Kumho MX or KDW
05-03-2004, 02:18 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: plano texas
Posts: 1,429
Kumho MX or KDW
I can get both for the exact same price shipped to my door, only diff I really noticed is that the KDW has a higher treadwear rating so thats my current choice but would rather get some opinions from people who have used them. This is a daily driver and will be autoxed on occasion. I will have 285/40/17's mounted on 17x11's front and rear and want them to be able to hold ~400rwhp from a 1st gear punch with 3.73's, dont care about launch as long as it stays hooked once im rolling... that may be a lot of power to ask it to hold so I could always go to nittos but would rather not if I dont have to.
05-04-2004, 12:52 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 971
For a daily driver I'd say the KDW. I think the MX would be much better at auto crossing though. When tirerack.com compared the Ecsta MX to the Michilin Pilot Sport and the Pirelli P Zero (two of the best tires out there) it was pretty much equal with those other two tires in grip and all other aspects, for practicly half the price
05-10-2004, 01:58 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Greater Chattanooga TN
Posts: 597
I just got some MX's don't have 400 HP closer to 280-300 i guess. They look good. I got the 285's. I think the MX do better in wet and they are about equal to KD so they should be bettwer than kdw in the dry. Treadwear is kinda low too. I had some kdws and they lasted a while with 400 T wear rating. MX should be better on the autox too by what i read..
05-10-2004, 02:39 PM
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: plano texas
Posts: 1,429
Yeah Im planning on having a little more power than I originally thought, like 400-420 rwhp so I may just get the 315 drags front and rear unless someone knows if the MX will hook in first, not from a launch but from a roll.... doesnt sound like it would but I dont really know.
05-10-2004, 02:58 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Greater Chattanooga TN
Posts: 597
I haven't tried mine from a roll, been trying to be good some tires cost so dang much. I kinda doubt nittos holding either. Get some BF goodwrench DR is what I would do. Over 400 HP is a lot.
05-10-2004, 03:39 PM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: plano texas
Posts: 1,429
Not really I wouldnt think, 400rwhp isnt what spins the tires, the 370 rwtq is. I already had 340 ish with 3.42's and with 245 nittos I couldnt spin them for my life unless I was launching, so 370 ish torque with 3.73's (thats close to 20 % more torque to the ground) and about 30% more contact patch should hold pretty well I would imagine. If im wrong let me know, I think Im gonna just go with the nittos since I have some 55000 miles tires on my stock rims... thanks for the help guys!
05-11-2004, 02:01 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: You know when they Quit Suckin that something is Wrong!!!!
Posts: 240
The KDW is a better tire period when it comes to handling characteristics.
Here is another opinion that agrees w/ mine:
Kumho MX
BFGoodrich KDW
Here is another opinion that agrees w/ mine:
Kumho MX
BFGoodrich KDW
05-11-2004, 08:42 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 649
I'm all stock and had the whimpy 245/50/16 w/ a A4. At 35 mph I could punch it and loose the back end and when it up shifted at 50 it would just spin as well! Now this weekend I had black Z06 rims w/285/40/17 KDW on all 4 coners(bad *** by the way
). Now when I hit it at 30-35 I dont get much more than a peep! Good I guess, but lost my fun! I have noticed that I used to be at 2000 rpm at 70 mph w/ my 3.23, but now I'm at 66-67 mph.
). Now when I hit it at 30-35 I dont get much more than a peep! Good I guess, but lost my fun! I have noticed that I used to be at 2000 rpm at 70 mph w/ my 3.23, but now I'm at 66-67 mph.
05-13-2004, 12:36 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: You know when they Quit Suckin that something is Wrong!!!!
Posts: 240
Originally posted by 1stls1
P.S. Jerm I hope you were leading to the KDW. The numbers were better all around for the KDW, but the number of polls.
P.S. Jerm I hope you were leading to the KDW. The numbers were better all around for the KDW, but the number of polls.
05-14-2004, 01:46 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: You know when they Quit Suckin that something is Wrong!!!!
Posts: 240
Originally posted by lt4 fd
well would a 285 kdw hold 370 rwtq ( in between 400-420rwhp) with 3.73's in an m6 in first gear from a 20 roll or so?
well would a 285 kdw hold 370 rwtq ( in between 400-420rwhp) with 3.73's in an m6 in first gear from a 20 roll or so?
05-15-2004, 08:05 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Central NJ USA
Posts: 305
Originally posted by lt4 fd
well would a 285 kdw hold 370 rwtq ( in between 400-420rwhp) with 3.73's in an m6 in first gear from a 20 roll or so?
well would a 285 kdw hold 370 rwtq ( in between 400-420rwhp) with 3.73's in an m6 in first gear from a 20 roll or so?
I got the MX's when they first appered on tire rack. According tho the track test they put them through the MX had a slight braking advantage over the KD. I beleive the MX scored between the KDW and KD overall. For the price I think its a killer tire.
Edit: Im talking about the track score not the customer review score.
Kevin
Last edited by Kevin97ss; 05-15-2004 at 08:08 PM.
05-15-2004, 08:28 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 422
Exactly, you cannot compare customer ratings to each other. What's an 8 to one driver might be a 5 to the other. also don't forget that those that had KDW's and not MX's (and vice versa) probably have no experience with the other tire. Customer ratings are not an accurate tool on tirerack. In general they can tell you if a tire is good or bad in one area but they can't tell you how good or how bad.