Y'all need Jesus... and by jesus I mean the street tire God PS4S

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/public/...ry-braking.png
http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/public/...et-braking.png
http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/public/...S-lap-time.png
http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/public/...t-4-S-wear.png



and how is it wasting money? Over and over they've been proven and chosen over all other brands. Not to mention their insane warranty policy.

Now if you can't afford them, then thats one thing. I get it, it's a lot of money for tires. But if you want the best youre gonna have to spend money to get it. But saying that their not as good as conti or pz4 is not true. They're so much better.

Yeah, the only tire that is better and may be not anymore is re-11's. They never compare the BS re-11 to the Michelins for whatever reason and the re-71 is more a track/auto x tire. Michelins tend to wear better and you are definitely paying for the warranty and if you get another set of rears out of that then I would say it's a good deal!

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Whats wrong about what i said?

I'm not talking about the grip levels, but the sidewall and compound. There are several higher treadwear tires with soft compounds that will wear extremely fast with heat abuse or normal day to day driving. The treadwear rating isn't only a measurement of its potential adhesion, most of it has to do with tread thickness, not the compound. And the differences between the 200utqg and 300utqg tires are becoming increasingly small. Thus these "cheater" tires that potentially outmatch the comparative competition.

And i never said they weren't better, i said its not worth the additional cost IMO. With consumable products, value means a lot to some people, and i don't mean that by simply suggesting cheaper is always better. I waste money on expensive hooplah all the time lol.

The test you posted Goldy is not even comparable tires outside of the fact they have a similarly rated UTQG and tread depth. There are several tires in the specific category that may share the same designation, but completely varying characteristics. One may have a hard compound/soft sidewall, and another may have a soft compound/hard sidewall. Such is the case with the OLD nero GT tires. Hard as diamonds compound, soft sidewall.

The PS4s is directly comparable to the PZ4, ContiSport, S007 and the somewhat distant V105's, in which they are all well within the handling window of the PS4 for almost 100 dollars less a set (if not more). And if you are going to pay that difference for the 20-30k miles, why not get something like a set of extremes. If you are measuring lap times and stopping distances then they are unquestionable better at this. The RE-71r has a measured dry 50-0 of 72.0 feet, the PS4s is 80.2 (tirerack tests-same car same size tire)

Two guys here that would be great test markers for this argument is Rusty and Firehawk. They will be able to say which will last longer (contisport vs ps4's) and how well they last in varying conditions and its overall longevity.

Ok, I'm here. :icon17: I can comment on the PSS's. The P4S's, I've only got about 2,000 miles on them. I have the 285/35-19's on the front. They have a lot more grip then the PPS's I had on the front. At the Dragon. The PPS's would push some in the hairpins. I could get the P4S's to push a little, BUT that was driving at over 85% on the street. Not healthy. In the rain. It poured on the way home from the Dragon. As with any wide tires. You have to watch the deep water. With the rain. I really didn't have any problems will them. Asked the guys who followed home. :driving: Mileage wise. It's to soon to say. Overall, I'm impressed. :tup: :driving: I'm still waiting to do some trackdays with them. I'm waiting on my OS Giken diff to come in.

Camber levels? shocks/springs?

Front, camber -2, caster +7, toe +1/16".

Rear, camber -1.75, toe +1/16".

Shocks, stock Nismo.

Springs, stock Nismo.

Seems very conservative for the amount of tire you have.

I don't have many miles on my ECS's, maybe 1k at most so far. I run 285 square. I didn't get to run them at the dragon, but the improvement over the Advans in stock sizes is significant. The difference is greater in the rain. Breakaway characteristics are smooth, but I really have to force it with my car being NA. The new Tirerack tests show the PS4S coming out on top, but the difference is small. The ECS had higher overall wet grip and braking, but they claimed it was harder to use the highest levels the tire had to offer than the PS4S. Turn in and response were faster than the PS4S, but dry traction and braking were slightly lower. Honestly, the traction the car has now is beyond my driving skill. Unless I drop the clutch in first, it's not burning out. That's with 330+ and 260+wtq for reference. I live in Tampa, which is primarily why I jumped on the continental tires. Emergency braking is huge for me with all these idiots on the road when it's raining. And the fact I bout all 4 for under $1k is a pretty outstanding deal.

In compiling performance stats on about 22 tires that would fit my Z from the Tire Rack website, I found that the slalom times of the MPS4S were about 4th or 5th down from the best times. Overall, the Michelins were consistently excellent in most performance categories but not in this one category. I attributed this in part due to the less stiff sidewall. After I put a set on my Z I noticed that the sidewalls seemed less stiff than the Bridgestone Potenza S007s that were the OEM tire on my car. For me, the Bridgestones were the better tire and I am going to use the 30-day warranty to see if I can get them exchanged with the Potenza S007a or the Yokohama Neova AD08.

If I did not purchase the Yokohama Advan Neova AD08 R’s all around for the Z the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires would have been my next choice.

It is an old post, but as it is revived, some people locally who used PS4S on track has their tires chunked, I think it is an issue related to track use and high temperature. So, I would say it would only suit street and autocross.

I recently got a set(245/40R19-F, 275/35R19-R) on my 370Z sport coupe as replacements for the OEM Bridgestone Potenza S007 tires. The recommended inflation pressure is 32 psi square. I DD my car and don't track it, although I occasionally do some spirited canyon carving and slicing and dicing on the coastal mountain roads here in northern Cal when the weather permits. I was wondering if you had experimented with tire pressures and had found something good? When I set the pressures to 32 psi on the Michelins the car felt like it was a bowl of Jello around corners. I bumped up the cold pressure to 36 psi square and the car is handling much better. I did put some very stiff Hotchkis sway bars on the car a few months ago, which greatly improved the handling.

I'm at 36 all the way around.

That sounds 100% correct. The Bridgestones are known to have super stiff sidewalls, especially when you go up the performance ladder. So you really don't need much air in them to get stable handling. When I ran RE-11s and RE-71Rs for daily driving, I would have them set at 32 psi, mainly because I found they wear evenly at that pressure. The door pressures were causing more wear in the middle of the tread. I did run different wheels compared to stock, so that likely also affected it. Now I don't daily the car and it usually sits on the Conti Extreme Contact Sports with around 34 PSI.



Regarding the performance metrics listed earlier in the thread are for extreme driving conditions. So during track conditions, I wouldn't doubt the Michelin's worth. If anyone is DDing, they shouldn't be getting near those limits on the street anyway as that's ridiculously irresponsible. So getting a comparable tire for significantly less money would make sense. tl;dr, I would get Michelins if I was sensible about doing Daily driving and track work with one set of wheels.

Thanks for the feedback, particularly on the info regarding the stiffness of the sidewalls of the Bridgestones. That was my impression about the stiffness of the sidewalls of the Potenza S007s, which I liked.