outahere Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 [quote name='apexjapan'][quote name='outahere']But so far, from all the tests I have seen, the GT brakes are average at best, in terms of stopping distances. [/quote] Oh no, the brakes are very much above average in terms of stopping distance. The RE92's, however, are very much below average in terms of grip, and your brakes can only work as well as the tyres will grip. On 050A "comfort" tyres even, the brakes work verrrry well. Cheers, Paul Hansen [url]www.apexjapan.com[/url][/quote] OK, you and others make a reasonable assertion that new tires will make a big difference. Some have even stated that the RE92 tires alone are 100% responsible for the long stopping distances on the Legacy. How do we know that the tires are 100% responsible for the long stopping distances? We don't. Other contributing factors, like pad composition and ABS programming, cannot be ruled out at this point. I would love to see some hard data comparing the 60mph-0mph distances between the RE92 and any summer tire, on the Legacy GT. I have seen plenty of subjective, seat-of-the-pants proclamations that this tire or that tire transforms the braking of the GT, but where is the data to back this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Outahere... there's no doubt "other factors" you cite could have an influence. But the closest we have to "hard data" is in the C&D comparo test... the TSX and LGT are on all-seasons, the Volvo and Audi are on Conti "summer" tires. The all-season cars stop considerably longer. Maybe it is a big assumption, but that's about as close as we can get until someone with some soft of instrumentation can do something more. But why is it so hard to see that more performance-oriented tires would make the biggest impact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 [quote name='outahere'][quote name='apexjapan'][quote name='outahere']But so far, from all the tests I have seen, the GT brakes are average at best, in terms of stopping distances. [/quote] Oh no, the brakes are very much above average in terms of stopping distance. The RE92's, however, are very much below average in terms of grip, and your brakes can only work as well as the tyres will grip. On 050A "comfort" tyres even, the brakes work verrrry well. Cheers, Paul Hansen [url]www.apexjapan.com[/url][/quote] OK, you and others make a reasonable assertion that new tires will make a big difference. Some have even stated that the RE92 tires alone are 100% responsible for the long stopping distances on the Legacy. How do we know that the tires are 100% responsible for the long stopping distances? We don't. Other contributing factors, like pad composition and ABS programming, cannot be ruled out at this point. I would love to see some hard data comparing the 60mph-0mph distances between the RE92 and any summer tire, on the Legacy GT. I have seen plenty of subjective, seat-of-the-pants proclamations that this tire or that tire transforms the braking of the GT, but where is the data to back this up?[/quote] The Car & Driver test measurements are interesting in this regard. Also interesting is that if you brake the GT hard with the RE92s on the car, you can activate the ABS, which means the wheels are locking before the tire is gripping. With my Dunlop 9000s, braking from the same speed my ABS doesn't utter a peep. Tires well and truly stop the car. Braking is about friction in two spots: pad on rotor, and tire on pavement. The more of the latter, the more effective the former. Simply put, slap some R-compounds on a Hyundai and it will outbrake a GT with ease. :lol: Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobY Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 im absolutely positive its the tires. ABS dosent kick in if there is no loss of traction ruling out ABS programming. The pad compund locks up the RE-92's REAL well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptplt Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Consumer reports Nov test 60-0 braking TSX 136ft (HX mxm4) A4 132 (HX mxm4) LGT 140 (RE92) S40 135 (MXV4) in case you want the 0-60s, all auto or CVT TSX 9.2 A4 8.8 LGT 7.5 S40 9.4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 [quote name='cptplt']Consumer reports Nov test 60-0 braking TSX 136ft (HX mxm4) A4 132 (HX mxm4) LGT 140 (RE92) S40 135 (MXV4)[/quote] Interesting. Was the S40 the turbo version? Given the variability of braking tests, I would venture to say that statistically all these cars have identical braking distances (for instance, R&T says that in their braking tests, only differences of 15 ft or more are statistically significant) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 [quote name='gtguy']The Car & Driver test measurements are interesting in this regard. Also interesting is that if you brake the GT hard with the RE92s on the car, you can activate the ABS, which means the wheels are locking before the tire is gripping. With my Dunlop 9000s, braking from the same speed my ABS doesn't utter a peep. Tires well and truly stop the car. Braking is about friction in two spots: pad on rotor, and tire on pavement. The more of the latter, the more effective the former. Simply put, slap some R-compounds on a Hyundai and it will outbrake a GT with ease. :lol: Kevin[/quote] Good points. In many modern cars (excluding giant SUVs) the limiting factor for braking may indeed be the tires, and not the brakes. This would explain why in the tests I have seen of aftermarket brake upgrades (e.g. StopTech and other big brake kits), there is little or no improvement in stopping distances (but there is improvement in fade resistance and pedal feel). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenonk Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 I upgraded my tires and I have yet to get the ABS to kick in (R-compounds :P ) I think I am going to upgrade to some brake pads and possibly some slotted rotors.. if all else fails, I'll get some Stainless Steel Lines. Keefe Keefe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vamp Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 The LGT comes with RE92? Not RE050A? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Th3Franz Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 [quote name='Vamp']The LGT comes with RE92? Not RE050A?[/quote] Correct. -Franz The end of a Legacy http://www.youtube.com/th3franz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 [quote name='outahere'][quote name='gtguy']The Car & Driver test measurements are interesting in this regard. Also interesting is that if you brake the GT hard with the RE92s on the car, you can activate the ABS, which means the wheels are locking before the tire is gripping. With my Dunlop 9000s, braking from the same speed my ABS doesn't utter a peep. Tires well and truly stop the car. Braking is about friction in two spots: pad on rotor, and tire on pavement. The more of the latter, the more effective the former. Simply put, slap some R-compounds on a Hyundai and it will outbrake a GT with ease. :lol: Kevin[/quote] Good points. In many modern cars (excluding giant SUVs) the limiting factor for braking may indeed be the tires, and not the brakes. This would explain why in the tests I have seen of aftermarket brake upgrades (e.g. StopTech and other big brake kits), there is little or no improvement in stopping distances (but there is improvement in fade resistance and pedal feel).[/quote] Yeh, mon. The thing I always tell people is that most brake "upgrades" just improve feel. Now to be sure, feel shouldn't be underestimated as a component of better braking performance overall. But when I added Goodridge lines, SuperBlue and Subaru 4-pots, braking feel improved. I don't know that the car stops all that shorter. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamingskwerl Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 [quote]foaming... did you go with the Nero M&S or straight Neros? [/quote] Yup. In stock size, even. Spendy, but I feel it was worth it. After all, the love of my life and my unborn child are driving/riding in it. In the wet, they are on par w/my firehawks. Dry, they are pretty good. We'll see about the snow, I suppose. P.S. Most brake kits are aimed at improving factors such as fade-resistance over stopping distance. I put Baer brakes on my TA, and while distance shortened about 6 ft (unscientifically, but reliably tested several times) they are fade-proof at this point. The tires ( I went from F1's to Firehawks) made the most noticeable improvement to stopping distance (and grip). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Actually, the Nero M&S really aren't that pricey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamingskwerl Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 [quote]Actually, the Nero M&S really aren't that pricey.[/quote] Agreed. Especially in light of the performance you get from them. But still, $500 is a lot to drop on tires on a brand-new car. I was pissed at Subaru for that. It would have cost them maybe 1/3 that to just put decent tires on there to start with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Amen to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenzo Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 I had a set of Nero M&S on my STi last winter. They were by far the worst 'all season' tire in snow I have ever driven, significantly WORSE than RE-92s, for example. They were pretty good on dry and in the rain, but their snow and ice performance was absymal. With my wife and kids in the car, or anyone else I care about, I would never use PZero Nero M&S in the winter again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Kenzo... so dry and rain was good? How about wear? I'm considering these for RE-92 replacements, but mainly for decent all-around performance... but not snow performance, as I'd get dedicated snows. The (alleged) better wear and decent cold-weather performance (< 50 degrees F) are what interest me in the Nero M&S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamingskwerl Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 [quote]They were by far the worst 'all season' tire in snow I have ever driven, significantly WORSE than RE-92s, for example[/quote] Well THAT doesn't sound good. :| I had sp sport a2's on the S4 in denver and salt lake, and they worked fine. Supposedly, the nero's are better. I guess I'm fixin to find out. If it snows here, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDubbs Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Brake kits have to be properly balanced too. There are many a person who have "upgraded" their brakes only to have expanding 60-0 distances. If it isnt noted specifically for your model (see weight distrobution etc) but it still fits, it may yield a significantly lower braking perf inc than expected (or even a step back). No, the name has nothing to do with bragging about 20 inch wheels... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 [quote name='kenzo']I had a set of Nero M&S on my STi last winter. They were by far the worst 'all season' tire in snow I have ever driven.........[/quote] Not really surprising, as the Pirelli and the Proxes4 are A/S tires strongly biased towards summer performance, whereas the Nokian WR is an A/S tire strongly biased towards winter performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenzo Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 [quote name='racerdave']Kenzo... so dry and rain was good? How about wear? I'm considering these for RE-92 replacements, but mainly for decent all-around performance... but not snow performance, as I'd get dedicated snows. The (alleged) better wear and decent cold-weather performance (< 50 degrees F) are what interest me in the Nero M&S.[/quote] Wear was pretty good. Dry performance was very good, wet performance was good... a fine three-season tire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Cool... that's pretty much what I'm looking for. Thanks for the input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.