In this test I will finally compare the new Hoosier TrackAttack Pro to the Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R and the Bridgestone Potenza RE71RS on a track AND autocross course.
1 categories (4 tests)
As always with Tyre Reviews, transparency is core to the channel, so before the driving I need to explain the tyre sizes used.
The test vehicle is a G80 M3, which from the factory runs 275/35 R19 front and 285/30 R20 rear.
I personally believe that if you're serious enough to put your car on this level of tyre, you're probably going to want to buy track wheels and drop down to a 19" square fitment which will give you WAY more tyre options to choose from, so this is what I've done for the Hoosier and Bridgestone, they're both 275/35 R19 square.
The Cup 2 R is the benchmark everyone has been asking for so I wanted to include this tyre too, however, as there are only OE sizes of the cup 2 R I had to break the first rule of tyre testing which is, do not test OE tyres as it gives them an unfair advantage. This is pretty much unavoidable with any Cup 2 R, as apart from I think one size, they're all OE tyres.
The second rule of tyre testing is to test the same tyre sizes, however, to do that with the Cup 2 R I would have to put the front tyre on the rear axle too which I'm not going to do as I know BMW and Michelin spent a lot of time tuning the front and rear tyres to do different jobs. So for this test, I am running the full OE sizes for the Cup 2 R, the 19 inch front and the 20 inch rear.
This should, in theory, give the Cup 2 R a subjective advantage, BUT the Cup 2 R is the only tyre here that has to adhere to the EU tyre label, which heavily detracts from track performance. More on that later.
The geek stats for these three tyres are super interesting. Not only does the Bridgestone have the highest starting tread depth, it is BY FAR the widest tyre of the three tyres. So wide in fact, I found myself repeatedly checking if I was measuring the right tyre. Unmounted it's 21mm or nearly an inch wider than both the Hoosier and Michelin at the same 275/35 R19 size.
All this tread depth and width does make it significantly heavier too, nearly 3kgs or 7lbs over the other two, which are surprisingly close on metrics. The Michelin has more tread depth than the hoosier, though it's treadwear is 140 compared to 200.
Below are the times from the big course, and autocross. My full subjective thoughts can be found in the YouTube video, linked above.
Dry
Dry Handling
Dry Handling Long Run
Dry Handling - Autocross
Subj. Dry Handling
Results
- Production: 1525
- Origin: USA
- UTQG: 200 A A
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 10.58 kgs
- Tread: 5.1 mm
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Handling | 1st | 86 s | 100% |
| Dry Handling Long Run | 1st | 86.83 s | 100% |
| Dry Handling - Autocross | 2nd | 41.06 s | 99.37% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 2nd | 9.75 Points | 97.5% |
- Production: 2323
- Origin: France
- UTQG: 140 A A
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 10.91 kgs
- Tread: 4.9 mm
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Handling | 3rd | 86.9 s | 98.96% |
| Dry Handling Long Run | 2nd | 87.48 s | 99.26% |
| Dry Handling - Autocross | 3rd | 41.17 s | 99.1% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 1st | 10 Points | 100% |
- Production: 3624
- Origin: Japan
- UTQG: 200 A A
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 13.44 kgs
- Tread: 4.1 mm
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Handling | 2nd | 86.7 s | 99.19% |
| Dry Handling Long Run | 3rd | 87.56 s | 99.17% |
| Dry Handling - Autocross | 1st | 40.8 s | 100% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 3rd | 9.5 Points | 95% |