Tire preference?

What's your tire preference for your 996? I currently have Yokos and need to replace them - planning on just replacing the rears first as the fronts are not too bad still.

I like my Michelin Pilot Sport PS2's, but I just got them, but already love them

I've got Dunlop SP Sport 9090 (N-spec) on the front and 9000 on the rear, C2 factory sizes on 18s F & R. I saw that there are 9090 N-spec for rear size now. Great tire and reasonably priced, plus Porsche certified. I was looking at Tire Rack customer reviews recently and someone said that a California Porsche club recommends the Sumitomo HTR Z II tires. I can understand why because it is a good (IMO) tire for an excellent price, but find it hard to believe that any Porsche club would recommend anything other than N-spec.

RE050 A PP

Yup, Michelin PS2's I think you will find taht they are most people's prefrence.

Ive gotta agree with Ben. RE050 A PP's. great price and performance. 3 track days and 7 months. Also i blew one out on the freeway at 70MPH... the sidewalls are very stiff and i had no issues at all with the car getting out of control I had the Dunlops 9090's and they really sucked for me. Wore out fast and didnt seem that great. The car had horrible understeer at Autocross of those tires, and squeeled like crazy in the turns

Depends on what you're using the car for. For track, the preference falls to PS2s. For street Bridgestone RE750s work equally well and have longer tread life. You will sacrifice speed rating, but that doens't matter, as you'll not be doing 186mph on the street anyway... I believe that the Bridgestones are rated for 176mph, and I doubt most of us will be doing that either.

I haven't done track yet and it doesn't look like I'll have time this year to try it out yet. Just street driving but with it so rainy and wet out here I'm leaning towards a great wet performace tire - slipped around and did a 180 yesterday in the heavy rain. I hear the Michelin PS2's quite a bit for recommendations - how are they in the rain? Any feedback on how the Bridgestone RE750s or RE050 A PP are in the wet? I tried Dunlop SP9000's before on my A4 and they were great but they wore out way too quick.

I was leaning towards PS2s when I recently changed my tires, but after reading lots of reviews and reviewing the specs I decided that the noise and traction (wet and dry) had gotten good reviews. Considering that the treadwear rating was 340 vs 220 for the PS2s and I didn't need the speed rating, then I went with the Bridgestones and saved several hundres dollars that didn't need to be spent. I was previously running on Bridgestone S03s and I cannot tell the difference between the new tires and the old ones.

Wellardmac - thanks for the info. How long have you been on the Bridgestone RE750s now? And did you notice a huge grip difference from when you had them new to currently? (given you still have tread on them? ) The Dunlop SP9000s were nice because from new to almost needing replacement they still gripped well. The Yokos on now suk, seem to lose grip pretty quickly even though a lot of tread left on them.

I installed them when I put the car back on the road (after Winter) in March. The tread is still looking good and I've had not noticed any change in handling or grip.

FYI, bud, treadwear ratings aren't absolutes. They're actually pretty arbitrary so a 340 isn't necessarily a 340 between two diff tire makes. Same goes with drag coefficients I've come to learn, please correct me if I am mistaken.

I just got a set of Yoko Advan Neova AD07 for my 2nd wheel set. I heard alot of good things about this tire, from here and other forums. Do a search for these tires... alot of good responses.

I will correct you. There is nothing arbitary about a treadwear rating, or any other of the UTQG ratings. Real world treadwear will depend upon the driving style of a particular driver, but treadwear is determined using standard testing, so two tires tested side by side in the same test (UTQG Standard testing) will provide relative tire wear indicators. Therefore, a tire with a treadwear rating of 220 will wear faster than a tire with a rating of 340, if tested in the same manner. UTQG are important indicators of tire performance and should be used to compare tires of the same type. It's not a perfect system, but it is a good and useful guide in tire selection. That being said, if you have an aggressive driving style, participate in competative driving, or have poor alignment on your car, then no tire will fair well.

As far as drag coefficients, both the Cd and the frontal area are specified by the manufacturer, so a lack of standardization here would not be surprising. What did you hear about the consistency of these numbers? I think Cd is somewhat misleading because it cannot predict the drag force on a car (what really matters) without the frontal area and the velocity (Cd is a unitless quantilty).

PS2!

These tires kick *** and I'm running them on my OEM 18" turbo twists. I just spent 3 days on the track with them, both wet and dry, and nothing but good to say about their peformance. When the track was dry, about 70% of the time, they held up well with very little wear on what is considered an "abrasive track" surface (Putnam Park). In the wet they're even better and I was quite comfortable at speed using mostly the wet and partial dry line. My normal non-track running gear is 19" 997 wheels with PS2's. I have to say, while I love the PS2's, the tread blocks on the PS2's squirm a whole lot and feel much less planted than the Neova's at speed, in both the straights and curves.

The above quoted portion of Wellardmac's answer is not true. "The problem with UTQG Treadwear Grades is that they are open to some interpretation on the part of the tire manufacturer because they are assigned after the tire has only experienced a little treadwear as it runs the 7,200 miles. This means that the tire manufacturers need to extrapolate their raw wear data when they are assigning Treadwear Grades, and that their grades can to some extent reflect how conservative or optimistic their marketing department is." The above is from Tire Rack, not me. But they are absolutely correct. If you look at tires from the same manufacturer you are more likely to get an objective comparison. Looking at tires from different manufacturers you will be getting a subjective comparison. Like Wellardmac stated, it is not a perfect system, unfortunately. It appears that the best tire purchase determination is by following peer review. Yay Rennlist!

I want to preface my comments with an apology if I don't respond properly -- this is my first post. Anyway, I noticed no one mentioned the Bridgestone SO2A. These were on the car when I purchased it last fall, and the previously owner swore by them. I've been very happy with these tires as well, but have no basis for comparison to other tires. They stick like glue and I've never heard any tire squeal from them. Afraid if I push the car any further, it'll just break lose!

Wellard's statement is true. You will note I said " if tested in the same manner ." It is a fact that if you perform an experiment using the same methodology, then you will get consistent data that is comparable. I don't care what Tire Rack says. I'm a scientist that worked peripherally with the tire industry and I know the UTQG methodology. As I said, it's not perfect, but I do know that UTQG works and is a valuable guide, even if it does have flaws.

As far as the Bridgestone RE050 A Pole Positions I'm on my second set: My first set I used on my car as a daily driver and for a season on the track. I can't compare them directly to the PS2, since I've never had the PS2. 1. In the wet they are great on and off the track. I had plenty of wet days on the track with them. I was amazed how well they got me through puddles without losing grip. 2. In the dry they were very consistent and held up extremely well. I liked them enough to buy a second set. I now have another set of wheels with Pilot Sport Cups for the track. Obviously, there is no comparison on a dry race track. In the wet I still go back to the RE050 A Pole Positions without hesitation. RE050 A PP is the top of the line summer performance tire from Bridgestone. It should outperform the older Bridgestone models.

A search on the subject will show that it's been discussed many times, often "exuberantly." Here's a thread to help you: https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...t=N-spec+tires

I bought a set in January/Feb. They are pretty good when the ground temps are nice and warm. When traction does break it's very progressive unlike the stock Pirelli's. I still can't say which is the better. I do believe the Neova's are better in rain.

Yeah mine will go on OEM 18" Turbo twists as well and for some track/canyon duties. I cannot wait! My friend complains about the PS2's soft sidewall on his 996TT, which is why I stayed away from those.

Don't even start that discussion!

I only use Porsche approved tires provided with N specs. They have a special internal reinforced housing. You know that there are lots of good tires not Porsche approved who works properly, but it's better to mount N specs tires

Some, including myself, chose to stick with the older N1 Pilot Sport (Rib) for this very reason. Firmer sidewalls than the newer tire.

Michelin PS2s. But if you're only replacing two tires, gotta go with the same tread pattern.

yup and firmer sidewalls translate into more responsive (better) handling.

Continental SportContact 2 N2 are very good election Wet and dry , high mileage and very good grip

Will I void both my tire and Prosche warranty if I use 15W-50 oil as a tire dressing? OK, it's Saturday night and you fellows sounded like you needed a laugh, or at the very least, a smile!

Love that new sig, Tim.

FlashFlash: The S02A and the Pilot Sport PS2 are "the best" dry tires available, but neither are your best choice in the rain. Consider the Michelin Pilot Sport NO. This tire will provide you with great performance, wet or dry, along with great tread wear and an exceptional warranty. Ric :-)

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm leaning towards the RE 050A PP as the info I found on them seem to be a good rain tire and cost is quite a bit less than the Michelin PS2's. Never actually tried Bridgestones on any of my cars before so this should be fun!

the RE050A PPs are as good as the PS2s in the dry and wet. i like the RE050A PPs better because it's made in japan (hehe, had some hopping issues with the PS2s), and it's cheaper. there's no good reason why the PS2s should cost more than the RE050A PPs from the end results perspective. i run PS2s now simply because BS doesn't make the sizes I need.

RE050 A PP here too. No complaints at all. I like the idea of Michelins, but I liked the B-stone price just a bit more.

A scientist, eh? All the tires ARE tested in the same manner, read up on the Uniform Tire Quality Grade rating system! If you are trying to help the Rennlister that started this thread by inferring that he can compare tire wear by using the UTQG wear rating, then you (a) aren't doing him a favor and (b) spend too much time in the lab and don't know how the real world works. Tire manufacturers rely on their marketing to generate the sales, not the scientists. If you think the engineers designing, testing and retesting the tires are calling the shots, then my Rennlist friend, you are sadly mistaken.

Ben, I don't think I understand your post. Are you saying the manufacturers purposefully falsify data? This is how the treadwear rating is mandated to be determined: "Treadwear ratings are determined on a 400 mile government test course covering specified sections of public roads near San Angelo, Texas. A group of not more than four test vehicles travels the course in a convoy so that all tires experience the same conditions. Tread groove depths of the tires being tested are measured after each 800 miles. The same procedure is followed for a set of control or "course monitoring" tires. Upon completion of the 7,200 mile test, the rating results of both tests are compared, and the tires being tested are assigned a treadwear rating by the tire manufacturer." Do you have evidence of a manufacturer falsifying data?

I doubt that the manufacturers would call it falsifying, they would probably notate it as 'structuring based on consumer demand' or something clever like that. In the same document from which you pulled the above quote it states that the manufacturers' interpretation plays a part in the assignment of the rating. Think about it, if company XYZ creates a high-performance tire whose tread compound wears away faster than a competitor's similar tire (which is in the same price point), will it benefit XYZ to assign a higher wear rating? If XYZ's marketing department thinks that the demographic for this tire is concerned about cost, then yes it is beneficial to XYZ. But if marketing feels that the demographic is concerned about performance and not about cost then it would behoove XYZ to rate the tire at a lower treadwear rating (the assumption is that tires with a lower treadwear rating are stickier). Wellardmac, I'm sorry if I slammed you a little bit. I am just concerned that inacurrate information is dispelled; especially when it concerns the cars we all love.

Ben, You slamming me just betrays your ignorance. I've worked with the big tire companies. I know how they test and yes, they do all test in the same way. Your comments give away your lack of understanding of science and systematic testing. I KNOW (well, used to anyway) how a Bridgestone and Michelin tire are constructed, do you? My comments are based upon experience. Your comments are based upon perception and hearsay. UTQG was created for a reason and it fulfils that purpose very well. My comments are reliable and honest. I have no agenda, other than to provide guidance. Stop being cynical and posting without any knowledge - by doing so it is you that is being dishonest to your fellow Rennlisters.

Another vote for PS2's

I love my S02a's but a wear rating of 140!

That's why you've gotta get something with a higher tread rating... that or be content with buying new tires every year.

You da man!

Be nice guys! For the testing, I understand as well, industries have testing standards in place that govern how tests are to be done and data to be displayed. I've worked many quality programs and understand that the tests in place are to standardardize what and how information is to be shown. Without these, there are no guidelines that will allow a consumer to compare different manufacturer products. But, under any testing conditions there are ALWAYS variables that will affect data - we don't live in a perfectly consistent world, but the tests are designed to be able to have data that is reproduceable under the same conditions. Having said that, I was more leaning towards driver feedback on what they thought of their tires on their own rides - dry and wet conditions. It's just like a Corvette vs. a 996 - sure hp is measured and one has more hp in the books but which do you like to drive more?