Kumho Vs Michelin Pilot

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

R2D2

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 23, 2004
Messages
6,957
Car
C350
I appreciate that traditional wisdom says that £600 worth of Michelins should be better than a set of Kumhos, however, my w203 has just worn out a set of Michelins more quickly than expected and provided me with 0.00 % grip in all this cold weather. In contrast my wife's kia has Kumhos on it as standard fit, she has not worn any of them out, and in this wintery weather she has not been stuck at all. Therefore I have ordered a set of Kumhos which are replacing the Michelins tommorrow. Time will tell if it is false economy but several sets of Conti's and Michelins haven't done that well so its time to try the underdog! Oh £290 all in feels better than £600 as well:)
 
I dont want to put a downer on this but dont you think that if your wifes Kia was shod with Cheng Chin tyres, they too wouldnt have worn out and they too would have been better in the snow than your Michelins?

The difference is the car, not the tyres.
 
^

But surely tread left in the Khumos is better than bald branded tyres,

Autoexpress is pretty good on tyre test and may suprise you that its not always the big boys that win.
 
Having read numerous tyre threads on here and the other side, i tossed a coin between Kumhos and Falkens for my S203 - and Thursday I had Falken FK452's fitted all round - total cost £234 for 205/55R16's. They replaced a mish mash of 3 different Michelins and a budget tyre. Immediate reaction - car is much quieter, ride is softer and more comfortable, but grip is better wet and dry. Car feels more planted when cornering. Haven't done many miles yet, but am happy so far!
 
I lost control of my W202 on some ice and rolled it down a hill. That was on half-worn Kumho 712 Ecsta Supras. Turns out they're really a summer-only tyre. Who knew? :)
 
Some of the 'off' brand, not household name, cheap tyres are rather good & some of the big brand name, expensive tyres are pretty ordinary.

It wasn't too long ago Bridgestone & Yokohama were an off brand.
 
hmm my michelins left me stranded 4ft off my own drive on one occasion....
 
Well I've just gone from Pirelli P Zeros on my 55 to Kumhos and the grip is immense... yes its a cheaper brand but i read many feedbacks on the net and its a great tyre, low noise and good price... I've also tried Falkens on my previous 500 and those too were excellent... I too was not going to spend 6-700 quid on Michelins, P Zeros just to get another 2-3k miles out of them... and as you know 55's eat tyres.... just my 2p's worth!!
 
I ran Kumho's on my E55 and have to say they were great. I also have them on the rear of the SL600. I would certainly look to buy them again.:)
 
I too have just replaced the front 2 tyres (Linglong brand, lol) with Kumho's - am very impressed so far as I usually run Michelin's/Continental's. Will be interested to see how well they wear...
 
I too have just replaced the front 2 tyres (Linglong brand, lol) with Kumho's - am very impressed so far as I usually run Michelin's/Continental's. Will be interested to see how well they wear...

Wear rate is pretty good, it's quite a hard compound compared to some.
 
Wear rate is pretty good, it's quite a hard compound compared to some.

I kind of expect that from tyres that have come from the Far East with the exception of Yokohama's, which seem to be softer.

The Kumho's have been through quite heavy rain already and have given me no cause for concern as yet, so still happy!:D
 
Well I've also gone against conventional wisdom as the CLK is wearing Nankang NS2's after a very good experience with Nankang on the Subaru which really gave them some punishment but they stood up so well. So on the NS2's went and they are brilliant, staggered set up and £280 for all 4 corners, only had limited use in the snow but handled it well went up our cul de sac which is on a hill when my FWD Volvo on Pirreli P7000's wouldn't even look at it. Very quiet as well much quieter than the Falken 452's they replaced (although they were good) so so far so good, will keep you posted.
 
front drive cars are always better than rear drive cars in slippery conditions.

(assuming engine is in front on both)

Not always, see above totally depends on tyre choice. My Nephews BMW 5 series M Sport also has never been stuck in all this snow but it is wearing its Nokian winter tyre set up which are narrower tyres.
 
The old Kumho 712's and the new KU31's are chalk and cheese. The 712's were definitley a bit iffy in the wet however the KU31's are up the amongst the premium brands. The original Conti's on my W203 did 15K miles on the rear against 20K for the KU31's. I tried the Falken 452's once when they didn't have the KU31's in stock. Appeared to be a very good tyre but only lasted 10K miles.
 
Ooh thats good because Ive order 31s! :)
 
Greg

I ended up with Kumho KU31's fitted on my W211 by the dealer I bought the car from, before I parted with my hard-earned cash. Part of the deal was that they fitted new tyres all round (nearly down to the guides on the ones that were on it when I first saw it).

I regrettably failed to request a specific tyre brand/type at the time :)o), however with 4 x 255/45/17, I wasn't expecting top-liners.

That was back in September 2009, and to be honest whilst they have done only 5-6k miles, I haven't had any problems whatsoever, despite the atrocious wet and icy road conditions over the past couple of months or so.

Time will no doubt tell as far as longevity is concerned, but I'd certainly consider them again when the time comes to change (at least £400 per set less expensive than P7000 or SP Sport, etc).

Of course, tyre choice is very subjective and cost/car relevant, but tell that to my hand (when it's holding my wallet :rolleyes: ).

Cheers

Alex
 
Cheers Alex thats a lot of thumbs up for Kumho coming in. I'm looking forward to getting them now!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom