Kojiro_FtT

Here is my review of the Falken Zeix ZE-512 in size 225/50-17 on stock 5.5 gen Maxima SE wheels and stock suspension.

This is a long post, but I have titled each section so you can skip the comments that you don't want to read.

Why I wanted a new tire:
The Bridgestone Potenza RE92s that come on the car have great dry traction. I was very pleased with them at the autocross. However, the wet weather traction was poor and the snow traction was down right scary. So I got snow tires and then when the time came I shopped for a new 3 season tire.

The choices:
Choices for the 225/50-17 have grown substantially in the last two years. Having snow tires, I was open to both summer tires and AS.
Here are most of the choices I could find and my initial impressions of them:
Bridgestone Potenza RE92 (all-season) - We know about these.
Bridgestone Potenza RE050 (summer) - Too costly
Bridgestone Potenza RE040 (summer) - Too costly.
Bridgestone Turanze LS-V (all-season) - Honestly, I just wanted to steer away from Bridgestone after my RE92s.
Continental ContiTouringContact CV95 (all-season) - Looks like the same thing as the RE92s.
Dunlop SP Sport 01 DSST - Looks like a good tire, but too costly.
Falken Zeix ZE-512 (all-season) - Good price. Looks like a good wet weather tread pattern.
Goodyear Eagle RS-A - Looks like the same thing as the RE92s.
Kumho ECSTA KH11 (summer) - Good price. Looks like a good wet weather tread pattern.
Michelin Pilot HX MXM4 (all-season) - Costly.
Michelin Pilot SX MXX3 (summer) - Too costly.
Michelin Pilot Sport A/S - Too costly.
Nitto NT-450 Extreme Performance (all-season) - Good price, tread pattern similar to RE92s.
(most of these you can check out at tirerack.com)


Why I chose Falken:
I narrowed it down to the Kumhos and the Falkens with these qualifications:
1. Price (both are ~$110 each)
2. Reviews from the org, tirerack.com, and nasioc.com.
3. Tread pattern. Now I am obviously not a tire expert. But, you'll notice the RE92s have a real basic tread pattern with no wide grooves that allows for a larger surface area contact patch. I can logically deduce that this is why it has good dry traction and poor wet/snow traction. I have also heard from others that the Nittos have poor wet weather traction, and the Nittos have a similar tread pattern to the RE92s. So I ruled out all tires that share similar tread pattern with the RE92s.

So to choose between the Kumho and Falken I looked further. I had read on nasioc.com that the Kumhos are very loud. I also found the weights on a specific retailer's website and found that the Falkens were something like 7 pounds lighter! Edit: I found the Falken weight: 22.5 lbs. So the Kumhos were close to 29 lbs. Anyways, that did it for me, the weight difference and the road noise comments made me decide on the Falkens.

Where I ordered them:
I tried ordering them from tires.com but they were out of stock, despite the webpage saying they were well stocked. Then I was refered by a friend to EdgeRacing.com and ordered them there. The service was great and the tires arrived quickly. They were $97 a tire, totalling $437.44 after S/H.

My opinion of the tires:
I have only had the tires on for 2 weeks now, but I love them. The road noise is comparable to the RE92s; they are not silent but not very loud either. It has been raining heavily the last couple days and the tires cut through the rain like butter. The dry traction seems to be comparable as well, at least for daily driving and the occasional full-throttle acceleration through 1st and 2nd. I really love tossing the car around on these tires. Even just casual turns and acceleration is more comfortable. Maybe they are lighter than the RE92s as well? I don't know. But I am very very pleased with these tires.

I will return for more comments:
I will return for a long term review, in several months or so. I will also return and comment on these tires after I get to the autocross this year. I suspect that they will not perform as well as the RE92s at the autocross, but since I only go like twice a year, I am not concerned about it at all. And finally I hope to return after I try them in the snow next winter before switching to my winter tires, but that is so far away now I may not remember to do so. But I really expect these tires to have decent snow traction compared to the RE92s.

2Stoney1

I see there not on your list but have you heard anything about the Hankook Ventus H405?

After reading your review (excellent!), I'm going to do some shopping around locally here for a Falken dealer.

Stoney

MeanGreenMax

I have Falkens ZE- 512 235/ 45Z R17 Tires. All I can say is, EXCELLENT TIRE! Thumps up!

Ammi

iTrader: (26)

Excelent choice.

RaTgoesMaX

Have you any experience with Falken Azenis ST-115 Z rated.

I am looking at this tire and a Yokohama AVS ES100. There is some write up on the Yoko`s but nothing on the Falkens. Any thoughts would be appreciated..

Ammi

iTrader: (26)

I got Falken 115s right now. They are soft tires. Don't expect to get a lot of miles from them. But they do grip the road well; dry or wet

RaTgoesMaX

So the 512`s would be a better choice?

Ammi

iTrader: (26)

512s are all season tires. 115s are summer tires.

RaTgoesMaX

OK, understand. Thanx

bremner44

where did you get the tires mounted and now much did that cost? Did they come with any kind of waranty like Discount Tire gives? I priced the Falken 512s at Discount Tire today and it would cost about $630 for all four tires, free lifetime balance and rotation, free roadhazard, and tire replacement. Can I get a better deal than that? I could also get the Nitto 450s which are on sale right now for about the same price. Is there a cheaper way I can go other than Dicount Tire and still get the waranties and free services? Thanks. I live in Houston.

stock 17' tires

Ammi

iTrader: (26)

If the store carries Falken line of tires, they should be able to offer you road hazzard. I don't know any other local tire shops who carry Falken tires besides Discount Tire.

You can't go wrong with either choice.

ICELANDIC MAX

iTrader: (1)

great review! thanks

nick

iTrader: (10)

i have Falkens 512 on stock SE rim - great tire overall but they need to be run with slightly higher pressure than what factory recomends.
I've had them at 32psi front and 29Psi rear - things were loose and sloppy - i've increased the fronts to 37Psi and rear to 31psi (cold ) - car handles much better now !!!

Nick.

Virus

iTrader: (1)

Well, I thought that I would wait a 1,000 miles to give my input and here it goes. I've had a problem with balancing 1 tire. I've taken it back 5 times now and Sears is still unsure if it's the rim or the tire. They said if I drive it for a while and still feel there is a problem then I can exchange it. These tires lean quit a bit showing their soft sidewalls. That is my only negative comment however. They stick to the road like crazy glue, even on very wet roads. I saw many people hydroplaning last week during terrential downpoors and I was able to cut through the water like butter. The 512's are very quiet tires in comparison to the stock Turanza EL42's and they absorb bumps now that used to make my kidneys bleed.

Sears matched the price from Edgeracing.com and discounttire.com. With shipping, both were within $1 of each other. Sears charged an extra $10 mounting fee that they would normally charge if you bring your own tires in, making the tires $115 a piece, plus the $14.99 balancing. Roughly $130 a tire installed. Fantastic price. Their normal price is $128 a tire and they had tons in stock. I never get the road hazard as I feel it's a total waste of money. I'm 33 and have only had 3 flat tires in my life. All in all, it's hard to beat this tire for the price.

SEmy2K2go

iTrader: (10)

I'm currently and running 40lbs in the fronts and 36 in the rears. Ride feels much better with this setup.

RaTgoesMaX

How is the wear pattern with those tire pressures?

bighunt

iTrader: (1)

What psi are you guys running w/your 512s? i just checked mine and it's at 45psi. i think that's a little high, but it came like that stock. what do ya'll recommend?

BigFly_2K2SE

iTrader: (1)

This might be a dumb question, but isn't it typical to run lower pressure in the fronts where you need the traction and higher pressure in the rears that are just along for the ride? I notice that both you and nick mention higher pressures in the front.

nick

iTrader: (10)

well with higher pressure up front and slightly higher in rear i feel like the suspension is finally able to do its job esspecially when it comes to absorbing small bumps and road imperfections.
The car fells very "solid" now and that makes me very happy.

with standard pressure of 32 psi front and 29 psi in rear car feelt sloopy and loose - it seemed the the "underinflated" tires were absorbing all the road imperfections not allowing the struts/springs do their intended job.

as far as uneven wear - i have not noticed anything unusual - i'll keep a close eye on it though.
aloso you need higher pressure up front to support the engine/tranny.

Nick.

Virus

iTrader: (1)

At the suggested 32psi all the way around on my 2k2, the tires felt squirmy on the road. 35psi seems to fix the problem.

slickrick

iTrader: (12)

so the 512's are not any better for launching when compared to the re92's?

Virus

iTrader: (1)

I haven't had any problems with them breaking traction. They stick to the road really well.

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

RaTgoesMaX

Norm what are Cliffs views on the subject? j/k

Norm Peterson

He's been strangely silent on the topic . . . and he wasn't even in the bar last night.

RaTgoesMaX

I like a sense of humor. I use the recommended pressures in the manual. No prob.

bgates1654

Vulcantire.com has some really good prices on the Falken 512s.
225/50VR17 $96
225/45ZR17 $89
235/45ZR17 $89 (if you feel like going out of spec a bit)

I picked up the 235/45ZR17s for $389 shipped. I am getting them balanced and mounted for free today

RaTgoesMaX

I checked the site you mentioned http://www.vulcantire.com/ They seem like good prices and the shipping is extra.

phenryiv1

iTrader: (19)

Has anyone run these tires in a 15" size? If so, what are your impressions?

Cutler

iTrader: (3)

I have the 512s on the SER, so nice. 205/40/17s on SER, woh no fender seen , gotta love tucking 17s in the rear

RaTgoesMaX

Here check them out at Tiretrends.com
http://www.tiretrends.com/catalog2.php3?tireID=377

phenryiv1

iTrader: (19)

When did you get them mounted? I need to come by and check them out.

soulrupture

I have those falkens in 225/45/17. Running 32psi all around. Snow and ice traction are HORRABLE! I found that in wet weather traction they are marginal. (keep in mined I have no ABS so I skid very easy) Dry traction is very good,("A" traction rating) but not as good as my yokohomas( "AA" Traction rating) avs 100s 205/45/17.( they are for sell less then 200 miles on them) Too small so I got the Falkens.
I enjoy the tire and feel it's a very good value. I would recomend them but as stated before not good in snow and on ice.

Setup:
eibach springs
KYB AGX Struts and shocks (setting 2 front 4 rear)

RaTgoesMaX

Some like them, some don`t. Would you say they are better than my origional Goodyear Eagle RSA`s ?

mad_max2k2se

I just got the Falken 512s today at Sears. They price matched EdgeRacing. Just printed the order sheet and took it in.

They seam quieter than the potenzas, I got 49K miles mostly highway from those.

Handled well on wet roads.

pocketrocket

iTrader: (1)

The one negative/neutral comment about Falken 512s are the soft sidewalls.

Are you running 45 or 50 profile tires? I'm just wondering if instead of 225/50/17, would 225/45/17 reduce or eliminate the rolling/sloppy feel in the corners.

costcowholesale

iTrader: (12)

hey guys I'm gonna order those tomorrow I have a few questions. I'm going to be rolling those on my ugly 15 inch sawblades anyways my question is should I get 205/65/15 in V rating or 215/60/15 in H rating?

the V cost $10 more per tire... but I'm reading that you guys think the sidewall is soft maybe the extra stiffness from V would help? ... but the 215s also have lower sidewall percentage... what should I get? the 205 H or 215 V?

phenryiv1

iTrader: (19)

I am going with the 215 60 15 in the H rated, personally. It all depends on whether you want the V rating or the H, and how the profile matters to you. I am not sure about the sidewall thickness differences between the H and V ratings, but I know that the 215 in H are fine with the current tires on my I30, so I am going with them again.

Eleebob7

Dang, I'm at 25k on mine and they're almost gone.

JettmiesterMax

My original Pontenzas have just over 50K on them now and still in pretty good shape. I'll be getting some new tires soon before summer is over, and I gues I will go with the Falken. There sure isnt much to choose form for the 17" 02-03 Max SE. I have alwyas loved my Dunlop Sport A2 (on my 95 max)and Sport 5000 (on my classic 91 SE-R), but these arent available for my 02 6-speed. Alot of tires aren't.