Summer Tires - Bridgestone Potenza RE050A vs Pirelli PZero Nero 205/40r17

[marc89gti]

Well its time to start planning to by a new set of summer tires for the FiST, my OEM Bridgestones RE50A don't have much tread left, under 3/32. Got about 25,000km (15,000miles) on them which doesn't sound like a lot but with the soft rubber longevity is the price you pay for higher traction.

Trying to decide between the Bridgestone Potenza RE050A or Pirelli PZero Nero in the stock size of 205/40r17. I mainly use my car for daily driving but might plan to do a bit of autocross this summer or head out to the drag strip. I want to stay in the Max Performance Summer category and while the Extreme Performance Summer tire is tempting don't want to trade off too much wet traction performance. Because I live in Canada my options seem a bit more limited for the price I want to pay. Can get both of these tires from Costco at a some what reasonable price, as there's manufacturers rebates for both right now.

Had considered the 215/40r17 Dunlop ZII's but these are in the Extreme Summer category and are 22lbs with a diameter of 23.8", I could see these lasting shorter than the RE050A as they come with 8/32 of tread vs 10/32.

The other tire have considered and previously owned are the Yokahama S.Drive 205/40r17 and would last longer than both the RE50A and PZero Nero would be giving up some level of traction.

Pros for RE050A:
- 19lbs (Lighter than PZero Nero by 1lb, may not be a big deal)
- 23.46" diameter (stock oem diameter)


Cons for RE050A:
- 140 tread wear (probably won't last as long as PZero Nero)


Pros for PZero Nero:
-220 tread wear (should last longer than RE050A)


Cons for PZero Nero:
-20lbs (1lb heavier than RE050A)
-23.7" diameter (For some reason their diameter seems bigger than any 205/40r17 I've seen made by any manufacturer, normally its about 23.5")
Consumer Reports (sometime ago) scored the PZero Nero pretty low, then again sometimes I've wondered about their testing methods.


Tire Comparison: Bridgestone Potenza RE050A / Pirelli PZero Nero


User scoring: Bridgestone Potenza RE050A / Pirelli PZero Nero


The PZero Nero tire are slightly higher rated on TireRack.com by both their testing and consumer feedback, though the consumer feedback I don't take too much weight into as most people doing the reviews don't know a hole lot about tires (ie complaining about the short tread life, duh these are high performance summer tires, there's trade-offs to be made to get that extra grip vs tire life)

I'm sort of leaning towards the Bridgestone RE050A but the Pirelli PZero Nero do look tempting, what do you guys think?

 

[KKaWing]

I am actually going to go for the Bridgestone RE760 when my RE050A's wear out. All tires out for this size are pretty old, but the only ones that are "autocross worthy" are the RE760 (my mechanic raced them in other sizes) and the BFG Comp-2's (community vetted). The Abarth 500 community didn't like the PZero Neros last I checked. Don't be stuck in a certain "category", you'll be severely limiting your choices in an already narrow selection of tires.

 

[MS67]

I'm running the RE760s and love them. They don't compare to RE71s or the like, but for a street tire, I'm very satisfied. Plus I got them for $320 shipped for 4 through Discount Tire Direct after rebates.

 

[Ryephile]

Do you like the RE050A's on your car now? If so, stick with them. It sounds like you get more miles out of them than expected, and you don't want to give up any grip, but nor do you want to exchange wet grip for more dry in an extreme summer, so where you're at is probably where you should be. The PZero Nero's aren't better in any way in the real world. Having owned both, there's no way I'd ever buy the Nero again.

 

[marc89gti]

I am actually going to go for the Bridgestone RE760 when my RE050A's wear out. All tires out for this size are pretty old, but the only ones that are "autocross worthy" are the RE760 (my mechanic raced them in other sizes) and the BFG Comp-2's (community vetted). The Abarth 500 community didn't like the PZero Neros last I checked. Don't be stuck in a certain "category", you'll be severely limiting your choices in an already narrow selection of tires.

Thanks for the info, when I look on the Bridgestone website they show the RE760 having better dry performance than the RE050A, but the RE050A having better wet performance. I would have thought since the RE050A has 140 tread wear rating that its a sticker tire, but maybe its because this tire has been out for 10+ years.

 

[KKaWing]

Oh and treadwear is an arbitrary rating. They base it on a control of the manufacturer's rating so it is kinda different for everyone. Sometimes they even lower the rating to make it seem stickier. Only real way to tell is read reviews and look at their driving habits and temperature it's operated at.

 

[praecurvo]

Take a closer look at the Falken Azenis FK453's. Everyone that runs them on a lighter cars seems to love them. The only negatives I've read are form those that have never tried them. They're up there with the Michelin Supersports.

 

[NJFiST]

I just put a set of RE760s on my car. Just got them and they are pretty nice. Once I get past the break in period I'm expecting even better grip out of em.

 

[marc89gti]

Thanks for the info guys, I looked more at the RE760's and they look like the best/cheapest option to go. I looked at the Falken FK453's and while tempting, Consumer Reports rates them below the RE760 and they are being discontinued from what Kal-Tire in Canada tells me and they can only get 2, so it rules that out. One other website review said the Falken FK453 are the best street tire for combined dry/wet performance and the same site said the RE760 are the best longing lasting performance summer tire. The RE760 are $144cdn vs RE050A $240cdn from Costco. So probably will order them up before April 3rd to get the $70cdn rebate as well.

Edit: I also found out that RE760 is being discontinued from Bridgestone, being replaced by the RE-11 & unfortunately this new tire is not available in a 205/40r17. At the moment the RE760 is still available but too sure for how much longer.

 

[richtor]

I just ended up with the S-04 by Bridgestone 205/45 17. Costco told me they could not get the RE050A or the RE-11. I chose between the 760, S-04, and RE-71. S-04 for 112 a tire plus 15 for mount balance and rh. I'm very happy so far.

 

[marc89gti]

I just ended up with the S-04 by Bridgestone 205/45 17. Costco told me they could not get the RE050A or the RE-11. I chose between the 760, S-04, and RE-71. S-04 for 112 a tire plus 15 for mount balance and rh. I'm very happy so far.

I never did check with Costco if the RE050A was available in Canada or not due to the price.

I decided to stay with stock size as going to the 205/45r17 is about a 0.8" in diameter which from my understanding this is a 3.4% in diameter sizing increase and the general rule that I've seen is you don't want to go bigger than 3% ever. Most tire shops use this rule. This of course affects your speedometer reading and will be travelling faster than you think.

Found this on a website about this 3% rule.
"When plus sizing ensure that the total diameter of your tire and wheel remains the same as your original tires. A variance of more than 3% from your original equipment can cause problems with transmission shift points, which can decrease fuel mileage. It can also confuse braking system computers, which can even lead to brake failure"

As well going this route with the FiST will ultimately affect performance (acceleration). The good thing with Costco their return policy is 100% satisfaction guaranteed, which is why I'm going to buy mine at Costco.

 

[richtor]

I never did check with Costco if the RE050A was available in Canada or not due to the price.

I decided to stay with stock size as going to the 205/45r17 is about a 0.8" in diameter which from my understanding this is a 3.4% in diameter sizing increase and the general rule that I've seen is you don't want to go bigger than 3% ever. Most tire shops use this rule. This of course affects your speedometer reading and will be travelling faster than you think.

Found this on a website about this 3% rule.
"When plus sizing ensure that the total diameter of your tire and wheel remains the same as your original tires. A variance of more than 3% from your original equipment can cause problems with transmission shift points, which can decrease fuel mileage. It can also confuse braking system computers, which can even lead to brake failure"

As well going this route with the FiST will ultimately affect performance (acceleration). The good thing with Costco their return policy is 100% satisfaction guaranteed, which is why I'm going to buy mine at Costco.

I wanted to stay with original as well but that size is very limited in high performance tires. I feel that the 760 was a downgrade. I do know that starting stopping will be slower but still very viable performance vehicle. I wanted a tire that would stick and handle like the oem, and I'm not a Michelin fan.
Rounded 3.4 is 3%...
The actual speed is easy to adjust, and I choose my shift points or rpms. My biggest concern is the odometer not being on point. Hopefully I'll fix that soon with tune/recalibration.

 

[richtor]

I based my choice off of tire rack testing below.

 

[marc89gti]

I wanted to stay with original as well but that size is very limited in high performance tires. I feel that the 760 was a downgrade. I do know that starting stopping will be slower but still very viable performance vehicle. I wanted a tire that would stick and handle like the oem, and I'm not a Michelin fan.
Rounded 3.4 is 3%...
The actual speed is easy to adjust, and I choose my shift points or rpms. My biggest concern is the odometer not being on point. Hopefully I'll fix that soon with tune/recalibration.

While I would want to agree with you that the RE050A tire is better than the RE760 tire after reading different reviews I'm not convinced the RE050A is any better than the RE760. Bridgestone actually says the RE760 has better dry handling but slightly worse in the wet handling. The RE050A was originally released 10+ years ago, think the RE760 launched in 2009 or so. The RE760 is supposedly being phased out by Bridgestone and the new model is the RE-11, but again not available in 205/40r17.

As for size I made a mistake:
RE050A 23.4"
S04 24.3"
0.9" difference or 3.85% difference

For me that's way too big of a jump in size, just saying. You could get the ecu reprogrammed at the dealer for the new tire diameter and thus sort out any potential issues. Not trying to be a pain in your but, the reason why I mention this I couldn't recommend anyone use the 205/45r17 size, to open up a few more options I would suggest the 215/40r17 size which is a smaller increase in diameter by 1.3% which to me is definitely ok.

 

[Ryephile]

While I would want to agree with you that the RE050A tire is better than the RE760 tire after reading different reviews I'm not convinced the RE050A is any better than the RE760. Bridgestone actually says the RE760 has better dry handling but slightly worse in the wet handling. The RE050A was originally released 10+ years ago, think the RE760 launched in 2009 or so. The RE760 is supposedly being phased out by Bridgestone and the new model is the RE-11, but again not available in 205/40r17.

As for size I made a mistake:
RE050A 23.4"
S04 24.3"
0.9" difference or 3.85% difference

For me that's way too big of a jump in size, just saying. You could get the ecu reprogrammed at the dealer for the new tire diameter and thus sort out any potential issues. Not trying to be a pain in your but, the reason why I mention this I couldn't recommend anyone use the 205/45r17 size, to open up a few more options I would suggest the 215/40r17 size which is a smaller increase in diameter by 1.3% which to me is definitely ok.

The loaded rolling radius is the only relevant comparison for tire diameter. You're using static unloaded diameter, which has nothing to do with how the tire actually rolls down the road with your vehicles' weight. You're clearly worried about the diameter, so just stick with the OEM size.

What are you trying to accomplish, exactly? Are you trying to rationalize why buying the RE760 is a good idea? You don't have to do that, just go buy them. They won't have the dry grip of the RE050A's, but they'll have better tread life and better wet grip. What's on their website is not helping you make a sound decision, as what you just wrote is comparing tires across 3 categories, which tells me you're not sure what you really want.


RE-11 is the old extreme summer, is replaced by the RE-71R
RE050A is the OEM max summer
RE760 is the UHP summer

As you go down in category, you trade dry grip for longevity and wet grip. It's that simple.

 

[richtor]

Where do the S-04 fall in line with the above Bridgestone lineup?

I've heard both the 050A and RE11 are being discontinued. Is this correct?

 

[marc89gti]

The loaded rolling radius is the only relevant comparison for tire diameter. You're using static unloaded diameter, which has nothing to do with how the tire actually rolls down the road with your vehicles' weight. You're clearly worried about the diameter, so just stick with the OEM size.

What are you trying to accomplish, exactly? Are you trying to rationalize why buying the RE760 is a good idea? You don't have to do that, just go buy them. They won't have the dry grip of the RE050A's, but they'll have better tread life and better wet grip. What's on their website is not helping you make a sound decision, as what you just wrote is comparing tires across 3 categories, which tells me you're not sure what you really want.


RE-11 is the old extreme summer, is replaced by the RE-71R
RE050A is the OEM max summer
RE760 is the UHP summer

As you go down in category, you trade dry grip for longevity and wet grip. It's that simple.

As for tire diameter I just can't see how that's a good idea going almost 4% bigger, most good tire shops should say that's going too big.

I know what I what, I want oem size with max dry handling. Car and Driver magazine did a review of 9 what they call value tires and compared them to a good bench mark, the Michelin PS2 tire and the RE760 came in 4th place out of 9 tires reviewed. They scored close to the PS2 in terms of results for dry testing. I'm not too worried about wet handling and is something will to compromise on. Not too sure why Bridgestone would say the RE760 has better dry handling than the RE050A if this wasn't true, perhaps trying to get more sales?

 

[marc89gti]

The loaded rolling radius is the only relevant comparison for tire diameter. You're using static unloaded diameter, which has nothing to do with how the tire actually rolls down the road with your vehicles' weight. You're clearly worried about the diameter, so just stick with the OEM size.

What are you trying to accomplish, exactly? Are you trying to rationalize why buying the RE760 is a good idea? You don't have to do that, just go buy them. They won't have the dry grip of the RE050A's, but they'll have better tread life and better wet grip. What's on their website is not helping you make a sound decision, as what you just wrote is comparing tires across 3 categories, which tells me you're not sure what you really want.


RE-11 is the old extreme summer, is replaced by the RE-71R
RE050A is the OEM max summer
RE760 is the UHP summer

As you go down in category, you trade dry grip for longevity and wet grip. It's that simple.

Oh and treadwear is an arbitrary rating. They base it on a control of the manufacturer's rating so it is kinda different for everyone. Sometimes they even lower the rating to make it seem stickier. Only real way to tell is read reviews and look at their driving habits and temperature it's operated at.

As KKaWing said and I think I agree tread wear is an arbitrary thing, each manufacturer can say what ever they want, does the RE050A make it the stickiest tire out there, no don't think so. Just because the RE050A and RE760 are in different categories I'm not too sure you can say the RE050A is better due to tread wear rating, the RE050A is older technology from what I've read and understand.

 

[marc89gti]

Where do the S-04 fall in line with the above Bridgestone lineup?

I've heard both the 050A and RE11 are being discontinued. Is this correct?

The S-04 is a very good tire up there with Michelin Pilot Sport, came in second place in 2012 review with Car and Driver.
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/bridgestone-potenza-s-04-pole-position-page-9

I've heard too that the 050A is being discontinued too and from my sources at the local tire shop said the RE760 is be discontinued as well. Not too sure about the RE-11 though.

 

[Ryephile]

Where do the S-04 fall in line with the above Bridgestone lineup?

I've heard both the 050A and RE11 are being discontinued. Is this correct?

S-04's are Max Summer's, so they're similar to the RE050A. The RE11 was replaced by the RE11A, which is being mostly replaced by the much better RE71R [not all the same sizes]. RE050A is still OEM equipped on many BMW's.

...
I know what I what, I want oem size with max dry handling. ...

As KKaWing said and I think I agree tread wear is an arbitrary thing, each manufacturer can say what ever they want, does the RE050A make it the stickiest tire out there, no don't think so. Just because the RE050A and RE760 are in different categories I'm not too sure you can say the RE050A is better due to tread wear rating, the RE050A is older technology from what I've read and understand.

Ok, so it comes back to my original question you didn't answer: do you like the RE050A's you currently have? Are you intentionally trying to change the character of the car? No two different tires feel the same, so if you're trying to change how the car feels, what are you trying to change? Since you're limiting yourself to 205/40-17, you have very few options, so that makes the choice easier.

UTQG's are not arbitrary, it's a specified test. It is however open for extrapolative data interpretation, and also lightly regulated, though the NHTSA does have the authority to fine a tire manufacturer. Saying it's "arbitrary" however is inaccurate.