Falken Ziex Ze 512

Has anyone put these tires on LGT? How are they for rain/snow?

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3007&highlight=ziex[/url]

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1720&highlight=ziex

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15121&highlight=ziex

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11921&highlight=ziex

 

Note that jim1969 has experience that spans the Pirelli P-Zero Nero, Toyo Proxes 4, and the Falken Ziex ZE 512s.

 

One major thing to note is that both the Toyos and the Pirellis are "Ultra High Performance All Seasons," whereas the Falkens are "High Performance All Seasons." This should tip you off as to some of the trade-offs to be had.

 

jim1969 reports that the former two (Toyo and Pirelli), are both better dry - and that in wet, the Falkens start to come in to its own and can potentially match the others, and that in the snow, they are superior compared against the "Ultra High Performance" rubbers.

 

My choice for the Falkens was based primarily due to budget concerns. Not in so much that the Ziex themselves are very affordable (most Sears stores nationwide will honor competitive pricing with Discount Tire Direct, so these came in at just over $92 per tire in the 225/45/17 fitment - before mounting, balancing, etc.), but rather in that with a baby on the way, I am unable to spend what I would have liked for a dedicated set of ultra-high performance summer-fall tires/wheels, and another set of snow/ice dedicated compound for the winter to early-spring season.

 

Also having an impact on my choice was the fact that the Neros are known to temporarily flat-spot in cold weather upon storage. Since my daily commute is within 15 miles, I didn't want to have to deal with having rough-riding tires 5 days out of the week. With the Proxes, the very conflicting reports of their performance from LGT.com members gave me pause.

 

That said, I thus needed something that, while it will perform better than the RE92s in the dry, would also hold Aces in the wet and especially snowy-weather department when compared against other high or ultra-high performance all-seasons.

 

So far, I've only had my Falkens on for a week. Unfortunately, I have yet to experience any foul weather of note. NE-Ohio, at least in the local region where I live, has yet to see much rain in the past week or so, but having had these same exact fitment tires on two of my previous rides (both front-drive DSMs, at around 300 horsepower to the front wheels, confirmed via dyno), I am fairly confident that they will pair exceptionally well with our Subaru Symmetrical AWD, and will see me safely thorugh my commutes.

 

I'm currently running hot pressures of 38/36 front/rear, but will likely bump up to 39/37 or even 40/38 as I feel that they are a little sluggish at really low speeds.

 

So far, dry highway tracking has been great, and road-noise is significantly reduced compared to the stock RE92s, especially over uneven road-surfaces, such as grooved asphalt. Ride quality has not altered, IMHO. Overall grip has definitely improved over the stockers, but keep in mind that's also 225s versus 215s.

 

Just remember that they're all-season "Jack of All Trades," and that despite their M+S rating, they will not be a match for dedicated ultra-high performance "wet" tires nor will they be a match for dedicated snow/ice tires.

 

They're a compromise.

Thanks a lot TSI. Your comments have exceeded my expectations.

Today I have ordered my set of Falken but I bought 215/45/17 mostly because you can't bit their prize ($67). It also seems to me that 215 should be better on snow than 225.

Any way thank you very much for your input!

The Sears Sunday advertisement in the newspaper (August 21) says the Falkens are now on sale. They didn't price the Legacy size, but featured a 185/60-14 at 40 something per tire which seems pretty inexpensive.

alpinefun - NP. And definitely, the 215s will be better on the snow than the 225s. Anything to help you "cut through" better would definitely help.

 

Me? Well, like I said, it's about compromises, and I was willing to give up a bit of snow grip (I tend to be a very cautious driver in the snow/slush) for a little more help when dry.

I've got mine from vulcantire.com. $308 total, including shipping.

I have the Falken 512's in 18". They're good in the wet, but I haven't ran them in the snow.

^^^ +1

 

Well, just found out for myself today that they are even *better* in the wet with our Scooby Symmetrical AWD than they were on my front-drivers.

 

Torrential downpours in areas of NE-Ohio today.

 

I actually had just finished washing Winky and put her in the garage about a half-hour before it started raining, but decided I just *had to* take her out for some testing.

 

Full-on at 45 mph through about 2.5 to 3 inches of standing water, there was barely a twitch to hint at hydroplaning - and this was around a slight bend, too. Highway stability in the wet was impeccable, even better than I remembered on my front-drivers. I unfortunately did not get to do any standing-water run-throughs as traffic was heavier than I'd have liked to perform such testing, but I am confident that I'll be in the passing lane, often, throughout this fall and next spring, when it typically rains harder here in NE-Ohio.

 

TSi, if I had read your review (when I was looking a month ago), I might've jumped for the Falken's myself. Great write up.

godwhomismike,

 

Thanks for your praise - but remember, my praise, in turn, of the Falkens is in relation to its being a "High Performance All-Season" (versus "Ultra-High Performance All-Season" rating of the P-Zero Nero and Proxes 4), and also in relation of its "dirt cheap" pricing.

 

Also, jim1969 is the one whom I have to thank - without his direct-comparison (using Scooby Symmetrical AWD as a base, but unfortunately not "direct-direct" in terms of having an LGT-base) of the three tires, I would have myself been much more hesitant on this decision.

 

I just hope, now, when it's all sunny and warm out, that this winter will prove the Falkens to be as good as jim1969 evaluated them to be in the snow/slush, and that they will be an even better pairing with Winky than they were with my front-drivers, with whom I've had great "rolling" and straight-line tracking performance under such conditions, but from which I also wished for a bit more sureness going around corners and at throttle tip-in on takeoff.

 

I'll be revisiting this, for sure.

I just switched from Falken 512's (V rated) to BFG Traction T/A's (H rated) on my 04 Forester XT - the 512's were a huge improvement over the OEM Geolanders, those things make your RE-92's look good! The BFG's are almost as big an improvement over the 512's though on this vehicle.

 

The 512's still had softer sidewalls than I like though, and treadwear less than I was hoping for (26k, down to the treadwear bars in mostly highway driving) - the Traction T/A's work better for me. Much stiffer sidewalls, and noticably better traction in both wet & dry - only have a couple thousand miles on them so we'll see on the treadwear...

brett -

 

Very good point on sidewall!

 

One thing I forgot to mention was that I was looking to "bounce" a bit on my sidewalls. Being truly "all-season" here in Ohio means surviving the winter-through-late-spring pothole season, and a bouncy sidewall gives me not only protection (which a stiff sidewall can also give), but also ride comfort.

 

The 512s seem very sensitive to tire pressure in terms of wear, but I haven't really been able to confirm this, and *certainly*, more people say that they were faster than those who say they wear "normal" - however, it's well to note that they're definitely NOT the longest-lasting tires I've ever shod on any of my cars, too, and I also thank you for bringing that up. But heck, considering that they carry a "W" speed-rating (both of my last sets were 225/45/17s, which, in this fitment, carried "W" rating), I was happy to have gotten about 28K miles from one of my last sets (which was still fine in the wet, but I would have definitely changed them out before the next snowy season; my very last set did, however, look like they were only going to last 25K, if that <---- unfortunately, that car was/is-being sold, and I did not get to fully evaluate, I'm basing my assessment on "looks").

 

Good points!

They suck in the snow, I have them on my Forester and tested thru last winter. I didn't feel confident in these tires and drove slower than conservative speeds cause the grip sucked. The previous OE Geolanders fared better. But in wet and dry these tires are good and like others, the tread wears pretty quickly.

^^^

 

Ykies Geolanders look like they're built totally for another purpose!

Yes, I am running 215's on my 2.5i wagon on a 17"x 7.5 wheel....The tires are very well made (they are Japanese) and provide very good grip and road feel for an all season. The only negative is they are a little loud. I am very happy with this tire over the Kumho's I once had on my WRX. They may be an "all season" but I believe they are bias towards the summer season if you ask me. I would never run these in the snow nor any other all season. I always run snows in the winter on my stock 16" ers.......Personally, I am a big fan of Japanese manufacturing thus I would buy these tires over many other brands.

They suck in the snow, I have them on my Forester and tested thru last winter. I didn't feel confident in these tires and drove slower than conservative speeds cause the grip sucked. The previous OE Geolanders fared better. But in wet and dry these tires are good and like others, the tread wears pretty quickly.

I'd say just the opposite. I went from the Geolanders to the Falken's on my wife's Forester. The Falkens did much better in all weather, including snow and I'm not too far from you so I had roughly the same weather. My wife never had a problem with these tires and in snow they handle better than my PZero Nero M+S on the Legacy. About 2 years back, Consumer Reports tested the all seasons and the Falkens were number 1. I bought on their recommendations and wasn't disappointed. I wouldn't put my wife and kid on anything less than the best. Well, at least not my kid.......

Jim, Im with you..I ran the 512's on my WRX last winter and they were far better than the re-92's that came stock. I didnt put the 512's on till January so I went thru a few storms with the re-92 and they were terrible. I felt that the 512's were a significant upgrade in safety and handling in bad weather.

 

I will be purchasing another set of 512's soon for my stockers for this winter. Right now Im running the Avon 550's thru tirerack. I wanted to try them after seeing so many positive reviews..I had them mounted on some SSR's which will come off in October..

 

I'd say just the opposite. I went from the Geolanders to the Falken's on my wife's Forester. The Falkens did much better in all weather, including snow and I'm not too far from you so I had roughly the same weather. My wife never had a problem with these tires and in snow they handle better than my PZero Nero M+S on the Legacy. About 2 years back, Consumer Reports tested the all seasons and the Falkens were number 1. I bought on their recommendations and wasn't disappointed. I wouldn't put my wife and kid on anything less than the best. Well, at least not my kid.......

I'd say just the opposite. I went from the Geolanders to the Falken's on my wife's Forester. The Falkens did much better in all weather, including snow and I'm not too far from you so I had roughly the same weather. My wife never had a problem with these tires and in snow they handle better than my PZero Nero M+S on the Legacy. About 2 years back, Consumer Reports tested the all seasons and the Falkens were number 1. I bought on their recommendations and wasn't disappointed. I wouldn't put my wife and kid on anything less than the best. Well, at least not my kid.......

 

That's the reason why I went with Falkens cause of all the reviews. I'm not knocking them as they're an upgrade from the Geolanders on dry and wet but in snow, but would have expected better in the snow traction and seeing other reviews, I'm not alone.

 

Good dry and wet but adequate in the snow. Would I buy again? I think I would have to see what other choices are out there next time I replace them.

mach_six - Maybe Nokian WRs? Much more pricy, but that should be more winter-biased.

 

Also, I'm wondering if maybe different geographic areas, receiving different but still somewhat "characteristic" snow/slush mixes, also cause some end-user bias. As I related in a previous post above, here in the metro-Cleveland area, the Sears guys have been getting innudated with requests for the 512s - from word-of-mouth recommendations as to their superior snow performance. Maybe our differences can be attributed to differences in what kind of "winter mix" we typically see?

 

fazzster - Ah! I think that's where some of your perceived difference is coming from:

 

I would never run these in the snow nor any other all season. I always run snows in the winter on my stock 16" ers.......

 

Definitely, no "all-season" tires are any match for dedicated modern winter/snow/ice tires under those conditions. I firmly believe that anything with "all season" in the title is plainly a compromise.

I find any non-winter tire in the snow vastly inferior......try a set of Dunlop Graspic DS-2 snow tires and you will never run all seasons in the winter again. I gaurentee it! it really is amazing how winter tires perform compared to all seasons. The way I look at it is I have two pairs of shoes. A pair of running shoes and a pair of hiking boots. I can certainly climb a mountain in the running shoes and run the block in my hiking boots but running shoes are not designed for hiking and hiking boots are not designed for running. Spend the extra cash and get a set of snows and wheels and switch over every spring. The extra expense is worth the safety of your kids and maybe your wife....

I priced the Nokian WRs when I was looking into my PZero Nero M+S. The Nokians in our stock size were like $199/tire. My pirellis were $135/tire.

I priced the Nokian WRs when I was looking into my PZero Nero M+S. The Nokians in our stock size were like $199/tire. My pirellis were $135/tire.

 

+$80 per tire in 225...

Spend the extra cash and get a set of snows and wheels and switch over every spring. The extra expense is worth the safety of your kids and maybe your wife....

 

Ah! But that extra cash is hard to come by.

 

Like I stated prior, my choice for "all-seasons" is simply a compromise, which was emphasized repeatedly - nothing more, nothing less. I give up grip when dry, and I give up grip when snowy - and I compromise my driving style and bow to safety and the tires' limits.

 

In the snow, I turn into a very, very conservative driver - so much so that even the RE92s handle exceptionally well.

 

I'm fond of the saying that one cannot dey the laws of physics. In the snow, I mind physics very, very much. In the snow, I drive without exceeding the limits of my tires in such conditions - and although certainly, a set of dedicated "summers" and a set of dedicated "winters" would have been preferable, there's unfortunately less $$$ floating around than I'd like.