Quick Review - New Kumho Tyres on my E46 320Cd
Discussion
Posted this on a BMW forum and thought it may be of some use to people in future so:
On Friday I got my E46 320Cd MSport fitted with some new rubber at ~39500 miles.
I bought her as a BMW AUC in November 2007 and she was running Michelin Pilot Sports on the front and Bridgestone Potenzas on the rear. My comments on respective grip etc are based on my experiences over the last ~25k miles in all weathers on all roads.
Phoning round for quotes, I soon became frankly aghast at the prices I was being quoted from some places. After trying various local tyre garages and national franchises and even 3 separate BMW dealerships the best price I could get on a set of Michelin Pilot Sports was just under £700. The prices they want for these tyres are simply ridiculous, I know for a fact, you can get Pilot Sports for a Porsche 996 Turbo for less than that. The consequences of having a sucessful fleet car methinks, company users just sign the chit and send it to finance dont they
In the end I went mail order and sourced a set of tyres I've used before on my Celica GT-Four, Kumho Ecsta KU31s, in the requisite 225/40 on the front and 255/35 on the rear. Ordered from Camskill, they came in at £364 delivered and Performance Tyres in Glasgow did a great job fitting them (used these guys loads of times before, cant talk highly enough of them) for £40.
The important part, how do they drive?
Grip:
I had always found the Pilot Sports to be not entirely inspiring when pushing on hard through certain corners. Under certain camber conditions and road sufaces they made the car bizarely keen to push in to understeer. The grip with the Kumhos is better. The car is less keen to push in to understeer and when it does start to slide it is far less sudden.
The Potenzas on the rear I had always found adequate in the dry but in cold/damp conditions they seemed to struggle more. This is especially noticeable in winter where (granted, all tyres lose some of their grip) they faired notably worse than other tyres I'd driven. Again, the Kumhos are far less inclined to swing the back end out or have the traction control flickering when shifting hard from 1st in to 2nd on greasy surfaces.
Ride:
They are a revelation compared to the previous tyres. The ride on the motorway is noticeably quieter and in the town (Glasgow is unbelievably pothole ridden at this time of year quite frankly) they are far less crashy and absorb bumps a lot better.
I believe they have softer sidewalls which also helps stop the car pulling quite so hard when going down roads with heavy truck/bus use where the road has become furrowed.
Ecconomy:
Early indications are that the fuel ecconomy has improved by 5-10% according to the trip computer. I'll be monitoring this one closely. I ended up doing quite a bit of urban driving this weekend and the car seemed far happier coasting.
Conclusion:
I am no doubt going to receive some narrow minded commentary on my choice of tyres because they dont have this BMW star mark approval or whatever it is and Kumho are preceived in the UK as a budget brand of as high a standing as Semperit ditch finders.
In my opinion, Kumho are a very competent middle ground brand. They are not premium imaged or premium priced, but from past experience in driving various cars with Kumho tyres (one of which was a Porsche GT3 for the record) I have always been happy with them, hence giving them a go on my car.
Looking through various tyre reviews, they score as well as Pilot Sports (believe this was the OEM tread on the E46 M-Sports?) and better infact in snow.
The only question mark surrounds wear rate as Michelins are known to be hard wearing. The ones fitted to my GT-Four have stood up well to the kind of abuse a backroad driven, 300hp, full time 4WD car throws at them. Ultimately, when 2 sets of Kumhos = 1 set of Pilot Sports price wise, I dont think its going to be too much to worry about.
On Friday I got my E46 320Cd MSport fitted with some new rubber at ~39500 miles.
I bought her as a BMW AUC in November 2007 and she was running Michelin Pilot Sports on the front and Bridgestone Potenzas on the rear. My comments on respective grip etc are based on my experiences over the last ~25k miles in all weathers on all roads.
Phoning round for quotes, I soon became frankly aghast at the prices I was being quoted from some places. After trying various local tyre garages and national franchises and even 3 separate BMW dealerships the best price I could get on a set of Michelin Pilot Sports was just under £700. The prices they want for these tyres are simply ridiculous, I know for a fact, you can get Pilot Sports for a Porsche 996 Turbo for less than that. The consequences of having a sucessful fleet car methinks, company users just sign the chit and send it to finance dont they
In the end I went mail order and sourced a set of tyres I've used before on my Celica GT-Four, Kumho Ecsta KU31s, in the requisite 225/40 on the front and 255/35 on the rear. Ordered from Camskill, they came in at £364 delivered and Performance Tyres in Glasgow did a great job fitting them (used these guys loads of times before, cant talk highly enough of them) for £40.
The important part, how do they drive?
Grip:
I had always found the Pilot Sports to be not entirely inspiring when pushing on hard through certain corners. Under certain camber conditions and road sufaces they made the car bizarely keen to push in to understeer. The grip with the Kumhos is better. The car is less keen to push in to understeer and when it does start to slide it is far less sudden.
The Potenzas on the rear I had always found adequate in the dry but in cold/damp conditions they seemed to struggle more. This is especially noticeable in winter where (granted, all tyres lose some of their grip) they faired notably worse than other tyres I'd driven. Again, the Kumhos are far less inclined to swing the back end out or have the traction control flickering when shifting hard from 1st in to 2nd on greasy surfaces.
Ride:
They are a revelation compared to the previous tyres. The ride on the motorway is noticeably quieter and in the town (Glasgow is unbelievably pothole ridden at this time of year quite frankly) they are far less crashy and absorb bumps a lot better.
I believe they have softer sidewalls which also helps stop the car pulling quite so hard when going down roads with heavy truck/bus use where the road has become furrowed.
Ecconomy:
Early indications are that the fuel ecconomy has improved by 5-10% according to the trip computer. I'll be monitoring this one closely. I ended up doing quite a bit of urban driving this weekend and the car seemed far happier coasting.
Conclusion:
I am no doubt going to receive some narrow minded commentary on my choice of tyres because they dont have this BMW star mark approval or whatever it is and Kumho are preceived in the UK as a budget brand of as high a standing as Semperit ditch finders.
In my opinion, Kumho are a very competent middle ground brand. They are not premium imaged or premium priced, but from past experience in driving various cars with Kumho tyres (one of which was a Porsche GT3 for the record) I have always been happy with them, hence giving them a go on my car.
Looking through various tyre reviews, they score as well as Pilot Sports (believe this was the OEM tread on the E46 M-Sports?) and better infact in snow.
The only question mark surrounds wear rate as Michelins are known to be hard wearing. The ones fitted to my GT-Four have stood up well to the kind of abuse a backroad driven, 300hp, full time 4WD car throws at them. Ultimately, when 2 sets of Kumhos = 1 set of Pilot Sports price wise, I dont think its going to be too much to worry about.
I used exactly the same tyre on my E39 530 and they were excellent.
I now have a E91 3 series touring and have just ditched the run flats for a set of Falken 452.
these tyres are again considered a ' budget brand' but I would say they are the best upgrade I have ever done on a car ( And I have done lots )
They came in at £387 fitted from micheldever tyres, shedloads less than any runflat.
In my opinion both Kumho and Falken are excellent value and should not be considerd as ' budget' maybe ' cost effective'
I now have a E91 3 series touring and have just ditched the run flats for a set of Falken 452.
these tyres are again considered a ' budget brand' but I would say they are the best upgrade I have ever done on a car ( And I have done lots )
They came in at £387 fitted from micheldever tyres, shedloads less than any runflat.
In my opinion both Kumho and Falken are excellent value and should not be considerd as ' budget' maybe ' cost effective'
NoelWatson said:
Mmmm, 3rd from bottom. Lovely.NoelWatson said:
...and clicking on the links shows the majority of people agree with what I think. 76% overall rating for the Kumhos at half the price of the Michelins which scored 75%.I would also agree that the Continentals would grip better, but they wear out far too quickly in my experience.
Fox- said:
NoelWatson said:
Mmmm, 3rd from bottom. Lovely.Also how many others premium or otherwise are made that could have been included , maybe 50 or more ????
Good result IMO
I had those Kumhos on my M3 on 18's when I got it, a very impressive tyre and better than the FK452 imho, better grip and a hell of a lot more comfy and quiet.
I would have a bash with them again at some point, but I only really use the M3 when having fun so for now I will stick with PS2's as they are a far better tyre, if I go back to doing more miles in the M3 though I would definitely use the Kumhos as the price is fanatastic and the grip is great, just not very progressive at all when they let go.
I would have a bash with them again at some point, but I only really use the M3 when having fun so for now I will stick with PS2's as they are a far better tyre, if I go back to doing more miles in the M3 though I would definitely use the Kumhos as the price is fanatastic and the grip is great, just not very progressive at all when they let go.
The EVO tyre testers seemed to mark the Kumho down mostly on grounds of "feel" in the wet, and the impression it was a "little twitchy in the dry in fast turns". 1.5 seconds down on the leading GY F1 in the dry handling on a 67 second lap, 2 seconds off the same leader in the wet on a 60 second lap ( but ahead of Michelin Pilot PS2, Dunlop Sport Maxx and Yoko S-drive ).
Good for the money
Good for the money
What cars are these tyre tests done on?
AFAIAC if the test is not done on your car, to your car's tyre specifications, then the observations/scores/rankings are irrelevant.
An 'Z' rated tyre on a Honda NSX will not necessarily require the same characteristics as a 'Z' rated tyre for an M3. Even if the tyre test says that 'Z' rated tyre is the best for the NSX, doesn't mean it'll keep your M3 on the road when you're chasing the NSX.
The same goes for the 320d - the torque difference between the 320d and a 320i will mean that the 320d will require a different tyre of tyre to get the best out of the car than the 320i. So a 'tyre test' article is a very blunt tool.
The other problem is that every driver has a different opinion of what makes a car 'feel' good. To some it's outright grip, some want a smooth & quiet ride, some want brilliant wet weather handling, etc. Even then you've got the difference between someone who's very comfortable with their car in the wet and can drive as safely with 'crap' wet weather tyres as you can with 'brilliant' wet weather tyres.
A lot of 'my tyres are crap' posts highlight the inadequacies of the driver rather than of the tyre.
(Although I quite like Kumho KU31, Conti SportContact2/3, Michelin PS2s and Potenza RE050 - and Avons are crap).
AFAIAC if the test is not done on your car, to your car's tyre specifications, then the observations/scores/rankings are irrelevant.
An 'Z' rated tyre on a Honda NSX will not necessarily require the same characteristics as a 'Z' rated tyre for an M3. Even if the tyre test says that 'Z' rated tyre is the best for the NSX, doesn't mean it'll keep your M3 on the road when you're chasing the NSX.
The same goes for the 320d - the torque difference between the 320d and a 320i will mean that the 320d will require a different tyre of tyre to get the best out of the car than the 320i. So a 'tyre test' article is a very blunt tool.
The other problem is that every driver has a different opinion of what makes a car 'feel' good. To some it's outright grip, some want a smooth & quiet ride, some want brilliant wet weather handling, etc. Even then you've got the difference between someone who's very comfortable with their car in the wet and can drive as safely with 'crap' wet weather tyres as you can with 'brilliant' wet weather tyres.
A lot of 'my tyres are crap' posts highlight the inadequacies of the driver rather than of the tyre.
(Although I quite like Kumho KU31, Conti SportContact2/3, Michelin PS2s and Potenza RE050 - and Avons are crap).
mmm-five said:
What cars are these tyre tests done on?
AFAIAC if the test is not done on your car, to your car's tyre specifications, then the observations/scores/rankings are irrelevant.
An 'Z' rated tyre on a Honda NSX will not necessarily require the same characteristics as a 'Z' rated tyre for an M3. Even if the tyre test says that 'Z' rated tyre is the best for the NSX, doesn't mean it'll keep your M3 on the road when you're chasing the NSX.
The same goes for the 320d - the torque difference between the 320d and a 320i will mean that the 320d will require a different tyre of tyre to get the best out of the car than the 320i. So a 'tyre test' article is a very blunt tool.
The other problem is that every driver has a different opinion of what makes a car 'feel' good. To some it's outright grip, some want a smooth & quiet ride, some want brilliant wet weather handling, etc. Even then you've got the difference between someone who's very comfortable with their car in the wet and can drive as safely with 'crap' wet weather tyres as you can with 'brilliant' wet weather tyres.
A lot of 'my tyres are crap' posts highlight the inadequacies of the driver rather than of the tyre.
(Although I quite like Kumho KU31, Conti SportContact2/3, Michelin PS2s and Potenza RE050 - and Avons are crap).
Had Avons on my first Celica. If Aston Martin fit them as OEM tyres theyre out their bloody minds imho!AFAIAC if the test is not done on your car, to your car's tyre specifications, then the observations/scores/rankings are irrelevant.
An 'Z' rated tyre on a Honda NSX will not necessarily require the same characteristics as a 'Z' rated tyre for an M3. Even if the tyre test says that 'Z' rated tyre is the best for the NSX, doesn't mean it'll keep your M3 on the road when you're chasing the NSX.
The same goes for the 320d - the torque difference between the 320d and a 320i will mean that the 320d will require a different tyre of tyre to get the best out of the car than the 320i. So a 'tyre test' article is a very blunt tool.
The other problem is that every driver has a different opinion of what makes a car 'feel' good. To some it's outright grip, some want a smooth & quiet ride, some want brilliant wet weather handling, etc. Even then you've got the difference between someone who's very comfortable with their car in the wet and can drive as safely with 'crap' wet weather tyres as you can with 'brilliant' wet weather tyres.
A lot of 'my tyres are crap' posts highlight the inadequacies of the driver rather than of the tyre.
(Although I quite like Kumho KU31, Conti SportContact2/3, Michelin PS2s and Potenza RE050 - and Avons are crap).
emicen said:
Had Avons on my first Celica. If Aston Martin fit them as OEM tyres they're out their bloody minds imho!
That's the thing though - I've driven Avon ZZ3 on both a DB7 and an e34 M5.Both are similar weight & power, both are front-engined and rear-wheel-drive, but on the M5 they're lethal, whereas on the DB7 they're not. Imagine the worst Singalong Fumchuck tyre that you can get for £20 and that's how bad they felt on the M5 - they lasted less than a month before I took them on a track day to kill them to death.
It might be that the DB7 ones are a specific compound.
AM now use P-Zero and Bridgestone Potenza tyres on their DB9/DBS/Vantage range.
BTW, the only good car tyre that Avon make are the ZZR track day tyre.
mmm-five said:
What cars are these tyre tests done on?
AFAIAC if the test is not done on your car, to your car's tyre specifications, then the observations/scores/rankings are irrelevant.
This particular one was done on a Golf.AFAIAC if the test is not done on your car, to your car's tyre specifications, then the observations/scores/rankings are irrelevant.
Whilst I agree with you to an extent about different cars behaving differently I hold more stead with a proper mag tyre test than other peoples observations, particularly as you don't know what they're comparing against, their mode of driving, how they're evaluating the new tyres they've got etc etc.
In other words, as you rightly say, too many variables.
I would like to see the Falkens and Toyos included in the next Autocar/EVO tyre test though
mmm-five said:
emicen said:
Had Avons on my first Celica. If Aston Martin fit them as OEM tyres they're out their bloody minds imho!
That's the thing though - I've driven Avon ZZ3 on both a DB7 and an e34 M5.Both are similar weight & power, both are front-engined and rear-wheel-drive, but on the M5 they're lethal, whereas on the DB7 they're not. Imagine the worst Singalong Fumchuck tyre that you can get for £20 and that's how bad they felt on the M5 - they lasted less than a month before I took them on a track day to kill them to death.
It might be that the DB7 ones are a specific compound.
AM now use P-Zero and Bridgestone Potenza tyres on their DB9/DBS/Vantage range.
BTW, the only good car tyre that Avon make are the ZZR track day tyre.
Reading this thread with interest. I have an E61 520d M Sport. Currently on the NCT run flats, but all getting reasonably low. I picked up a puncture in one yesterday, so I now have to decide whether to go for a pair of run flats for now, and do the other pair in a few months, or bite the bullet and do all 4. I had been thinking about going non run flat on cost grounds, and both the Kuhmo KU31 and Falken FK542 look like decent contenders. But I now have a new option to consider, as Kuhmo do a run flat KU31 in 245/40/18. About £150 fitted, so a reasonable saving. Does anyone have experience of the Kuhmo run flats ?
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff