Clint's Tire Shop

Comments on The Yokohama S.drive steps up to the plate.

Thursday, November 4, 2010 by William Rowland:

I am concerned about the huge inconsistency between s.drive's tested wet performance on May 9, 2008 compared to June 11, 2010. It basically went from worst to best in the wet. Why?

Monday, November 8, 2010 by Clint:

If you look at rank order of the S.drive’s wet performance versus the competitors, the difference lies in the competitive set, which is different between these two tests. In the 2008 test, the comparison tires proved to offer better wet grip than the Yokohama tire. In the 2010 test, the Yokohama proved to work better than most of the others. 2008 test: BFGoodrich g-Force KDW2 Bridgestone Potenza RE760 Sport Michelin Pilot Exalto PE2 Yokohama S.drive 2010 test: BFGoodrich g-Force Sport Firestone Wide Oval Indy 500 Kumho Ecsta SPT Yokohama S.drive Recognizing that over the two year span between the tests there are differences in the test vehicles used (2008 E90 Coupe vs. 2011 E92 Coupe), ambient conditions and the condition of the track surface, the basic performance of the Yokohama S.drive didn’t change that much: Total Lap Time (wet) 2008 31.46 seconds 2010 31.63 seconds 50-0 ABS Stop (wet) 2008 98.4’ 2010 104.6’ Lateral g’s (wet) 2008 0.860 g 2010 0.802 g

Tuesday, March 8, 2011 by Donald Robinson:

I have the 225/50 S drive on my 2006 Toyota Convertible. I don't think the tires have very good traction on wet roads. The car slips very easily when the pavement is wet.

Leave a comment

Name
Email
Your comment
(No HTML)
Type the text from the image below