Falken 452's or Vredestein Sessanta's?
Discussion
Has anyone used Federal tyres. The reason I'm asking is at the place my brother works (vehicle rental) he can get cost price on these. 235/35/19 comes back as 180 quid for 2 brand new tyres. When I looked on black circled yesterday they were around the same price as the Avon and Falken in the same range.
I've tried both on a Focus ST.
I'd prefer the Vreds, but they cost 50% more for me than the 452s and they're just not anything like that much better, especially at this time of year and given the fronts barely lasted 5k miles, the rears 10k. They're almost the same price as Dunlop SP Sport Maxx's too which I found better again so if I was spending that much it probably wouldn't be the Vreds I'd go for again.
I'd prefer the Vreds, but they cost 50% more for me than the 452s and they're just not anything like that much better, especially at this time of year and given the fronts barely lasted 5k miles, the rears 10k. They're almost the same price as Dunlop SP Sport Maxx's too which I found better again so if I was spending that much it probably wouldn't be the Vreds I'd go for again.
bigdods said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
For a car like yours those tyres may be "adequate" but most punters would be looking to fit proper full price tyres on a 3.0 litre sports car. Not the right area to be cutting corners if you can help it.
No such thing as 'proper' tyres. Just because they are more expensive doesnt make them better. A great many TVR owners are now using Falken FK452's , so for a light weight high power RWD car I think we can safely say they work well. http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...
I have had Falkens on a TVR before - similar sort of power and weight to the Morgan. Not as impressive in my mind as the Vredesteins - the FK452s were fine in the wet, but quite slippy in the dry and rather unfriendly in the cold...
Edited by Harry Flashman on Tuesday 1st June 10:32
I've had no issues whatsoever running 452s on a Monaro for the last couple of years (at a slightly higher 35psi). I wasn't really going into the unknown for me though as I'd run Falkens before on my old Legacy, again with no problems. As already said they give 90+% of the performance of a top price tyre for 50% of the outlay. They certainly 'feel' better than the RE 040s that were on the car as stock.
otolith said:
This was the Evo test in which the Vredesteins beat offerings from Continental, Bridgestone, Michelin, Pirelli and Dunlop.
Times change, that was 2007 and this is 2010 
I've literally just finished translating the latest AMS tyre test, it's a little rough around the edges but is very relevant to this thread:
http://tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2010-AMS-Premium-...
In short, the Vredestein Ultrac Sessenta places 9th out of 10 premium tyres, with the comments:
Positive: good-natured handling on dry roads, less road noise, good aquaplaning properties.
Negative: Strong load change reactions in the wet, average braking.
Fortunately the tyre industry doesn't stand still. I can't help but think the big brands have pulled a gap again on the smaller players this year.
Got FK45's on my 350Z rather than the fitted Bridgestone RE50's.
No complaints at all, good grip and better in the wet than the RE50's.
FK45 = £110
RE50 = £160+
most of the 350Z owners I know are now running Falkens. And for the money it doesn't matter if you get the back end out and spin the tyres.
No complaints at all, good grip and better in the wet than the RE50's.
FK45 = £110
RE50 = £160+
most of the 350Z owners I know are now running Falkens. And for the money it doesn't matter if you get the back end out and spin the tyres.
Take tyre tests with a pinch of salt as tyre suitability will vary by car type. For example (as per my earlier post) 452's are excellent on my TVR and pretty good on my golf but they might as well be playdough for all the use they were on my Omega.
Always search out the marque forums and see what other people recommend.
Always search out the marque forums and see what other people recommend.
bazking69 said:
The Falkens have got rave reviews from the BMW boys. However, you have to bear in mind they are stonking for the money for what they are. What they aren't is premium. If you want the very best, you'll pay double what you would for some 452s.
The problem is just paying more doesn't guarantee better tyres. A Falken 452 is superior in every area to a big name Goodyear NCT5 or Pirelli P6000. If a Michelin tyre is independently shown to be best I'll buy it, but I won't rely on the name alone to prove it's superiority. Only someone who knows nothing about tyres would.otolith said:
jon- said:
Times change, that was 2007 and this is 2010
Oh, quite, I was just responding to the idea that they couldn't possibly be better than the market leading brands - back then, they were!I went from OEM Conti 3 on the ST to Vred's. Vred's win hands down, never push it in the rain with any tyre to try out levels of grip, but in the dry cornering speed & composure seem a lot better. It feels as if I have an upgraded ARB on the front.
Edited by UncappedTag on Tuesday 1st June 12:27
OnTheOverrun said:
otolith said:
jon- said:
Times change, that was 2007 and this is 2010
Oh, quite, I was just responding to the idea that they couldn't possibly be better than the market leading brands - back then, they were!
Cracking stuff, many thanks to all of you for the advice.
Just to clear a few things up, in the end, I'm going to be ditching the runflats in favour of some normal tyres so getting anything is going to be a bit of a lottery and wont have been tested by the manufacturer, but I do understand that. I still think, as do many of you it seems, that there is a good budget choice that will perform as well, or nearly as well as the manufacturers suggested RE050 runflats I have currently though.
I'm interested to hear that the Vredesteins seem to be a little better in the wet and the cold than the Falken's and that being the case, I might give those a try this time round.
Having said that, if things have moved on a bit since 2007, what is the current flavour of the month (without spending mega bucks)?
Just to clear a few things up, in the end, I'm going to be ditching the runflats in favour of some normal tyres so getting anything is going to be a bit of a lottery and wont have been tested by the manufacturer, but I do understand that. I still think, as do many of you it seems, that there is a good budget choice that will perform as well, or nearly as well as the manufacturers suggested RE050 runflats I have currently though.
I'm interested to hear that the Vredesteins seem to be a little better in the wet and the cold than the Falken's and that being the case, I might give those a try this time round.
Having said that, if things have moved on a bit since 2007, what is the current flavour of the month (without spending mega bucks)?
jon- said:
otolith said:
This was the Evo test in which the Vredesteins beat offerings from Continental, Bridgestone, Michelin, Pirelli and Dunlop.
Times change, that was 2007 and this is 2010 I've literally just finished translating the latest AMS tyre test, it's a little rough around the edges but is very relevant to this thread:
http://tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2010-AMS-Premium-...
In short, the Vredestein Ultrac Sessenta places 9th out of 10 premium tyres, with the comments:
Positive: good-natured handling on dry roads, less road noise, good aquaplaning properties.
Negative: Strong load change reactions in the wet, average braking.
Fortunately the tyre industry doesn't stand still. I can't help but think the big brands have pulled a gap again on the smaller players this year.
I dont know the Sessanta's but have used the 452's and 451s before them on TVRs, Audi A8s plus colleagues have used them on Golfs and Ovtavia VRS etc and all have been very impressed and at the price they are a steal. I can definitely recommend the Flken 452's, but I would check out the Sessantas though as seem to be getting some good reviews...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff