Pirelli P Zero Rosso or OEM Continentals?

[AlanJ]

Please in the name of all that is holy do not let anyone from Kwik Fit advise you on what is right for you car Or let those monkeys actually fit your tyres. I've seen them in action and it brought a tear to my eye what they did with new or nearly new rims continually.

What a load of rubbish - judge each Kwik Fit dealer on their respective merits not smear the whole lot because of just one bad experience. I've seen them in action at my local dealership - excellent service etc. Some on this Forum are two quick to judge by a single experience. Perhaps if we judged Zeds in the same way we would never buy one.....

Broken rear springs
Roof motors etc etc etc

[daz05]

Kwik fit are terrible value for money IMHO.

[original guvnor]

Tyre choice is such a subjective issue IMO. Even when you read the so-called 'definitive' tyre tests in motoring magazines you'll find they are usually hosted at a tyre manufacturers research centre. So that will be an objective and unbiased test then...yeah right.

There is an awful lot of BS spouted by people about tyres, who, if they were that good at spotting the merits of one tyre over another, would be driving round circuits for a living. 'Barrack room lawyer' is a term that springs to mind.

If you like the Conti's stick with 'em. I've found them perfectly adequate for the job but if you fancy a change for example try something like the Vredstein as someone on here suggested. Just don't necessarily take the opinions on a forum such as this on tyres as anything other than personal opinion.

[dgm]

AlanJ you have more faith in Kwikfit than most car enthusiasts. I've used plenty of them over the years and they've all been as shoddy as the next. Internet car forums are full of bad reports about them, they can't all be wrong. If you've found a good one then great but the weight of evidence is against you when you defend them.

Original guvnor, there may well be a load of bullshit spouted about tyres but to say the OEM Conti's are adequate for the job is burying your head in the sand IMO. They are poor tyres and very old technology which were obviously available at a very attractive price to BMW when these cars were launched. There are plenty of superior alternatives for similar or less money.

[daz05]

O/t dgm I asked you for some help in the audio section regarding your dab set up. Hopefully you can help. Cheers.

[playalistic]

Please in the name of all that is holy do not let anyone from Kwik Fit advise you on what is right for you car Or let those monkeys actually fit your tyres. I've seen them in action and it brought a tear to my eye what they did with new or nearly new rims continually.

What a load of rubbish - judge each Kwik Fit dealer on their respective merits not smear the whole lot because of just one bad experience. I've seen them in action at my local dealership - excellent service etc. Some on this Forum are two quick to judge by a single experience. Perhaps if we judged Zeds in the same way we would never buy one.....

Broken rear springs
Roof motors etc etc etc

What entitles your experience and opinion of one decent site to overrule anybody else's. Dogmatism!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[original guvnor]

Original guvnor, there may well be a load of bullshit spouted about tyres but to say the OEM Conti's are adequate for the job is burying your head in the sand IMO. They are poor tyres and very old technology which were obviously available at a very attractive price to BMW when these cars were launched. There are plenty of superior alternatives for similar or less money.

You see this is what I mean dgm. Who says they are poor tyres ? You ? What qualifies you to make that judgement ? IN YOUR OPINION they are poor tyres. In mine they are perfectly good for the way I use my car. It's such a lazy thing to say they were obviously available at a very attractive price - a statement that has no basis in fact at all yet is passed off as such.

Please deal in facts or if you don't have the facts to support your views then clearly state they are merely your opinions.

[daz05]

Got to say I hold the same opinion as DGM, whether that is fact or not is another matter. One thing you can't argue with is that they are an old design which has since been improved.

[WLH]

I'm currently running Cont ExtremeContact DW's and for me they are an excellent tire and are as good or even better that the Goodyear F1's that I ran for almost 6 years on my precious Zed's. While the ExtremeContact DW are only sold in the North American market they are the top rated summer performance tire by TireRack. See: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/tes ... p?ttid=140

I did not purchase them because they were top rated by TireRack but based upon recommendation by others in our local club that were using them.

[dgm]

Original guvnor, there may well be a load of bullshit spouted about tyres but to say the OEM Conti's are adequate for the job is burying your head in the sand IMO. They are poor tyres and very old technology which were obviously available at a very attractive price to BMW when these cars were launched. There are plenty of superior alternatives for similar or less money.

You see this is what I mean dgm. Who says they are poor tyres ? You ? What qualifies you to make that judgement ? IN YOUR OPINION they are poor tyres. In mine they are perfectly good for the way I use my car. It's such a lazy thing to say they were obviously available at a very attractive price - a statement that has no basis in fact at all yet is passed off as such.

Please deal in facts or if you don't have the facts to support your views then clearly state they are merely your opinions.

Not the best riposte, if you don't mind me saying, as it is just as easy to apply your logic to your own statements as to mine. Opinions are what forums are all about and the only thing I can't substantiate is the price that BMW paid for the OEM Conti's. There are plenty of people who agree with me on the quality of these tyres, I agree that doesn't make it a fact but it's not a bad place to start. BMW are never going to concede that they compromised on tyre performance on an M car due to a decent financial saving but if you have a better explanation as to why they fitted a long superseded tyre then I would be intrigued to hear it. For the record, the reason I feel qualified to make the judgement on the quality of the OEM Conti's is that I drove the car with them fitted, found them severely lacking for a car of this quality, replaced them with 19" PS2's and found a startling improvement. I think that would qualify with most people as a sound enough basis to make the statement I did, sorry if you don't agree.

[original guvnor]

dgm - I don't have any issue with people expressing opinions and views on alternative products, as you say that's what makes these forums what they are. It's just when it is expressed as some sort of incontrovertible truth that it gets my back up. As to why BMW fitted this tyre, maybe the same explanation as to why they fitted the S54 engine..., the CSL brakes etc, because it was proven technology that reduced R&D costs in what was always going to be a low-volume niche model.

[Wondermike]

I think you're both right - a tyre compromised in terms of performance but which was proven on the M3 and required little R&D to make it work.

Wonder what I will swap to when the time comes, will be sticking to 18s

[dgm]

You're right, the Z4M is a bit of a parts bin special when you look at it. What I would say is that the S54 engine won many awards for it's excellence and although it was long in the tooth when fitted to the Z4, it was still an outstanding performer. The Conti's on the other hand were never well received by M3 owners who had them on new cars from 2001 onwards (at least not on the forums I frequented). BMW supplied new E46 M3's with a variation of tyre brands which would also have gone through R&D and I think they should have chosen a more up to date design for a 2006 car. I'm not saying the Conti's are ditchfinders, just that you'll get a lot more out of the car on a more modern alternative.

[dgm]

I think you're both right - a tyre compromised in terms of performance but which was proven on the M3 and required little R&D to make it work.

Wonder what I will swap to when the time comes, will be sticking to 18s

Personally I'm looking forward to putting on a set of Michelin Super Sports when my PS2's are done. The PS2's have been excellent for me and if the Super Sports are as big a step forward from them as early adopters have said then they've got to be worth a go.

[aerobod]

The big issue with the OEM Contis I found when I first took them on the track was limited dry grip, they felt quite greasy when warm. They also didn't last very long on the rear with fairly aggressive driving (10,000km / 6,000 miles). Some of the pros I found were good steering feel, predictable at the limit, decent wet grip, minimal tramlining and low noise for a "performance" tyre. They actually felt much better on the track with 30PSI cold all around (equating to 38PSI when measured in the paddock after a cool-down lap), but still lacked in dry grip.

My current Dunlop Z1 Star Specs have much higher grip and are wearing less rapidly compared with the Contis in 20mm wider sizes than standard, but actually have a little less feel, more noise and more tramlining (probably as much due to the extra width as the tyre type).

If you are not worried about ultimate grip, the OEM Contis are respectable for general use.