View Poll Results: Falkens FK-452's or Kumho Ecsta SPT
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll
Falkens FK-452 or Kumho Ecsta SPT
#1
Falkens FK-452 or Kumho Ecsta SPT
Hey guys - Im currently running FK-452's and I have been quite happy with them. But im getting a new set of shoes... so im debating if I should get Falkens again or try Kumho. What do you guys think?
Any personal reviews is welcomed as well!
Oh yeah, you guys might suggest Nitto, Bridgestone, Michellins, Yokohama's... Yes I would like them.. but its a cost factor. lol
Thanks!
Wes
Any personal reviews is welcomed as well!
Oh yeah, you guys might suggest Nitto, Bridgestone, Michellins, Yokohama's... Yes I would like them.. but its a cost factor. lol
Thanks!
Wes
#3
Coming from someone who's actually used both, IMO the Falken's are superior. They seem to have better dry traction, better traction when the tires are cold (when just beginning to drive away after starting the car), and better wet traction. The Falken tread wear is slightly higher too. I do believe the Falken's cost a bit more than the SPT's, but they are an overall better buy.
Also, the SPT seems to run "true" in size; Meaning, they don't seem to have a larger sidewall bulge compared to a tire of the same size from a different manufacturer. The SPT's do seem to have a slight rim protector lip too, so that's something to consider (my Falken's don't).
#4
#5
#7
Trending Topics
#8
#9
Being a Korean made tire has nothing to do with wearing out fast The tread wear between the two is almost identical.
Coming from someone who's actually used both, IMO the Falken's are superior. They seem to have better dry traction, better traction when the tires are cold (when just beginning to drive away after starting the car), and better wet traction. The Falken tread wear is slightly higher too. I do believe the Falken's cost a bit more than the SPT's, but they are an overall better buy.
Also, the SPT seems to run "true" in size; Meaning, they don't seem to have a larger sidewall bulge compared to a tire of the same size from a different manufacturer. The SPT's do seem to have a slight rim protector lip too, so that's something to consider (my Falken's don't).
Coming from someone who's actually used both, IMO the Falken's are superior. They seem to have better dry traction, better traction when the tires are cold (when just beginning to drive away after starting the car), and better wet traction. The Falken tread wear is slightly higher too. I do believe the Falken's cost a bit more than the SPT's, but they are an overall better buy.
Also, the SPT seems to run "true" in size; Meaning, they don't seem to have a larger sidewall bulge compared to a tire of the same size from a different manufacturer. The SPT's do seem to have a slight rim protector lip too, so that's something to consider (my Falken's don't).
#10
I never liked Falken FK452s... they were loud, not as comfy, and they didn't last too long. While they were great tires for about a month or so, everything about them got worse as the tire wore out. I forgot how good wet traction was, but like everything else, it got worse as the tire wore out.
You should give Bridgestone Potenza RE760 a try. So far, they aren't much less of a tire than the RE050A, but are available at about half the price.
Hell, I even enjoyed the entire life of the Dunlop Direzzas more than the Falkens.
You should give Bridgestone Potenza RE760 a try. So far, they aren't much less of a tire than the RE050A, but are available at about half the price.
Hell, I even enjoyed the entire life of the Dunlop Direzzas more than the Falkens.
#11
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
I have the 452's. Great for a DD and even works on the track... it's a very predictable tire and you know exactly when it's about to lose grip (in my case, it never really did). I don't have the exact figures right now, but my current non-staggered set with regular rotations have about 16k on them and 7/32 of tread left. New ones come with 10/32 tread depth. I figure i'll get 35k-40k on this set before needing replacement.
#12
I never liked Falken FK452s... they were loud, not as comfy, and they didn't last too long. While they were great tires for about a month or so, everything about them got worse as the tire wore out. I forgot how good wet traction was, but like everything else, it got worse as the tire wore out.
You should give Bridgestone Potenza RE760 a try. So far, they aren't much less of a tire than the RE050A, but are available at about half the price.
Hell, I even enjoyed the entire life of the Dunlop Direzzas more than the Falkens.
You should give Bridgestone Potenza RE760 a try. So far, they aren't much less of a tire than the RE050A, but are available at about half the price.
Hell, I even enjoyed the entire life of the Dunlop Direzzas more than the Falkens.
I have the 452's. Great for a DD and even works on the track... it's a very predictable tire and you know exactly when it's about to lose grip (in my case, it never really did). I don't have the exact figures right now, but my current non-staggered set with regular rotations have about 16k on them and 7/32 of tread left. New ones come with 10/32 tread depth. I figure i'll get 35k-40k on this set before needing replacement.
THanks!
#14
I've loved mine and will most likely go with another set. I still have some time before they'll need replacing... most likely getting me through 3 summers, which is not bad with the amount of driving I do.
My only complaint is how loud they got this year. Once they start to wear down, the get way louder than my liking.
My only complaint is how loud they got this year. Once they start to wear down, the get way louder than my liking.
#15
Who are you getting tires from? RE050A cost 230 a piece, RE760 cost 140 a piece, while FK452 cost 130 a piece (USD).