11 replies to this topic

[1314cc]

Just wondering if anybody has tried these tyres out?

[Pops_Guild]

Yep. I’m running them on mine. Can’t fault them.

[absx2]

I used the old Falken 165/60-12 and hated them with passion and vowed never to waste my money on the brand ever again but time moves on so I`m interested in peoples views, particularly when driven hard but the poor wet rating of E compared the the Yokohama a359  C rating kind of says it all and the extra tenner will probably be well spent.

[cal844]

I've had 3 sets of these, great tyres for the price, slower wear rate than Yoko's and not far away with grip levels in the dry, you can give them stick in the wet too but just be careful with how much.

I find that the Yokohama tyre is far to expensive for what they are.


Overall if you want to spend another £100 on top of the falkens for the Yoko's, to be disappointed then fair play.

[1314cc]

I've had yokos in the past though more recently been back on 145/70s. Saw these the Falkens online recently ,now tempted you go back to wider tyres

[1314cc]

Most online tyre suppliers say a wet grip B?
Minispares say E?

[Pops_Guild]

I used the old Falken 165/60-12 and hated them with passion and vowed never to waste my money on the brand ever again but time moves on so I`m interested in peoples views, particularly when driven hard but the poor wet rating of E compared the the Yokohama a359  C rating kind of says it all and the extra tenner will probably be well spent.

 

Not sure where you're getting E for wet rating from? The majority of the tyre sites list the following on the ratings...

 

YOKOHAMA A539 165/60/12 > Economy "E", Wet "C", Noise 69dB

 

Falken Ze914 165/60/12  > Economy "E", Wet "B", Noise 69dB

 

I have not found any issue in the wet.

[cal844]

I used the old Falken 165/60-12 and hated them with passion and vowed never to waste my money on the brand ever again but time moves on so I`m interested in peoples views, particularly when driven hard but the poor wet rating of E compared the the Yokohama a359 C rating kind of says it all and the extra tenner will probably be well spent.

Not sure where you're getting E for wet rating from? The majority of the tyre sites list the following on the ratings...

YOKOHAMA A539 165/60/12 > Economy "E", Wet "C", Noise 69dB

Falken Ze914 165/60/12 > Economy "E", Wet "B", Noise 69dB

I have not found any issue in the wet.

I had no issues in the wet either, the ZE914 is a great tyre for the price and far better than the old FK07E

[absx2]

https://www.tyrelead...4W-7bKq6gIV2u3t

 

http://www.minispare...|Back to search

 

You would think suppliers would take the eu labels a little more seriously and provide the facts rather than misrepresent an item

Is it an E or a B who knows.

 

 

I've had 3 sets of these, great tyres for the price, slower wear rate than Yoko's and not far away with grip levels in the dry, you can give them stick in the wet too but just be careful with how much.

I find that the Yokohama tyre is far to expensive for what they are.


Overall if you want to spend another £100 on top of the falkens for the Yoko's, to be disappointed then fair play.

 

 The Yoko`s are £11 extra each before discount so £44 extra for a set so not £100 and  " and not far away with grip levels in the dry, "  means you agree the yoko`s have superior grip to the Falkens.  

I do know that the yokos go a bit hard after 6 years and need to be binned which is all the more reason to rag them out first 

I might try a couple of ZE914`s on the front as I have another car they can go on if they are not up to serious use as the car will be sold anyway.

[cal844]

https://www.tyrelead...4W-7bKq6gIV2u3t

http://www.minispare...|Back to search

You would think suppliers would take the eu labels a little more seriously and provide the facts rather than misrepresent an item
Is it an E or a B who knows.

I've had 3 sets of these, great tyres for the price, slower wear rate than Yoko's and not far away with grip levels in the dry, you can give them stick in the wet too but just be careful with how much.

I find that the Yokohama tyre is far to expensive for what they are.


Overall if you want to spend another £100 on top of the falkens for the Yoko's, to be disappointed then fair play.

The Yoko`s are £11 extra each before discount so £44 extra for a set so not £100 and " and not far away with grip levels in the dry, " means you agree the yoko`s have superior grip to the Falkens.
I do know that the yokos go a bit hard after 6 years and need to be binned which is all the more reason to rag them out first
I might try a couple of ZE914`s on the front as I have another car they can go on if they are not up to serious use as the car will be sold anyway.

The Yokohama offering is softer so does wear faster than the Ziex Ze914 but the wet grip of the falkens is superior over the Yoko, I obviously don't push the car as much in the wet as I would on a dry surface.

I'd try falkens all round, ive never had any loss of traction in normal daily driving. Driving like a ton with wheelspins galore kills the Falkens, it glazes them.

[beardylondon]

I had a set of Yokos on my Mk1 for 12 years, but then I only did 9000 miles, but they lasted well and didn’t crack. I changed them as I looked at the manufactured year stamped on the sidewall and thought it was probably time! The tyre fitter couldn’t believe it, there was still tread left.
I looked at cheaper falkens, but put yokos on again, heres to another 12 years!

[roblightbody]

It's good to hear that the Falkens are now seen to be close to the Yokos in performance. A few years back (I might be going back a while...) they were seen as being far apart, and the Yokos were a bit of a no-brainer.

My Mini now doesn't do a huge mileage, so the main costs aren't tyres, even on the more expensive Yokos.