oem Bridgestone tires

I recall you are correct with the 040 rating at 140. I thought they were ok and not too much for the spyder by any means. They were loud, not great when wet, and when they broke the only feedback to that happening was the realization that you were spinning lol. I got 26k from the 040w My current tires are re11s which are way better in every way. They were rated 200 and mine need replacing because they are 9 years old plenty of tread and maybe 35K on them? These are my 3rd set of tires and I’d replace them if the sizes were available (195/50/15; 205/45/16” is what I have). The set in between were Toyo tr1s soft (comphy) great wet ok dry they wore down just sitting in my garage. I’m sticking with Bridgestone. I also feel there is no such thing as a too good a tire. They are the life and death of a spirited driver. The better the tire the shittier I can be as a driver. 

Posted by: @mrsponz

I could be wrong, but if I remember correctly, the original Bridgestone Potenza 040 tires were given an UTQG rating of 140. From what I've read, the tire companies wanted their Ext. Perf. Tires to be SCCA / Solo compliant so they (arbitrarily) raised those tires to UTQG to 200. Not sure, but I don't think the 040's lasted long enough to be re-rated. Is there a possibility that the 040's were over-kill for what the MR2 Spyder was meant to be - a small, lightweight (relatively low powered) convertible sports car? If not, then all the tires summer tires we buy for our Spyders need to be a minimum of UTQG 200. No one makes a 140 any more. If that is the case we really are limited in what tire options we have. 

Another thought, maybe, just maybe, the Potenza 040's were the only tires (at that time) that the Toyota engineers found that came in the sizes they wanted ?? - they just happed to be UTQG 140 !! Aren't UTQG 300 tires good enough for most drivers - not all MR2 Spyder owners track or autocross. I mean, I don't think that is what our Spyders were originally designed to do.

this is what happens cause of the virus - too much free time to think 😀 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/4-Federal-595RS-RR-205-50ZR15-89W-UHP-Extreme-Performance-Racing-Summer-Tire/173983013377?fits=Aspect+Ratio%3A50%7CSection+Width%3A205%7CRim+Diameter%3A15&hash=item2882321a01:g:gJ8AAOSwfcddQiHF

Tire technology has changed a lot since the Spyder factory tires. I had the original Yoko tires that came with my car and had them replaced with the same set. These tires were sticky and had a high wear rate but its not just that they are prefixed as the Advans that are speciality high performance tires specifically made for our cars.  

The Spyder is not exactly what people think it is. Its not a car that is mild performer like a Honda CRZ or any of the hot hatch class cars it is a true focused sports car. The reason why these high grade higher performing tires were chosen is to match the cars dynamics and tight suspension.  If you put a lesser tire on a car  what will happen is it will come close to the edge of traction early and slip.  Because tire technology has incrementally changed over the years we can get tires like the Yokohama S. Drives (discontinued) that come close to or exceed the traction of the original tires while offering longer wear and better wet tire performance.  

 You can of course get tires that exceed the factory by a great margin  for incredible road holding but those compounds heat cycle out early  and can be dangerous even though there is plenty of tread left.  It happed to me earlier this year where I almost came close to totaling my Spyder around a bend. 

Posted by: @mrsponz

I could be wrong, but if I remember correctly, the original Bridgestone Potenza 040 tires were given an UTQG rating of 140. From what I've read, the tire companies wanted their Ext. Perf. Tires to be SCCA / Solo compliant so they (arbitrarily) raised those tires to UTQG to 200. Not sure, but I don't think the 040's lasted long enough to be re-rated. Is there a possibility that the 040's were over-kill for what the MR2 Spyder was meant to be - a small, lightweight (relatively low powered) convertible sports car? If not, then all the tires summer tires we buy for our Spyders need to be a minimum of UTQG 200. No one makes a 140 any more. If that is the case we really are limited in what tire options we have. 

Another thought, maybe, just maybe, the Potenza 040's were the only tires (at that time) that the Toyota engineers found that came in the sizes they wanted ?? - they just happed to be UTQG 140 !! Aren't UTQG 300 tires good enough for most drivers - not all MR2 Spyder owners track or autocross. I mean, I don't think that is what our Spyders were originally designed to do.

this is what happens cause of the virus - too much free time to think 😀 

BOLD ; "My" BFG COMP2's are UTQG 340 and are very good. "My" S.drive's were very good and, more than likely, not UTQG 200.

The UTQG # is not for a company to company tire comparison. It is the rating within each, individual company's tires(Google(or your favorite search engine) it). A Bridgestone UTQG has no bearing on a Toyo UTQG or a Yokohama UTQG.

It's true. The MR2 Spyder on BFG Sport Comp2 320s is an excellent car, keeps up with the big boys and posts great autocross times. Don't choose tires based on what's good for the platform on arbitrary numbers. Choose tires you like and match your driving style.

When I made my original post, I was actually looking for a discussion on the engineering logic of the 2003 on up tire choice and size selection. I was not necessarily asking for advice on what tires to purchase. I currently run Sport Comp 2. I was thinking about the Indy 500 tires as my next set. I may even "splurge" and get the Continental Extreme Contact Sport. Don't know yet.

The following statement is just my opinion. I may be totally stupid and wrong, but it is just my opinion:

I think the Toyota Engineers designed the car first, not necessarily with any specific tire sizes in mind, looked at what was on the market, did their testing with those different sizes and then decided on 185/55/15F and 205/50/15R. It was dictated by the availability at that time. Then for the 2003 model they decided that they wanted better handling and less oversteer and went with 215/45/16R. In 2003, I do not know what other street (not race) tire sizes were available to them. could they have designed the rear suspension to work fine with different sized tire - I don't know.

I don't believe they had Yokohama or Bridgestone invent tires just for the Spyder. They chose what was available and worked around them.

Yes, for the most part, in the real world and considering to whom in the market was the car was geared for, they made the right choices. Mid-engine cars handle better for the average driver with taller/wider tires in the back.

I would love to talk to one of those original Spyder Design Engineers now to see how the Spyder would have changed over the last 15 years. The original Miata has not really changed all that much.

mrsponz, I have the Conti ECS, and couldnt be happier. A past review:

https://www.mr2-spyder.com/community/regular-maintenance-upkeep/new-tires/#post-8436 '

If you have any particular questions, I will be happy to do my best to discuss. However, my dataset is a bit limited on this particular car, as I got lucky early, and found a tire that works well with me and my needs, so I stopped looking.

Rob

Ok rather than start a new thread I thought I would add on to this. I need new tires and Bridgstone are no longer in the 15" variety. this is what I have found looking on tire rack

1. Yokohama Advan Fleva v701s  195/50/15 and 205/45/16s    $90F $126R
2. BF goodrich G-force sport comp-2  195/5015 and 205/45/16    $109F; $115 R
3. Kump Ecsta PS31s 195/50/15 205/45/16s   $80F $81R

ordered in what I think would be the best ones to go for any other opinions?

@t-bone

I had S Drives in 195/50/R15 on front and 205/45/R16 rear. At 21,000 miles the rears were gone, S Drives no longer available. I went with 185/55/15 front and 205/50/16 rear in the Yokohama Fleva. The car has never felt this good before! The 185's in the front really feel so much better than the 195's, at least to me. FWIW.

Posted by: @desertwanderer

@t-bone

I had S Drives in 195/50/R15 on front and 205/45/R16 rear. At 21,000 miles the rears were gone, S Drives no longer available. I went with 185/55/15 front and 205/50/16 rear in the Yokohama Fleva. The car has never felt this good before! The 185's in the front really feel so much better than the 195's, at least to me. FWIW.

 

It has been many years since I had 185/55/15s up front, I will consider that for sure now that I have the remembrance that is what was OEM size. 

Glad to hear a +1 for these tires have not had Yokos on any car I can recall

what makes me sad, is that my current RE11s have plenty of tread left they are though now 10 years old 🙁 I do drive the car and they still feel great but I am worried regarding the age that they could fail. I was worried about it last year so this year it's just a bit more caution. Totally pissed that Bridgestone as no 15" wheel options any more 

@t-bone You obviously already know but here is another reminder. I had some GREAT looking Michelins on an S2000 that I bought in New Mexico. Heated them up going home and two blew before I could get it stopped. They were around 9 years old. I bought the car near Sandia Peak and spent the weekend in the best 1 STAR motel in San Antonito, NM, waiting for a tire store to open.

Dev put me on to the 185's on front. Gotta say they were a VERY noticeable upgrade from the 195's.

@desertwanderer

understood that's why I am looking drove like a baby last year

So just got a quote for $537 installed for the V701s went with the 185s 🙂 should be here in a week or so