Falken 512, Dunlop 5000 or Futura Ultra Z ?
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita, Kansas
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Falken 512, Dunlop 5000 or Futura Ultra Z ?
I'm looking for a new set of tires. I need all-seasons being that I use my Vette as a daily driver and it'll have to be able to handle the snow. I occasionaly take it to the track so straight line traction is also pretty important.
Right now I'm considering:
Dunlop 5000- According to Tirerack, seem to have very good dry, wet and snow traction. Traction is "AA". The ones that I'm leaning towards, but also the most expensive.
Futura Ultra Z-A couple of friends of mine were running them, and were very happy with them. They're rated "AA" for traction.
Falken 512- Some guys on the Corvette board I go on seem to be pretty happy. They're the cheapest af all three, but are only rated "A" for traction.
What do you guys think?
Right now I'm considering:
Dunlop 5000- According to Tirerack, seem to have very good dry, wet and snow traction. Traction is "AA". The ones that I'm leaning towards, but also the most expensive.
Futura Ultra Z-A couple of friends of mine were running them, and were very happy with them. They're rated "AA" for traction.
Falken 512- Some guys on the Corvette board I go on seem to be pretty happy. They're the cheapest af all three, but are only rated "A" for traction.
What do you guys think?
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Orlando,Fl. USA
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1990 GTA
Engine: 5.7 T.P.I.
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 3:23
I had the Dunlops (5000) on my car and loved them, the back wore out long before the front for some reason... So I needed 2 tires bad and didnt have the money, my brother let me use his Firestone card and they did not have the Dunlops. I got the Firestone Firehawk SZ 50 EP's, the same size as the Dunlops that I had (255 50 16"). Very nice tires, and expensive, but the first thing I noticed was that they were not as wide as the Dunlops, which I still have on the front, so I measured them to make sure. The tread that makes contact with the road is about an inch skinnier on the Firestones, and my front tires are 245's! I have had the Falkens also, they are a softer compound and did not last long at all. I would get the Dunlops.
Firehawk traction test below
Firehawk traction test below
Last edited by 1990GTA; 08-23-2003 at 03:16 PM.
#4
Supreme Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Evansville,IN,USA
Posts: 2,025
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 89' T/A, 00' Firehawk
Engine: 406 Roller
Transmission: TH700R4 w/2800 stall
Axle/Gears: 3.23 Posi
I have the ultra Z's on my t/a, 255/50/15, I like them alot. The ride is good, they roll(coast) excellent, wet traction is good, I won't drive it snow so couldn't tell ya. Today at the track I hooked a 1.84 60ft with them. If you heat them up they grab hard. Made my car wheel hop so bad the rearview mirror flew off and hit me in the head at the track and the radio pod popped out of the dash, now thats some wheel hop!!
#6
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tamarac Fl
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i've had the falkens and the futura's on my iroc. the falkens SUCK. no wet traction, poor dry traction (like when slamming it or taking corners), poor threadwear. they look cool though the futuras were only $5-10 bucks more (each) but the difference is very worthwhile. i actually have better traction off the line with these and my 3.27 rear than with the falkens and the ex-2.77, and i don't have to drive like grandma in the rain. threadwear is also holding up better.
hope it helps
hope it helps
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post