new tire report
well, after much consideration, i wound up going with the Kumho ECSTA STX tires. i was seriously tempted by the yokos, but the difference in speed rating, along with very good past results with Kumho (not that i have had particularly bad results with yoko), made the difference.
initial appearance is that the tire is MUCH more agressively treaded than the connis. road noise is very, very slightly louder on certain pavements (you really have to listen though, the porsche is so bloody quiet anyway). driving impressions.... no real difference yet. have got them wet, and they performed very impressively. on the other hand, had no real complaints about the connis.
which brings me back to the point i made in my first post on the subject. how much of the performance of the cayenne is a combo of good suspension, and great electronics, and how much of it is the tires? in other words, if you put a set of fly-by-nite tires on the car, would it perform just as well while grinding them into dust in 5k miles? i did some pretty violent manuevers in the cayenne with the connis, and got one small squeak out of them once. yet, to read the tire rack report, they are not very good tires.
so what, may you ask, do i expect out of the Kumho's if the connis worked so well? better value, for one. better stopping and grip at the absolute limit, for that one time when the semi runs the stoplight in front of you.
and NOT, to be stuck like the guy in my favorite picture from the old R&T(?), looking down slope at a ferrari wrapped around a tree with the caption "Good tires", Bob mused, casually lighting a cigarette,"but certainly not Great Tires"
DT
ps, found the pic (gods i love the internet) and posted for your viewing enjoyment
initial appearance is that the tire is MUCH more agressively treaded than the connis. road noise is very, very slightly louder on certain pavements (you really have to listen though, the porsche is so bloody quiet anyway). driving impressions.... no real difference yet. have got them wet, and they performed very impressively. on the other hand, had no real complaints about the connis.
which brings me back to the point i made in my first post on the subject. how much of the performance of the cayenne is a combo of good suspension, and great electronics, and how much of it is the tires? in other words, if you put a set of fly-by-nite tires on the car, would it perform just as well while grinding them into dust in 5k miles? i did some pretty violent manuevers in the cayenne with the connis, and got one small squeak out of them once. yet, to read the tire rack report, they are not very good tires.
so what, may you ask, do i expect out of the Kumho's if the connis worked so well? better value, for one. better stopping and grip at the absolute limit, for that one time when the semi runs the stoplight in front of you.
and NOT, to be stuck like the guy in my favorite picture from the old R&T(?), looking down slope at a ferrari wrapped around a tree with the caption "Good tires", Bob mused, casually lighting a cigarette,"but certainly not Great Tires"
DT
ps, found the pic (gods i love the internet) and posted for your viewing enjoyment
