No doubt, I am not even driving my Eclipse in the winter... But I want a tire that has a decent treadwear.. Maybe the Kumho MX's aren't the way to go.. How many miles you think you could get outa them?V8SpankR said:The MXs are the equivelant to the Falken Azenis. They are definetly not for in the snow and tread wear rating is pretty low,the trade off for more grip. From what I've heard is that they are pretty comparable to tires costing twice as much just like the Falkens.
I have the Kumho Ecstas and there more suited for wet/dry but the MXs lean more toward dry grip.
I'm debating which tires to get next summer,either the MXs or the Azenis.
Thanks for the info!AWD Terror said:There is a full write up on the MX's in the current issue of SportCompactCar mag.
Normally, you can't compare two different tread wear ratings, but that's only from different manufacturers. In this case, Kuhmo makes both the tires so theoretically, you can compare them. The MX's have a tread wear rating of 220 and are Y rated. The 712's have a rating of 280 and are W rated. You can then interpolate that the MX's will wear faster than the 712's. Using your numbers, the MX should last less than 25k. How much less? Not sure. Between 220 and 280, there is about a 21% numerical difference (I think). Does that mean that the MX's will last 21% fewer miles than the 712's? Probably not. Or maybe they will. Unfortunately the only way to really know is to wait until a bunch of people running the MX's have worn them out. So why am I babbling? Couldn't tell ya.turboniam said:
Thanks for the info!
I'm not sure what the treadwear rating is of the 712s, but since I have gotten 25K + out of the 712s, I'm sure there is some way to mathmatically estimate the treadwear of the MXs in comparison to the 712s.
I really didn't expect the 712s to last as long as they have, so if I could get more grip sacrificing a little bit of tread wear, I know I would do it
Anyone have the numbers on these 2 tires???