VELOSE said:
I'm going to sound like a scratched vinyl record and I will seem to sound like the article from Car and Driver is my tire bible article. Also, I know my boy BigJim is going to debate that these tests won't apply to us V owners unless the tests are done on our cars.
However, there's a reason Car and Driver placed this Bridgestone Potenza in 9th place. Wait, this is the S-03. The tire in the test on Car and Driver is the RE050A. I don't know how much difference there is because I haven't researched the Potenza's. Either way, the mag had this to say about the RE050A. "Geswein said it felt dull and disconnected and that it was somewhat soft and imprecise when driven hard."
Hope this helps.
I'm not debating the GS-D3 as being a good tire, because it most definitely is. I bought a set for my SHO 2 years ago.
All I'm saying is that if you want max dry performance, you need to step up considerably in the stickiness of the tread compound or find a tire that has VERY stiff sidewalls to offset the loss of lateral stability when leaving the RFT realm to a non-runflat. I can't state this enough...obviously.
I have always respected Car and Driver for their accurate and fair reporting. But how many cars are there on the road that come with stock runfalts? Very few. This test was made to be about a generalization to get a good idea of what each tire would most likely do on most people's cars. Car and Driver even points this out in their comparo. Here's a quote:
"A tire, like most parts of a car, is a compromise. Make it great in the wet, and it more than likely sacrifices dry performance, and that's why we didn't come across one tire that was able to ace all the tests.
Still, there are countless other variables for tire engineers to consider. For example, the construction of that inner carcass can be made stiff for precise feel or compliant for a good, comfy ride. And the construction can have a marked effect on performance.
Don't forget noise, durability, and appearance considerations, too. It's enough to make us glad we're not tire engineers."
They tested a non-RFT RE050A. Most people would look at this test looking at a non-RFT RE050A. If you want to ignore the fact that our Vs aren't like most cars, and you want to feel all squidgy with the C&D comparo, then by all means, do so.
I do want to point out that the RE050A got the highest marks for cornering stability in this chart:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/surveyresults/surveydisplay.jsp?type=MP
Many of the surveys left for the RE050A were actually for non-RFT models. But many were.
I'm not trying to sell the RE050A to anyone. I've never even driven on them. But, what I am saying is that there is more to our Vs then just slapping on the tire one comparison says is best. That is an added burden with owning a V. Throw in the fact that we have an undertired, heavy sports sedan and that makes this even more critical. Our V was the FIRST application for the F1 Supercar EMT in 245/45 18 size. Goodyear produced it for us. Every other CTS comes with a spare. We have a spare tire well. There are other 245/45 18 tires on the market. I strongly feel that the RFT was made primarily for handling stability. It's a very important factor. Going to a non-RFT, unless decreasing the sidewall size by going to a 19" wheel or getting a competition tire, is always going to be a step down in handling ability.
