Flaken FK-452 245/40/17 or 255/40/17

pjharris101 · Post by **pjharris101** » Mon 26 Jan, 2009 09:57

Hi All,

I have a 1997 Z3 2.8 with the 5 spoke 17" alloys. I have seen that Falken FK-452's get good reviews and I am going to buy a set of 4.

For the front I will go for 225/45/17 front but for the rears shall I go for 245/40/17 or 255/40/17? I currently have on 255/45/17 Michelin PS1's on the rears and these fit (and look) great, but I have read that the FK-452's are quite wide for their size, so maybe I should go for 245/40/17's.

Does anyone have any advice?

Thanks for all replies, Phil.

pjharris101 · Post by **pjharris101** » Mon 26 Jan, 2009 09:59

CORRECTION

Hi All,

I have a 1997 Z3 2.8 with the 5 spoke 17" alloys. I have seen that Falken FK-452's get good reviews and I am going to buy a set of 4.

For the front I will go for 225/45/17 front but for the rears shall I go for 245/40/17 or 255/40/17? I currently have on 255/40/17 Michelin PS1's on the rears and these fit (and look) great, but I have read that the FK-452's are quite wide for their size, so maybe I should go for 245/40/17's.

Does anyone have any advice?

Thanks for all replies, Phil.

pjharris101 · Post by **pjharris101** » Mon 26 Jan, 2009 10:22

CORRECTION

Hi All,

I have a 1997 Z3 2.8 with the 5 spoke 17" alloys. I have seen that Falken FK-452's get good reviews and I am going to buy a set of 4.

For the front I will go for 225/45/17 front but for the rears shall I go for 245/40/17 or 255/40/17? I currently have on 255/40/17 Michelin PS1's on the rears and these fit (and look) great, but I have read that the FK-452's are quite wide for their size, so maybe I should go for 245/40/17's.

Does anyone have any advice?

Thanks for all replies, Phil.

Gazza · Post by **Gazza** » Mon 26 Jan, 2009 10:36

I would go for 255's, more rubber on the road. I don't know how they can be wider than another 255?

c_w · Post by **c_w** » Mon 26 Jan, 2009 11:54

garythefish wrote:I would go for 255's, more rubber on the road. I don't know how they can be wider than another 255?

Tyre width and height varies between tyre brands even if the designation is the same. I've found Yokohama seem to be lower profile than an equivalent other brand. Sometimes the actual tread width can be the same but the overal width is different due to the sidewall shape.

yalden · Post by **yalden** » Mon 26 Jan, 2009 13:06

I would go with 255's on the rear again.

pjharris101 · Post by **pjharris101** » Mon 26 Jan, 2009 13:46

Thanks for all your replies guys.

Think I will go for the 255's. Think I got a good quote - 2 x 225/45/17's and 2 x 255/40/17's Falken FK-452 for £355 all in.

Will update the forum on how I find them.

This forum rocks.

Cheers.

AndyBass · Post by **AndyBass** » Tue 27 Jan, 2009 09:17

Sticking with the original size is a good idea as you keep the correct rolling radius. Check out Car maintenance bibles to give you a size comparison checker. For example if you change from 255/40's to 255/45's you increase the rolling radius from 317.9mm to 330.65mm, an increase of 4.01% meaning when the speedo is reading 70mph you are actually doing 72.81mph.

Cloz · Post by **Cloz** » Tue 27 Jan, 2009 18:29

Hi.
I have the same car then you and I went for the Falken FK-452 all around and 245/40/17 on the rear. Now I am looking for spacers to better fit with the arches. For me next time it's 255.

Cloz

Jonttt · Post by **Jonttt** » Wed 28 Jan, 2009 15:11

For info I have just had new tyres fitted to my company car. Was chatting to the installer about my Z3m and he fully recommemded the Falken 452's. He said that he had just fitted 2 rears on a GT3RS and the owner had called them back to fit Falkens on the front. He said he had been getting wheelspin accelerating from 80mph but with the Falkens this had stopped and the car handled much better. I respect the tyre fitter as I've used him for several years.

c_w · Post by **c_w** » Wed 28 Jan, 2009 16:55

jonttt wrote:For info I have just had new tyres fitted to my company car. Was chatting to the installer about my Z3m and he fully recommemded the Falken 452's. He said that he had just fitted 2 rears on a GT3RS and the owner had called them back to fit Falkens on the front. He said he had been getting wheelspin accelerating from 80mph but with the Falkens this had stopped and the car handled much better. I respect the tyre fitter as I've used him for several years.

Falken seem to be getting an increasingly good rep, but a difficult one this as Porsches don't use normal tyres, usually fitting regular road tyres will result in squirmy handling as most of them have OE designated tyres (the "N" codes) with super-stiffened sidewalls and different compounds, especially for 911s. Those may have been fitted but not all brands make a specific Porsche N-rated tyre.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu 29 Jan, 2009 11:32

When I first fitted Falken FK-451 many people told me that it was dangerous to fit 'budget' tyres to a powerful RWD car such as a Z3, but after 80,000 miles I am now nearing the end of my first set of FK-452, and have nothing but praise for them.

They have no vices, just good feel to the steering and plenty of grip in all weather conditions and temperatures - even the minus 10 C we get here in the winter.

I usually get 20k from the rears, and 30 k front, running at 2.3 bar all round. Since fitting a Strong-Strut Butt Strut and Body Brace rear life has increased by at least 5,000 miles, as they now wear evenly across the entire tread area - not to mention the improved handling and general 'feel.'

Perhaps the Eagle F1 or Pilot Sport are better 'ultimate' tyres for track days etc, but in normal driving I doubt if anyone would know the difference - except in their wallet, as £350 a set in seventeen-inch sizes is a lot better than £550 for Michelins.

Cloz · Post by **Cloz** » Thu 29 Jan, 2009 13:19

I agree with you Mike. I had Eagle F1 before and beside the price there is no difference between the two brands ( for my driving ). I would say there is two differences between the two brands, one is the price and the other one is the FK-452 are a little bit noisier but not much.

Cloz

SpunkyM · Post by **SpunkyM** » Thu 29 Jan, 2009 13:45

Qiuite right - it's only the tyre snobs that dismiss them just because they are considered a budget brand. If they actually swallowed their pride and gave them a try they would be eating their words.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu 29 Jan, 2009 14:38

Well, perhaps Falken sould have a special higher price for the tyre snobs! They would then go round proclaiming what wonderful tyres they are . . .

c_w · Post by **c_w** » Thu 29 Jan, 2009 16:28

The only people mentioning other tyre brands in this thread are those with the Falkens! An inferiority complex to try and justify their choice?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri 30 Jan, 2009 09:23

No - just the sign of having developed a sense of value for money instead of following the crowd!

c_w · Post by **c_w** » Fri 30 Jan, 2009 11:07

Mike Fishwick wrote:No - just the sign of having developed a sense of value for money instead of following the crowd!

I was just joking

Falken do seem to be getting a good rep, so maybe more people will start buying them, although they seem pretty popular already.

But if we compare to other things, such as clothes, a £10 pair of jeans off the market could be argued to be "just as good" at being a pair of trousers than some designer ones at 4/5/6/7x the price

Devon Z · Post by **Devon Z** » Sat 31 Jan, 2009 17:57

I've had Falken 255/40/17 on the rear or two years since they came out, I choose them becouse the tread pattern most closely matched the PS1's on the front, dont get me started on differant makes front and rear

I've had no handling issuses at all which I think is down to the tread pattern being similliar.

zroadster.net

Flaken FK-452 245/40/17 or 255/40/17

Flaken FK-452 245/40/17 or 255/40/17

Falken

Tyre Snobs

Falken

Re: Falken