Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday August 21, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
Click here to visit TireRack
Tire & Wheel Forum sponsored by The Tire Rack

Losing traction? Need new tires?
Click here to visit the NASIOC Upgrade Garage...
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Technical > Tire & Wheel

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-01-2006, 06:15 PM   #1
subeesteve25
Guest
 
Member#:
Default kumho ecsta mx's

I'm thinking of purchasing these tires. I have read that many people like them and say they are very good. I dont auto x or go on track so I'm wondering how long do you guys think this tire will last. Thanks.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2006, 06:41 PM   #2
Uncle Scotty
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 16200
Join Date: Mar 2002
Vehicle:
OK Houston
we have an Uncle

Default

I had them on my '02...liked them a LOT...would buy them again...IF--IF they were cheaper than the Hankook Z212's that I have NOW which are a bit better, all around....but the 'kooks are a hard act to follow at their price point.

I have ~7500 mils on the 'kooks and they are ~1/3 done.....I got 23k out of the MX's and would have got a couple k more if I haddn't picked up a screw and killed one
Uncle Scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2006, 06:43 PM   #3
rally_on
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 86849
Join Date: May 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Vehicle:
2005 GMC Savana
white

Default

about 18k miles. also depends on driving style. kumho doesnt have good rubber so they dont grip good, also they're very loud. this is what i've heard... i dont own a pair tho
rally_on is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2006, 06:47 PM   #4
subeesteve25
Guest
 
Member#:
Default

yea i do a lot of canyon driving so i want them for grip.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2006, 11:45 PM   #5
Rich10
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 14934
Join Date: Feb 2002
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Long Island
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
WRB

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rally_on
about 18k miles. also depends on driving style. kumho doesnt have good rubber so they dont grip good, also they're very loud. this is what i've heard... i dont own a pair tho
Why would you bother to post if you "dont own a pair tho"???

Since I do have MX's as my summer tires, let me see if I can answer your questions. If you were a competitive autocrosser, I would advise a different tire. The MX's were among the best autox tires a few seasons ago. They are still sticky tires, but there are better autox tires that have come out. For street driving, I doubt that you will need more grip than you'll get out of MX's. New, they have very reasonable wet grip, but the wet grip gets questionable as the tread wears thin.

They have a reasonable ride on all surfaces. They are reasonably quiet on good recently paved highways but are loud on concrete highways.

If I were to get a new tire today, I would probably go with the tires that the top autox people are going with now, the Hankook Z212's or Yokohama Advan Neova's. You should decide what characteristics in a tire are most important to you before you make a decision: dry grip, wet grip, cost, ride, noise, etc.
Rich10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2006, 12:00 AM   #6
qingshan
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 81322
Join Date: Feb 2005
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Pomona SoCal
Vehicle:
12/6 Sti/Fo
swp/CGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rally_on
about 18k miles. also depends on driving style. kumho doesnt have good rubber so they dont grip good, also they're very loud. this is what i've heard... i dont own a pair tho

He may not have any but I think he's right - wear rating 220 a little better than what came on my Sti

They are pretty stickey - hee's a sample of sizes
225/50 YR16
92W SL 220 AA A

205/40 YR17
84Y RF 220 AA A

215/40 YR17
83Y SL 220 AA A

high speed AA grip

Good buy - I am running Kumhos for the winter
qingshan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2006, 12:52 AM   #7
Uncle Scotty
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 16200
Join Date: Mar 2002
Vehicle:
OK Houston
we have an Uncle

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by qingshan
He may not have any but I think he's right - wear rating 220 a little better than what came on my Sti

They are pretty stickey - hee's a sample of sizes
225/50 YR16
92W SL 220 AA A

205/40 YR17
84Y RF 220 AA A

215/40 YR17
83Y SL 220 AA A

high speed AA grip

Good buy - I am running Kumhos for the winter

The above is meaningless
Uncle Scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2006, 12:52 AM   #8
Uncle Scotty
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 16200
Join Date: Mar 2002
Vehicle:
OK Houston
we have an Uncle

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rally_on
about 18k miles. also depends on driving style. kumho doesnt have good rubber so they dont grip good, also they're very loud. this is what i've heard... i dont own a pair tho

....the above is meaningless
Uncle Scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2006, 01:20 AM   #9
express_wagon
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 68346
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Vehicle:
1996 LC
2014 JK

Default



just buy these, you can thank me later...MX is overpriced old technology
express_wagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2006, 01:50 AM   #10
subeesteve25
Guest
 
Member#:
Default

^^^ what are those
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2006, 02:05 AM   #11
Uncle Scotty
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 16200
Join Date: Mar 2002
Vehicle:
OK Houston
we have an Uncle

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subeesteve25
^^^ what are those

'kooks
Uncle Scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2006, 07:58 PM   #12
powerlabs
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 45790
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: New Jersey
Vehicle:
2006 Corvette C6 Z51
SUPERCHARGED

Default

I ran 2 sets through 2 autocross seasons. Both lasted around 20000 miles. The first were 215 55 16 and the second ones were 215 45 17s. The 16 inch rims wore the outside bad; lots of sidewall flex. The 17s were a lot better. I was very impressed with their grip, wet and dry, and didn't think they were noisy at all. I can't comment on what is out there that might be better, but I'll say that if you choose these you won't be disappointed.
powerlabs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2006, 08:40 PM   #13
raamaudio
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 50340
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Morgan Utah
Vehicle:
05 FXT
Crystal Grey Metalic

Default

Though not on a subaru I ran the Kumho 712s on my truck for nearly 100k miles(more than one set) then the MXs on my autocrosser for a bit until I went with the Ecsta V700(sweet, in 235/40/17 on a 17x8 RPF1. All I did was drive to events and abuse the heck out of them and still got 5k miles, for a tread wear of 50 that is not bad at all.

Ok, MX versus the 212'sw, I currently have the same size as before but in the 212's, 235/40/17 on another set of 17x8 RPF1s on our new project car and have autocrossed it three times but just dialing things in a bit. I was not trying to be competitive but at the last event I was only 2 seconds back from the top finisher and all the fast guys were on slicks.

I am very impressed with the 212's, more so than the MX, canyon carving is superb, exceptional grip and when I overcooked it a bit and hit some big midturn bumps, rear end came around a bit(big rear sway bar, zero rear camber(on purpose), just not all that dramatic, very very easy to correct and continue on having fun. One of the most forgiving tires I have ever owned and that is critically important out in the real world where suprises at high cornering speeds can bite you on the arse at any moment.

I bought them for my wet autocross/track day, transit tires, the car is not a daily driver.

But, I keep hearing all the good stuff about the Goodyear F1 GS D3s so looking into them as well. I may pick up a set and see how I like them. If money was no object though the Advan Neova would be another tire I would love to play around with.

Overall, the 212 makes a great canyon carver(a bit noisy though) and is pretty decent for autocrossing. I am a very abusive driver by nature and pushed them really hard, barely any sign of wear, could not get the sidewalls to roll over no matter how low I set the air, did not even have alot of negative camber up front, just 2 degrees.



Rick
raamaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2006, 09:09 PM   #14
poison
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 37678
Join Date: May 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Default

I have abused a set of 451's, and love em. I would've bought another set, but all this good feedback on the 212 made me buy em. I should have em in a day or two.

I'll bet I'm giving up some wet grip and treadwear for some dry grip and quicker turn in.

if you want the best combination of all around grip, wet and dry, get the 451. They're phenominal.
poison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2006, 10:31 PM   #15
bull3964
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 48928
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Vehicle:
'02 WRB WRX Sedan
'11 DGM WRX 5dr Premium

Default

I don't think it's possible to be disappointed with the 212s. I have them in 225/50/16 for my summer/autocross tiress and they have been superb.
bull3964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2006, 10:41 PM   #16
Portly
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1197
Join Date: Apr 2000
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Vehicle:
1997 Impreza Wagon
Mystic Blue Pearl

Default

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=906310

If you check out the above-listed thread, you'll see that our Good Friend Luke referrs to Hankook as a third-tier tire company, and thinks very lowly of the R-S2 Z212. You'll also notice he doesn't sell it..... Since it's better in every way than the Kuhmo MX, I guess that makes Kuhmo a 4th tier tire company?

I argued with him, but since it was off-topic from the thread, I just gave up.

Check out the tire test Car and Driver did recently. While their priorities in ranking the tires may differ from your own, the Z212 out-performed the MX in virtually every performance category.

FWIW, I'm a happy Z212 owner. I could go for a bit more sidewall stiffness, but I'm very pleased anyway.

_Jeff
Portly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2006, 03:22 AM   #17
raamaudio
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 50340
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Morgan Utah
Vehicle:
05 FXT
Crystal Grey Metalic

Default

I had little info on sidewall stiffness but wanted 235/40/17 as have had really good luck with handling with several tires the same size on 8" wide wheels and they look sweet as well

The sidewalls on the 40's work really well for me.

Rick
raamaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2006, 10:09 AM   #18
Uncle Scotty
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 16200
Join Date: Mar 2002
Vehicle:
OK Houston
we have an Uncle

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raamaudio
I had little info on sidewall stiffness but wanted 235/40/17 as have had really good luck with handling with several tires the same size on 8" wide wheels and they look sweet as well

The sidewalls on the 40's work really well for me.

Rick

....that size even works well on a 17x7.5, too
Uncle Scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2006, 11:20 AM   #19
poison
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 37678
Join Date: May 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Portly
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=906310

If you check out the above-listed thread, you'll see that our Good Friend Luke referrs to Hankook as a third-tier tire company, and thinks very lowly of the R-S2 Z212. You'll also notice he doesn't sell it..... Since it's better in every way than the Kuhmo MX, I guess that makes Kuhmo a 4th tier tire company?

I argued with him, but since it was off-topic from the thread, I just gave up.

Check out the tire test Car and Driver did recently. While their priorities in ranking the tires may differ from your own, the Z212 out-performed the MX in virtually every performance category.

FWIW, I'm a happy Z212 owner. I could go for a bit more sidewall stiffness, but I'm very pleased anyway.

_Jeff
Hey, there isn't another 'kook I'd buy besides the 212, or some cheap snows. IMO Hankook DOES suck, but apparently (according to the raves here) the 212 is different. I'll find out.

That C&D test is a bit biased toward the old man side of the spectrum, I think. I won't bother questioning their methods, but its safe to say they have different priorities than us youngsters. I wonder how many 212 owners would be happy with GSD3's?
poison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2006, 11:39 AM   #20
RAAMmat
Vendor
 
Member#: 75525
Join Date: Nov 2004
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Morgan Utah
Vehicle:
05 FXT StageII+
CGM

Default

I am 53 so I guess that is why I am pulled toward checking out the GSD3's then, lol
RAAMmat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2006, 01:45 PM   #21
Portly
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1197
Join Date: Apr 2000
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Vehicle:
1997 Impreza Wagon
Mystic Blue Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poison
Hey, there isn't another 'kook I'd buy besides the 212, or some cheap snows.
Funny, you've just described my winter and summer tire collection!

And yes, in general I agree. I'm not interested in any of their other offerings. But the Z212 is a good sign, hopefully of things to come. Most of us like Falken too, and before the RT215 came around, they were considered a cheap poser brand by most of us.

If you'd told me 3 years ago that I'd be running Hankooks year round, I'd have told you that you were nuts. But I try to have an open mind about these things. Aparently this attitude is not always shared by certain online tire salespeople, which I can't really find too much fault with. You push what you sell.

I also agree that the C&D test had a bias that probably doesn't suit all of us here. I wish they'd post the raw scores for each tire online. That would be more helpful.

_Jeff
Portly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2006, 11:09 PM   #22
Uncle Scotty
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 16200
Join Date: Mar 2002
Vehicle:
OK Houston
we have an Uncle

Default

....and don't forget that the CD test used really stupid low tire pressures which, I'm sure, influenced some of the results.
Uncle Scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2006, 07:19 PM   #23
qingshan
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 81322
Join Date: Feb 2005
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Pomona SoCal
Vehicle:
12/6 Sti/Fo
swp/CGM

Default

225/50 YR16
92W SL 220 AA A
205/40 YR17
84Y RF 220 AA A
215/40 YR17
83Y SL 220 AA A
high speed AA grip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Scotty
The above is meaningless
Please explain - a conclusion without any discusion is like a bell without a dinger

As I understand it comapnies rate their own tires but there tests are reviewed by the feds.

So while you may be right - tell us why
qingshan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2006, 07:20 PM   #24
qingshan
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 81322
Join Date: Feb 2005
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Pomona SoCal
Vehicle:
12/6 Sti/Fo
swp/CGM

Default

Is not Hankook the owner of Kumho?
qingshan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2006, 08:18 PM   #25
Uncle Scotty
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 16200
Join Date: Mar 2002
Vehicle:
OK Houston
we have an Uncle

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by qingshan
225/50 YR16
92W SL 220 AA A
205/40 YR17
84Y RF 220 AA A
215/40 YR17
83Y SL 220 AA A
high speed AA grip


Please explain - a conclusion without any discusion is like a bell without a dinger

As I understand it comapnies rate their own tires but there tests are reviewed by the feds.

So while you may be right - tell us why

....blah---blah.....blah.

the size and load rating is the only real information, there.

Both the re92 and re070 have a 'wear' rating of 140 and traction a temp a....BFD.


meaningless
Uncle Scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS/FT 18x8 +48 Gold Volk GT-N's with brand new Kumho Ecsta Mx's 07Wagon MAIC Private Classifieds 33 07-16-2008 03:19 AM
kumho ecsta MX's FTW!!! r0bman Tire & Wheel 7 04-29-2006 03:54 AM
Re: Gauging interest, 4 Kumho Ecsta MX's 225/45/17 pfs, ~50% tread jay25RS NESIC Private Classifieds 5 02-24-2006 12:02 PM
Houston: Easiest and Cheapest Way to get Ecsta MX's on my Car??? TexRex2002 Texas Impreza Club Forum -- TXIC 37 06-30-2004 05:37 AM
WTT Kumho Ecsta MX's for RE 92's Scoobie Doogie Tri-State Area Forum 5 03-31-2004 07:35 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.