bonnell

My original tires lasted 33,660 miles. The rear were in better shape that the fronts but it was time.

I decided on the Firehawk Wideovals. I guess the old tires were more worn than I thought because the new ones sure seem smooth. I have not had a chance to get on the interstate yet or to try out the handling but I am hoping that they are as good as reported.

They were $1,211.84 so they were much less than OEM replacements.

bassspring

I put a set of these on my '07 about a year and a half ago I think I have around 10K miles on them they still look and ride as quiet as the day I had them put on. The price may have been a little less tho. Anyway good choice.

c1vettes

Very good mileage. What suspension? F55 or base? Not Z51 right.

Let us know what you think after some spirited driving.

jamesbertero

I have them on my 06 F55 M6 and I love them. Quiet as a churchmouse at "elevated speeds" Much better feedback to steering than (on center feel) the Goodyears and nowhere near as harsh a ride. Great tire so far IMHO.

gbgary

can't believe you got that many miles. i got about a 14k and i pretty-much babied them.

CA C6 Fan

To all would be Firestone Wide Oval RFs buyers. These tires cannot be repaired (as it states right on the side wall of each tire). So if you purchase these, the manufacturer says "do not repair" them.

In another thread (about tires for the C6), we discussed the efficacy of using Michelin Sport A/S ZP as a better substitute to the OEM GY's, since Michelin said their RFs (they call Zero Pressure) can be repaired as any non-RF.

S2K

I've had mine repaired after a screw found its way into the rear tire. I've had no issues as a result.

I think the "do not repair" item relates to the tire's state AFTER a run flat. In other words if you have operated the tire in a run flat state, the tire needs to be discarded. If the tire has not been run in a run flat state, I think it is fine to repair subject to the location of the nail/screw/etc (obviously not repairable if it is near the sidewall). The warning given on the tire is surrounded by run flat information which is why I think it is referring to that.

CA C6 Fan

I think your second paragraph here, would relate to any RF tire. Not just FS. I believe FS is not taking full responsibility with this tire (and it may even be a marketing ploy?) for RFs', hence the disclaimer. Whereas, Michelin sent me an official e-mail (others have gotten letters) stating unequivocally, their ZP tires are repairable (just like non-RFs).

Whom am I going to purchase from, when the time is right? You guessed it, Michelin. Why even have it be debateable? If FS RF's repairability is even in question and Michelin is not; again, I choose the non-questionable.

While I appreciate your situation (already having these FS RF tires), I am not going to purchase tires for my C6 and even hint at it being non-repairable. I guess what I am saying is, to me, Michelin is standing behind their product better than FS.

sxeC7

The Michelin A/S Plus ZP is a fine substitute for the GY F1 A/S-C EMT and cheaper, but, as a GY Supercar EMT replacement, the PS2 ZP is ridiculously overpriced. I'll buy the FS's as my GY S/C replacement and get the road hazard program and still save bucks. I''m not interested in running an All-Season tire with a wear rating of 500 in the heat here in Tejas. If you want performance, an A/S tire aint gonna get it.

naples53

VET4LES

I have FS on the front and when the original Z51 rears need replacing that's what I plan on using also. I have 25,000 on them now and I'm sure I will get another 5 to 10,000 out of them.

CA C6 Fan

Of course, a personal decision is always understandable with your surroundings. However, even w/the RH-warranty; aren't you at least slighly concerned if the tire specifically says "do not repair" (from FS) that maybe an RH-warranty might be voided? Just asking?

Your point is well taken about an A/S tire (RF or not) in typical summer weather (TX). However, since the A/S Michelin is also temp rated AA, unless you're beating them up (like auto-X), you would still get decent value out of them anyway?

And you're right about the Michelin PS2 ZP being expensive (especially the rears). However, since some of us don't auto-X our cars, these PS2 A/S ZP's are not only adequate but downright a good investment.

S2K

My comment was only to point out my experience with the FS and repair. I don't personally care whether one buys Michelin, FS, GY, etc. I am 100% comfortable that the tire, like any RF, is fine to repair unless used in a RF state. If one is more comfortable with a different brand then I say go for it!

CA C6 Fan

My main and primary point is/was that FS is the only tire company making RF tires that actually states on the tire "do not repair" (GY says their RFs can only be repaired once). None of the other companies have that statement on their tire. The comment you made about it refers to the tire in a "RF-state" would be germane to any RF tire. Meaning, of course you can't repair that - it's flat. I take FS's do not repair statement on their tire, literally; meaning you shouldn't be repairing it at all. I would think, this is what FS is referring to (IMO) if you were to ask them.

Whereas, the Michelins can be repaired any amount of times (according to them). Just like a non-RF tire. Again, to me; Michelin is standing by their product/tire much better than FS.

sxeC7

From talking to my local FS dealer, your comments are basically correct. If the tire is holding air then a repair can be made, but if the tire is flat it's a no-go. Even if the customer says it went flat in his garage. they can't take a chance. Evidently, FS RFT's sidewalls are not as stiff as others, i.e. better ride, and when run flat the heat build up is the problem. I suspect that past massive law suits have, also, made FS very wary.

Funny thing is I had FS SZ50 EP RFT's on my C5 and never heard anything about no repair.

MCSSLT1

Not for nothing but we JUST had a long discussion about what run flats can and cannot be repaired in the last Firestone Wide Oval Thread. Let's not keep bringing this up in every thread about these tires.

They seem to be good tires reguardless and are much cheaper than any goodyear or Michelin.

S2K

I don't work for FS and am also not a lawyer, even if I play one time to time on Internet threads! One could take their warning as simply stating what others state elsewhere, which is that tires that have been used in the RF state cannot then be repaired. As you say all RF tires are like this, but actually I'd think that they all should state this on the tire itself as no one is going to look anywhere else. Also, I don't think this is stating the obvious. There is nothing illogical about one thinking that a tire used in a RF state cannot simply get the hole repaired, filled back up, and away they go again. Most people likely would think that as why wouldn't they? So this further makes the case for putting a disclaimer about it on the tire. Having said that and the disclaimer is in such small fine print (black on black tiny writing) that no one is looking anyway.

S2K

Well then I'd be in trouble since mine went flat in the garage. However, you said the issue was heat build up during the RF state. Of course if the tire goes flat in the garage there would be no heat build up unless the person took it for a drive. In my case it was a slow leak, so I pumped the tire back up to 30 psi and drove the few miles to the local tire shop. The tire was never ridden on in a RF state and I discussed this with the tire shop whom also indicated this was fine (actually they specifically asked me if I had driven on it while flat).

Joopman

I had the Firestones on my 05. They ARE repairable with the basic puncture.

hawkgfr

You can buy FIVE Firestones for four goodcraps or 3 ballonboys... what is the problem. its more like what PT barnum said...