or Kumho - are any of these any good?

for tin top.

Opinions appreciated

Cheers

Mark

for budget tyres i would go for federal tyres

I put bandag on my Seat Alhambra and they gave me another 10K miles and were better in the wet than the suggested Michelins.

Bob

had nankang on my 328 when i bought it,they were sh!te

I had some kumho v70a's on my first Indy, a great tyre, on par with the toyo R888's.

Depends how youre going to drive it.

Ive used Nankang, Falken, Hankook and all range of other nameless budget tyres and theyre all the same in a sensible car on a sensible drive.

Im planning on budgets for the rear of my kit when its finished (to start with), purely because im going to behave like a schoolboy and put a big fat pair of lines on the drive.
Once the novelty wears off or i throw a driveshaft or something, then ill change them to better performance tyres.

For budget tyres, i had Nexen on my tintop. Did over 20k and only had to change them as one of the track rods is bent and cause them to wear excessively on the inside. The rest of them had 5mm left!

I don't drive the tin top hard - can't afford the fuel! so I'm really looking for the ones that last longest I suppose

I've got Falken Ziex Ze912 tyres on my Fabia vRS. They were less than half the price of the original Continental Sport Contact 2's. They are not as good, but I quite like them for the money. They are great in the dry, but not quite as grippy in the wet as the Contis. They also tend to last a few thousand miles less per set (say 22000 vs 25000). They a bit quieter than the contis though....

Andy

Its a bit of sweeping statement but if they are the same money I'd take the Falkens over Nang Kangs.

Was impressed with wear and grip (considering price) on the Falken 912s ive had on a few tintops.

Put them on the wifes fiesta ST which had pirellis on before, there was a noticeble difference especially in wet, the falkens let go a little sooner, but considering they were a 3rd of the price of the equiv pirrellis, it was acceptable IMO.

I put Kumhos on the front of my Volvo in May (Tyre dealer was out of stock of Falkens!) again, pirellis were standard. These did not feel anywhere near as good in the wet, (especially with pirellis still on the rear). They didnt last that well either, they only had 3mm or so left when I swapped to winters in November (so about 10k miles on the kumhos). I currently have a Contis Wintercontacts that I bought part worn (4x 5mm for £120) that seem quite good, but will defo be trying a different set of winters next year.
Come March I will be going back to either falkens (or pirellis/mich/goodyear etc if I can find them cheap enough).

quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbsy
Its a bit of sweeping statement but if they are the same money I'd take the Falkens over Nang Kangs.

---

i ditched the nankangs on my car and got Sava Intensa, made by good year, and i find them very good

I run Falken ZE912's on my Leon FR and I am impressed with their grip and life.

I dont drive that slowly most of the time, yet they give me 15k miles life but dont spin up every time you plant your foot to the floor in 2nd gear. Which with 280lbft on tap is pretty good I would say...

Plus they are some of the best tyres I have driven on in the snow. So I would recommend them for a tintop, no hesitation.

Kumho KU31 get my vote

Gone for the ZE912 - £291 for a set of four delivered compared with £324 from Mytyres.co.uk

The Kumho's look good but twice the price and nobody seems to like nankangs so I'll see how they go.

Thanks guys