My Continental Extreme ContactSport 02 Experience

[Snrub]

Today I swapped out my winter tires for my new set of Continental ECS 02 in 205/45/16. My old tires were Firestone Indy 500s and so my comparison is based on my memory from last fall.

I think I really like them. I've had 200TW tires for other cars in the past, but I've never had a premium normal summer tire before. There's an increase of grip and tires seem very forgiving at the limit and the limit is higher. I can put the power down more easily... Feels almost like I closed some of the gap between how the car was with the old tires and what a LSD might do. Braking seems better too. Objectively, my last two cars could stop faster than the FiST, I don't know if I can tell the difference now.

I'm surprised how much the ride improved. I went down a bumpy road that I'm familiar with and it was significantly better. I've always thought of the FiST as crude, but it feels much more refined.

I think the Indy 500s might have been a bit quicker when you initially turn in.

Price was pretty reasonable. $822 CDN with 13% sales tax after rebate. That $602 US. Had them mounted for $95 cash and sold my old worn out tires for $60.

 

[Intuit]

I have the 215/45/17 all seasons and the weight + stickiness makes second and third gear actually usable on stock power. Starting to wear more so I was smell'n some rubber after a start from a traffic light a couple of days ago. Going to rotate before I get too much more into the front tread. Then rotate back in time for next Winter.

 

[M-Sport fan]

Today I swapped out my winter tires for my new set of Continental ECS 02 in 205/45/16. My old tires were Firestone Indy 500s and so my comparison is based on my memory from last fall.

I think I really like them. I've had 200TW tires for other cars in the past, but I've never had a premium normal summer tire before. There's an increase of grip and tires seem very forgiving at the limit and the limit is higher. I can put the power down more easily... Feels almost like I closed some of the gap between how the car was with the old tires and what a LSD might do. Braking seems better too. Objectively, my last two cars could stop faster than the FiST, I don't know if I can tell the difference now.

I'm surprised how much the ride improved. I went down a bumpy road that I'm familiar with and it was significantly better. I've always thought of the FiST as crude, but it feels much more refined.

I think the Indy 500s might have been a bit quicker when you initially turn in.

Price was pretty reasonable. $822 CDN with 13% sales tax after rebate. That $602 US. Had them mounted for $95 cash and sold my old worn out tires for $60.

Yes, and IF they made this tire in the sizes I am looking for/in need of (215/45-16, and 215/40-17), they'd be on my wheels already!! (Like many other great tires which the manufacturers flat out REFUSE to offer in our sizes. )

In a 205/45-16 or 205/50-16 I need an XL load rated, UHP all season for daily driving (if Conti's DWS-06+ in that size had an XL side wall, they'd also be on my Dekagrams by now).

 

[Snrub]

I'm assuming you want those sizes because you have 8" wheels? 205/45/16 isn't much of a stretch and you're already stretching your 205/50/16, right?

 

[foodtruck]

I'm surprised how much the ride improved. I went down a bumpy road that I'm familiar with and it was significantly better. I've always thought of the FiST as crude, but it feels much more refined.

I think the Indy 500s might have been a bit quicker when you initially turn in.

Thanks for the review! Considering getting these next if I can find them at a similar price . Do you have a pic of how they sit on the car? Wondering if they're any wider than Indy500s; I thought those ran pretty narrow.

 

[Dialcaliper]

Yes, and IF they made this tire in the sizes I am looking for/in need of (215/45-16, and 215/40-17), they'd be on my wheels already!! (Like many other great tires which the manufacturers flat out REFUSE to offer in our sizes. )

In a 205/45-16 or 205/50-16 I need an XL load rated, UHP all season for daily driving (if Conti's DWS-06+ in that size had an XL side wall, they'd also be on my Dekagrams by now).

Edit: I’m noting that that 205/45R16 SL does not have adequate load rating for our front axle, which is maybe what you’re referring to (205/50R16 SL should work though, both sizes are technically stretched on an 8” rim (5.5-7.5”). XL rating will not change that.

In any case, either stretch them or get some 7/7.5” rims and run these:

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tire...ewall=Blackwall&partnum=05WR6DWS06P&tab=Sizes

New pressures will be 35/33psi, or 36/33psi if you decide to keep the 3psi split.

Is there any other particular reason you need XL rated tires? Usually, a particular size is either XL or it’s not at all, primarily in our sizes to keep the max load rating over 1000lbs, which is typically only a problem in very low profile sizes (40 and below, with the occasional 45).

205/45R16 and 205/50R16 are pretty exclusively standard load (SL) rated (don’t forget the R, a dash technically refers to bias/cross ply tires!). In other words, you simply won’t find what you’re looking for. Simply convert load ratings and tire pressure to the new size.

It’s also worth noting that an XL tire requires higher pressures than an SL tire for the same actual load. XL only really exists because the lower profile a tire is, the lower it’s load capacity becomes, and the drive towards “fashionable” low profile tires on modern heavier vehicles necessitated a new standard (aka bandaid approach). XL tires also only have a higher peak load rating because they’re allowed to increase load capacity up to 42psi, where load on SL tires are capped at 36psi for inexplicable reasons, despite the fact that max pressures are much higher than that.

As far as I know, the only deviation from the pattern of sizes in mass market tires is very specific tires - for example the R888R being XL rated for most sizes, and Hoosiers being LL rated for all sizes. Some other tires get designated XL because the particular construction in a size is not adequate without the extra pressure (A052 for example)

Honestly, don’t get hung up on SL vs XL load rating. XL tires with extra plies are generally stiffer, heavier and have worse ride quality. They also are generally designed for the same range of rim widths. As long as you are running appropriate pressure for the load rating, it’s not an issue.

You are also not required to have a certain peak load rating on a car (86, 88, 91, etc), tires are rarely ever specified to run at peak pressure. What you do need is the actual load point and the appropriate pressure for that load.

Use this calculator.

https://tiresize.com/pressure-calculator/

 

[Snrub]

Am I missing something on the load concerns?

Let's say the car weighs 2800lbs (mine is 2600lbs). 1680lbs for the front (60%), 840lbs per tire. Let's say you have 800lbs of people in the car, that's another 200lbs per corner, for 1040lbs total. Load rating of the ECS 02 in 205/45/16 is 1201lbs.

 

[Dialcaliper]

Am I missing something on the load concerns?

Let's say the car weighs 2800lbs (mine is 2600lbs). 1680lbs for the front (60%), 840lbs per tire. Let's say you have 800lbs of people in the car, that's another 200lbs per corner, for 1040lbs total. Load rating of the ECS 02 in 205/45/16 is 1201lbs.

The ECS2 do happen to be XL rated and are fine. For whatever reason, the all season DWS06+ are not, and only carry an 83SL load rating (1074lbs).

Ford’s chosen load values based on tire pressures are 1162F/1091R. Those values supposedly account for both GVW as well as some margin for dynamic loading (aka cornering weight transfer). Also some unstated margins.

 

[M-Sport fan]

I'm assuming you want those sizes because you have 8" wheels? 205/45/16 isn't much of a stretch and you're already stretching your 205/50/16, right?

Those sizes (215/45-16, or 215/40-17) would be for a pure summer only wheel/tire setup.
Sadly, there are but two NON 200 tread wear 215/45-16s in existence (or at least that we are allowed to have here in North America), and neither is worth putting on my wheels.

IF the Nankang NS-2R was in stock anywhere (they do still manufacture it!), I would put them on the brand new Dekagrams I have sitting in my living room right now, as they are probably the most 'streetable'/rain capable 200 tread wear sticky in that size out there (even more so than the ever popular, and ubiquitous RT615Ks).
They are most certainly the widest in tread width, MUCH wider than either of the Falken offerings.

At this point though, I would prefer one of the 300-340 tread wear, summer only, max performance donuts on any set of wheels I own, since the car will never see a road course, or autocross course, as long as I own it.
So why deal with the insane wear, flats from picking up road shrapnel, and even greater sensitivity to/chance of damage from the cold, of the race rubber??

I just do not like the Yok Fleva, or the Kumho PS31, and HATE both Michelin and Conti for not offering their best in class Pilot Sport 5 and Extreme Contactsport 02 respectively, in a 215/45-16 and/or a 215/40-17.
Michelin DOES offer the PS5 over in the UK/Europe only, in a 215/40-17, but just try to get one of their vendors to ship it over here!! (I've been trying for months now, to NO avail!)

Yes, IF I could find acceptable (to me) 215/40-17s to put on the KE Motorsport 17x8s I want to get, I would just use one of the 205/50-16 or 205/45-16 UHP all seasons on those unused black Dekagrams, and sell my current daily driver bronze Dekas with the 205/50-16 Neo Gens on them.

 

[M-Sport fan]

Edit: I’m noting that that 205/45R16 SL does not have adequate load rating for our front axle, which is maybe what you’re referring to (205/50R16 SL should work though, both sizes are technically stretched on an 8” rim (5.5-7.5”). XL rating will not change that.

In any case, either stretch them or get some 7/7.5” rims and run these:

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tire...ewall=Blackwall&partnum=05WR6DWS06P&tab=Sizes

New pressures will be 35/33psi, or 36/33psi if you decide to keep the 3psi split.

Is there any other particular reason you need XL rated tires? Usually, a particular size is either XL or it’s not at all, primarily in our sizes to keep the max load rating over 1000lbs, which is typically only a problem in very low profile sizes (40 and below, with the occasional 45).

205/45R16 and 205/50R16 are pretty exclusively standard load (SL) rated (don’t forget the R, a dash technically refers to bias/cross ply tires!). In other words, you simply won’t find what you’re looking for. Simply convert load ratings and tire pressure to the new size.

It’s also worth noting that an XL tire requires higher pressures than an SL tire for the same actual load. XL only really exists because the lower profile a tire is, the lower it’s load capacity becomes, and the drive towards “fashionable” low profile tires on modern heavier vehicles necessitated a new standard (aka bandaid approach). XL tires also only have a higher peak load rating because they’re allowed to increase load capacity up to 42psi, where load on SL tires are capped at 36psi for inexplicable reasons, despite the fact that max pressures are much higher than that.

As far as I know, the only deviation from the pattern of sizes in mass market tires is very specific tires - for example the R888R being XL rated for most sizes, and Hoosiers being LL rated for all sizes. Some other tires get designated XL because the particular construction in a size is not adequate without the extra pressure (A052 for example)

Honestly, don’t get hung up on SL vs XL load rating. XL tires with extra plies are generally stiffer, heavier and have worse ride quality. They also are generally designed for the same range of rim widths. As long as you are running appropriate pressure for the load rating, it’s not an issue.

You are also not required to have a certain peak load rating on a car (86, 88, 91, etc), tires are rarely ever specified to run at peak pressure. What you do need is the actual load point and the appropriate pressure for that load.

Use this calculator.

https://tiresize.com/pressure-calculator/

Thank you, but yes, I know all of that already.

Maybe I am way way off base with this theory, but my rationale for wanting the XL rating is NOT due to the load rating it is primarily there for, but for the ancillary added strength of the side walls, and their ability to better stand up to destroyed/bombed out roads without having said side walls bubble, or break down (yes, especially with stretching them slightly over 8" wide wheels).

Even though it has been described, and lauded, as THE best go-to, 'no compromise, compromise tire', I just cannot see how the (205/50-16) DWS-06+ could dry, warm weather out-handle, or out-grip/turn-in the same size Neo Gens (which ARE XL rated, BTW) on the in use Dekas on the car currently (although I would expect them to kick the Nitto's azzes in; heavy rain use, light snow use, and extreme cold).

I may just go with them anyway, SL rating be damned, just to see/experience what all of the heaps of praise they get from everyone, everywhere are about (especially if I can eventually get the 215/40-17 PS5s for the 17s).

 

[Intuit]

XL tires with extra plies are generally stiffer, heavier

This is why I also focus on XL rated tires.
I want to remain closer to OE handling while moving to a slightly larger sidewall.
As we all know, tires are an integral part of the overall suspension system.
OE sidewall is tiny and hard. My stock suspension was tuned around this.
Adding larger, softer sidewalls can contribute to increased body roll and reduced stability with direction changes.
In extreme cases that include ride-height, larger sidewalls and softer suspension changes, this can be (and has been) outright dangerous.
(if like cell phones, stability control systems rely on feedback from gyroscopic and accelerometer chipsets -- larger sidewalls and other changes may more readily trigger stability control intervention)
https://www.fiestastforum.com/threads/fiesta-st-autocross-accident.25828/

 

[Dpro]

Ok I am just gonna call it as I have fun FiST’s with both tires . Indy 500‘s suck ass on turn in and are crap tires. Ya I said and I have driven Indy 500 enough to say it. I have Conti Extreme Contact Sport 02‘s on my car on Dekagrams right as winter tires and they are excellent for what they are. Not fooling myself the RT660 had more grip but as they wore the ride got worse and the noise factor increased.
Now for turn in, the turn in is great got not problem with it in fact it’s very close to if not like stock. I am running 36 34 tire pressure. Car drives great. I do have a bit of negative camber all the way around . Car drives great. 😝 when I get my Heliograms I will select a summer tire but for now I will roll the Conti’s as ya the tread life is real. Oh and they do have DS stamped in the tread so this is the upgraded DW 06.

 

[M-Sport fan]

^^As far as I am concerned (and it seems according to Conti as well), the Extreme Contact Sport 02s ARE a summer tire, and a max performance one at that, despite their 340 tread wear rating.

Maybe to you in Cali, pushing much more than factory power through the front wheels, they are 'winter/all season' donuts, and only a 200 tread wear (or less) gumball is considered a true summer tire, but not everywhere else.

 

[Snrub]

Thanks for the review! Considering getting these next if I can find them at a similar price . Do you have a pic of how they sit on the car? Wondering if they're any wider than Indy500s; I thought those ran pretty narrow.

I'm not sure if this will help, but here you go.

Things are generally more expensive up here, but some tires are not.

 

[Snrub]

Regarding the tire choices available, we have a very uncommon car with an increasing uncommon tire diameter. We can't expect manufacturers to all make a wide variety of tires that work for us. BTW -PMC Tire in Canada has 205/40/17 PS5s in stock.

I suspect there's a bit too much worry about load.

I know the gap between UHP premium all seasons and UHP value oriented summers have closed some in recent years, but I struggle with the idea that the all season UHPs could have similar dry responsiveness, etc.

200TW tires aren't really viable daily driver tires in areas where it's possible to hit freezing temps in shoulder seasons. They also don't have the wet capabilities (eg. Standing water), that I think most people are looking for in a daily driver.

I also don't think 8" wheels are that useful on the street. Yes they have greater absolutely performance, but there's kind of an optimal tire width for street fun to give a car a more nimble feel.

 

[M-Sport fan]

I also don't think 8" wheels are that useful on the street. Yes they have greater absolutely performance, but there's kind of an optimal tire width for street fun to give a car a more nimble feel.

True, but Konig did not offer us their light, strong, affordable (and very good looking to me at least, save for the 'lightening holes' and squarish lug pockets) Dekagram in a (even lighter yet than a 16x8) 16x7, or even 7.5.
(Your Ultraleggeras are in a whole 'nother price point range. )

IF they did, I would have gotten them for 3 season street daily use, and had no grief from tire shops/installers about putting a 205/45-16 or 205/50-16 tire on an 8" wide wheel (some of the 205/45s do actually show an 8" wide wheel as an acceptable manufacturers' upper limit, wheel width).

Some of the very few that come close, but are not flow formed, and noticeably heavier, are the various go-to Sparco 16x7s offered by Tire Rack.

I want the PS5s in a 215/40-17, which IS readily available in the UK/Europe.
But yes, when I speak to Costco they tell me the 205/40-17 PS5s ARE available here in the states, on special order, yet when talking to Tire Rack (arguably/supposedly the biggest Michelin dealer in the world??) they say it is total vaporware.

I don't know WHO to believe, but, it does not matter since I do not want to put that size on a 17x8, even though every manufacturer says I can with no pushback or agita from the installer shops, at all.

 

[Dpro]

^^As far as I am concerned (and it seems according to Conti as well), the Extreme Contact Sport 02s ARE a summer tire, and a max performance one at that, despite their 340 tread wear rating.

Maybe to you in Cali, pushing much more than factory power through the front wheels, they are 'winter/all season' donuts, and only a 200 tread wear (or less) gumball is considered a true summer tire, but not everywhere else.

Well They are an offsshoot of DW’s I have pics of the tread stamp. Yes they are listed as. Max summer tires but if you read the tire rack tests and personal reviews they perform at 9 out 10 rating in the wet . Call them an intermediate if you want to get all hung on nomenclature . I can say here in California where Winter is rain unless in the Mountains its considered a decent rain tire so that makes it a winter tire for me and an All season .In fact if you search for all season on tire rack for our car it comes up. If I recall correctly.
So ya you can go one about conti and are our weather I will stick to what the tire rack tests showed and the facts I have in front of me regardless of what you say or what Conti. says . Conti took a DW what is considered an all season and upgraded it and that’s the Contact Sport extreme 02 that even has DW stamped into the tread.
P.S. we have had phenomenal amount of rain here this winter and ya I drove in it with these tires and ya they performed like an all season. So whatever you say is supposition, whereas I am speaking from experience.

 

[M-Sport fan]

So, are you telling me that if I put those on my car (instead of the DWS-06 Pluses). they will be just perfect in the 10*F to 35*F temps we get here in OUR winter, even in the absolute dry?!?

Kind of an geo/climatic-centric stance to take, don't ya think (what YOU call 'winter', vs. what much of the rest of the country labels as winter)??

DW just means 'Dry/Wet', it does NOT imply any north of the lateral centerline of this country winter temp, or frozen precipitation worthiness AT ALL, whatsoever.

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tire...t+02&sidewall=Blackwall&partnum=045WR6ECS02XL

(Am I reading Max Performance SUMMER incorrectly in the above description, or are TR and Conti flat out LYING to us?!?)

 

[Dpro]

So, are you telling me that if I put those on my car (instead of the DWS-06 Pluses). they will be just perfect in the 10*F to 35*F temps we get here in OUR winter, even in the absolute dry?!?

Kind of an geo/climatic-centric stance to take, don't ya think (what YOU call 'winter', vs. what much of the rest of the country labels as winter)??

DW just means 'Dry/Wet', it does NOT imply any north of the lateral centerline of this country winter temp, or frozen precipitation worthiness AT ALL, whatsoever.

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tire...t+02&sidewall=Blackwall&partnum=045WR6ECS02XL

(Am I reading Max Performance SUMMER incorrectly in the above description, or are TR and Conti flat out LYING to us?!?)

Look you are talking about snow tire temps above! All seasons are not snow tires and the term all season is kinda of a misnomer it should really be tri season and quite honestly you are using snow tire temps to try and make your claim . . We have different opinions and or perspectives let’s just leave it at that. My main point is they work well in wet and it’s what constitutes winter here. I am done debating this with you . I stated how they work in the wet and are trying to rake me over the coal over semantics . I can agree to disagree can you?

 

[Snrub]

Re, what the ECS 02 is about, read some of Andy Hollis from GRM tests and comments, or tire racks tests from last year. On an aside, he did say the ECS 02 works surprisingly well in low, but above freezing temps.

Could you clarify the tread stamp comment? Are you referring to the "tuned performance indicator" that indicates when the tread is low for either condition?