Review Kumho Ecsta 4X
#1
04-14-2012, 09:21 AM
Review Kumho Ecsta 4X
On my rear 19" OE's, I've been through the factory RE050A, FK452 (255 size) and Nankang NS-II (245). All of them have worn un-even under mild enthusiastic driving. No tracking. Brief run down on all my old tires first:
I was able to get the Nankangs new for $109 shipped off ebay. As with Nexen and other no-names, they've become somewhat more common now and can't be had that cheap any more. Would not buy again at current prices. For what I paid, the only complaint I had was the terrible appearance. As others have commented, they are not a true 245mm width. Reminds me of what 225/40/19's looked like on the front. I don't like the slanted sidewall look at all. The rear view looked very wimpy because of the lack of width. They did however have an excellent thick rim protector. I got 10k from these.
FK452's gave me 12k miles. I liked the 255 width that they were offered in. Paid about $160 installed 3 yrs ago. Everybody and their brother has reviewed these. I was fine with them.
RE050A's were on the car when I bought it used at 16k miles. I assume they were original. I didn't not notice any performance difference when going to the FK452's. I'm sure with side by side comparisons, I could probably tell. I would hope so for what they cost.
Ecsta 4X 255 width ran $207 shipped on ebay. This is a new model all season, they are M+S rated. My theory with trying these is based on my experience with my Toyo snow tires I run on my winter set. Those are 235/55/17 on OE wheels and they're wearing quite well. Of course part of that is less aggressive winter driving. But I'm hoping the Ecsta all season tread pattern will wear better compared to all my previous summer tires. Also will be nice not having to worry about running these in snow if I don't put my winters on in time. Treadwear rating is 420, so these are definitely not soft. So far I can't tell much traction difference coming from the Nankangs. But I'm not doing side by side comparison and this is replaced worn tires vs new tires.
I was able to get the Nankangs new for $109 shipped off ebay. As with Nexen and other no-names, they've become somewhat more common now and can't be had that cheap any more. Would not buy again at current prices. For what I paid, the only complaint I had was the terrible appearance. As others have commented, they are not a true 245mm width. Reminds me of what 225/40/19's looked like on the front. I don't like the slanted sidewall look at all. The rear view looked very wimpy because of the lack of width. They did however have an excellent thick rim protector. I got 10k from these.
FK452's gave me 12k miles. I liked the 255 width that they were offered in. Paid about $160 installed 3 yrs ago. Everybody and their brother has reviewed these. I was fine with them.
RE050A's were on the car when I bought it used at 16k miles. I assume they were original. I didn't not notice any performance difference when going to the FK452's. I'm sure with side by side comparisons, I could probably tell. I would hope so for what they cost.
Ecsta 4X 255 width ran $207 shipped on ebay. This is a new model all season, they are M+S rated. My theory with trying these is based on my experience with my Toyo snow tires I run on my winter set. Those are 235/55/17 on OE wheels and they're wearing quite well. Of course part of that is less aggressive winter driving. But I'm hoping the Ecsta all season tread pattern will wear better compared to all my previous summer tires. Also will be nice not having to worry about running these in snow if I don't put my winters on in time. Treadwear rating is 420, so these are definitely not soft. So far I can't tell much traction difference coming from the Nankangs. But I'm not doing side by side comparison and this is replaced worn tires vs new tires.
#4
04-18-2012, 04:05 PM
#5
04-18-2012, 04:34 PM
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
