• Sign Up! To view all forums and unlock additional cool features

    Welcome to the #1 Fiesta ST Forum and Fiesta ST community dedicated to Fiesta ST owners and enthusiasts. Register for an account, it's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the Fiesta ST Forum today!


205/45R17 General G-Max RS Anyone?

Messages
97
Likes
72
Location
OH, US
#1
I'm not normally one to skimp on tires, and would usually not think twice about nabbing a set of PSS or Conti ECS, but my summer tire budget is a bit tighter because...reasons. While shopping for tires, I came across the relative newcomer General released a couple years back - the G-Max RS. Yeah, it's not a "max perf summer tire" like the PSS or Conti ECS, but it seems to be generally well rated and the price seems stellar. They even have a $70 discount at the moment. I've run Altimax Arctic (and Arctic 12) tires on cars for years, but never really considered there summer tires because of the aforementioned models. I know General is owned by Conti, and is a budget/seconds brand, but it seems worth a go.

Anyone running them on their FiST? In general, apart from them tending to be a bit twitchy under some circumstances, they appear to be a well reviewed good performer in the wet and dry and wear like nails (which is unusual for tires in this class). I know the FiST is a bit twitchy as it is, so more twitch seems like a maybe not so good option, but I'm gonna give them a try.

--Matt
 


M-Sport fan

9000 Post Club
Messages
14,116
Likes
6,760
Location
Princeton, N.J.
#2
It seems like a decent enough tire, but I don't like how narrow their tread width is for that model, or any of their other summer, or all season tires.

The height of that tire might also result in some rubbing if you are any lower than factory ride height.

There are some on here running their UHP all season, G-Max AS-05 in the factory size, but not the summer RS in the 205/45-17 as far as I know.
 


Last edited:
OP
M
Messages
97
Likes
72
Location
OH, US
Thread Starter #3
It seems like a decent enough tire, but I don't like how narrow their tread width is for that model, or any of their other summer, or all season tires.

The height of that tire might also result in some rubbing if you are any lower than factory ride height.

There are some on here running their UHP all season, G-Max AS-05 in the factory size, but not the summer RS in the 205/45-17 as far as I know.
It's .25" narrower than the stock tire (8.1" vs 8.34"). It's also ~.8" taller. This is my DD, is at stock height, and won't see any track or AutoX use...so🤞

--Matt
 


Messages
129
Likes
133
Location
Portland
#4
I was forced to go with AS-05s because of immediate availability and the price was obscenely cheap at 280/set. And I can say that I've experienced them in almost every weather situation possible (snow, ice, sleet, flash flood rain, warm wet days and hot dry days - Oregon has been all over the place the past three months) and they are better than my stock Potenzas ever were in the wet and dry and they stack up impressively against dedicated winter tires (mine were killed young by 8 nails!) If the RS are touted as more aggressive grip than the as-05 I would have no problem telling you to go for it!

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk
 


M-Sport fan

9000 Post Club
Messages
14,116
Likes
6,760
Location
Princeton, N.J.
#5
I cannot find them to see how wide the 050's tread was, but in TREAD width (not section width), the factory size Michelin all seasons are a full 0.7" wider than those Generals.

But yes, it seems that most 205/45s tend to run narrower, since those same Michelins in that size match the tread width of the General RSes. [thumb]
 


jmrtsus

1000 Post Club
Messages
1,523
Likes
1,158
Location
Ooltewah
#6
I have no experience with the General G-Max RS but if you want to skip fitment issues I went with the General G-Max AS-05 after reading the Tire Rack tests. I also think wet performance is better that the OEM Potenza's but dry turn in was a tiny bit under. But then I never went 100% on the OEM's as I don't track or AutoX and on many of the back roads in Appalachia I run hard you will probably die if you lose it. Ride is a little softer as a bonus plus they were 1/4 the price of the OEM's. Because of my location in the South Central US and the massive rain falls wet performance dominated my selection.
 


OP
M
Messages
97
Likes
72
Location
OH, US
Thread Starter #7
Thanks. I've got dedicated winter wheels with Vikingcontact 7 on them for the colder months, so summer tires are all I'm considering. I can at least compare the dimensions with those though! They're a bit wider than the RS, at the same diameter, so it should be alright.

We get subzero temps and full snow in winter and high temps and loads of rain in the nicer months here in Ohio so all seasons end up a compromise most of the year.
 


OP
M
Messages
97
Likes
72
Location
OH, US
Thread Starter #8
Finally got my car back yesterday and had these tires installed this morning. I've put about 120 miles of mixed driving on them since. So far I'm impressed! Steering input is far less twitchy than with the RE050a it had, which I appreciate, though the car doesn't feel any less light on its feet. Turn-in and off center transitions both feel as crisp as I'd like em to be. Handling doesn't feel even slightly sloppier, even though they're a profile taller. They're 88w XL tires, which probably helps there a bit.

They're not less noisy, but the noise is a bit more pleasant in tone.

No sign of any rubbing.

--Matt
 


Messages
216
Likes
194
Location
WA, USA
#11
Seem good enough for my purposes. They're no PS4S, but my project car (k swapped EG) is demanding a good chunk of my budget these days.
and therein lies why we price-surf for decent products that offer somewhat-comparable qualities at lower prices, giving your wallet room for other "activities" :cool:
 


OP
M
Messages
97
Likes
72
Location
OH, US
Thread Starter #12
(y) I can bwaaa bwaaa bwaaa and shred stickies on the other one for now.

I can't speak for how they compare to Conti ECS or PSS that can be had on these cars, having never driven one of these with those tires or these tires on any of the other cars I've had with those tires, but I'm pretty confident by this point that they're better than the RE050a tires that were on it. Our other DD is a Stage II MK7.5 Golf R with PS4S on it, and it has loads more traction under just about all circumstances, but the cars are really hard to compare so I won't try. ;)

For just about half the price of the PSS I'd normally get, and will probably get next time, I really can't complain.
 


Last edited:

jmrtsus

1000 Post Club
Messages
1,523
Likes
1,158
Location
Ooltewah
#13
All tires are a compromise between wet and dry performance, ride, longevity and price. I loved the dry performance of the RE50a's but not so much the wet, ride and price plus a pothole wiped out one and a wheel, longevity was good at 30K miles but the price was crazy. 2019 reviews say the same but keep in mind this is an older (over 15 years) tire design and was OEM on the MB S55 in 2006 and is three times the cost of the Generals. t that time they were top of the line. Tires have changed lots in 15 years. From tirereviewsandmore "Overall, we rank this tire (RE050a) around the upper middle of the pack for high performance summer tires. While not a bad choice, tires like the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S or Continental Extreme Contact Sport are better options in our opinion." Their tests also showed the wet performance was not that good and got worse with wear. My experiences exactly.
Buying tires is not a black art, there is test data on the major players and price shopping is easy. Define your priorities, do your research and go shopping. I am a numbers guy so anecdotal performance testimony cannot replace actual test data with me. Tires, like motor oil has brand fans and haters. I buy oil and tires based on actual test data, others on recommendations or advertising. And like oil all majors provide good tires with different priorities and prices. Set your priorities, read data and opinions then choose wisely grasshopper! You have to live with the decision.
 


OP
M
Messages
97
Likes
72
Location
OH, US
Thread Starter #14
All tires are a compromise between wet and dry performance, ride, longevity and price. I loved the dry performance of the RE50a's but not so much the wet, ride and price plus a pothole wiped out one and a wheel, longevity was good at 30K miles but the price was crazy. 2019 reviews say the same but keep in mind this is an older (over 15 years) tire design and was OEM on the MB S55 in 2006 and is three times the cost of the Generals. t that time they were top of the line. Tires have changed lots in 15 years. From tirereviewsandmore "Overall, we rank this tire (RE050a) around the upper middle of the pack for high performance summer tires. While not a bad choice, tires like the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S or Continental Extreme Contact Sport are better options in our opinion." Their tests also showed the wet performance was not that good and got worse with wear. My experiences exactly.
Buying tires is not a black art, there is test data on the major players and price shopping is easy. Define your priorities, do your research and go shopping. I am a numbers guy so anecdotal performance testimony cannot replace actual test data with me. Tires, like motor oil has brand fans and haters. I buy oil and tires based on actual test data, others on recommendations or advertising. And like oil all majors provide good tires with different priorities and prices. Set your priorities, read data and opinions then choose wisely grasshopper! You have to live with the decision.
Well, yeah, obviously... That's why my past cars have had PSS, Conti DW, PS4S, and Conti ECS on them in the summer, and my project car is sitting on 200TW stickies. ;) The OP clearly conveys the circumstances here. There were 0 posts about this model of tire on this car, and different tires most definitely behave differently on different models and drive configurations of cars, so I opted to share my experiences. The Indy 500 is a popular budget option, and well covered, and this is a (I'd argue better) newer budget option to consider when you're compromising on price.

You can see lap times, stopping distances, etc. in TireRack's testing of this model and the others. Unfortunately, comparing them directly (particularly to the RE050a) is tough since they didn't use the same car. Assuming the cars they used are relatively close, which is a big leap, the G-Max RS is separated by a very small margin from the RE050a...and that's comparing new for new. It is a newer model tire, with newer model tire technology, and will most definitely wear much much better than the RE050a. Compared to my 10k mile old RE050a tires, there is zero doubt in my mind that I'm doing better.

My opinion is that the passage of time has brought the UHP category more in line with the max perf category where the RE050a (an overrated tire, even in its prime) was marketed, and that this tire trades jabs with it across the board. I've had RE050a on MINIs in the past, and have a generally low opinion of them, so I may have unconscious bias against them. 🤷‍♂️

Sorry for all the "anecdotes" and "testimony" :rolleyes:. This isn't some no name Chinese garbage, which I bought totally uninformed on a whim... It's a B market 360 AA A (numbers you can't compare across brands and models, but they're there) UHP summer tire produced by Continental, and I looked at the data and guaged my compromise like any other informed consumer.

--Matt
 


Last edited:
OP
M
Messages
97
Likes
72
Location
OH, US
Thread Starter #15
I am a numbers guy so anecdotal performance testimony cannot replace actual test data with me.
Different strokes for different folks, and a way to go about life. Road manners and feeling are not things that show up in skid pad, stopping distance, and raw lap time numbers. For this reason, even professional reviews of tires put anecdotes and testimony front and center. Even Tire Rack's tire roundups put the raw data off to the side, at the bottom, and/or even on a while separate tab. I've owned and driven enough cars, and bought enough tires in my life, to say with full confidence that things that are the best numerically aren't always the things that are the best to have.

I've lived enough years of my life, and made enough decisions in it, based on what the numbers say are best and found it to be a mixed bag. Sometimes having the king of hill numbers monster is the best, sometimes not. Not to say that this is the case with the Conti ECS or Michellin Pilot Sport 4S by any stretch, and fully acknowledging the fact that they are both exquisite tires from companies at the top of their game, I can certainly say that characteristics and road manners of otherwise very well rated tires by the numbers can make or break them. These sorts of things, in my opinion, show their faces more on tires with compromises (cough G-Max RS) and tires at the edge of technology (like R comps). A company can easily produce a tire that lays down the best lap times, skid pad numbers, and stopping distances but not necessarily have the "best" tire if it doesn't inspire confidence in the driver and/or have good manners.

There's an almost 400hp Golf R sitting right next to my FiST in my garage, which has been my DD since 2018, and was preceded by an almost 500hp MK6 APR Stage III (and then some) Golf R. The MK6 had a Wavetrac, competition Haldex controller, and loads of the other bells and whistles that make those cars awesome. The MK6 R was faster than the MK7, and generally better in lots of ways, but I like driving the MK7 better. The MK7 R is much much faster than the FiST, and has way more grip, but I like driving the FiST better. The FiST has a more raw feeling, which puts my driving experience more front and center without all the electronic nannies and gadgets the Golf has, so I gave my wife my R and proudly drive it instead. I like how easy the FiST is to toss around, how light it feels on its feet, and how much more exciting and less subdued the driving experience is...even though it's worse (by the numbers) in virtually every conceivable way.

The same is even true of my Civic. Yeah, I could have swapped a K24 into it and had more torque and more horsepower. I didn't, though, and opted to go for cammed k20 that winds out to 9000k RPMs with ease. On paper, that engine doesn't weigh meaningfully less than a k24 and makes less power and torque all over. I even paid, in the end, probably twice what a k24 with the same whp lays down would cost. I like the wide rev range of the K20, and the mean a$$ sound it makes bouncing off the rev limiter waiting for the tires to catch up from a dig.

Perhaps I've softened with age. Perhaps, in many cases, I just don't care.🤷 Enjoy those numbers. I'm just gonna keep having fun in my slow car with tires that aren't the best, appreciating how it "feels" while not caring that it is slower, and sleep better at night knowing that saving $400 on this set of tires paid for half of my MFactory diff (gasp, also not the best ;)). I may not make the same choice tomorrow, but getting 85-90% of the performance of Pilot Super Sports for just about half the price sits just fine with me today.
 


Last edited:

jmrtsus

1000 Post Club
Messages
1,523
Likes
1,158
Location
Ooltewah
#16
Different strokes for different folks, and a way to go about life. Road manners and feeling are not things that show up in skid pad, stopping distance, and raw lap time numbers. For this reason, even professional reviews of tires put anecdotes and testimony front and center. Even Tire Rack's tire roundups put the raw data off to the side, at the bottom, and/or even on a while separate tab. I've owned and driven enough cars, and bought enough tires in my life, to say with full confidence that things that are the best numerically aren't always the things that are the best to have.

I've lived enough years of my life, and made enough decisions in it, based on what the numbers say are best and found it to be a mixed bag. Sometimes having the king of hill numbers monster is the best, sometimes not. Not to say that this is the case with the Conti ECS or Michellin Pilot Sport 4S by any stretch, and fully acknowledging the fact that they are both exquisite tires from companies at the top of their game, I can certainly say that characteristics and road manners of otherwise very well rated tires by the numbers can make or break them. These sorts of things, in my opinion, show their faces more on tires with compromises (cough G-Max RS) and tires at the edge of technology (like R comps). A company can easily produce a tire that lays down the best lap times, skid pad numbers, and stopping distances but not necessarily have the "best" tire if it doesn't inspire confidence in the driver and/or have good manners.

There's an almost 400hp Golf R sitting right next to my FiST in my garage, which has been my DD since 2018, and was preceded by an almost 500hp MK6 APR Stage III (and then some) Golf R. The MK6 had a Wavetrac, competition Haldex controller, and loads of the other bells and whistles that make those cars awesome. The MK6 R was faster than the MK7, and generally better in lots of ways, but I like driving the MK7 better. The MK7 R is much much faster than the FiST, and has way more grip, but I like driving the FiST better. The FiST has a more raw feeling, which puts my driving experience more front and center without all the electronic nannies and gadgets the Golf has, so I gave my wife my R and proudly drive it instead. I like how easy the FiST is to toss around, how light it feels on its feet, and how much more exciting and less subdued the driving experience is...even though it's worse (by the numbers) in virtually every conceivable way.

The same is even true of my Civic. Yeah, I could have swapped a K24 into it and had more torque and more horsepower. I didn't, though, and opted to go for cammed k20 that winds out to 9000k RPMs with ease. On paper, that engine doesn't weigh meaningfully less than a k24 and makes less power and torque all over. I even paid, in the end, probably twice what a k24 with the same whp lays down would cost. I like the wide rev range of the K20, and the mean a$$ sound it makes bouncing off the rev limiter waiting for the tires to catch up from a dig.

Perhaps I've softened with age. Perhaps, in many cases, I just don't care.🤷 Enjoy those numbers. I'm just gonna keep having fun in my slow car with tires that aren't the best, appreciating how it "feels" while not caring that it is slower, and sleep better at night knowing that saving $400 on this set of tires paid for half of my MFactory diff (gasp, also not the best ;)). I may not make the same choice tomorrow, but getting 85-90% of the performance of Pilot Super Sports for just about half the price sits just fine with me today.
Anecdotal has zip to to with wet and dry traction or stopping distance numbers. It has to do with subjective opinions that like you I factor into my decisions, like turn in response, breakaway characteristics, noise and ride. But ultimately I wanted the best wet performance I could afford. Nowhere did I even say I was looking for the "best" tire. I want what is "best" for me. Others would probably want more dry traction if you live in a dry climate. You missed the point of my whole post, set priorities, research, buy. I didn't say performance numbers tell the whole story, but without a starting point for me is does it handle wet conditions all else is useless in my tire choice if it doesn't. It the wet numbers are not good I why waste my time looking at anecdotal evidence.
As to tire buying experience the first tires I bought were 12 inchers for my 25HP 1963 Fiat 600 in 1968. $38 for 4 installed. I started autocross and TSD Rallies in '73, 48 years ago running a Mazda R100 in autocross and a SAAB 99 for DD and Rallies. So I too have a long history of performance cars and tires. Again I think you confused my post, nowhere did I discuss making my FiST faster in my tire buying decision. I don't even know how fast mine is, I have never done a clutch drop start, been to a strip or track or Autocross with it. I have read tests on my MP215 and it was a partial reason for buying the FiST. The reason I bought the MP215 was third gear and up performance and the warranty. Like you we have a high performance car to run rings around the FiST. But I enjoy driving the FiST even having to look at my wife's tail lights disappearing in front of me.
 


OP
M
Messages
97
Likes
72
Location
OH, US
Thread Starter #17
Anecdotal has zip to to with wet and dry traction or stopping distance numbers. It has to do with subjective opinions that like you I factor into my decisions, like turn in response, breakaway characteristics, noise and ride. But ultimately I wanted the best wet performance I could afford. Nowhere did I even say I was looking for the "best" tire. I want what is "best" for me. Others would probably want more dry traction if you live in a dry climate. You missed the point of my whole post, set priorities, research, buy. I didn't say performance numbers tell the whole story, but without a starting point for me is does it handle wet conditions all else is useless in my tire choice if it doesn't. It the wet numbers are not good I why waste my time looking at anecdotal evidence.
As to tire buying experience the first tires I bought were 12 inchers for my 25HP 1963 Fiat 600 in 1968. $38 for 4 installed. I started autocross and TSD Rallies in '73, 48 years ago running a Mazda R100 in autocross and a SAAB 99 for DD and Rallies. So I too have a long history of performance cars and tires. Again I think you confused my post, nowhere did I discuss making my FiST faster in my tire buying decision. I don't even know how fast mine is, I have never done a clutch drop start, been to a strip or track or Autocross with it. I have read tests on my MP215 and it was a partial reason for buying the FiST. The reason I bought the MP215 was third gear and up performance and the warranty. Like you we have a high performance car to run rings around the FiST. But I enjoy driving the FiST even having to look at my wife's tail lights disappearing in front of me.
👍 Perhaps just read a bit too far into the "numbers guy" comment, having heard it is many times so many different contexts before. 😂

I'm also big on numbers, coming from a software engineering background focused heavily on performance, but I tend to lean more toward feel and passion on my cars these days. I still tirelessly fret over them when narrowing down options, but tend to go with my heart and gut on the final choice from those options.

Edit: I see what's happening here now. You're the same person that posted above about the AS-05 model of the G-Max. I see, looking at test data, where your angle is here. Yes, the all season tires look better than the summer tires if you look at only the braking distance and cornering force metrics. If you look at the fancier tires (Pilot Sport A/S 3+ vs Pilot Sport 4S and ExtremeContact DWS06 vs ExtremeContact Sport) you'll see the same thing.

I'm sorry to say, but this just isn't (IMHO at least) the most ideal way to compare tires across categories. A lot more goes into tire performance than those 2 metrics. If you compare any of those pairs of tires, the summer tires are ahead of their all season counterparts in essentially every (if not actually every) way in the wet and dry. All-Season tires make significant compromises in wet/dry traction in their quest to try (and, in my opinion, fail) to work on snow. Sometimes this causes raw metrics like cornering G-forces and stopping distances to look better. This compromise is very apparent behind the wheel, though, when driving a vehicle with summer tires versus the adjacent range all-season tires.

In conditions where the temp is above 50, the G-MAX RS, ExtremeContact Sport, and Pilot Sport 4S are MUCH MUCH better tires (respectively) than the G-MAX AS-05, ExtremeContact DWS06, and Pilot Sport A/S 3+ unless your only purchasing factors are stopping distance and cornering forces. The gap widens even further as temperatures rise into "hot" territory. All-season tires are a balancing act of compromises, and hot and wet performance are where that compromise is most evident when comparing them to summer tires.

Here's some trustworthy data on all these, BTW:
https://m.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=247&tab=ResultCharts
https://m.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=253&tab=ResultCharts
https://m.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=223&tab=ResultCharts
https://m.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=241&tab=ResultCharts
 


Last edited:
Messages
34
Likes
16
Location
Pflugerville
#18
I've used EVERY TIRE AVAILABLE for our cars (stock wheels). I drive 300-500 miles a day for work (270k miles on the car now). The GMAX-RS is my favorite tire. I've gone back to these 2 times and loved them. I'm currently I'm testing Advan Fleva's on aftermarket wheels. the Gmax RS's have EXCELLENT life, grip, and my favorite.. response. These are awesome in everything except ice/snow.
 


Messages
160
Likes
99
Location
Cheshire
#19
I've used EVERY TIRE AVAILABLE for our cars (stock wheels). I drive 300-500 miles a day for work (270k miles on the car now). The GMAX-RS is my favorite tire. I've gone back to these 2 times and loved them. I'm currently I'm testing Advan Fleva's on aftermarket wheels. the Gmax RS's have EXCELLENT life, grip, and my favorite.. response. These are awesome in everything except ice/snow.
I am running the Advan Fleva tire right now. What have your impressions been?
 


OP
M
Messages
97
Likes
72
Location
OH, US
Thread Starter #20
I am running the Advan Fleva tire right now. What have your impressions been?
I have a set for my other car. They're really quite good in the dry, but a bit less awesome (though not awful) in the wet. The size I have on that car isn't available in most nicer high end summers, so that's the best one I could reasonably get for mixed road use. Fortunately, the full suite of 200 treadwear extreme perf tires are so it's all good.

I drove on them all last summer and they're even holding up pretty well. That said, I do feel like the G-Max RS is a better tire.
 


Last edited:

Similar threads



Top