JaySHOguy
Active Member
I will add my opinion to this thread. Kirk, I know you will not agree with me as you've stated this before...
I had the V-RATED Ectsa 225/55/16's on my GenIII SHO on the stock chrome rims. With 42psi in the front and 38 in back, the car handled corners terribly. You could feel the sidewalls giving out under the stress. When not driving the car hard, they performed very well, rode smoothly, and had great Wet surface traction.
When I traded that car in, I kept the tires and wheels for my '89 SHO. On the '89, the tire/wheel package had totally different characteristics. Handled GREAT around hard turns! I could push that car much harder around the same turns that I would cringe at with the '97.
Maybe if I had gotten the Z-rated Kumho's things would have been different. I also think the fact that Kirk is using bigger/wider wheels may have an impact on his opinion & views.
Again, this is just in my opinion, folks.
<small>[ November 14, 2003, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: JaySHOguy ]</small>
I had the V-RATED Ectsa 225/55/16's on my GenIII SHO on the stock chrome rims. With 42psi in the front and 38 in back, the car handled corners terribly. You could feel the sidewalls giving out under the stress. When not driving the car hard, they performed very well, rode smoothly, and had great Wet surface traction.
When I traded that car in, I kept the tires and wheels for my '89 SHO. On the '89, the tire/wheel package had totally different characteristics. Handled GREAT around hard turns! I could push that car much harder around the same turns that I would cringe at with the '97.
Maybe if I had gotten the Z-rated Kumho's things would have been different. I also think the fact that Kirk is using bigger/wider wheels may have an impact on his opinion & views.
Again, this is just in my opinion, folks.
<small>[ November 14, 2003, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: JaySHOguy ]</small>
