjoyable drive.
I’ve done about 300 miles on the new tyres so far. Subjectively, it seems road noise is a little less than before. It’s possible fuel economy has taken a slight hit (maybe 46mpg down from about 49) but if that’s the case I’m still happy with the deal because now I can put the car into a corner like I’m supposed to .
.