Nankang tyres, 16TS

angru

angru

Active member
Fellow Frogger
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
934
Location
Melbourne
I know there are a few different threads in sizes if tyres for r16 and know many of us have looked a nankang tyres for our R16s.
I’m preparing to put a Renault 16ts on the road in a couple of months if all goes well and was having a look at different options in 155/80 R14. Decided on a set of nankang cx668 as they had good reviews and seemed to be the best choice in the size. Anyway, a few days ago I was a a tyre shop for something else and asked if they could get nankang sun that size.. to start with they asked me to go to a different size, I said that that wasn’t the option I was after. The guy working there made a couple of calls and told me he could get that size in nankang. He said they were nankang “a1” rather than cx668.. I asked if he ment “as1” which I’d also seen good reviews of as asymmetrical tyre but was sure they weren’t available in that size. I’m sure he said yes, so I ordered a set. Today I picked them up and they turned out to be nankang “na1”. I paid for them andloaded them into my Ute (haven’t had them fitted). Anyway, looking at the invoice I see they’re listed as cx668 on the bill.
I’m looking at reviews and they seem to be a tyre more noted for longevity more than handeling and haven’t seen overwhelmingly good things said about their wet weather performance.
I’m wondering, has anybody fitted na1’s to their r16? How are they? Do I try to swap them for cx668s or give them a go? The car is getting a moderate going over with full siuspension rebuild and upgraded motor. I don’t think I’ll be happy to put a tyre on it that will compromise the way it should corner. Where I live I’m surrounded by twisty roads and will see a bit of wet weather usage.
Any thoughts on tyres appreciated.
 
First, I suggest that the CX 668 is to be avoided if wet grip is of the slightest interest.

The NA1 in a much newer design & I know of no tests of it except a Choice one (I have no access to this but some kind AF member who is also a Choice member might hunt it out on the web & summarise for us).

But: Nankang rate poorly for wet grip across their range & any tyre optimised for fuel efficiency & longevity (as Nankang states the NA1 to be) has traded off wet grip to achieve that. So, I'd have avoided it.

That pessimism aside, you now have them &, once they're settled a bit (a few hundred kilometres), it would be of interest were you to report your impressions. A deserted wet roundabout is a great place to explore wet grip & limit behaviour (including reaction to lift-off) as there's room for things to get a bit untidy. You'd be asking yourself: 'is this how I want my tyres behaving in an emergency?'. I predict that you won't be favourably impressed but it'd be good to see what you say. Note that different tyre types behave differently on the same pressures & you might have to play with front/rear pressure relativities to optimise handling balance to how you want it.

If it's not total rubbish like the CX668, then other froggers might be interested in that because it's available in a number of sizes of interest (like 135/80-15 for rear-engined Renaults).

155/80-14 is an awkward size now & nothing good is available in Australia (I include "Classic" Michelins as ungood).

You seem wedded to 155/80-14 for some reason but those more flexible in size options have one splendid wet tyre choice available in two relevant sizes.

The tyre is Continental's PremiumContact 2. The sizes are 175/70 & 165/70. (There are other good tyres available in these sizes but I can't imagine what criteria of choice would lead one to preferring them except cheapness.)

The PC2 has some merits of note.

Although a "Premium" class tyre & not harsh, it's crisp in response & handling balance can easily be adjusted by changing tyre pressure relativities front to rear (tyres with more unstable shoulders are not as responsive to pressure tuning).

It's limit behaviour is benign (behaviour is signalled clearly & responses to remedial action are obedient).

By a largish margin, it has more grip in the wet (laterally & under braking) than any other alternative in a size to suit 4.5 x 14 rims.

The main demerits are that it is pricier than most (aroound $140) & isn't long lasting (but most classic car tyres reach their "use by" date before wearing out, so . . .).

I have used multiple sets of 165/70-14 PC2s as fronts on my rear-engined Renaults & all round on my Djet. It's a lovely tyre.

175/70 is the same circumference as 155/80 & thus gearing & speedo reading won't be affected. Despite what one might think, the steering won't be heavier (explanation on request & confirmed by 20+ years of use of 175/70-13, 165/75 165/80 & 155/80 on two Renault R12s).

165/70 is a bit cheaper, lighter at parking speeds & the slightly shorter sidewall is crisper at an given tyre pressure.

One good way to better balance R16 handling is to run wider fronts than rears (along with some tyre pressure tuning but with less f/r difference needed). I did this years ago with my two R12s & my Moke to good effect.

I have fond memories of fanging one of the first R16TSs in the late 60s & I think that the best handling balance results would come from 175/70 fronts & 165/70 rears.

ymmv

cheers! Peter
 
Last edited:
Just one procedural suggestion: as the Renault forum has more traffic than this one, you could profitably either duplicate your post there or have a meta-post pointing to this thread.
 
You have an annoying habit of being right. Not sure that link will work if not a member.

https://www.choice.com.au/transport/cars/tyres/review-and-compare/car-tyre-reviews

In case link doesn't work Choice gave it a score of 72%

Wet braking 55%
Wet cornering 45%
Dry braking 90%
Dry cornering 95%

So it sounds like it could be a real surprise package once the weather changes

Not really worthy of a car of the quality and dynamics of an R16

Best Wishes

Andrew

4cvg said:
Just one procedural suggestion: as the Renault forum has more traffic than this one, you could profitably either duplicate your post there or have a meta-post pointing to this thread.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you Peter for such a detailed post, really appreciate the knowledge you have on this subject! I should have probably asked before I purchased them, but wasn’t intending to purchase the day I did.. I was swayed by the thought that they were going to be AS1’s.
The car is at least a couple of months from being ready for the road, and I shouldn’t have rushed into this. I’ll fit them and see how they go unless I hear anything particularly negative about them..
I wonder, how would they go if I used 2 155/80 14 nA1s on the back and 165/70 PC2s on the front... could use2 on the car I bought these for and 2 on the rear of my other 16.
 
The mix would be an interesting experiment. The main thing with an R16 is to anchor the front & crappier rear tyres would be a way of getting better throttle adjustability. The most important thing to experiment with would be trying to avoid lift-off snappiness at the rear in the wet. Still, better that than terminal front end plough - at least one has steering, not just throttle &/or brakes, to input remediation.

I'd have a go if the 4 NA1s prove too easy to overwhelm at the front in the wet. Sudden radius tightening mid-corner is a good way to stress front tyre grip when one's playing.

But why not fit the 4 new Nankangs & wheels to the other R16 & experiment with that so that you get the kms in while it's wet?

The AS1 is hardly brilliant but isn't total rubbish & I've been recommending it in 145/65 as the best of a bad bunch for 4x15 wheels on rear-engined Renaults. I know of only one test & it comes last but I found the detail of the comparative results rather comforting & shudder to think how a CX668 (or NA1) would has fared. See:

2019 Auto Zeitung Summer Tyre Test - Tyre Reviews


Thanks for the test results Andrew. Choice tests are very limited in what they do & report but when they're all one has . . . .
 
Last edited:
Reviving an old thread. The 16ts I had originally put these tyres on was in the road with them for 6 months, and involved in a nasty accident where it ended up the wrong way up in January. It’s body had been repaired and it’s almost ready for the road again.
As for the tyres, I was unimpressed with the Nankangs, and am thinking that it’s a good time to replace them. They have spent the last few months on my other r16 anyway. As it’s tyres were quite old and it doesn’t get a lot of use, I may leave them there.
Anyway, is the best recommendation for r16 tyres still to go with a set of pc2s in 175/70 front and 165/70 rear? If so, I’ll order some and give it a go.
 
Regarding wet grip it seems that most of these Asian sourced tyres have zero wet grip, doesn't it ever rain there? I'm super careful when driving the 205 in the wet with Nexcens. Diamondbacks on a 405 where just a joke, although worked well in outback conditions.
 
Regrettably, the PC2 is no more in 14" :-(((

I switched the last of mine (165/70) from the fronts of the Renaults so that I retained 4 PC2s on the Djet (which tends to be driven more wildly than the Renaults given its astonishing responsiveness to driver inputs).

So, what went on the Renault fronts? I had a short list of 2: Continental's EcoContact 5s & Hankook's Kinergy Eco2 (both in 165/65) I had concerns about each but finally took advantage of a "4 for price of 3" Hankook deal & got them.

Predictably, they were neither as crisp in response as the PC2 nor as good in the wet but seemed pretty ok so when the 4CVG was up for new rears (185/60) I bought the Eco 2 again. This didn't work out & they made the rear too "loose" in a way that was not tyre pressure tuneable. But this is a rear engine swing axle issue that's not as applicable to the R16.

So: you could fit the Eco 2 Hankook in 175/70 front & 165/70 rear or 175/70 all round or 165/70 all round. My choice would be 175/70 front & 165/70 rear.

The only other option I'd have on a short list is Pirelli's P6 in 175/70 all round (& balance handling with tyre pressure - my warm Moke is best handling on 40psi front & 20 psi rear, for instance - pressures make a huge difference to handling balance).

I have the P6 on the rear of the R8 at the moment & when they chop out, I'll replace them with more of the same. They are good in the wet (& have nice limit behaviour) but there are other tyres in 185/60 which are better - not mammothly but noticeably. What is motivating me to standardize them on the rears of the two Renaults is a nice stable structure which is pressure tuneable.The merit in your intended application is crisper turn in than the Eco 2 & more easily pressure tuned handling balance. Wet grip is about the same as the Hankook but limit behaviour is more benign & recoverable.

Either would suit you nicely I think but the deciding factor might be a "4 for price of 3" Hankook deal (they offer these frequently).
 
4cvgordini said:
Regrettably, the PC2 is no more in 14" :-(((

I switched the last of mine (165/70) from the fronts of the Renaults so that I retained 4 PC2s on the Djet (which tends to be driven more wildly than the Renaults given its astonishing responsiveness to driver inputs).

So, what went on the Renault fronts? I had a short list of 2: Continental's EcoContact 5s & Hankook's Kinergy Eco2 (both in 165/65) I had concerns about each but finally took advantage of a "4 for price of 3" Hankook deal & got them.

Predictably, they were neither as crisp in response as the PC2 nor as good in the wet but seemed pretty ok so when the 4CVG was up for new rears (185/60) I bought the Eco 2 again. This didn't work out & they made the rear too "loose" in a way that was not tyre pressure tuneable. But this is a rear engine swing axle issue that's not as applicable to the R16.

So: you could fit the Eco 2 Hankook in 175/70 front & 165/70 rear or 175/70 all round or 165/70 all round. My choice would be 175/70 front & 165/70 rear.

The only other option I'd have on a short list is Pirelli's P6 in 175/70 all round (& balance handling with tyre pressure - my warm Moke is best handling on 40psi front & 20 psi rear, for instance - pressures make a huge difference to handling balance).

I have the P6 on the rear of the R8 at the moment & when they chop out, I'll replace them with more of the same. They are good in the wet (& have nice limit behaviour) but there are other tyres in 185/60 which are better - not mammothly but noticeably. What is motivating me to standardize them on the rears of the two Renaults is a nice stable structure which is pressure tuneable.The merit in your intended application is crisper turn in than the Eco 2 & more easily pressure tuned handling balance. Wet grip is about the same as the Hankook but limit behaviour is more benign & recoverable.

Either would suit you nicely I think but the deciding factor might be a "4 for price of 3" Hankook deal (they offer these frequently).
Click to expand...

What's your time around Bathurst, Sandown, Phillip Island etc.?
 
angru said:
Reviving an old thread. The 16ts I had originally put these tyres on was in the road with them for 6 months, and involved in a nasty accident where it ended up the wrong way up in January. It’s body had been repaired and it’s almost ready for the road again.
As for the tyres, I was unimpressed with the Nankangs, and am thinking that it’s a good time to replace them. They have spent the last few months on my other r16 anyway. As it’s tyres were quite old and it doesn’t get a lot of use, I may leave them there.
Anyway, is the best recommendation for r16 tyres still to go with a set of pc2s in 175/70 front and 165/70 rear? If so, I’ll order some and give it a go.
Click to expand...
For what its worth, I ran Toyos, Dunlop etc on my road car until I went back to the factory spec'd Conti MC5/6 and would never go back to anything else. The wet grip (and dry) are phenomenal and I feel very safe in the wet. They are a little more $, but worth the confidence you get when driving. There is no substitute for quality (and your life)!
 
R8 Dream said:
For what its worth, I ran Toyos, Dunlop etc on my road car until I went back to the factory spec'd Conti MC5/6 and would never go back to anything else. The wet grip (and dry) are phenomenal and I feel very safe in the wet. They are a little more $, but worth the confidence you get when driving. There is no substitute for quality (and your life)!
Click to expand...
I know of no available Continental tyre in an applicable size preserving the 155/80 gearing. One could undergear (by about 6%) & fit a 165/65 EcoContact 5, but I doubt any performance advantage over the P6, so why not preserve gearing?
https://tiresize.com/comparison/
 
I know this is a minefield and this may not be helpful, but I have Avon CR6ZZ tyres on one of my cars. 175/70 & 185/70. Not sure if they make at 165/70. They are intended as period style road/competition tyres. Stated wear index # is 80, which makes them quite sticky. I have no problems with them in the rain. Interestingly, I have previously used 60 series Toyo R888 proxes; their wear index is nominally a tad harder at 100, but they sure wore out a lot faster. And they have minimal tread to start with. I found that a problem with rego as the shallow grooves became too shallow for the liking of my inspector rather quickly. The Avon's however, have a fair bit of rubber to give up before tread depth becomes a problem.
 
I have heard nothing but good things about the CR6ZZ. As you say, compounded for wet grip, not longevity. Even if available in the relevant 14" sizes, I wouldn't have even mentioned them as I'd assume that they would not suit the intended application. I seriously considered them as fitment for my Djet before moving away from 15" wheels.
They are also very expensive.

https://www.longstonetyres.co.uk/tyres/175-70-13/175-70hr13-avon-cr6zz.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top