KDWS vs KDW2

[JACook]

Time to buy some tires.
I've got a question for those of y'all that have bought the KDW2s. Particularly those that have put a few miles on 'em.

I've read the posts about performance and all, but what I need to know is how they wear, vs the KDWSs. The
KDW2s have a 300 treadwear rating, vs 400 for the KDWSs. Now, I know that these ratings probably don't take
our Marauders into account, especially with our uneven tire wear patterns, so I'd rather go on real-world experience.
My rear tires only have about 10K on 'em, and probably won't go another 5 at the rate they're wearing, so I'm
a bit leery of the KDW2s, especially at around $50. extra per tire. But then, if they wear more evenly, that might
make up for the softer rubber, no?

So, what say you?

[67435animal]

Time to buy some tires.
I've got a question for those of y'all that have bought the KDW2s. Particularly those that have put a few miles on 'em.

I've read the posts about performance and all, but what I need to know is how they wear, vs the KDWSs. The
KDW2s have a 300 treadwear rating, vs 400 for the KDWSs. Now, I know that these ratings probably don't take
our Marauders into account, especially with our uneven tire wear patterns, so I'd rather go on real-world experience.
My rear tires only have about 10K on 'em, and probably won't go another 5 at the rate they're wearing, so I'm
a bit leery of the KDW2s, especially at around $50. extra per tire. But then, if they wear more evenly, that might
make up for the softer rubber, no?

So, what say you?

Best person to ask is TAF, who I think put the KDW2's on first. When mine are worn, I intend to install them

I am fortunate to have 25K on my rears. Fronts are still in good shape.

[David Morton]

I used my first set of rears up at 7000 miles! Why did you guys buy Marauders if you won't drive them like you're supposed to?

:lol:

Hey lookit. $50 extra per tire is like two tanks of gas today. Tires are one of the lowest expenses attached to the enjoyment of the Marauder experience, so go for it.

[67435animal]

I used my first set of rears up at 7000 miles! Why did you guys buy Marauders if you won't drive them like you're supposed to?

:lol:

Hey lookit. $50 extra per tire is like two tanks of gas today. Tires are one of the lowest expenses attached to the enjoyment of the Marauder experience, so go for it.

Lots of highway mileage!

[Cobra25]

I used my first set of rears up at 7000 miles! Why did you guys buy Marauders if you won't drive them like you're supposed to?

:lol:

Hey lookit. $50 extra per tire is like two tanks of gas today. Tires are one of the lowest expenses attached to the enjoyment of the Marauder experience, so go for it. Well said David. This is what I've noticed, The KDW2's grip better on dry ground , less tire spin & the car launches better at least on my Marauder, but on wet ground the KDWS tire's grip better.

[Smokie]

My KDWS rear tires died a very premature death at about 20k cords showing in the center, no traction wet or dry. The KDW2 are wearing evenly and actually show no signs of wear at 9k.

The only negative I am aware of; are comments made about the tires not being ideal in a very cold and wet enviroment...very cold does not exist in my neck of the woods.:)

[427435]

It'll be interesting to see if the KDW2's will last as long as the KDWS's. If the treadwear #'s mean anything (and they should as both tires are BFG's), the KDW2's should wear out faster.

I replaced my KDWS's with KDWS's as I liked the wet traction (especially when there was more than 50% tread) and the overall handling/ride combination. I did get 30,000 from the first set, but, unlike some (many) on this board, I dropped the rear air pressure rather than raised it. I ended up at 24psi for the last 20,000 miles. Hnadling was still good and the ride was much less harsh over tar strips etc. As gearheads, we like to change things but the factory engineers know a thing or two, also. So if it's not broke, don't fix it. If you don't like the rapid wear on the centers of these tires (which are way oversized for the weight they carry), drop the air pressure to the low 20's. In theory, that may make the car a more loose in corners, but that isn't all bad with a front heavy car, anyway.

[duhtroll]

The KDW2 is a superior tire in every way. Noise, traction on WET and dry, wear, etc.

Buy them. You will be happier with them than the OEMs.

-A

[JACook]

Appreciate the input. Keep it coming!
I realize that, in the grand scheme of things, a couple hundred more for a set of tires isn't that big a deal.
Back in the '80s, I was running Gatorbacks on The Wife's Fairmont station wagon. :-) What I'm more concerned
about is that I'm probably not gonna get 15K outta the rears I have now, and if the treadwear numbers mean
anything, I'm looking at 10-12K life expectancy outta the KDW2s. But like I said, treadwear numbers aren't nearly
as valuable as real-life experience.

Living here in Southern California, I really couldn't care less how the KDW2s handle in snow, and I probably don't
care much more about wet traction either. Last season aside, we just don't spend enough time in the wet stuff
for it to be a strong factor in my tire shopping priorities. I say let the traction control earn it's keep! :-)

I'm curious about the coment about lowering rear tire pressures. Others here have recommended higher pressures
to cure the rear tire center-wear problem. I know that, generally, that's what we used to do when the center of
the tires would wear first, but that was more of a bias-ply thing. A steel-belted radial isn't supposed to be quite
so sensitive to tire pressures. (NB, this is different than edge wear, where the additional sidewall stiffness
helps keep the contact patch planted when cornering.) I'd like to see a bit more discussion on this.

My only other quibble with the KDW2s is I'm not sure the tread design isn't a bit much for a car like the MM, but
that's getting into matters of taste...

[Rkammer]

I'm the second owner of my MM. The original owner went 17,000 miles and I've gone 5,000. The OEM fronts have 6 1/2 32nds left out of the original 10/32nds. The rears have 6/32nds left on the outside and only 4/32nds in the middle. The original owner only inflated his tires to about 32 psi. I keep them all at 40 psi ice cold. I expect to get about 35,000 - 40,000 from the fronts and perhaps 30,000+ from the rears now that they have more air in them. And, this car has not been Granny driven. Both the previous owner and I enjoy the power and use it from time to time.

I can't compare the KDW2s with the KDWS for tread life but will say that the OEMs are great in the rain as well as on dry streets. With the high air pressure, the car corners very flat with just a hint of understeer.

[TAF]

Best person to ask is TAF, who I think put the KDW2's on first. Well...one of the first...and I'm an ardent supporter of them. After over 12,500+ miles, they are showing little (if any wear)...

There is NO comparison you can make with the KDWS vs. the KDW2s, because the KDW2s FAR exceed any form of performance comparison (wet or dry) over the stock KDWS.


My only other quibble with the KDW2s is I'm not sure the tread design isn't a bit much for a car like the MM, but
that's getting into matters of taste...
As compared to what? Grand Marquis hub-caps? They look GREAT!

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/gallery/data/500/medium/MVC-572F.JPG (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=5883&size=big&cat=500)

[bugsys03]

As compared to what? Grand Marquis hub-caps? They look GREAT!



They look like they belong on a pickup truck IMO :shake:

[Johnman]

I have had the KDW2's (officially, they're just named KDW) for a few weeks, but I'm very happy with them. But if you live in a climate that has much snow or ice, the KDWS's will serve you better. The tire dealer I talked to said the letters DWS stood for dry, wet, snow.

[Bluerauder]

I've got a question for those of y'all that have bought the KDW2s. Particularly those that have put a few miles on 'em.

OK, I guess that I am confused by the conflicting reports on the wet traction performance of the KDW2 vs. the OEM KDWS. I have never had a wet traction problem with the standard KDWS until the treads started to get really worn on the rear (down to about 3 mm in the centers). :rolleyes:

Off hand, it would appear that the KDW2 tread design is more efficient at getting rid of water. I like the tread design of the KDW2 better. However, I have read much here about wet traction problems. What is the real scoop? :dunno: Or is this a driver issue and not a tire issue? ;)

[DEFYANT]

I have found the less smoke that comes from the tires, the longer they last. So dont smokem up.

Now, if I could only follow my own dam advise!

[TAF]

OK, I guess that I am confused by the conflicting reports on the wet traction performance of the KDW2 vs. the OEM KDWS. I have never had a wet traction problem with the standard KDWS until the treads started to get really worn on the rear (down to about 3 mm in the centers). :rolleyes:

Off hand, it would appear that the KDW2 tread design is more efficient at getting rid of water. I like the tread design of the KDW2 better. However, I have read much here about wet traction problems. What is the real scoop? :dunno: Or is this a driver issue and not a tire issue? ;)You want the "real scoop"? Just click on the pics of the KDWS and the KDW2s below and read what Tire rack had to say. If you've never seen what types of extensive testing they do, I can assure you it's quite comprehensive.

CLICK THE PICS

http://www.tirerack.com/images/tires/bfg/bfg_gforce_ta_kdws.jpg (http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=BFGoodrich&tireModel=g-Force+T%2FA+KDWS)

http://www.tirerack.com/images/tires/bfg/bfg_gforce_ta_kdw2_ci2_l.jpg (http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=BFGoodrich&tireModel=g-Force+T%2FA+KDW+2)

[Bluerauder]

Just click on the pics of the KDWS and the KDW2s below and read what Tire rack had to say.
Great info .... Thanks Todd !! :up: That's exactly the kind of info that I was looking for. Looks like the KDW2 is superior in all areas with the exception of noise levels and the fact that it is not rated for snow & ice.

[GreekGod]

I would be skeered to go more than 2 or 3 psi from Ford's recommended inflation specs. I understand that if they have a much greater load carrying capacity than our MM's can 'load' on them that we can possibly reduce 2 or 3 pounds from specs but any more than that and you are getting into a very dangerous area! One reason that comes to mind is hi-speed travel that would tend to test the limits of any underinflated tire. On the dunes at Silver Lake State Park (MI) you would never make it up the hill (with a 4x4) to enter the dune area unless you reduced your tire pressure below 10psi! But you also would not be going over about 40 mph for any length of time, either. If you travel on a freeway @80mph for more than a few miles (20?) you should be wary of tire temperature rise to unsafe levels IF you are underinflating your tires. I suggest to anyone traveling across country to test the temperature of all four (or two if on a motorcycle) of your tires at EVERY rest stop by walking around as soon as you get out of your vehicle and placing the flat of your hand on the tread of each tire as a safety check. You might be surprised how sensitive the humanhand is to variations in temperatures. Such an easy test could save much heartache on a vacation if you picked up some road debris and had a slow leak you were unaware of.
It'll be interesting to see if the KDW2's will last as long as the KDWS's. If the treadwear #'s mean anything (and they should as both tires are BFG's), the KDW2's should wear out faster.

I replaced my KDWS's with KDWS's as I liked the wet traction (especially when there was more than 50% tread) and the overall handling/ride combination. I did get 30,000 from the first set, but, unlike some (many) on this board, I dropped the rear air pressure rather than raised it. I ended up at 24psi for the last 20,000 miles. Hnadling was still good and the ride was much less harsh over tar strips etc. As gearheads, we like to change things but the factory engineers know a thing or two, also. So if it's not broke, don't fix it. If you don't like the rapid wear on the centers of these tires (which are way oversized for the weight they carry), drop the air pressure to the low 20's. In theory, that may make the car a more loose in corners, but that isn't all bad with a front heavy car, anyway.

[427435]

I would be skeered to go more than 2 or 3 psi from Ford's recommended inflation specs. I understand that if they have a much greater load carrying capacity than our MM's can 'load' on them that we can possibly reduce 2 or 3 pounds from specs but any more than that and you are getting into a very dangerous area! One reason that comes to mind is hi-speed travel that would tend to test the limits of any underinflated tire. On the dunes at Silver Lake State Park (MI) you would never make it up the hill (with a 4x4) to enter the dune area unless you reduced your tire pressure below 10psi! But you also would not be going over about 40 mph for any length of time, either. If you travel on a freeway @80mph for more than a few miles (20?) you should be wary of tire temperature rise to unsafe levels IF you are underinflating your tires. I suggest to anyone traveling across country to test the temperature of all four (or two if on a motorcycle) of your tires at EVERY rest stop by walking around as soon as you get out of your vehicle and placing the flat of your hand on the tread of each tire as a safety check. You might be surprised how sensitive the humanhand is to variations in temperatures. Such an easy test could save much heartache on a vacation if you picked up some road debris and had a slow leak you were unaware of.

I agree that if were running long distances over 90 or 100 MPH (like in the good old days in Montana), higher pressures would be a good idea. All I can say is that I ran the last 20,000 miles at 24 psi traveling 65 miles, one way, to work with the cruise set at 73 (65 MPH limit). I will admit that I raised the pressure if I was carrying a heavy trunk load or planned on 4 people in the car for a long distance. Radials will handle low pressure better than the old bias tires as there's not as much cord friction in the sidewalls.

I suspect the reason Ford recommended the high rear pressures was to avoid "oversteering". The factory figures it's safer if a car starts to "plow" first rather than to have the backend come loose.

By the way, the factory recommended pressure in my '67 vette was 24 psi, if I remember right.

[David Morton]

I have found the less smoke that comes from the tires, the longer they last. So dont smokem up.

Now, if I could only follow my own dam advise!That's right! "Take my advice, I'm not using it." :lol:

[JACook]

Well...one of the first...and I'm an ardent supporter of them. After over 12,500+ miles, they are showing little (if any wear)... Thanks, Todd. That's exactly the kind of real-world experience I've been looking for. Appreciate it!


As compared to what? Grand Marquis hub-caps? They look GREAT!Well, like I said, we're arguing taste. But since you ask, they look to me like something that'd be more at home on
a rice-boy Honduh or a 'Sclade than on a classy ride like my MM. (I didn't like the Scorcher TAs either.) While I do
like a functionally agressive looking tire, I don't much care for bling, and our stock 18-inch wheels are already pushing
my limits. The KDW2 tread design is at least threatening to cross over the line.

But that's just me. And if they work this well, I can probably get over it. :)

Next question, since the KDW2s aren't available in the stock rear size, what size fronts and rears are you using?
And will I need to go ahead and order that XCalibrator I've been eyeing, so's I can correct for speedometer error?
;)

[Rider90]

Jeff, IIRC the KDW2 is available in the stock front tire size? I could be wrong of course, but double check? Also for the rears people are using 255/55/18.

I have the KDW2 tires in the rear, ran at 40psi since day one, and they still look great. 7,000 miles on them thus far. I will lower them to about 36 or 37 psi soon as the center seems to be wearing just a tad more than the sides, and I mean a "tad" whatever the hell that means - you get my drift. These are excellent tires.

[JACook]

Jeff, IIRC the KDW2 is available in the stock front tire size? I could be wrong of course, but double check? Also for the rears people are using 255/55/18.OK, well, those are 1/2" taller than our already-too-tall rears, though I'm not sure 1/2" will make all that much
of a difference. OTOH, might give me a good reason to do the 4.10s in addition to that XCalibrator. :)
Another plus, Tire Rack is selling those for cheaper than our original rears.

So, since we're scrapping the stock rear tire size, what about going to a 245-45 on the fronts? Or would that
just aggravate the old edge-wear problem?

[Rider90]

OK, well, those are 1/2" taller than our already-too-tall rears, though I'm not sure 1/2" will make all that much
of a difference. OTOH, might give me a good reason to do the 4.10s in addition to that XCalibrator. :)
A very good reason I must say. I had the 255/55/18 KDW2 tires a few days before I did the 4.10s and that thing was a dog. I didn't think I'd notice a .5-1.0 inch difference in size (Thats what SHE said :rolleyes: ) but it was so much slower off the line.

[TAF]

Great info .... Thanks Todd !! :up: That's exactly the kind of info that I was looking for. Looks like the KDW2 is superior in all areas with the exception of noise levels and the fact that it is not rated for snow & ice.Glad to be of help...

Also...be sure you read this head-to-head comparison of the KDW2s vs. Goodyear & Firestone's "ultra, high performance tires" to see that the KDW2s won...hands-down.

"On the track in dry conditions, the g-Force T/A KDW-2 provided great traction, good steering response and predictable handling that allowed it to turn the fastest dry lap times of the three tires.

On the track in wet conditions, the g-Force T/A KDW-2 continued to provide great traction, good steering response and predictable handling that also allowed it to turn the fastest wet lap times of the three tires."


CLICK THE PIC... (http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testResultsModel.jsp?tireModel =g-Force+T%2FA+KDW+2&tireMake=BFGoodrich&x=24&y=13)
http://www.tirerack.com/images/tires/tests/longer_names.jpg (http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testResultsModel.jsp?tireModel =g-Force+T%2FA+KDW+2&tireMake=BFGoodrich&x=24&y=13)

[Rkammer]

Definitely some good testimonials for the KDW2s here. But, they sure have an ugly tread patern! :down: Just doesn't look like it belongs on a full bodied musclecar like our MMs. And, I don't like the 29" height of the rears. To each his own, I guess. :)

[ckadiddle]

Shortly after having KDW2s installed, I met Dennis Reinhart at one of our local meets. He has more Marauder knowledge in the tip of his left pinkie finger than I will ever elarn. He likes them a lot. That enough of a blessing for me to buy them again.

My wife and I put relatively few miles on our cars, even back when we were a one car family. Most of our driving is around town. The OEMs were edge bald in front and center bald in back at about 20000 miles. We bought the car last Sept/Oct with 17000 already on it. It's going to take us a good while to put another 20000 miles on the Marauder, so I am not that concerned with the tire life being half of what I am used to with all the other cars I have owned. Had I known about mm.net at that time of purchase, I would have known about the tire issues and squeezed the dealer for new tires. This is also my first "real" performance car, so I was not aware that performance tires were softer and wore sooner than standard passenger car tires. I did know beforehand that they would be substantially more expensive. :) After researching KDW2s on Tire Rack and other sites, I decided to go with the more expensive tire. Some folks like the look of the tread, some don't. Some tire engineer dude designed it to be an improvement on the original. (If the tread design looked like duckies and bunnies, I might hesitate to buy them though.) To me, it just looks like a lot of other tires. They drive at least as good as the original tires did when I first bought the car in both wet and dry conditions. They don't slip or slide on wet pavement unless I screw up and squash the pedal too hard.

Crackpot Theory:
These are very big, heavy, powerfull cars. We bought them for FUN and drive them accordingly. No matter what brand or model performance tire we choose, they are going to wear much faster that on a Mustang, Acura, or other lighter weight performance car. Marauders eat Hyundais, Toyotas, Hondas and Tires. That is just the way of the world.

[python357]

Any problems with the 255/55 KDW2 and traction control.

[SergntMac]

I will lower them to about 36 or 37 psi soon as the center seems to be wearing just a tad more than the sides, and I mean a "tad" whatever the hell that means. It means the same as "a pinch of salt" means to a professional chef...

[GreekGod]

You must have a very sensitive ass dyno to notice the difference!
A very good reason I must say. I had the 255/55/18 KDW2 tires a few days before I did the 4.10s and that thing was a dog. I didn't think I'd notice a .5-1.0 inch difference in size (Thats what SHE said :rolleyes: ) but it was so much slower off the line.

[huot5]

I would also like to know if there will be traction problems If I go to 255/55's in the back and 245/40's up front....I just priced some Falken ZX-12 somethin or others at discount. pretty good price. free shipping. Jeg's also has Kumho 255/55VR's STX KL-12's for 104.99 and 712's 245/40ZR's for 128.99 . IMO, I think the 235/50's in the front are a "tad" to low profile. any opinions from y'all? thanks.

[SergntMac]

IMHO, the KDW2 is the superior tire. Though many say they don't like the looks of the tread pattern, it's functional in allowing standing water to drain away, which increases the resistance to hydroplaning. The one problem for the KDWS, is that a tire that wide doesn't vacate water from the center treads as well as the KDW2 pattern. Something to consider with such a heavy car, yes?

[dflynn5]

I've seen a lot of threads with folks putting the KDW2 255/55 on the rears but I haven't heard any definitive answer with the &#^#* traction control on the 2004. Will the 255/55s work? Anyone know what the % differences between front and back that must be maintained before the TC starts complaining?

[Rider90]

I've seen a lot of threads with folks putting the KDW2 255/55 on the rears but I haven't heard any definitive answer with the &#^#* traction control on the 2004. Will the 255/55s work? Anyone know what the % differences between front and back that must be maintained before the TC starts complaining?
YES, I have an 04 with T/C and have been running 255/55/18 KDW2 rear tires for 8,000 miles. No problems.

[dflynn5]

YES, I have an 04 with T/C and have been running 255/55/18 KDW2 rear tires for 8,000 miles. No problems.

Thanks Jason.

[MENINBLK]

I would be skeered to go more than 2 or 3 psi from Ford's recommended inflation specs.

The inflated PSI that Ford recommends is NOT BFGoodrich's recommendation.
BFGoodrich recommends that we add an additional 5 - 7 PSI in the KDWS tires.

I have several posts that link back to the BFGoodrich Forums where this is discussed and explained.

[MENINBLK]

Glad to be of help...

Also...be sure you read this head-to-head comparison of the KDW2s vs. Goodyear & Firestone's "ultra, high performance tires" to see that the KDW2s won...hands-down.

"On the track in dry conditions, the g-Force T/A KDW-2 provided great traction, good steering response and predictable handling that allowed it to turn the fastest dry lap times of the three tires.

On the track in wet conditions, the g-Force T/A KDW-2 continued to provide great traction, good steering response and predictable handling that also allowed it to turn the fastest wet lap times of the three tires."


CLICK THE PIC... (http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testResultsModel.jsp?tireModel =g-Force+T%2FA+KDW+2&tireMake=BFGoodrich&x=24&y=13)
http://www.tirerack.com/images/tires/tests/longer_names.jpg (http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testResultsModel.jsp?tireModel =g-Force+T%2FA+KDW+2&tireMake=BFGoodrich&x=24&y=13)


This is also great information on the KDW2, but remember that the KDW2
is a SUMMER tire. It is NOT an All Season tire like the KDWS is.
It makes a difference for those of us living in the snow belt
that use our Marauder as a daily driver.

[Brutus]

For those that dont like the tread design, there is an alternate pattern.


http://www.bfgoodrichtires.com/images/catalog/tires/gforce_kdw2_large.jpg

[python357]

Love the Eleanor Roosevelt Quote USMC 1982-1986 but I digress. To get this other tread pattern do you have to ask for a different model tire?

[Brutus]

Love the Eleanor Roosevelt Quote USMC 1982-1986 but I digress. To get this other tread pattern do you have to ask for a different model tire?Couldnt tell ya. On their website it just says that this is the alternate tread pattern. It is called "traditional tread" whereas the other is "new tread". Here is a link.
http://www.bfgoodrichtires.com/assets/pdf/gforce_ta_kdw.pdf

[Stock03]

Personally, I prefer the looks of the TT design, but I wonder if it will be worse in the rain. We get very little snow, but lots of rain, so a tire that can handle wet roads is of much more importance to me than a snow-handling tire. I suspect that the TT will be somewhat quieter as well (all those reports of extremely loud noise scare me off the NT), but does anybody know what the real performance/noise differences are between the two two treads?

[python357]

Couldnt tell ya. On their website it just says that this is the alternate tread pattern. It is called "traditional tread" whereas the other is "new tread". Here is a link.
http://www.bfgoodrichtires.com/assets/pdf/gforce_ta_kdw.pdf
From the link you sent it dosen't look like the tt (traditional tread) is in our size only in 245/40, 265/35, and 265/40. Not sure if the 245/40 will fit in the front. 235/50 only available in NT (New Tread) and 245/55 is not available in either NT or TT.

:lol:

[ckadiddle]

I've seen a lot of threads with folks putting the KDW2 255/55 on the rears but I haven't heard any definitive answer with the &#^#* traction control on the 2004. Will the 255/55s work? Anyone know what the % differences between front and back that must be maintained before the TC starts complaining?
I have had KDW2s front and rear, with 255/55 on the rear - on the Marauder for probably 1000 miles or so, no problems with traction control. I did not notice any increase in road noise. Mine is a 2003 model. Sig shows the build date.