porque

iTrader: (4)

Is this a new Ecsta MX? If not I've heard the MX's are an old tire that's been totally eclipsed by new tires (e.g. the RT-615).

4WS Tuning

iTrader: (73)

not that i know of.... havent heard of any changes. i would have to oppose that statment.. i feel that these are much better

Warrtalon

iTrader: (6)

This goes against what others have found. The MX does not compare to the RT-615 in dry handling, and I highly doubt you abused them like you claimed. You don't autocross or road race, and there's simply no way to push them to the limit without having a race course to use. You have to be at the utter limit to know how they perform, and you have to know how to drive at that limit. You don't have experience with this type of driving, so it's hard to believe the first part of what you said.

As for launching, the only reason the MX would grip better would be because it has a softer sidewall...not because it's some amazingly grippy tire. RT-615s are like the stock Advans in that they have a very stiff sidewall for amazing handling, which is not good for launching. A good tire for drag will have soft sidewalls that crinkle, which is not good for carving corners. I do believe this part of your analysis, because you do know how to launch, and it makes sense that the MXs have a softer sidewall...this is why they don't handle as well as RT-615s.

Profoxcg

iTrader: (9)

What would you recommend if I:

Autocross
but live in sofla where it rains hard.

I was really considering the Falken RT615 - are they really bad in the wet?
I have invested in coilovers (buddyclub) so I dont want to un-due that perfomance with poor tires =)

svtkiller

I have put about 14,000 miles on my 615's in the past few months and they are fine in the rain. I drive 60-70 in the rain and haven't had a problem yet. And I also cut back to back 1.6 60's with my 615's in 39-45* weather.

riceball777

iTrader: (33)

i would rum the mx over the falkens just because they can be had in stock size. your cant get the falkens in 235 45 17. 245/45/17 on stock ride heigh looks like the car is raised and look like baloon tires. 255/40/17 ppl say are too wide for the stock rims and are smaller then stock size.

so i vote MX for DD on stock rims and ride height

4WS Tuning

iTrader: (73)

i have pushed both tires to the limit in an auto cross setting. my dad owns a large property with a huge parking lot where friends and myself go have our own fun.
and it doesn't take much to make a tire slide out. if ya go fast enough and turn hard enough it will slide. but like i said before as far as autocross the falkens were lasting a little longer before overheating. so for some1 who's hard core into road racing or auto crossing then the falkens would be the better choice.

at the same time these tires main job is keeping you safe during normal driving, and i dont think the falkens do that job well.

brk4sti

iTrader: (4)

ive always thought the kumhos get real greasy real fast ive never liked them

Evotech8

iTrader: (4)

Had the Kumho MX's.

A good tire for straight line and wet traction, but not so good when turning.

Initial turn-ins and mid corrections around a corner felt a little "sloppy" due to the softer side walls compared to RT-615's.

IMO for track or aggressive street duty(dry) stay with the RT-615's.

wrcwannabe

iTrader: (1)

Both of these tires need to be sprayed down thoroughly after each autocross run. The only exception is when the temperature is below 50 F , then you'll need blankets to keep the heat in and do everything you can to heat them up before the next run.

Warr is right. The MX has a softer sidewall, will launch better than the RT-615. The stiffer sidewall of the Rt-615 will show up at 95% on the autox course. It does suck at launching. Unless you drop the pressures way down, and then the footprint goes away a bit so you lose traction anyway. :-)

For street use the MX would probably be a bit better.

milburn

splurta

There are a couple of fairly recent threads on the scca autox forums comparing these tires. Even more helpful, Grassroots Motorsports magazine did a comparo test that I think you guys might find interesting. FWIW the 615 came out tops.

http://www.grassrootsmotorsports.com...5_tiretest.pdf

bluebanana23

iTrader: (26)

There was a test conducted by tirerack pairing up all of the max performance tires against each other (before rt-615). Eagle F1 was first and Kumho MX was last while Advan Neovas came in third.

sponge bob

iTrader: (3)

When you say you did a back to back to back comparisons that means you had access to both sets of NEW tires and would make a timed run then swap tires and make another timed run with the other tire? Then you looked at the data logger for grip data? Something like what was done here?

http://www.grassrootsmotorsports.com...5_tiretest.pdf

splurta

Yup, and Tirerack also did a test btwn the Advan Neova (which is also in the Grassroots Motorsports test in the previous post), the Bridgestone RE-O1R, the Kumho MX and the BFG KA-TD. No Falken 615 in this test though, unfortunately.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/...ay.jsp?ttid=71

4WS Tuning

iTrader: (73)

not exactly... basicly i step up a giant circle on the property.. same size both times and see how fast i can go be4 the car start understeer. then i push it even more and see how fast i can go be4 the whole car spins out. the mx's gripped better... but not for very long..

the falkens could have taken the beating for much longer than the mx's.

i have my avic n1 which shows G's. it may not be a super accurate reading but its the same type if reading everytime. the mx's were .1 g's better consistently.

the stock advans we're .3 better than the mx's

cheers!