adam c

iTrader: (2)

Well, I finally got my new yoko's mounted and on the FD. They are 245/45/16's on stock 8" rims. My first impression is that they are quiet. The old Bridgestone 730's were very noisy since I bought the car nearly two years ago. No more howling. What a relief. I have not had a chance to test the performance yet, but the sidewalls feel a little stiffer. That should give me a little better steering response.

I will post more after driving a bit.

Oh yeah, $93 each at the Tire Rack.

reza

hahaha....so you finaly bought the new tires. Did you look at Kumho MX? I hope you don't decide against it because I slide it around last event.

I had the Yoko ES100 previously, a good drift tires.

dis1

I have the ES100 tires and think they are ok for the money. At the track they weren't the greatest though. I am much happier with my Firestone SZ50s.

adam c

iTrader: (2)

I have had Yoko's before, but not this one. I have always been happy with the quality. I bought this tire because I thought it would give me the best combination of performance and durability at a price that was very attractive. It's going to be a street tire that will be autocrossed once in a while. Absolute maximum grip was not a requirement.

Reza, Do Kumho's make all cars spin like that

93 R1

es 100's are nice. Thats what I got

adam c

iTrader: (2)

Observation #2. The car no longer wants to grab every line on the road. Straight line stability is much improved.

Decay

Sweet. Although I didn't want to "cheap out" on tires, I couldn't pass up the deal and I was hoping for some positive reviews from an FD driver. I bought them back in Aug. and they are still sitting in my garage...wanted to get my suspension on first.

Adam...any rubbing??? After I ordered the tires, Tire Rack actually called me and recommended against the 245/45s because apparently owners complained on rubbing (on an FD). I went with them anyway...

p.s.- car rides in Konis/Eibachs

Snrub

iTrader: (1)

I really like my 225/45/16 ES100s although I was a bit disappointed at their wear at the track. I suppose it's really too much to ask of any tire. Even competition tires aren't suppose to last that long at the track.

SZ50 are primo-primo tires. Ofcourse they perform better than ES100s.

adam c

iTrader: (2)

I have stock suspension. My previous tires were 245/45/16's and they never rubbed. These tires appear to be the same size. Sometimes tire sizes differ a little between manufacturers. No rubbing so far. I would be shocked if they did.

reza

The 245/45/16 Yoko ES100 has smaller overall diameter than most other 245/45/16, so they would not rub at all. Also as long as they are on stock rims. I had eibach and tokico previously.

They are good overall. They grip good not best, well they are 280 treadwear so don't hope too much.

I used it for 3 drift event, a season of autocross, two trips to LA; total of about 4000 miles, and I just replaced them a month ago.
All I can say the wear is fast! Don't know why. Most people can get 12-15K miles out of them.

I am on Kumho MX now. This one feels good too.
But all new tires always feels good grip.
One drift event, and you will know its true behaviour.

Tad

got some pics of how they look on your car??

adam c

iTrader: (2)

I don't know how to post pics here. I could e-mail a pic, or you could PM me with instructions to post a pic.

SoCalLove

Glad to hear some positive reviews on the yoko's. I just got off the phone right now w/ my shop and I ordered some es100's as well. Can't wait to see'em in action.

MakoDHardie

I think Yokohamas wear quicker than the beefier tires like Bridgestone, etc... Probably because they seem to have lower profile tread on them. My AVS Sports went quick on my rears. They're bald and its been a year and a half almost since they were put on. I'm looking at the ES 100's because of their pricing. If I can save that much money on tires, I'd be willing to deal with a quicker wear level. The money you save is enough to use on brakes.

adam c

iTrader: (2)

The Yoko's look pretty "beefy"!! Of course, anything would look better than my old bald 730's. I measured the tread depth at about 8mm. I don't know if that is considered to be shallow for a performance tire.

What's a typical tread depth for a high performance tire?

adam c

iTrader: (2)

I will answer my own question.

They all come with 10/32" tread depth, including the ES100. I found one exception, where a tire had different tread depths in different sizes. I guess that 10/32" must be the industry standard for this type of tire.

SoCalLove

Just got my es100's as well. And they do look beefy. Pretty muscular looking. Very nice overall.

CCarlisi

Right now I'm deciding between the following:
Bridgestone Potenza RE750 $123
Yokohama AVS Sport $130
Yokohama es100 $93

There doesn't seem to be a clear winner. The last time I shopped for tires it was a pretty easy decision to make; the RE71s killed everything they were compared to and were the least expensive by about $20 per tire.

The RE750s seem like a good value and apparently grip well but are also supposed to be pretty heavy.

the ES100s are a great value but the many of the customer writeups on them are less than enthusiastic.

I don't know too much about the AVS sports but heard from a friend that they wear fast.

I think I need to start gathering some data to make a decision. Does anybody know where I can find weight and compound density info?

IRPerformance

iTrader: (41)

Try the Kumho MX. They are only about 100 each and supposedly real sticky. Thats what I plan to get when I get my car back on the road.

CCarlisi

I just checked them out. their wear rating is pretty low (220) compared to the 750s (340). I think I'm sold on the 750s. The only downside is they weigh around 26lbs. That's hard to swallow when the AVS 100s weigh around 18. My RE71s are supposed to be about 25.5. I'm tempted to go for the AVS 100s for the weight difference alone, but the writeups on tirerack from some of the RWD car owners are pretty disheartening.

"Vehicle: 1999 BMW M3 Coupe
Location: Snoqualmie, WA
Driving Style: Fast and Aggressive
Miles driven on tires: 4,000 Driving Condition: Combined Highway/City
Reviewer's Overall Ratings: 6.25 out of 10
Review Submitted 2003-09-23

You get what you pay for with these tires (as said earlier). I bought these attempting to repeat the performance that I got from the more expensive Michelins. Big mistake. Living in Washington, I get to drive a mixture of flat and elevated roads in both dry and wet conditions. My driving style on public roads would not typically instigate traction control to kick in. With these tires it happens a lot. This started happening immediately and continues to this day. Buyer beware."

"Vehicle: 1997 BMW M3 Coupe
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Driving Style: Fast and Aggressive
Miles driven on tires: 10,000 Driving Condition: Mostly Highway
Reviewer's Overall Ratings: 5.71 out of 10
Review Submitted 2003-08-08

I have over 120,000 miles on my car, so Ive gone through quite a few sets of tires. Ive used Michelin Pilots, Bridgestone S-02s, S-03s, and RE730s. The Yokohamas were inexpensive and got good initial reviews in a few magazines. I was taken in by the high treadwear rating, but these tires wore out almost twice as fast as any of the others that Ive tried. I do a combination of long-distance freeway commuting and high-speed runs in the mountains and canyons. I found myself sliding around a lot more corners, while not going as fast as with other high-performance tires. The sidewalls are extremely hard and cause chatter in bumpy turns. Tire noise is less than with the RE730s (the worst for noise), but much louder than the Pilots or Pole Positions. This seems to be a good example of getting what you pay for. "

reza

Of course the treadwear on Yoko ES100 is 280 which is not soft. Meaning not grip as good as treadwear 220.
Try Kumho MX, they grip better than ES100 so far. The Kumho MX has 220 treadwear, I suspect it actually lower than 220, since a lot of autocross people use it.

CCarlisi

This is not always the case when comparing tires from different manufacturers. The RE750s have a much higher treadwear rating than the 100s yet they have been shown to outperform AVS sports, which are positioned above the 100s in the AVS heiarchy and have an even softer compound. Therefore, tread design also seems to be a significant factor.

adam c

iTrader: (2)

I have found the ES100s to be very quiet....so far. In addition, you will find poor buyer reviews from every tire listed on the tire rack. I think that most people will post good results from a new tire purchase. Some people are impossible to please, and will give a bad review to any tire they buy. If anyone knows of a good unbiased magazine test, please post a link.

CCarlisi

Here you go:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/uhp_nextGen_c.html

The RE750s beat them in every single catagory, but the difference isn't that extreme, except maybe in the rain. Again, I think the performance is close and that is why I have a hard time justifying the ES100s, which have a wear rating that is only 2/3rds of the RE750s.

adam c

iTrader: (2)

Thanks for posting the link. There is some good info there. As you said, the results are very close. The main difference seems to be in wet performance. The Bridgestone seems to have a significant advantage there. I won't be driving my car hard, if at all, in the rain. Wet performance is not a factor for me. The 750 was my second choice, but I couldn't justify spending the extra 30% to buy them. If the price were the same, I would have chosen the 750. We will see how long they last. My 730's lasted about 10k.