# Yokohama AVS ES100 review



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

500 mi review. 235/40/ZR17 W rating. 280 UTOG rating. Tirerack price $105 










I had these mounted on BBS RX 17x8 from Tirerack. Weight of wheel and tire is about the same as the M68/tire combo of ~ 46 pounds.

First 100 mi was quite an adventure. Tramlining was very noticeable. Nothing like having the wheel jerk to the left or right at the first sign of uneven pavement.  After 250 mi they had calmed down quite a bit and tramlining was minimal except for the worst of pavements. Initial air pressure was set to 35 PSI cold all around and remained there for about 400 mi. Average air temp was also around 40 deg during this period.

The last 100 mi pressure has been set to 38 lbs. Average air temperature has been somewhat warmer, but not much. Tramlining is gone. At cooler temps (<40 deg) when the tires are cold they are somewhat inconsistent, but i'm used to this. Similarly, the Dunlop M2's that I have for winter, don't get up to full traction in snow/ice until a couple of miles and some heat gets built in. Besides, gotta wait for the oil temp too.

Throughout the first 500 mi performance has been excellent. Steering is somewhat heavier, much crisper, ride firmer, yet not harsh. Compared to the stock Conti's, it's night and day. Grip is very good in the dry. No noticeable deterioration in a steady rain, grip was still good. Awaiting a good thunderstorm downfall to further asses the rain capability, but I expect no problems. A very quiet tire. Grip is consistent with power on oversteer, very predictable, and RWD rocks as always. With a good footprint of rubber on the road, these are definitely not for use in the snow.

All in all :thumbup: :thumbup:

Very good grip wet and dry
Quiet
Quality is good thus far
Looks good
Cheap

I also considered:

Bridgestone S03 - 1.75x $, probably the best, but not at $75 more
Michelin Pilot Sport - 2x $, plus they're from France :angel:
Kumho - too many quality issues reported
Sumitomo - see Kumho. 

P.S. BMW, the stock Conti's suck. Suffered through 9000 mi of mine. Not going back.


----------



## nate (Dec 24, 2001)

Cool, I ordered a set today


----------



## Mathew (Feb 8, 2002)

thanks for the write up

I was considering the ES100s but settled on the S03's last week.


----------



## Sean (Dec 22, 2001)

I've been trying to order a set from TireRack, but the rears are back-ordered and always are. :thumbdwn: www.tires.com is also low.


----------



## WAM (Jan 30, 2002)

I have had mine for about 2000 miles now and I think they are pretty good tires.

About 1300 miles was the SFO-Bimmerfest-LA roundtrip. They are incredibly quiet.

The braking performance seems better than the stock Turanza ER30's I had on the front.

Tirerack had none in stock when I was looking for tires about 5-6 weeks ago, so I got them from America's Tire center, the retail outlets of tires.com.

Price for 225/45 x 17 was $128 + tax, fitted.


----------



## Matthew330Ci (Sep 9, 2002)

ObD said:


> *500 mi review. 235/40/ZR17 W rating. 280 UTOG rating. Tirerack price $105
> 
> *


how can they be both z rated and w rated? :dunno: 

i really like your wheels! :thumbup:


----------



## WAM (Jan 30, 2002)

> how can they be both z rated and w rated?


There are a few tires that are marked in this way. In this case, the Z rating means >149mph and the W rating means rated to 168mph.


----------



## GTI (Dec 28, 2001)

Hi Wam:

Which Amer. Tire location did you go to and did they do a good job installing/balancing the tires??
Did they care about your wheel as much as you would like??

I will be replacing the rear anytime now and want to know some local tire shop recommendation in the bay area.

Thanks.


----------



## WAM (Jan 30, 2002)

I went to the mountain view store as that has been recommended on the board before.

I live in redwood shores but avoided the redwood city store as that has history of scratching wheels, which is why the mtn view store was recommended. The manager at Mtn Viewis a decent guy, Dan Appleman. I showed him my wheels first, (which i had cleaned the night before) and told him I would like them back in the same condition.

However, since they managed to give away 1 of the tires they were saving for me leaving only 3, I had 2 replaced there and went to the dublin store for the other 2.

Same deal there, I showed the wheels beforehand and told them I would like them back the same.

Both stores did a good job, no scratches at all.

However, the Mtn View store has the hunter GSP9700 balancer machine, which does a tire roundness check too, which the Dublin store did not.

I told them to torque the wheels to 80lb-ft which is halfway between the old and new specs (100Nm, 74ft-lb old - 120Nm, 88lb-ft new) to take into account a margin of error.


----------



## Jspeed (Dec 23, 2001)

WAM:
Is Hunter GSP9700 the one that can align the heavy end of the tire to the light end of the wheel so that minimal wheel weight is needed? Thanks.


----------



## WAM (Jan 30, 2002)

I am not aware of the full functionality of the GSP 9700. It is recommended by most here, as the machine to use and when I checked their website, the tire roundness check was one of the features mentioned.

Maybe somebody else here can help?


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

So now that you have put some more miles on these tires . . . do they blow the Conti's away ? 

I gotta replace my Conti's since I can't stand them


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

AF330i said:


> *So now that you have put some more miles on these tires . . . do they blow the Conti's away ?
> 
> I gotta replace my Conti's since I can't stand them *


They blew them away after the first mi. Conti's suck! 

Well the Conti's are OK, but they are more of a touring tire and do suck in the wet after some wear.

I really like these Yokes. For the price, can't beat them.

Nate has ES 100's now too so I'm looking forward to his perspective soon. :typing:


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

ObD said:


> *I really like these Yokes. For the price, can't beat them.
> *


Have you had much experience with them in the rain yet?


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

rumatt said:


> *Have you had much experience with them in the rain yet? *


Just light rain and wet roads. Grip was constant in those conditions. No thunderstorm-like showers yet or major puddles. There is a grated metal railroad crossing near work which is my ultimate grip test in the wet. The Yoko's slip just a tad under power but it's all very controllable. The Conti's by comparison, flunk just driving over it. DSC was not happy.


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

ObD said:


> *They blew them away after the first mi. Conti's suck!
> 
> Well the Conti's are OK, but they are more of a touring tire and do suck in the wet after some wear.
> 
> ...


ObD . .. my main concern is the dry grip . . . the conti's totally suck . . . my DSC light is always coming on and I think the grip on them stinks . . . with the price set aside as a non factor, do you think the yoko's are excellent in the dry ?


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

The Yoko's have more than enough dry grip for the street. I'm sure the S03's are better at the limits of street driving and for track use. You do get what you pay for. Michelins are decent tires but I generally buy tires for the rain and their rain performance is not to my liking. So for me, in Michelins you are paying for the name.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

ObD said:


> *The Yoko's have more than enough dry grip for the street. I'm sure the S03's are better at the limits of street driving and for track use. You do get what you pay for. *


Thanks ObD. The Yoko's sound like a bargain for those who don't need the absolute maximum grip.


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

BTW, I have about 1000 mi on these now, and have done some hard accelerations while turning. I thought the back end would come loose and DSC complain, but the Yokes kept on digging.  
Definitely grippy in the dry.


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

rumatt said:


> *Thanks ObD. The Yoko's sound like a bargain for those who don't need the absolute maximum grip. *


Yes, it's my experience and others as well. The S03's were $300 more a set. If it was $100 then I would have gone for them. But $300 buys me 3 more Yokes. :beerchug:


----------



## LeucX3 (Dec 26, 2001)

ObD said:


> *
> 
> Michelin Pilot Sport - 2x $, plus they're from France :angel:
> *


That's not always a good thing, but let's not go there.


----------



## magbarn (Jan 28, 2003)

How loud are they compared to the stock Conti's? I don't mind a stiffer ride so much, but I hate how the Conti's drone...


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

ObD said:


> *
> Nate has ES 100's now too so I'm looking forward to his perspective soon. :typing: *


His outlook should be pretty interesting since he is coming from the SO3 . . .I am really interested in hearing it.


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

magbarn said:


> *How loud are they compared to the stock Conti's? I don't mind a stiffer ride so much, but I hate how the Conti's drone... *


I don't find them loud, but I'm probably not the best judge of this. I'm not shy about turning up the HK.  I think anything is better than the Conti's. :rofl:


----------



## joema (Aug 28, 2002)

Jspeed said:


> *WAM:
> Is Hunter GSP9700 the one that can align the heavy end of the tire to the light end of the wheel so that minimal wheel weight is needed? Thanks. *


In short, yes, although it does many other tests besides that. It can even cross-match tires and wheels in sets of four, matching the best tire/wheel combinations that produces the least vibration. However it's typically more expensive than a regular balancing machine. Some shops will give you a price break if you buy tires from them.

See www.gsp9700.com.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

Someone over at roadfly claimed that the ES100's are pretty loud after a bit of wear. Said they are louder than the original Conti's. Can anyone second this complaint?


----------



## audiophilia (Mar 25, 2003)

Just drove them home.

After stock Michelin all-seasons, the 100s are in a different league. Very happy 

If you can't get SO3s, get the 100s. You won't be dissapointed:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## 325kid (Jan 27, 2002)

All:

Just drove my es100's home. Whoaaa - they are like cats paws. Did some cornering and felt a little understeer and smushy. I had the shop set them at 35 psi (225/245). I will make the adjustments as I go. Felt some tramlining, so I held on to the steering wheel. Steering did feel a bit heavier.

Relatively speaking, they are less noisy. In Texas, we have alot of chip gravel blacktop roads (windshield nightmares). On smooth blacktop, the es100's were stealth. On concrete, somewhere in between. Took them up to 100 mph and they felt great - smooth as butter - elected the Hunter9000 balancing (not 9700). Noise was minimal. Remember I had Contisport contacts with about 28k on them. Therefore, the es100's should feel and sound better. I ran the Contis 36/42psi. 

I love new shoes. Love the thought of tuning them in over the next few weeks. Feels like I have a new car. At this point, 100% recommended. I will keep you posted.


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

I've had my new ones on since Friday and have about 300 miles on them. OBd initial post couldn't have been closer to what I felt with these ES100's. I'm EXTREMELY pleased and although I was happy with the Conti's (for overall commuting) I never realized how disappointing the Conti's were until I stepped up to this tire.


----------



## ARCHER (Dec 26, 2001)

AF330i said:


> *His outlook should be pretty interesting since he is coming from the SO3 . . .I am really interested in hearing it. *


I second that. I am on the fence about shoes for the M3.


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

rumatt said:


> *Someone over at roadfly claimed that the ES100's are pretty loud after a bit of wear. Said they are louder than the original Conti's. Can anyone second this complaint? *


I don't find them noiser or quieter than the Contisports . . . :dunno:

I'd say the same


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

Just want to add that last night I got a chance to drive on some back roads and these tires GRIP !!!

I cannot beleive how great these tires are . . .


----------



## ed325i (Dec 20, 2001)

How do they compare to Yoko AVS Sports?

Ed


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

Has anyone had a chance to really push there car with these tires yet ?

It's been raining so much here that I still haven't really pushed these tires through some curves yet.

So far I will tell anyone considering the Es100's they are really excellent tires. I drove through the pouring rain yesterday and they were incredible. I would go through puddles and they didn't hydroplane at all . . . 

Also, the steering is so responsive to these tires . . . they are just amazing !!!

I would really love to know how they are in the dry handling some twisties but the rain seems to never stop


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

AF330i said:


> *Has anyone had a chance to really push there car with these tires yet ? *


Someone at the NJ CCA autocross today had a new set of ES100s on his stock 2000 328i SP. If it means anything, he bettered my time by a fraction of a second, and he says he likes them.

However, he also complained of a bit of tramlining on the highway, and said the sidewalls don't feel as stiff as the Contis when cornering. :dunno:


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

PhilH said:


> *and said the sidewalls don't feel as stiff as the Contis when cornering. :dunno: *


I just don't see this . .. maybe because my ES100's are a 40 series but I think the sidewalls are pretty stiff and react immediately . . . being that this person has a 328 then he must have a 45 series tire so maybe that is the reason for the difference :dunno:

I have heard people make that same complaint about these tires on the smaller sizes with the higher aspect ratio . . .


----------



## nate (Dec 24, 2001)

I would love to tell you, but I really don't push it that much on the street....

They certainly have less bite than the S-03s, it is patently obvious. But, for $100 each, a good deal...

edit: and, Alan, you can put 235/40s on the stock type 44s...


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

Pics of ES100's on a 330Ci:


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

..


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

...


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

....


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

.......


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

They look pretty beefy :thumbup: 


The Conti's don't give off such a beefy look in comparison


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

My gut feeling says they stand alittle higher by .250" but alas, I'm comparing to the "last look" I had on worn Conti's.


----------



## postoak (Mar 5, 2002)

I just removed my ES100s at the 17,300 mile mark. The rears were totally shot. They had become so loud at ALL speeds that conversation was difficult. If you aren't happy with the Conti Sports, DO NOT go with these, as they seemed inferior in every way to the Contis. 

I decided to go upscale and bought a set of Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s. I tried to get the Conti Sport IIs, but nobody seems to have any.


----------



## Keith (Feb 27, 2002)

All I can say about these tires are YUCK! (for noise)
They did handle great on dry and wet pavement, but at 7,000 miles they begin to HOWL.
They were off my car at about 8k and good riddens. :thumbdwn: 
Driving down to Bimmerfest it drove my buddy and I crazy, the radio had to be blastin'.
While getting to Bimmerfest early, Jon Schafer told me (after compaining about my tires) that Toyo was giving away tires for the raffle, so I bought raffle tickets and won a set of Toyo's and decided on the T1-S's and these babys are sweet, at least so far, with about 2k on them. 
I highly recommend these tires, or the Toyo Proxes 4's, a buddy of mine bought these for his E30 325is and he loves them.

Good luck to whoever has these ES 100's, hopefully you do not have the same complaint's as I have.
SOME have had good luck with these. :dunno:


----------



## Galun (Aug 14, 2002)

Keith said:


> All I can say about these tires are YUCK! (for noise)
> They did handle great on dry and wet pavement, but at 7,000 miles they begin to HOWL.
> They were off my car at about 8k and good riddens. :thumbdwn:
> Driving down to Bimmerfest it drove my buddy and I crazy, the radio had to be blastin'.
> ...


I had been running these tires since my stock Contis wore out. I am on my third set, and the noise never bothered me. But then I don't really about noise. These tires are great value for their grip.


----------



## SergioK (Aug 14, 2002)

I ran then for about 28k miles and never noticed the noise. We just put them on my wife's 318i and she says she's noticing more noise after about 2k miles. I figure if they get any louder, they'll become dedicated track tires.


----------



## cdnowak (Apr 19, 2002)

Unfortunately, my luck with these tires has not been fantastic. I purchased them on 5/28/2003 from one of our local tire outlets. I have a 2000 528i. Running 255/40-17 on the rear and 235/45-17 up front. The local tire dealer gave me a price of $119 each tire complete with balancing, mounting, valves, etc....

When I put them on in say June 2003 I had 25,500 miles on the car. I live in Rhode Island, so I put the snow shoes on the Saturday after Thanksgiving and I take them off the Saturday before Easter Sunday.

So let's say I had them on for June, July, August, Spetember, October and November of 03. That is 6 months. They were off for the winter until April, May, June, July, and August of this year, so another 5 months.

In total I have used these tires 11 months. I average about 1,500 miles per month, so we'll say 17,000 miles are on these tires.

Imagine my surprise when I pulled the rears off 2 weeks ago and found I was at the treadwear indicator :jawdrop: 

I don't know what I expected out of these tires, but I was hoping for 30,000 anyway. I never "peel out," rarely will I be so aggressive in the turns to push the limits of the tires. 90% of my driving is normal every day driving. The fronts are fine, but the rears are ready to be retired.

And the noise :yikes: I didn't really notice it until I put them back on in April after having the snows on. The tires are really, really loud. 

The price was right, and they are definately grippy. I just don't think I will buy them again. Of course what am I going to do, The fronts still have plenty left on them. I guess I'm going to have to buy another set of rears and get another 17k until the fronts wear down :banghead:


----------



## postoak (Mar 5, 2002)

That's what I WASN'T willing to do. My fronts were okay too but I'm not so sure that the noise wasn't coming, at least partially, from the fronts.


----------



## cdnowak (Apr 19, 2002)

postoak said:


> That's what I WASN'T willing to do. My fronts were okay too but I'm not so sure that the noise wasn't coming, at least partially, from the fronts.


Definately a good point. I'm just cranky because I spent $500 last May and if I want to replace them all, I am going to have to dump another $600 - $700 not even 2 years later. 

It is more principal than anything else at this point. Oh well. At $120 a tire I guess you really get what you pay for. Lesson learned :doh:


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

Galun said:


> These tires are great value for their grip.


 :stupid:

I'd buy them again.


----------



## SergioK (Aug 14, 2002)

cdnowak said:


> 90% of my driving is normal every day driving.


And most likely 90% of the rubber that was used up on those tires came from that 90% of your daily driving style (not the 10% occasional hotfooting).

I've had tires last me twice as long as others and it comes down to one's particular daily driving style, not the tires, nor the once in a while 'spirited driving'. Hell, the guys at my tire shop are continously surprised at how I can make my tires last so long even though I'm not a 'slow' driver.


----------



## SergioK (Aug 14, 2002)

ObD said:


> :stupid:
> 
> I'd buy them again.


I was almost going to get them again, but went with the Kumho MX instead simply because I wanted something to compare the ES100 to. I think there was only a $10 difference between each tire. The Kumho's treadwear rating was slightly lower (softer compound) IIRC and I like that.


----------



## cdnowak (Apr 19, 2002)

SergioK said:


> And most likely 90% of the rubber that was used up on those tires came from that 90% of your daily driving style (not the 10% occasional hotfooting).
> 
> I've had tires last me twice as long as others and it comes down to one's particular daily driving style, not the tires, nor the once in a while 'spirited driving'. Hell, the guys at my tire shop are continously surprised at how I can make my tires last so long even though I'm not a 'slow' driver.


Very possible, except that past tires that I have had - Yoko AVS Sport Intermediate, Mich. Pilot Sports, etc... have all lasted me at least 30,000 - 40,000 miles. I don't think my daily driving style has changed in the past year. Maybe it has, but I don't think so. My office is in the same spot, I take the same roads everyday. I have also heard multiple reports of this particular tire wearing fast, so my gut tells me that it is more than just my particular driving style.


----------



## postoak (Mar 5, 2002)

SergioK said:


> I was almost going to get them again, but went with the Kumho MX instead simply because I wanted something to compare the ES100 to. I think there was only a $10 difference between each tire. The Kumho's treadwear rating was slightly lower (softer compound) IIRC and I like that.


I thought about the Kumho's too. How many miles have you got on yours and how would you rate them compared to the ES100s?


----------



## SergioK (Aug 14, 2002)

cdnowak said:


> Very possible, except that past tires that I have had - Yoko AVS Sport Intermediate, Mich. Pilot Sports, etc... have all lasted me at least 30,000 - 40,000 miles. I don't think my daily driving style has changed in the past year. Maybe it has, but I don't think so. My office is in the same spot, I take the same roads everyday. I have also heard multiple reports of this particular tire wearing fast, so my gut tells me that it is more than just my particular driving style.


Wow, that is odd. :dunno:


----------



## SergioK (Aug 14, 2002)

postoak said:


> I thought about the Kumho's too. How many miles have you got on yours and how would you rate them compared to the ES100s?


I've got a little over 2000 miles on these tires so far. I definitely like the MX over the ES100 although I'm almost 100% certain that these tires will suck in the wet (i'm basing this on my completely unprofessional opinion of the tire tread patterns, hehe). Luckily though, it doesn't rain that often here in So Cal so we'll see.

On the dry side, they are great, then again, they are still relatively new and soft. Once they wear down to about 50% or so I'll take them to the track and see what they can do. I was really happy with the performance of the ES100 on the track (both on my car and my wife's car). I'm hoping the MX stands up just as well if not better.


----------



## nate (Dec 24, 2001)

I was not happyl with the ES100s.

The grip was acceptable for the price, however, they are deafeningly loud at city speeds. At the time, I spent most of my driving at 20-35mph. They are so loud that my ears hurt. I also was not entirely happy with the rain performance; the hydroplaning resistance was not so good.


----------

