tires.com confirmed they are the same company just rebranded. http://www.discounttiredirect.com/direct/tires/ohtsu/product/byName.do?tmn=FP6000+A%2FS&typ=Passenger%2FPerformance
For those of you that don't know, these tires could out perform extreme performance tires for half the cost with twice the tread wear and have a directional tread pattern that prevent hydroplaning in my SVX at 100mph+ in a down pour, no bs, my buddy was in his A4 behind me.
People actually liked these?
They are good enough that some circle tracks are banning them for stock four cylinder classes. They don't chunk and they actually grip better when hot rather than turning to melted cheese.
OHTSU? 
Sounds like a great tire if you have allergies.
trucke wrote: OHTSU?
Yeah I was put off by the name but apparently the parent company is Sumitomo.
Those are awful tires. Maybe they work well in the weird circle track rulesets, but I've had them on 2 different cars and hated them with a passion.
ProDarwin wrote: Those are awful tires. Maybe they work well in the weird circle track rulesets, but I've had them on 2 different cars and hated them with a passion.
Yeah these were the worst tires i've ever paid for.
Surprised, they worked better on my SVX than the Pilot PS2s.
I've been happy with them over the years. I'm down to one set of them on a car at the moment. For the same money, I'm equally satisfied with the General Exclaim somethingorothers.
Personally Continental/General is my favorite brand. The DWS put a lot of summer and snow performance tires to shame with much higher treadwear.
Number 1 rated by consumer's report, See Nov 2003 issue.
They seemed cheap and were cheap. I had a set on an RX-7. They wore fast, and chunked when I autocrossed them.
However, I did use the Ohtsu version for a Corolla I was about to sell, just last year. They were cheap, and I knew what I was getting.
Also, I haven't bought other tires this cheap, so I'm not sure I have my expectations perfectly calibrated.
I don't thing consumerreports would rate something #1 if they were cheap, even GRM had the 912 as a top pick over summer tires.
I don't know what the criteria is for a good tire, but almost every winning hornet at our track is on Falkens, and they will go most of a season without self destructing on the front right corner. It may be cost as much as anything as the hornet class is the epitome of budget racing and No one wants to buy any more tires than they have to. Dollar for dollar they are sticky and tough.
shame they dont make these in the size I need, I loved my falken 512's.
echoechoecho wrote: shame they dont make these in the size I need, I loved my falken 512's.
Take heart, the Ohtsu FP7000 looks like an asymmetric version of the 512.
svxsti wrote: Number 1 rated by consumer's report, See Nov 2003 issue.
While that may be so, that was 12 years ago and tires have improved somewhat since.
Had them on our C4, didn't like them much. Well, they were round and black.
BoxheadTim wrote:svxsti wrote: Number 1 rated by consumer's report, See Nov 2003 issue.While that may be so, that was 12 years ago and tires have improved somewhat since. Had them on our C4, didn't like them much. Well, they were round and black.
When a budget all season tire keeps up with a dedicated track tire like the Stone's RE01R for half the price and twice the tread wear, you might want to double check the skidpad numbers of todays tires, because an H rated BFG SS A/S is pulling .95g: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=126
while the modern Stone's RE11A is pulling .94g with a bigger tire on a "newer" model car! http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=172
doh
just in case you want to see the same size on the same car the modern Advan Sports are at .94 too: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=128
I thought these tires' main skill was holding air and being inexpensive.
I must be the last person who likes directional tires. I like VWs and I have not ever had a VW that tolerated directional tires. They always have bad tire pulls.
I find Falken Ziex side wall to soft and prone to defromation. No offense though...
Knurled wrote: I thought these tires' main skill was holding air and being inexpensive. I must be the last person who likes directional tires. I like VWs and I have not ever had a VW that tolerated directional tires. They always have bad tire pulls.
Well all racing rain tires are directional.....
svxsti wrote:
I would argue that losing .7 sec on a 40 sec course is not an example of "keeping up with" anything.
MCarp22 wrote:svxsti wrote:I would argue that losing .7 sec on a 40 sec course is not an example of "keeping up with" anything.
.18 by my count, 40.3 vs 40.12.
svxsti wrote: .18 by my count, 40.3 vs 40.12.
Would you expect a gap like that every lap?
svxsti wrote:MCarp22 wrote:.18 by my count, 40.3 vs 40.12.svxsti wrote:I would argue that losing .7 sec on a 40 sec course is not an example of "keeping up with" anything.
Couple things:
1) That's the 912, not the 512.
2) On what planet is it valid to compare one tires slowest lap to another's fastest lap?
3) That big of a gap on a sub 40 second course is HUGE.
4) Consumer Reports SUCKS.
5) That was over a decade ago, and the RE01R wasn't exactly incredible back then.
6) Your other skidpad numbers don't matter. Different cars, different years, different weather, different drivers, etc etc etc.
We get it, you like the 512. I like cheap round and black tires, too. Some other people clearly like the 512. Some of us hated those tires. That's the way it goes with ever tire. It's ok if some people disagree with you, you don't have to spend time reaching back through the dregs of the internet to find irrelevant data to somehow cement your opinion that you like the 512. Nobody is doubting that you like the 512.
You'll need to log in to post.
