mx5cartalk.com

Posted: **Fri Nov 09, 2007 9:01 am**

http://www.liam27.com/stuff/EVO_TyreTest_2007_GTI.pdf

Posted: **Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:52 pm**

Great info, thanks for that.

Posted: **Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:17 pm**

Interesting indeed. Good to know where my Kuhmo's stand with regards to how it handles in wet/dry etc.

Are those Bridgestone's tested in the article the Adrenalines that everyone's been going on about?

Posted: **Fri Nov 09, 2007 10:14 pm**

marcusus wrote:Interesting indeed. Good to know where my Kuhmo's stand with regards to how it handles in wet/dry etc.

Are those Bridgestone's tested in the article the Adrenalines that everyone's been going on about?

That's what I've been trying to find out. I'd say they're not. It looks like the Adrenalins are the update of the S03, not the RE050A which are tested here.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:25 am**

No they are not the RE001 Adrenalin that have just come out.

Interesting on the Yokohama S.Drive, it seems that they have not fixed the problem that the ES100 was also criticised for. I would have been interested how the RE001 and Toyo T1R fared in this company. There are some VERY high priced competitors there. And I would never have considered a Goodyear!

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:56 am**

Are the S drives the new ones that Yokohama brought out? Are they supposed to be better than C drives?

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:44 pm**

Lol...there goes my thoughts on my S-Drives being good! At least I know there are better tyres out there now.

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:22 pm**

That's weird, I was thinking my S.Drives were bloody awesome in the rain!

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:17 pm**

saboteur wrote:That's weird, I was thinking my S.Drives were bloody awesome in the rain!

It may just be that out of that group the S drives weren't so great. Doesn't necessarily mean they're sh*t, which is the biggest problem sometimes when reading these articles. When they compare everything that's a step or seven above the norm, you just need to keep that in the back of your mind.

That and they were using a different car and different sizes to that which are normally fitted to a '5, so that would probably influence the outcome as well.

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:12 pm**

Or they may have just slapped the new tires on and gone for it.

We all accept that these tires need some scrub in - did they do that?

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:19 pm**

adamjp wrote:Or they may have just slapped the new tires on and gone for it.

We all accept that these tires need some scrub in - did they do that?

that is an excellent point. my c-drives needed about 500km to scrub in. maybe the s-drives need similar, and the testers did not take this into account.

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:23 pm**

all tyres need to be scrubbed in & endure a couple of heat cycles before they perform at their optimum, whether they be nasty nexens or gold plated michelins........even 4wd & truck tyres need it..........i've bunged a couple of thousand k's on the new truck tyres i have & they are just starting to settle down now, obviously they take longer than the average car tyre.........like fatty says, about 500 k's