Falken Zeix Ze-512 Review
04-06-2006, 09:15 PM
#81
WELL F...K thease tires.
I had them mounted on my girls honda...... then my day went bad.
The car shakes at speeds 60-80mph. I think the front right tires was so misbalanced that it warped a rotor (only 1 week old rotor) now it pulsates under braking.
Van Hammen Tire in Whitby is f...ing me, they said they will only try 1 rebalance and after that I have to deal with it on my own. ($73Ca) to mount and balance.
1010tires.com is f...ing me saying I have to get in touch with a local Falken dealer.
I'm getting and RMA number and sending thease things the f...k back to 1010tires. Screw this, ill take my Gf car to Honda and let them put on some michellis or Bridges so Falken can kiss my polish a$$.
In the end a cheap tire gets very expensive.
1xFalken 512 = $74
4 tires with shipping and taxes = $358.88
1 balance and rotate by some hillbilly stoges $73.
1 day of removing, adding, trying spare set of wheels = ruined day
1 RMA# = f...k falken - 15% restocking fee = lube me up Scotty
4 x Postal Service back to B.C. = $69.
So as you can see a set of cheap a$$ $hit tires can cause a lot of grief. F..k thease things, save your money and go to your dealership, they can basically order any tire or size you want and they'll guarantee them.
Good luck and stay away, I wish I had better news but the sad reality is that thease tires really shoulndt be shipped to this side of the pond. Let the Japanese deal with their own products on their own side of the pond.
Peace,
Kam Kluczewski
I had them mounted on my girls honda...... then my day went bad.
The car shakes at speeds 60-80mph. I think the front right tires was so misbalanced that it warped a rotor (only 1 week old rotor) now it pulsates under braking.
Van Hammen Tire in Whitby is f...ing me, they said they will only try 1 rebalance and after that I have to deal with it on my own. ($73Ca) to mount and balance.
1010tires.com is f...ing me saying I have to get in touch with a local Falken dealer.
I'm getting and RMA number and sending thease things the f...k back to 1010tires. Screw this, ill take my Gf car to Honda and let them put on some michellis or Bridges so Falken can kiss my polish a$$.
In the end a cheap tire gets very expensive.
1xFalken 512 = $74
4 tires with shipping and taxes = $358.88
1 balance and rotate by some hillbilly stoges $73.
1 day of removing, adding, trying spare set of wheels = ruined day
1 RMA# = f...k falken - 15% restocking fee = lube me up Scotty
4 x Postal Service back to B.C. = $69.
So as you can see a set of cheap a$$ $hit tires can cause a lot of grief. F..k thease things, save your money and go to your dealership, they can basically order any tire or size you want and they'll guarantee them.
Good luck and stay away, I wish I had better news but the sad reality is that thease tires really shoulndt be shipped to this side of the pond. Let the Japanese deal with their own products on their own side of the pond.
Peace,
Kam Kluczewski
04-07-2006, 07:58 AM
#82
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 87
I am at day three with these tires and thus far I'm lovin them. I had Potenzas (sucked so much I can't even begin to describe) and these are a welcome change. I have no shake or rattle up to 80 so far....haven't taken her over that yet...but let ya know. Smooth sailing so far. I can see what some say about the soft sidewall, but considering I'll be doing no racing or time trials I really have no problems with it.
Thus far
Give another review when I hit 1K or so.
Thus far
Give another review when I hit 1K or so.
05-08-2006, 10:36 AM
#84
Originally Posted by Superduck
I am at day three with these tires and thus far I'm lovin them. I had Potenzas (sucked so much I can't even begin to describe) and these are a welcome change. I have no shake or rattle up to 80 so far....haven't taken her over that yet...but let ya know. Smooth sailing so far. I can see what some say about the soft sidewall, but considering I'll be doing no racing or time trials I really have no problems with it.
Thus far
Give another review when I hit 1K or so.
Thus far
Give another review when I hit 1K or so.
05-08-2006, 11:40 AM
#85
Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50
Thumbs Down
I had the Falken's on my 02. For the first year I really liked them - smooth, quiet, and good traction. But after maybe 8 thousand miles, they developed a vibration at around 70 MPH that 3 different shops could not balance out. Even at lower speeds you could hear an uneven sound from the tires. Air pressures were always monitored, but the outer edges of the fronts wore down quickly, and snow traction was gone. I usually have a child in the car, so I'm not abusing the tires...
I just traded my 02 for an 03 that still has the OEM Bridgestones on it (29,000 miles on them), and so far I'm loving having absolutely no vibration at any speeds. They're quieter than the Falken's as well. I'll replace them before it snows, but it certainly will NOT be with Falken's.
I just traded my 02 for an 03 that still has the OEM Bridgestones on it (29,000 miles on them), and so far I'm loving having absolutely no vibration at any speeds. They're quieter than the Falken's as well. I'll replace them before it snows, but it certainly will NOT be with Falken's.
05-08-2006, 06:45 PM
#86
Newbie - Just Registered
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 10
I have the same tires installed on my 03. They are much quieter than the Yokohama AVS ES100 tires that came with the car, I bought the car used.
I am not happy with the wear of the tires. I replaced the Yokohamas at about 20k on the car and now with 36k on the car the Falkens are about
4k from their wear bars. My wife drives my two little boys around in the car so I know its not a matter of being driven hard. They just plain don't wear well.
Any suggestions on a better wearing tire, say one with about 50k worth of life. I'm leaning toward the Yokohama Avid V4s. Anyone have any issues with these tires?
I live in Florida so we don't have snow to worry about, just rain.
Thanks
I am not happy with the wear of the tires. I replaced the Yokohamas at about 20k on the car and now with 36k on the car the Falkens are about
4k from their wear bars. My wife drives my two little boys around in the car so I know its not a matter of being driven hard. They just plain don't wear well.
Any suggestions on a better wearing tire, say one with about 50k worth of life. I'm leaning toward the Yokohama Avid V4s. Anyone have any issues with these tires?
I live in Florida so we don't have snow to worry about, just rain.
Thanks
05-09-2006, 03:25 AM
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 1,341
Lots of miles on coarse concrete or abrasive mixes of asphalt has a hidden cost in reduced tire life. If that's the case in your region, I wouldn't expect 50k miles out of any tire that makes claims for any performance intent at all. Any tire that would actually get 50,000 miles under such circumstances would not normally get any recommendation from me (one could reasonably expect that the various compromises had been pushed too far in the direction of tread life as a selling point at the expense of grip).
Norm
Norm
05-25-2006, 08:42 AM
#89
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Gurnee, Illinois
Posts: 31
Spend the extra $50 per tire and get something nice. These Falken's are total garbage. I've had them for 10,000 miles and I'm having my new Yoko Avid's put on today. After 10,000 miles of very conservative driving, these tires are bald and unsafe. Run, don't walk away from anyone trying to sell you these tires. I thought that I was getting a great bargain, and what I got was poor handling, insane tread wear, and a lesson learned.
06-01-2006, 11:51 AM
#90
After 32k miles, my Falkens were unbearable. They developed a terrible humming noise and went completely bald from the center. The sides still had some tread left. They still gripped decently, but the noise was killing me. The whole car vibrated and resonated between 35 and 55mph. After that, it was not so bad. Overall, they are an ok tire with decent grip in wet and dry conditions. The sidewalls are soft, but not too bad. If they didn't sound the way they did, they would most likely be a better tire...
06-10-2006, 07:45 PM
#91
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 109
Falken Ziex 512 comments
I just replaced Falken Ziex 512 225/50/17 (the stock size) on my 2003 6 spd. Here are some comments about the tire for anybody who might be interested.
(first a word about driving conditions: My driving pattern is mostly low-speed suburban commuting with occasional highway trips. I tend to accelerate and corner a little faster than most but overall I am not a fast or hard driver. I live and work just outside Boston. The area definitely has summer and winter but temperatures are rarely extreme. There is fairly frequent light snow in the winter and occasional heavy snow, and a lot of small, but sometimes steep, hills. I don't mount snow tires since I rarely need to travel outside the metro area (except on interstate highways) during the winter.)
Tread Life: tires were new at 20,800 miles and have been replaced at 45,000. Therefore they lasted approx. 24,000 miles. (In truth, they should have been replaced a few months ago.) They were rotated about every 7500 miles but I skipped what should have been the 3rd rotation, last fall. At replacement, the fronts were worn just to the wear bars and the rears very nearly so. (In other words, at inspection the rears would barely pass and the fronts would be a marginal fail. I've seen more worn-looking tires on a lot of cars.) They wore almost evenly but slightly more in the centers than at the shoulders. (I did run them about 5 psi above the recommended pressure, front and rear.) Overall, in view of my driving pattern and style, I think this is adequate longevity, but not impressive.
Traction performance: when new, the Ziexes were a vast improvement over the Bridgestones in wet weather (not a great benchmark, but most readers can relate to this). The first winter I had them, they were OK in the snow - not great, but considering they are all-season, not snow tires, I was happy enough with them. However, over the past year they have deteriorated significantly. During the past winter the car was all but impossible to drive even after a light snow (I mean 1 to 2"), making hill descents *very* interesting and ascents sometimes impossible. Don't even ask about deep snow - I learned to simply avoid roads that had not been plowed and salted. They also became excessively sensitive to hydroplaning, with the car feeling loose and greasy at 60 mph on roads with a very thin water cover, and at much lower speeds in shallow puddles. On a recent interstate trip on a rainy day, I had to slow to 55-60 mph frequently in order to maintain control, while most of the traffic around me was able to maintain speed.
Handling performance: By the end of life, as you might expect, the Falkens were inadequate at cornering on a wet road, with frequent incidents of the front end skittering wide of the intended line, even without acceleration. I also got very used to spinning the inside wheel while accelerating around a corner. Again, this was noticeably worse over about the last year.
By constrast, on a dry road, hot or cold, they remained fine - in fact, in contrast to the Bridgestones, which felt hard and slippery at low temperatures even on a dry road, the Falkens seemed to feel much the same at all temperatures. That impressed me.
They maintained good steering feel and on-center feel up to the end. If anything, too much road feel, since they seemed to be annoyingly sensitive to road camber.
Comfort: I always felt the Falkens to be a little harsher riding than the Bridgstones, but nothing unacceptable. My impression is that as they have worn down, they have become unpleasantly noisy at highway speed - it is difficult to be sure about this since changes occur so gradually.
Summary: good 15,000 mile tires but after that, not so good.
For the curious, the new tires are Avon M550s in the stock size. They are brand-new, mounted yesterday, so I can hardly comment on them yet. (My first, very preliminary impression is that a lot of feedback has gone out of the steering - I hope that's not really so.) I'll post again after a few weeks. I chose them based on price and Tire Rack ratings indicating that people are happy with them and that they seem to do OK in snow.
(first a word about driving conditions: My driving pattern is mostly low-speed suburban commuting with occasional highway trips. I tend to accelerate and corner a little faster than most but overall I am not a fast or hard driver. I live and work just outside Boston. The area definitely has summer and winter but temperatures are rarely extreme. There is fairly frequent light snow in the winter and occasional heavy snow, and a lot of small, but sometimes steep, hills. I don't mount snow tires since I rarely need to travel outside the metro area (except on interstate highways) during the winter.)
Tread Life: tires were new at 20,800 miles and have been replaced at 45,000. Therefore they lasted approx. 24,000 miles. (In truth, they should have been replaced a few months ago.) They were rotated about every 7500 miles but I skipped what should have been the 3rd rotation, last fall. At replacement, the fronts were worn just to the wear bars and the rears very nearly so. (In other words, at inspection the rears would barely pass and the fronts would be a marginal fail. I've seen more worn-looking tires on a lot of cars.) They wore almost evenly but slightly more in the centers than at the shoulders. (I did run them about 5 psi above the recommended pressure, front and rear.) Overall, in view of my driving pattern and style, I think this is adequate longevity, but not impressive.
Traction performance: when new, the Ziexes were a vast improvement over the Bridgestones in wet weather (not a great benchmark, but most readers can relate to this). The first winter I had them, they were OK in the snow - not great, but considering they are all-season, not snow tires, I was happy enough with them. However, over the past year they have deteriorated significantly. During the past winter the car was all but impossible to drive even after a light snow (I mean 1 to 2"), making hill descents *very* interesting and ascents sometimes impossible. Don't even ask about deep snow - I learned to simply avoid roads that had not been plowed and salted. They also became excessively sensitive to hydroplaning, with the car feeling loose and greasy at 60 mph on roads with a very thin water cover, and at much lower speeds in shallow puddles. On a recent interstate trip on a rainy day, I had to slow to 55-60 mph frequently in order to maintain control, while most of the traffic around me was able to maintain speed.
Handling performance: By the end of life, as you might expect, the Falkens were inadequate at cornering on a wet road, with frequent incidents of the front end skittering wide of the intended line, even without acceleration. I also got very used to spinning the inside wheel while accelerating around a corner. Again, this was noticeably worse over about the last year.
By constrast, on a dry road, hot or cold, they remained fine - in fact, in contrast to the Bridgestones, which felt hard and slippery at low temperatures even on a dry road, the Falkens seemed to feel much the same at all temperatures. That impressed me.
They maintained good steering feel and on-center feel up to the end. If anything, too much road feel, since they seemed to be annoyingly sensitive to road camber.
Comfort: I always felt the Falkens to be a little harsher riding than the Bridgstones, but nothing unacceptable. My impression is that as they have worn down, they have become unpleasantly noisy at highway speed - it is difficult to be sure about this since changes occur so gradually.
Summary: good 15,000 mile tires but after that, not so good.
For the curious, the new tires are Avon M550s in the stock size. They are brand-new, mounted yesterday, so I can hardly comment on them yet. (My first, very preliminary impression is that a lot of feedback has gone out of the steering - I hope that's not really so.) I'll post again after a few weeks. I chose them based on price and Tire Rack ratings indicating that people are happy with them and that they seem to do OK in snow.
07-10-2006, 07:48 AM
#92
Originally Posted by imjd
I just replaced Falken Ziex 512 225/50/17 (the stock size) on my 2003 6 spd. Here are some comments about the tire for anybody who might be interested.
(first a word about driving conditions: My driving pattern is mostly low-speed suburban commuting with occasional highway trips. I tend to accelerate and corner a little faster than most but overall I am not a fast or hard driver. I live and work just outside Boston. The area definitely has summer and winter but temperatures are rarely extreme. There is fairly frequent light snow in the winter and occasional heavy snow, and a lot of small, but sometimes steep, hills. I don't mount snow tires since I rarely need to travel outside the metro area (except on interstate highways) during the winter.)
Tread Life: tires were new at 20,800 miles and have been replaced at 45,000. Therefore they lasted approx. 24,000 miles. (In truth, they should have been replaced a few months ago.) They were rotated about every 7500 miles but I skipped what should have been the 3rd rotation, last fall. At replacement, the fronts were worn just to the wear bars and the rears very nearly so. (In other words, at inspection the rears would barely pass and the fronts would be a marginal fail. I've seen more worn-looking tires on a lot of cars.) They wore almost evenly but slightly more in the centers than at the shoulders. (I did run them about 5 psi above the recommended pressure, front and rear.) Overall, in view of my driving pattern and style, I think this is adequate longevity, but not impressive.
Traction performance: when new, the Ziexes were a vast improvement over the Bridgestones in wet weather (not a great benchmark, but most readers can relate to this). The first winter I had them, they were OK in the snow - not great, but considering they are all-season, not snow tires, I was happy enough with them. However, over the past year they have deteriorated significantly. During the past winter the car was all but impossible to drive even after a light snow (I mean 1 to 2"), making hill descents *very* interesting and ascents sometimes impossible. Don't even ask about deep snow - I learned to simply avoid roads that had not been plowed and salted. They also became excessively sensitive to hydroplaning, with the car feeling loose and greasy at 60 mph on roads with a very thin water cover, and at much lower speeds in shallow puddles. On a recent interstate trip on a rainy day, I had to slow to 55-60 mph frequently in order to maintain control, while most of the traffic around me was able to maintain speed.
Handling performance: By the end of life, as you might expect, the Falkens were inadequate at cornering on a wet road, with frequent incidents of the front end skittering wide of the intended line, even without acceleration. I also got very used to spinning the inside wheel while accelerating around a corner. Again, this was noticeably worse over about the last year.
By constrast, on a dry road, hot or cold, they remained fine - in fact, in contrast to the Bridgestones, which felt hard and slippery at low temperatures even on a dry road, the Falkens seemed to feel much the same at all temperatures. That impressed me.
They maintained good steering feel and on-center feel up to the end. If anything, too much road feel, since they seemed to be annoyingly sensitive to road camber.
Comfort: I always felt the Falkens to be a little harsher riding than the Bridgstones, but nothing unacceptable. My impression is that as they have worn down, they have become unpleasantly noisy at highway speed - it is difficult to be sure about this since changes occur so gradually.
Summary: good 15,000 mile tires but after that, not so good.
For the curious, the new tires are Avon M550s in the stock size. They are brand-new, mounted yesterday, so I can hardly comment on them yet. (My first, very preliminary impression is that a lot of feedback has gone out of the steering - I hope that's not really so.) I'll post again after a few weeks. I chose them based on price and Tire Rack ratings indicating that people are happy with them and that they seem to do OK in snow.
(first a word about driving conditions: My driving pattern is mostly low-speed suburban commuting with occasional highway trips. I tend to accelerate and corner a little faster than most but overall I am not a fast or hard driver. I live and work just outside Boston. The area definitely has summer and winter but temperatures are rarely extreme. There is fairly frequent light snow in the winter and occasional heavy snow, and a lot of small, but sometimes steep, hills. I don't mount snow tires since I rarely need to travel outside the metro area (except on interstate highways) during the winter.)
Tread Life: tires were new at 20,800 miles and have been replaced at 45,000. Therefore they lasted approx. 24,000 miles. (In truth, they should have been replaced a few months ago.) They were rotated about every 7500 miles but I skipped what should have been the 3rd rotation, last fall. At replacement, the fronts were worn just to the wear bars and the rears very nearly so. (In other words, at inspection the rears would barely pass and the fronts would be a marginal fail. I've seen more worn-looking tires on a lot of cars.) They wore almost evenly but slightly more in the centers than at the shoulders. (I did run them about 5 psi above the recommended pressure, front and rear.) Overall, in view of my driving pattern and style, I think this is adequate longevity, but not impressive.
Traction performance: when new, the Ziexes were a vast improvement over the Bridgestones in wet weather (not a great benchmark, but most readers can relate to this). The first winter I had them, they were OK in the snow - not great, but considering they are all-season, not snow tires, I was happy enough with them. However, over the past year they have deteriorated significantly. During the past winter the car was all but impossible to drive even after a light snow (I mean 1 to 2"), making hill descents *very* interesting and ascents sometimes impossible. Don't even ask about deep snow - I learned to simply avoid roads that had not been plowed and salted. They also became excessively sensitive to hydroplaning, with the car feeling loose and greasy at 60 mph on roads with a very thin water cover, and at much lower speeds in shallow puddles. On a recent interstate trip on a rainy day, I had to slow to 55-60 mph frequently in order to maintain control, while most of the traffic around me was able to maintain speed.
Handling performance: By the end of life, as you might expect, the Falkens were inadequate at cornering on a wet road, with frequent incidents of the front end skittering wide of the intended line, even without acceleration. I also got very used to spinning the inside wheel while accelerating around a corner. Again, this was noticeably worse over about the last year.
By constrast, on a dry road, hot or cold, they remained fine - in fact, in contrast to the Bridgestones, which felt hard and slippery at low temperatures even on a dry road, the Falkens seemed to feel much the same at all temperatures. That impressed me.
They maintained good steering feel and on-center feel up to the end. If anything, too much road feel, since they seemed to be annoyingly sensitive to road camber.
Comfort: I always felt the Falkens to be a little harsher riding than the Bridgstones, but nothing unacceptable. My impression is that as they have worn down, they have become unpleasantly noisy at highway speed - it is difficult to be sure about this since changes occur so gradually.
Summary: good 15,000 mile tires but after that, not so good.
For the curious, the new tires are Avon M550s in the stock size. They are brand-new, mounted yesterday, so I can hardly comment on them yet. (My first, very preliminary impression is that a lot of feedback has gone out of the steering - I hope that's not really so.) I'll post again after a few weeks. I chose them based on price and Tire Rack ratings indicating that people are happy with them and that they seem to do OK in snow.
08-09-2006, 12:34 PM
#95
Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 84
I have a set of Falkens on my 77 Z and love em, sticky, handle great, quiet, I wouldn't expect them to be a high milage tire though. They are a much better tire than the Michelin pilots on the 76 blue Z. Max came with Dulop's on it got to burn em up, then going to get a set of Falkens in it.
Discount Tire had the best pricing on them, free shipping mounting and balancing if you order off the website.
Discount Tire had the best pricing on them, free shipping mounting and balancing if you order off the website.
08-30-2006, 06:33 PM
#97
Lookie what i got 
damn, i love the smell of fresh tires! they ride smooth if you ask me...I even have them set at 38psi...not bad...I'll see how well it corners after I get an alignment this weekend!!
damn, i love the smell of fresh tires! they ride smooth if you ask me...I even have them set at 38psi...not bad...I'll see how well it corners after I get an alignment this weekend!!
08-30-2006, 07:55 PM
#100
Originally Posted by kamilkluczewski
The car shakes at speeds 60-80mph. I think the front right tires was so misbalanced that it warped a rotor (only 1 week old rotor) now it pulsates under braking.
The tires were unbalanced so they warped a rotor? I'd love to hear how that physically could be possible.More likely: The shop that mounted your wheels cranked the lug nuts unevenly and/or too tight with an impact gun and warped the rotor or hub or bent the wheel center (extreme).....The tires are probably balanced but the rotor is warped, hence the pulsating under braking but not, say, when cruising on the highway (when unbalanced tires are most noticeable).
I'm not saying the 512s are a perfect tire or anything, but blaming your warped rotors (which are common on maximas with all kinds of tires) on the tires is stretching it......just a bit
What next, the unbalanced tires caused your sunroof not to work?
08-30-2006, 08:06 PM
#101
he he, I didn't bump it. It WAS at the top.
I hope they are all Steve wants (although the "ZE512" font is slightly different from the crap ones I owned. For his sake, I hope Falken changed more than just easthetics on them).
Edit. I dug up the old pics and the logo is the same. Po bastid.
I hope they are all Steve wants (although the "ZE512" font is slightly different from the crap ones I owned. For his sake, I hope Falken changed more than just easthetics on them).
Edit. I dug up the old pics and the logo is the same. Po bastid.
08-30-2006, 08:19 PM
#102
Originally Posted by CCS2k1Max
he he, I didn't bump it. It WAS at the top.
I hope they are all Steve wants (although the "ZE512" font is slightly different from the crap ones I owned. For his sake, I hope Falken changed more than just easthetics on them).
Edit. I dug up the old pics and the logo is the same. Po bastid.
I hope they are all Steve wants (although the "ZE512" font is slightly different from the crap ones I owned. For his sake, I hope Falken changed more than just easthetics on them).
Edit. I dug up the old pics and the logo is the same. Po bastid.
btw, what made you think the 512 lettering different than yours?
09-01-2006, 05:50 AM
#106
Newbie - Just Registered
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 10
Higher pressure "tightens" that axle
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson
I can't speak for any possible dragstrip benefit from lower front tire pressure.
But I can tell you that lower front pressures tend to give you a case of "steering feel by Novocain" and you'll be cornering on the sidewalls.
I'm running about 7 psi more up front than in the back . . .
Norm
But I can tell you that lower front pressures tend to give you a case of "steering feel by Novocain" and you'll be cornering on the sidewalls.
I'm running about 7 psi more up front than in the back . . .
Norm
Wider rear tires are the next step to controlling oversteer. Porsche started this on street cars when 911s simultaneously bulked up and started selling to people with more money than skill. A lot of unhappy yuppies oversteered off the road - Porsche had to tame it to move upmarket, and wider rear tires were part of the "cure". Running wider fronts will tame understeer, but it affects other things negatively and isn't often a great idea.
09-01-2006, 08:26 AM
#107
Originally Posted by bluesman
Front-heavy cars (FWD or RWD) usually handle best with higher front pressure because it reduces understeer by stiffening the tire and maximizing the contact patch - at least until it's so high that it distorts the patch. Most cars prone to oversteer (e.g. rear-engines like 911s) benefit from higher rear tire pressures than front.
Wider rear tires are the next step to controlling oversteer. Porsche started this on street cars when 911s simultaneously bulked up and started selling to people with more money than skill. A lot of unhappy yuppies oversteered off the road - Porsche had to tame it to move upmarket, and wider rear tires were part of the "cure". Running wider fronts will tame understeer, but it affects other things negatively and isn't often a great idea.
Wider rear tires are the next step to controlling oversteer. Porsche started this on street cars when 911s simultaneously bulked up and started selling to people with more money than skill. A lot of unhappy yuppies oversteered off the road - Porsche had to tame it to move upmarket, and wider rear tires were part of the "cure". Running wider fronts will tame understeer, but it affects other things negatively and isn't often a great idea.
I don't know if that has ever been done before around these parts
09-01-2006, 08:32 AM
#108
Originally Posted by bluesman
Front-heavy cars (FWD or RWD) usually handle best with higher front pressure because it reduces understeer by stiffening the tire and maximizing the contact patch - at least until it's so high that it distorts the patch. Most cars prone to oversteer (e.g. rear-engines like 911s) benefit from higher rear tire pressures than front.
Originally Posted by bluesman
Wider rear tires are the next step to controlling oversteer. Porsche started this on street cars when 911s simultaneously bulked up and started selling to people with more money than skill. A lot of unhappy yuppies oversteered off the road - Porsche had to tame it to move upmarket, and wider rear tires were part of the "cure".
Originally Posted by bluesman
Running wider fronts will tame understeer, but it affects other things negatively and isn't often a great idea.
I have no interest in running a wider tire up front in a street application (for aesthetic's sake, primarily but also because I don't "want" the tail to rotate as much on public street driving, and like the additional rear lateral traction on wet streets). That said, I don't see what it can affect negatively (assuming correct size/offset of tire/wheel) to run wider up front, as long as the driver is aware of the change in handling. Please elaborate.
09-01-2006, 04:33 PM
#109
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 1,341
Originally Posted by irish44j
uh oh...somebody challenging Norm on handling/suspension issues
Two words and a number relative to the slightly off-topic digression: Pelle Lindbergh. 1985.
Norm
09-01-2006, 04:43 PM
#110
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson
Not taken that way. Without having backtracked through this thread, I suspect that the original question had more to do with launch grip at the strip than cornering.
Two words and a number relative to the slightly off-topic digression: Pelle Lindbergh. 1985.
Norm
Two words and a number relative to the slightly off-topic digression: Pelle Lindbergh. 1985.
Norm
Or did he oversteer into the wall because of too much power/not enough grip in the 911 Turbo he was driving? I don't really remember, I was only 10 or 11 when it happened.
09-01-2006, 05:09 PM
#111
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 1,341
I'd say that falls within the category of having "more money than skill", at least at that particular instant. That bluesman lists Philly as his location, mention of the 911 and its skill demands suggests more than coincidence. Bonus points if you can find yet another coincidence in all of this.
09-01-2006, 05:41 PM
#112
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson
I'd say that falls within the category of having "more money than skill", at least at that particular instant. That bluesman lists Philly as his location, mention of the 911 and its skill demands suggests more than coincidence. Bonus points if you can find yet another coincidence in all of this.
I'm not much of a hockey fan, but I'd have to assume then that Pelle played for the Flyers.....
09-08-2006, 11:19 AM
#114
Originally Posted by Rusty Nutz
The 15" Falkens are a great tire, very sticky, handle well. I don't expect to get a lot of miles out of them however. I have the 15's on my 77 Z.I would buy them again.
10-20-2006, 01:33 PM
#115
Newbie - Just Registered
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1
Falken 512's scalloping?
Anyone have a problem with the Falken 512's scalloping?
I have the stock size, cant remember off the top of my head. 32psi cold all around. Rotated every 7500. Not very aggressive driving, sometimes aggressive accelerating though. Probably 25000 miles on them.
Anything over 65-70 mph I have vibrations comming thru the steering wheel, and sometimes you can feel it in the body of the car. Put the car up, and nothing in the suspension feels loose or wobbly. Wheels have been balanced a few times.
I was wondering if other people have experienced this?
Thanks in advance.
I have the stock size, cant remember off the top of my head. 32psi cold all around. Rotated every 7500. Not very aggressive driving, sometimes aggressive accelerating though. Probably 25000 miles on them.
Anything over 65-70 mph I have vibrations comming thru the steering wheel, and sometimes you can feel it in the body of the car. Put the car up, and nothing in the suspension feels loose or wobbly. Wheels have been balanced a few times.
I was wondering if other people have experienced this?
Thanks in advance.
10-20-2006, 02:17 PM
#116
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 1,341
About the same mileage here, similar minor vibration, but no scalloping. When I drive it, hard cornering, occasional WOT in 2nd or higher. When my wife drives it, only mild to moderate cornering/braking/acceleration.
They don't have all of their original wet acceleration grip any more, and are starting to lose enough off the combination of acceleration and cornering and the deep-water hydroplaning resistance to notice. But wet braking still seems to be holding up.
They're still on the short list, if barely. But they are no longer the shoe-in choice for the next replacement.
I don't fully agree with Consumer Report's latest review as regards tread life. IMO, a mark like that should be reserved for tires that are at or into the wear bars before 20,000 miles have been accumulated.
Norm
They don't have all of their original wet acceleration grip any more, and are starting to lose enough off the combination of acceleration and cornering and the deep-water hydroplaning resistance to notice. But wet braking still seems to be holding up.
They're still on the short list, if barely. But they are no longer the shoe-in choice for the next replacement.
I don't fully agree with Consumer Report's latest review as regards tread life. IMO, a mark like that should be reserved for tires that are at or into the wear bars before 20,000 miles have been accumulated.
Norm
11-14-2006, 12:23 PM
#117
512's - Reluctantly.
I ran out of options and time was a factor, so I got the Falkens. I SWORE I wouldn't. I had to get something cheap for now, and in stock size.
I have 1k miles on them now, so time will tell.
I came off Kumho 712's, and they were SHOT - so naturally, these feel 100% better.
FIRST IMPRESSIONS:
Quieter, Slower Turn-In, softer sidewall (duh), stable at speed, mushy in the corners, decent grip both wet and dry. No snow here yet, but not expecting anything in the white stuff.
I am pleased that the ride has smoothed-out since the too hard Kumhos. I've lost alot of cornering ability and road feel, but what I've gained in comfort is WELL worth the trade.
I am REALLY hoping I don't have any balancing issues....I'm OVER that.
I paid about $106 ea. @ Tires Plus + additionals. I have to say -- I was NOT unhappy with the Kumhos, and nearly bought another set. I WANTED the Yoko Avid V4s, but nobody had them in stock, and they all wanted $50 extra to get them.
I think the old maxim of you get what you pay for, always applies with tires.
I have to agree with previous posts: Consumer Reports WAY-over rated these tires....but most of us ARE "enthusiastic" about our driving experiences.
gr
I have 1k miles on them now, so time will tell.
I came off Kumho 712's, and they were SHOT - so naturally, these feel 100% better.
FIRST IMPRESSIONS:
Quieter, Slower Turn-In, softer sidewall (duh), stable at speed, mushy in the corners, decent grip both wet and dry. No snow here yet, but not expecting anything in the white stuff.
I am pleased that the ride has smoothed-out since the too hard Kumhos. I've lost alot of cornering ability and road feel, but what I've gained in comfort is WELL worth the trade.
I am REALLY hoping I don't have any balancing issues....I'm OVER that.
I paid about $106 ea. @ Tires Plus + additionals. I have to say -- I was NOT unhappy with the Kumhos, and nearly bought another set. I WANTED the Yoko Avid V4s, but nobody had them in stock, and they all wanted $50 extra to get them.
I think the old maxim of you get what you pay for, always applies with tires.
I have to agree with previous posts: Consumer Reports WAY-over rated these tires....but most of us ARE "enthusiastic" about our driving experiences.
gr
12-17-2006, 04:35 AM
#118
I have a set on a 99max and a 02 sable wagon. Excellent value in dry performance, as many others have mentioned. Good in the rain.
Snow is terrible. In Pittsburgh, it snows frequently, and there's often a couple of inches of slush covering the hills. The tires have been the worst I've owned in these conditions, and are not at all confidence inspiring. It should've been obvious from the tread pattern that this was the case: there's almost no siping.
If I still lived in South Jersey, where everything shuts down when there's a couple of inches of snow on the ground and it's cleared later the same day (instead of turning into a slush that covers the road for weeks), I'd buy these again.
Snow is terrible. In Pittsburgh, it snows frequently, and there's often a couple of inches of slush covering the hills. The tires have been the worst I've owned in these conditions, and are not at all confidence inspiring. It should've been obvious from the tread pattern that this was the case: there's almost no siping.
If I still lived in South Jersey, where everything shuts down when there's a couple of inches of snow on the ground and it's cleared later the same day (instead of turning into a slush that covers the road for weeks), I'd buy these again.
01-29-2007, 12:53 PM
#119
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 106
Given the choice between the 512s @$84each or Toyo Proxies4 @$106each in stock 5.5gen 17" size, what would you all do? I'm primarily concerned with the all season aspect of these tires, as I live in upstate NY. The 512's seemed to get mixed reviews in the snow traction department.
Not sure if this was the right place to ask or not, feel free to scold me if I made a booboo.
Not sure if this was the right place to ask or not, feel free to scold me if I made a booboo.
01-29-2007, 08:00 PM
#120
I just got back from some snow time on the Ziex512's....I can now say that they BLOW in the snow.
Best in the dry, okay in the wet, and just pathetic in the snow.
I don't have any experience with the proxes 4's, so take this for what it's worth.
Again, you get what you pay for is all I can say.
gr
Best in the dry, okay in the wet, and just pathetic in the snow.
I don't have any experience with the proxes 4's, so take this for what it's worth.
Again, you get what you pay for is all I can say.
gr