as the title says i'm not sure which ones to get the guy at the garage has recommended the avon's which are £4 more

any advice ?

Good luck getting hold of the Hankooks, I need to get another one to replace one of my front ones (which was only fitted a few months ago :() and Camskills are out of stock, they told me 3 to 4 weeks to order them in

What happened to the other one?

I'd go for the V12s. What size do you need them in? 225/45/17?

If so, Camskill have stock:

HANKOOK TYRES / CAR / HANKOOK K110 V12 EVO HANKOOK K 110 V12 EVO - 225/45R17 94Y XL TL :: £64.70 :: Car Tyres - MPV Tyres - People Carrier Tyres :: R17" - 225/45/17, 225/45 R 17 ::

Steve

i need 205/50/17 camskill are out of stock at the mo but my local garage can get them

Is there a reason why you still run this size? I thought most Mk1 vRS owners had gone over to the more available and cheaper 225/45/17. Which are more suitable to a 7.5J 17" rim anyway.

Steve

I can't comment on the Avon's, but I have the Hankook V12's all round on mine & I thing they are a very good tyre especially In the wet:thumbup:

i can't afford to replace all four and the back ones still have plenty of tread left ,the only way i can do it is to buy two new 225s and get some for the back in six months but i don't think that would be safe

i found some more to throw in

falken FK452

kumho ectsta sport KU31

and my fav's verstien sessata's if i was to get the 225s

Edited 29 October, 200916 yr by funkymonkey

think i'm gonna settle for the falkens £163 fitted but do i get 225's and get new ones on the back in six months ?or just get the 205's is there any danger in putting wider and lower tyres on the front than the back ?

What happened to the other one?

Discovered a nice gash in it the other day, just between the sidewall and the tread. It's not deep, maybe only 3mm but I guess it should really be replaced. Got the spare on there at the moment as it's due for MOT at the weekend.

Yes, mine are all 205/50/17s as well as I've never really needed to replace more than 2 at ones so couldn't justify the cost of changing the whole car over to 225/45/17s

think i'm gonna settle for the falkens £163 fitted but do i get 225's and get new ones on the back in six months ?or just get the 205's is there any danger in putting wider and lower tyres on the front than the back ?

you are allowed to have wider at the back but not the front. So you would have to rotate the new tyres to the back until you could do all four. you would need to inform the insurance as well.

right the choice is between the falken or the hankook 205/50/17 reviews on briskoa say hankook but i read a review on black circles were they did a long term test on the falkens they put them on a 350z and they performed well

I'd go with the Hankooks. I have the 452s fitted at the moment.

Steve

TBH, if I was doing more motorway miles in mine I would still be running the 205's. More fluid handling, less tramlining and better economy. There are pro's and con's to each side. 225 is cheaper and has more traction but, if you're doing many motorway miles the lower economy will probably cancel out any savings in the tyre size. Do you really need to buy 4? If not then just go for the 205's as, if you shop around, there isn't necessarily the savings between sizes that first appear.

its always a good idea to haggle on the price. I always check on camskill and take a print out to my local fitter who price matches (they also have a good stock of the Hankooks)

i've gone for the falkens 205's £136 from camskill don't think the 225's would have made much differance apart from they look good as there wider and there only about £4 cheaper, and from some places there more expensive

as for putting wider tyres on the front or back a friend of mine who is in the know is looking into it but he thinks as long as there on the same axle its ok

Not allowed to put wider at the front. Even though on the octy vrs it would improve the understeer

TBH, if I was doing more motorway miles in mine I would still be running the 205's. More fluid handling, less tramlining and better economy. There are pro's and con's to each side. 225 is cheaper and has more traction but, if you're doing many motorway miles the lower economy will probably cancel out any savings in the tyre size. Do you really need to buy 4? If not then just go for the 205's as, if you shop around, there isn't necessarily the savings between sizes that first appear.

After going from 205's to 225's, I'm seriously considering going back to the 205's. I'm convinced the car doesn't handle as well as it did on the original 205's. Yes, it has more grip, but the feeling I get is that the car is a bit more stodgy. It may just be in my mind, but it's the only mind I've got.:(

I'm from an era where if cars had 185's, they had pretty wide tyres. 225's on a family hatchback still doesn't quite seem right to me. I am old though.... If you look at the original Integra Type R, I'm sure it runs 195's as standard and that handles pretty well.

The problem I think is that on a lot of forums, the view is 'bigger is better' and, without intending to insult the general population, a lot of people confuse grip with handling. With the original 205 P7's, the car could easily be provoked away from understeer into oversteer and very controllable four wheel drifts all day long. Replacing those with 4 225 F1 GSD3's meant that yes, the car had more grip but the balance had reverted to understeer and, as there was more outright grip all round, suddenly the back end became a lot more difficult to unstick. This can be counteracted by uprated rear sway bars to help but then that still leaves the issues of artificial steering weight from the increased tread (remember that most of the original Octavia's came with 165 tyres!) and the massive tramlining effects. At the end of the day, the Mk4 Golf chassis was never a peach and, years on from it's original launch, time has only reinforced that. Poor steering geometry and load balance when driving hard it's very difficult to see past the deficiencies and these are deficiencies only highlighted by wider, stickier tyres. I've got Michelin PS2's all round now which offer a little more oversteer than the Eagle's did and that is certainly welcome but again, the tramlining and lack of finesse to the handling and steering feel etc is still there. Pretty much why I'm chopping it in soon. Newer cars such as the Mk3 Mondeo use the same 225 section tyres on the ST's but actually have the steering and chassis designed to use them, not that it's an ST I'm looking at mind. In fact, my old ST200 Vectra had a better stock chassis on it than the Octavia!

think your right there clover at the end of the day you have to look at what the car was designed to do in the first place, its a 4 door family car ,if you start changing things to much your bound to create problems as it goes beyond the cars origional design perameters

Just seems a bit strange, when comparable cars such as the S3 and TT come fitted with 225s as standard, on alloys of the same diameter and width :confused:

But if you've found that 205s work better for you, and you've tried both sizes out, then obviously the best idea is for you to keep running with 205s

Especially in the OP's case, where he's only replacing a pair, and that would lead to tyres of different widths on the car. I don't think I'd like to run it in that spec, when the setup's not been designed with that in mind.

Steve

Remember though that the S3 and TT both come with uprated suspension and steering parts which means that the extra grip doesn't just translate into more flex of the components and hence a more vague feeling at the wheel.

'Proper' Mk4 GTis, the list goes on...

The Mk1 vRS seems to have been the only 'performance/sports' orientated use of that platform, that ran this size of tyre on that size of alloy - just seems odd. But if people find the combination works, then fair enough...

Steve