I have seen both of these tires talked about, and read the test results over on Tirerack, but I am currently trying to decide between the two of them, and could use some help from the community :smile: Here are the tires:

205/50-16 Pirelli PZero Nero
215/50-16 BF Goodrich g-Force T/A KDW

I know is that I should not have any rubbing issues with either tire (stock 16x6.5" MC rims), as I have not done any modifications to my Sport Suspension Plus. I also know that the Pirelli tires should give a much smoother ride. However, given that I have the Goodyear runflats right now, I'm not worried about the ride comfort of either tire. That said, I was wondering which tire would yield better results in three areas:

1) Dry traction
2) Wet traction
3) Initial cornering (turn-in) responsiveness

Thanks in advance! (perhaps Alex@tirerack will drop by )

 

Whoops, I forgot to mention that I live in the Los Angeles area, so snow traction is of no concern to me, and the worst weather condition I would expect here in SoCal would be a light to moderate rain on an asphalt surface.

 

Take at look at the Goodyear Eagle F1 from the Tirerack, seems to handle well wet or dry, have better than most treadwear and the price is reasonable.

 

The BFG has more dry grip, and looks cooler.

The Nero is quite more comfortable, and better in rain.

Depends on where your prioroties are.

Alex

_________________
Alex ext 294

800 522 8473

Tire & Wheel forum moderator

www.tirerack.com

alex@tirerack.com

 

Hmm...I'll probably go w/ the BF Goodrich tires then! Wet traction isn't that much of a concern for me, and I'm currently using runflats w/ no ride comfort/noise complaints.

Thanks Alex!

 

This is mostly a followup question for Alex at the Tire Rack:

I'm also looking into tire choice for the 16" V-spokes,
and can't quite figure out what the actual differences in tire sizes would result in:

options I have narrowed my choice down to (tire choice aside):

A) 215 / 45 - 16 sidewall 3.8"

B) 215 / 50 - 16 sidewall 4.2"

C) 205 / 50 - 16 sidewall 4.0"

I know that A is 3.4% smaller dia than stock, B is 0.1% smaller, and C is 1.5% larger.

I understand all three sizes will fit on the stock rims, without any rubbing issues.
I would guess that 215s will put more rubber on the ground, and have a wider footprint than 205. However, I would guess the 215s will have a sidewall that will be a little more rounded as a result of the wider tire.
Would that make them softer in terms of lateral stability, and promote understeer (or pushing of the car in corners), or would cornering ability me the same as 205 or better (because larger contact area). How about stiffnes vs softness of ride (other issues like brand and type aside), as a result of the sidewall curvature?

I might add that for option B I would get the Kumho ECSTA, and for C I would get the Yoko AVS 100. A would be the Falken Azenis, but it's currently lowest on my list of three finalists.

TIA!!!!

Markus

 

>>This is mostly a followup question for Alex at the Tire Rack:
>>
>>I'm also looking into tire choice for the 16" V-spokes,
>>and can't quite figure out what the actual differences in tire sizes would result in:
>>
>>options I have narrowed my choice down to (tire choice aside):
>>
>>A) 215 / 45 - 16 sidewall 3.8"
>>
>>B) 215 / 50 - 16 sidewall 4.2"
>>
>>C) 205 / 50 - 16 sidewall 4.0"
>>
>>I know that A is 3.4% smaller dia than stock, B is 0.1% smaller, and C is 1.5% larger.
>>
>>I understand all three sizes will fit on the stock rims, without any rubbing issues.
>>I would guess that 215s will put more rubber on the ground, and have a wider footprint than 205. However, I would guess the 215s will have a sidewall that will be a little more rounded as a result of the wider tire.
>>Would that make them softer in terms of lateral stability, and promote understeer (or pushing of the car in corners), or would cornering ability me the same as 205 or better (because larger contact area). How about stiffnes vs softness of ride (other issues like brand and type aside), as a result of the sidewall curvature?
>>
>>I might add that for option B I would get the Kumho ECSTA, and for C I would get the Yoko AVS 100. A would be the Falken Azenis, but it's currently lowest on my list of three finalists.
>>
>>TIA!!!!
>>
>>Markus

When your asking me about lateral stavility 205 vs 215, what profile would you like me to compair?

215 would give a wider contact patch, but the shape is the only variable. Area touching the ground does not increase or decrease.

Alex

 

>>When your asking me about lateral stavility 205 vs 215, what profile would you like me to compair?
>>
>>215 would give a wider contact patch, but the shape is the only variable. Area touching the ground does not increase or decrease.
>>
>>Alex

Pretty much my two listed choices which are both in 50 (unless you can recomend some other good ones):

the Kumho ECSTA 215 / 50 vs the Yoko AVS 100 in size 205 / 50.

I'd like to soften my current ride (SP5000s 195/55 runflats) a little bit, while improving control, if that is possible. I'm hoping to get softer by going to non run-flats, and imporving control by going to a slightly wider tire but without decreasing sidewall too much (hence not the 45s). I have heard that for example the Azenis 215/45-16 combo is absolutely great for control and traction, but is just about as stiff as the Dunlop runflats (since the Azenis has a very stiff sidewall).

M.

 

You'll want to keep your tires within 3% of the stock diameter, which would rule out the 215/45's.