Die besten Reifen für den Alfa Romeo 156 2.0 TS Veloce

War okay, nicht fantastisch bei Nässe, aber gut bei Trockenheit. Etwa halb abgenutzt und sie sind 6 Jahre alt, aber beide haben einen Hinweis beim TÜV bekommen. Die Seitenwände sind morsch und rissig. Ich ersetze sie durch Khumo.

Reifen sind eher sparsam als leistungsorientiert, bieten aber dennoch ein gutes Handling. Ich war überrascht, wie gut es mit den nassen Bedingungen zurechtkommt, die ich mit Gewindefahrwerken fahre, und nachdem ich die Pirelli P7 ausgetauscht hatte, war ich sehr überrascht, wie bequem sie sind.

Ich habe mich für die T001Evos entschieden, weil sie damals einen guten Preis hatten. Der einzige Markenreifen, der billiger war, war Avon ZV7. (Hankook, Pirelli und jede Menge angeblich Mittelklasse-Reifen waren mehr.)

Diese Bridgestones haben bisher 20.000 gefahren, aber nur 5 km vorne. Im Vergleich dazu habe ich bessere Reifen gefunden, da ich in den Wintermonaten anscheinend schnell Reifen trage. Das muss ein Zeichen dafür sein, dass ich an ihre Grenzen kommen kann. Sie sind leise, komfortabel und stabil und haben sich weitgehend bewährt. Ich habe mich nicht für den T005 entschieden, da der T001 Evos leiser ist. Sie fahren gut und sind daher eine gute Wahl für diejenigen, die Wert auf Komfort legen.

Der direkte Kurvengriff ist in Ordnung und das Feedback ist in Ordnung, wenn daran erinnert wird, dass es sich um Tourenreifen handelt. Ich finde, es fehlt ihnen an Biss in Ecken, aber seltsamerweise verbessert sich dies subjektiv mit der Geschwindigkeit.

Was ich jetzt festgestellt habe, dass sie vorne knapp unter 4 mm Profiltiefe liegen, ist, dass sie das ABS auslösen, wenn das Bremsen auf glattem Asphalt bei einem Wasserfilm sogar leicht überprüft wird. Ich hatte keine großen Aquaplaning-Probleme beim Geradeaus- oder Kurvenfahren bemerkt, aber sie sind beim Bremsen besonders schlecht. Mein Punkt hier ist, dass diese Reifen, die für Nassbremsen mit A bewertet sind, im Laufe ihres Lebens einfach nicht die Leistung erbringen, die ihre Bewertung nahelegt. Dies ist etwas, was ich seit langem im Hinblick darauf bemerkt habe, wie irreführend die neue europäische Reifenkennzeichnung sein kann. Um dies in einen Zusammenhang zu bringen, habe ich festgestellt, dass ein anderes Familienauto mit 195 / 65R15 Yokohama C-Drive 2-Reifen mit C-Bewertung in dieser Hinsicht definitiv überlegen ist (sie haben auch eine Profiltiefe von 3,5 mm).

Im Moment habe ich die Schwachstelle des Bridgestone festgestellt und fahre entsprechend, aber das bedeutet, dass ich nicht die Chance nutzen werde, sie sofort herunterzufahren, nur weil sie unter bestimmten Bedingungen die Bremsen unwirksam machen.

Es ist eine Schande, weil ich Bridgestones für mein Motorrad mag, aber ich gebe zu, dass Bridgestone für nasse Leistungsprobleme bekannt ist, die mit dem T005 behoben wurden.

Ein Weg, dies zu umgehen, könnte darin bestehen, die Reifen wieder nach hinten zu bewegen, aber dies könnte Auswirkungen auf die Sicherheit haben (abgenutzte Reifen sind im Trockenen subjektiv besser, neue Reifen im Nassen subjektiv besser - weshalb ich neue Paare nach hinten montiere).

Kurz gesagt, sie sind gut, haben aber ein offensichtliches Manko, das nicht typisch für die abgerundete Leistung von Reifen eines Premium-Herstellers ist. Sie können immer noch ein guter Kauf sein, vorausgesetzt, die Leute sind sich dessen bewusst und handeln entsprechend UND der Kaufpreis liegt im unteren Bereich der Mittelklasse. Alles gesagt und getan, ich denke, sie sind immer noch erheblich besser als die meisten kostengünstigen Reifen, die beim Tragen normalerweise große Leistungsprobleme aufweisen.

Dies sind gute Reifen, die sich gut tragen lassen. Die Fahrqualität ist ein Pluspunkt, ebenso wie das geringe Geräusch, aber sie sind weniger gut über rauere Oberflächen. Ich fand auch nassen Griff und nasse Straßenlage, um anständig zu sein, wenn nicht langweilig.

Die AV7s haben jedoch auch negative Punkte. Die Reifenschlupfwinkel scheinen hoch zu sein, was sich als ein allgemein unreaktiver und ungenauer Reifen zeigt, wenn auch weniger. In ähnlicher Weise ist die trockene Straßenlage nicht großartig (aber auch nicht schrecklich) und es ist nicht schwer, die ZV7 mit einem etwas enthusiastischen Einsatz quietschen zu lassen.

Probleme beiseite; Dies ist eine Leistung pro Kauf. Sie sind ein fehlerverzeihender Reifen und daher sicher, die ausreichend Feedback liefern. Sie tun, was beabsichtigt ist. Das ist; Der ZV7 ist ein beeindruckender Tourenreifen, der keine sportlichen Ansprüche hat. Es ist absolut sicher, trägt sich gut und ist leise und geschmeidig und verhält sich subjektiv besser im Nassen. All dies für einen Zehner mehr als eine billige und böse Alternative bedeutet, dass der ZV7 ein guter Reifen ist, von dem ich vermute, dass ihn die Leute mehr mögen werden, als professionelle Testergebnisse vermuten lassen.

This is an end of life review in addition to previous. In short these Pirellis are grippy, smooth, controllable and wear very well. The recent snow is what prompted me to change (this time for Bridgestone Turanza T001 Evo) after 17000 miles on the front only with 2.5mm of tread remaining. It would have been better if I'd realised an auto centre had set the geometry correctly (for sports suspension).

I like the green credentials- light weight, less materials in construction yet a strong carcass means low unsprung weight so good ride quality yet they still grip. Braking, aquaplaning resistance and cornering are all commendable aspects for these hard wearing Cinturatos which come with 9mm of tread when new. Indeed, due to the unusually deep tread, I wish I'd fitted them to the less stressed rear wheels when new as that would pay huge dividends in tyre life.

I'm trying marginally quieter tyres this time which are still very lightweight but not so light that the carcass deforms and shoulder wear results (Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance). Look for tyre weights on Amazon under product details as a guide. However, I have found I greatly like these Pirellis and I would heartily recommend them as a vice free touring tyre. They are a refreshing change to the rather short lived, harsh and noisy tyres Continental have offered for far too long now. The Pirellis also work very well for the enthusiastic driver and stand up to punishment well. The only negative aspect is slightly blunted steering response but otherwise they really are very good indeed and I say if you are considering them just give them a try. There is nothing to lose.

I decided to try these as I previously had a complete set of Ventus Prime 2 K115 and the promise of being a little more sporting was appealing. Both the 2s and 3s are good tyres IMO when it is remembered they are touring tyres and not track biased in any way.

The first thing anyone will notice is noise and comfort. Surprisingly, the 3s are actually a set backwards. The 2s are noticeably quieter and round off road imperfections more effectively. In this department, both are superior to the heavy Conti Premium Contact 2s. The Kook 2s are almost as good as the lightweight Pirelli P7 Cinturatos with regard to comfort which on my other 156.

Next is response and feedback. The Ventus Prime 3s are a small improvement over the 2s in this respect. The 2s are obviously aimed more for comfort. The 3s are similar to the Pirellis but not as good as the Contis which need less lock to get round bends. The 2s are adequate but not inspiring.

Handling. I thought I'd have more to say given the crazy angles I've put the 156s round bends but they appear to be safe and manageable. Perhaps that is in itself great praise. Contrast that with the Contis which become messy, inaccurate and totally lack adjustability and either of the Kooks really do shape up to look controllable in extremis. They are perhaps not as good as the Pirellis though. The only criticism I have for the 3s is that cold weather does drop off a little (as it does with all summer tyres). In this area, for once, the Contis make sense. However, the good handling means it is easily manageable and the reduction is in no way concerning.

Wear. I'd say the 3s have it. I can't be sure but now the 3s have less than 3mm and over 20k miles (a first for me) I think the 3s are a particularly durable tyre. My impressions of the 2s wear I though wear was on the high side but I didn't mind. I did mind having to rub loads of tyre black into the tiny sidewall ribs of the 2s though... Another thing about these tyres, notably the 3s is how well they preserve the grip and handling characteristics when they are worn. Budget tyres cannot do this and become terrible (a set of Vredestein Sportrac 3s became decidedly psychotic- yet were winning tyre tests). They may not be up to Michelin Pilot levels in this respect but they do perform convincingly even when worn so can go right to the 1.6mm.

In short, either variant is recommended. The 2s are quieter and more comfortably and the 3s feel a little more sporting even though there is not much difference in outright grip.

I was able to buy these without going to a specialist supplier. My impressions of these suggest that selling them mainstream may have been a mistake. Irrespective, I wanted to try them for myself so I ended up with a complete set. A deer wrote my car off before they were totally done though.

They have a nice crisp steering response and good feedback. Cornering grip was very good but less so in the wet. I found them to generally behave very well with no upsets. Breakaway and recovery was always easily managed and for that they can be recommended.

They have shortcomings though. When new, the tread depth was only just above 6mm (sporting tyre). Aquaplaning resistance was very poor though. Indeed, I used them in snow once. It gave new meaning to 'absolutely no grip'. They are very heavy so transmit every bump into the cabin and even tiny road imperfections could clearly be detected. Wear was not good and I'd sum them up as not good for a daily driver. For a toy they're not bad but I believe there are better options available which don't have anything like the RE002's drawbacks.

Not a bad tyre but it should have been marketed more accurately and having mainstream autocentres fitting them as a mainstream performance tyre certainly had it's drawbacks and I imagine some damage was done to the Bridgestone brand name for that reason.

. Grip, handling, ride and noise are all very good. Although I've only had them on for just over 2 months, I've covered 5000 miles. So far, life seems good. Even allowing for wear, they are much better than the Continental Premium Contact 2 tyres they replaced. The Contis never had the grip, even when almost new that the Pirellis have. The Pirellis ride way smoother and are very noticeably quieter. They are predictable when pushed which the Contis never were. These Pirellis have always been light which is why they reduce unsprung weight which helps ride quality immensely.

I cannot comment on low temperature performance as yet but they are not as true tracking as the Continental tyres and even cruising, the Pirellis need a little more steering lock in bends. The plus side of that is that when the limit is approached, there is still plenty of scope for line and attitude adjustment. In any case, even if and when performance does tail off when these Pirellis are worn, it should still hopefully be quite acceptable.

I really like these tyres as they ride so smoothly and quietly yet they still manage to perform very well indeed. I find them quieter than the nose rating of 71dB suggests but that will vary car to car. Aquaplaning resistance has been exceptional but they are still new so again, I cannot comment what they are like when worn. How much performance tails off varies greatly over a tyre's life and I hope these Pirellis are well enough developed to avoid the shocking tail off which is common to so many budget tyres.

I've found these to be a well balanced touring tyre which I can recommend. Tyre life is good and although they have been on the front and rear, there is still over 3mm on them after 20000 miles of sometimes very spirited progress.

For a touring tyre, grip is about as good as can be reasonably expected which is less than that of a sports focused tyre for obvious reasons. However, last winter I found the cold weather performance to suffer more than the Continental Premium Contact 2 tyres at the other end. The Hankooks are not terrible in this respect but not as good as some. However, they remained stable, predictable and controllable so there was never cause for alarm.

Although they tend to have fairly large slip angles (not as true tracking as some tyres), grip and tyre life seems notably good. In short, not quite up to Pirelli P7 Cinturatos but they are cheaper and only slightly not as good.
Definitely good value for money and a good performing tyre which is only slightly let down by its aquaplaning resistance. Good in all other respects.

In short, I've found better options out there. Although these are now an old tyre, I still see them being offered and even fitted to some 16 plate cars as OE fitment. I'm not sure why as I've found these to be quite noisy and impart a certain sharpness to the ride which both Hankoik Ventus Prime 3 K125 and more notably Pirelli P7 Cinturato tyres seem to round off a lot better.

For a touring tyre, the Contis are impressively reactive and require less steering lock than many others. However, the negative side is that at the limit they lose grip suddenly and there is little scope for adjustment to the line. Used as such, they make the handling untidy at best and certainly less stable than others. I think these tyres demonstrate German engineering ethos in that they are generally well rounded up to about 8 tenths but after that the shortcomings become apparent.

Tyre life seems good. They were on the car for 20000 miles in both rear and front positions. Resistance to aquaplaning is quite good as is damp and cold weather cornering. As such, these older mid-performing tyres may still make sense if they are discounted sufficiently.