Nexen N'Priz vs Hankook H735 Kinergy 235-75-15

SeaFuse

Active Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
217
Reaction score
192
Location
Pacific Northwest
Getting tires for the Fury. Most recent 235/75/15 run by me were Hankook Optimo (NLA now?). Tires performed fine on my Imperials but looked under-inflated. Below is a comparison of what 235-15 WW are (currently) readily available today in USA from Nexen and Hankook. Any experiences with either here? Does anybody here know width of the white wall stripe on both? Last question - Corker used to distribute a Maxxis 235-15 WW. These are/were available in Europe. Anybody have a US source for these? Thanks.

Specs
Hankook
1734451055564.png

*723 revs/mile approx 28.85" diameter.

Nexen
1734451122796.png


Looks
Hankook

1734451190454.png


Nexen
1734451233643.png
 
Last edited:
I have the no longer available Hankooks and they are nice. From the two pictures that you posted, I like the tread pattern of the Hankook. The whitewall of the Nexen.
 
Get the tire with more load capacity. It will be a better tire for a big car. The current whitewalls are on the thin side, unfortunately. And they don't want to say how wide they are like the old days.

Yes they look under inflated especially with 26 psi like the sticker, or 32 which most are trained to run. Now on a full-size 1950's thru 70's cars there is a lot of weight there, especially cornering. The max on the sidewall of. Modern tires is 50psi. I have them on a 1961 Chrysler, I run 40 psi on them and it drives and corners much better than 32-35 psi.

I have a set from 2016 and they have max psi 50 on sidewall.
 
On my european cars, Nexen are junk.
I have liked my Hankooks enough, well alot really, to by some 245/60/15 for my E body.
My wagon being heavy, I stepped up and bought 6ply michelin 235/75/15 LT .
They have a highway, car like tread pattern, and definitely helped control sidewall flex.
But exspensive, no whitewall
 
Here's some observations in shopping for tires, as I am doing.

Related to the underinflated look, the cars came with 15x5.5 and 15x6 wheels, from the factory. Taller sidewalls of the 75 aspect ratio radials can make them look underinflated when they are not. Most all of the newer wheels are 7'-8", or wider, wheels. Which makes the sidewall more perpendicular to the road surface. Especially when compared to their tread widths!

On my '80 Newport, I wanted some wider wheels and found them in the 15x7 Magnum GT wheels, which were on factory closeout from Chrysler at the time. Those, in combination with the factory radial tire size, P215/75R-15, the sidewalls were perpendicular to the ground, which decreased sidewall flex and sharpened the handling to more than would be suspected. Higher inflation pressures, by a few psi, I felt, was needed to keep the tread flat on the road, which worked synergistically with the other side issues to improve handling and tire life. WIN WIN as the car had the factory HD suspension (non-rear sway bar HD suspension) to start with.

As to "underinflation", that is variable. Meaning a P235/75R-15 tire can be underinflated if there is not enough air in it "to carry the load". At the old 32psi max pressure, P235/75R-15 (replaced the old L84x15 size, and 9.15x15 before that), if any larger car had enough occupants and luggage to get close to that max tire capacity at 32psi, the slightest bump would have resulted in the chassis dragging the ground and the rear bumper dragging on any inclined driveway approach, I suspect.

So, to me, the ONLY cars which really need a P235/75R-15 tire are C-body wagons and Imperials. "NEED" is the operative word here, as to things other than cosmetics or what one might desire to see . . . personal orientations. Read the tire sidewall as to weight carrying capacity, times that by 4, Then subtract 4500-5000lbs from that figure, to get the "reserve capacity" of the tires with an empty vehicle. Then subtract 5x200lbs for 5 passengers, which then leaves the result for luggage and such. To me, that is reality. Then do the same for P225/75R-15 (which dimensionally is closer to the old J78x15 tire than not) and look at the difference between that and the larger size.

The other spec to look at is the "revs/mile", which relates to odometer and speedometer accuracy. If the car did not come with a tire the size of P235/75R-15, the readings will be less than actual distance traveled, as the indicated speed will be a bit lower than actual, too. IF that matters.

As to MODERN tires, look at the tread depth in the specs! Not just the wear ratings. Seems that some newer rubber compounds are allowing the tire companies to skimp on tread depth as others are not skimping. Look for 11/32" tread depth, which used to be the norm when the cars were built. Seems like the Hankooks are at 9.5/32" as the Nexens are much closer to 11/32"? This is important for WET TRACTION, not just longevity.

In this respect, most of the approx 18" tires are on the thinner side of tread depth, when new, too! Which means tread designs become more important, so water can be evacuated from under the tread as it rolls on the roadway.

The last issue is inflation pressure. The "standards" used to be that 24psi was for a soft ride, even when the tire capacity at that inflation level would tolerate added passengers and luggage. Reading further in the owner's manual of my '70 Dodge Monaco Brougham, it stated that "For speeds over 75mph", to add 4psi, which put things at 28psi, cold minimum. So that was what I used for the rear tires, adding another 2psi to the front to compensate for the added weight on the front of the car. Which made the steering a bit more responsive at the same time. With the newer P-Metric sizing, I ended up with about 32/30. All of the tire treads wore "flat" and lasted longer, too.

"Underinflated" look? Just part of the deal with any radial tire, typically. Especially with the older 5.5"-6.0" wide wheels. Check the air pressure and keep it near 35psi cold.

Sorry for the length. Just my experiences and observations.
CBODY67
 
Tread Depth is very close on both, but the treadwear rating is very important and Nexen is nowhere close to the Hankook.
 
On tread wear, I believe that the lower number is stickier tires. I went with Nexen for ease of purchase and the weight rating.
 
From Google:
AI Overview
Learn more


Tire treadwear is a number that indicates how long a tire will last, and is usually represented as a three-digit number followed by the abbreviation "TW":
  • Treadwear rating
    A higher treadwear rating means the tire will last longer. For example, a tire with a treadwear rating of 800 will last twice as long as a tire with a rating of 400.
  • Tire performance
    Tires with a lower treadwear rating have more grip, while tires with a higher rating last longer. Most passenger vehicles have a treadwear rating between 200 and 500
 
From Google:
AI Overview
Learn more


Tire treadwear is a number that indicates how long a tire will last, and is usually represented as a three-digit number followed by the abbreviation "TW":
  • Treadwear rating
    A higher treadwear rating means the tire will last longer. For example, a tire with a treadwear rating of 800 will last twice as long as a tire with a rating of 400.
  • Tire performance
    Tires with a lower treadwear rating have more grip, while tires with a higher rating last longer. Most passenger vehicles have a treadwear rating between 200 and 500
The kumho victor racers that I have for my mustang have a treadwear rating of 80. If you press your fingernail in them it leaves a mark.
 
On tread wear, I believe that the lower number is stickier tires. I went with Nexen for ease of purchase and the weight rating.
I did the same and bought the Nexen Priz with the narrow whitewall for my 300. I liked the thin whitewall and the load rating at 109 cause the car is HEAVY. Not terribly concerned about treadwear rating, as I only drive the car a couple of thousand K's a year.

Nexen #2.JPEG


Nexen photo.JPEG
 
The stated treadwear rating is "self-reported" by the tire company, as I understand it, but it is there for consumers to make their own mind up as to which might be better.

In many respects, it CAN be an indicator of the softness of the rubber (as mentioned) or hardness, related to ultimate wear.

For many decades now, it seems that most any tire can do 40K miles if the car's front end alignment is decent and the car is driven "normally" on reasonably smooth pavement.

When I checked with my local tire guy last week, when I asked him about white wall tires, he didn't snicker or such, just went to his computer and said, for P225/75R-15, they were not more than two days to get them. In Hankook, Nexen, or "off-shore" brands. P215/75R-15 was about a day or so longer. In otherwords, they were in the warehouse and available. I had checked the TireRack website and found that they had Hankooks in stock, too. BTAIM

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
Last edited:
Vitour tyres seems to have a good rep. One of the few manufacturers that make high profile (70 and up) tyres that have a H speed rating. Some are turned off by them being Chinese, but I see a fair number of corvette owners across various forums running the Galaxy R1 radials on their cars and they have nothing but good things to say about them. On an impala forum thread I asked how they compared to the usual Cooper Cobras and BF Goodrich Radial T/As and the OP said they were "MUCH better in every conceivable way."
"Underinflated" look? Just part of the deal with any radial tire, typically
100%. on my old 96 camry that ran 205/65R15s, when filling to 32 psi as recommended on the door sticker/placard, the sidewalls still bulged out a bit. Some people who don't know better just assume that means it's not inflated enough, and you get things like this:
1734492897698.png

There's a lot of war vets on this forum...anyone of you guys an EOD tech by any chance? lol
 
Hankook tire weighs 27 lbs. No weight given for the Nexen.

If I had nothing else to go on, I would choose the heavier tire and if they weighed the same I'd choose the tire with the largest tread depth.
 
They are a price tires. My experience with the 6 plus sets of each has been that they are ok. Never a failure, ever, they just go away. At 2/3 tread gone they are done. At 1/3 left, it's time for new tires with these tires.

64/72/76/ New Yorker.
94 1/2-ton and 97 3/4-ton Dodge van.
78 Grand Marquise.
93 Dakota.
67 Toronado.

Not much difference in the way they behave.
Ok ride. Ok in the turns and braking dry. Ok in the turns and braking wet. Very good at hydroplaning resistance. Not as quiet as I would like. Generally, 40K to 60K miles. 60K on the light 4000-pound Dakota, 50K on the sedans, 40K on the vans.
The Nexen will wear the center tread with 40 plus psi on an empty 4000-pound vehicle on the rear axle. But, it but does take all the 2250-pound per tire load rating for 4450-pound axle load with 50 psi at 70 mph for the 25k mile life of the tire in that condition.
The Michelins are much better than either one. Everything is better. A lot better. But $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
If I had only one vehicle it would run the Michelins
 
I put these Venezia Classic 787 tires on my 63 Riviera and my 67 Newport 5+ years ago. They are wearing great, the whitewalls are still in excellent shape. These are a great tire in my opinion. After I got the Newport operational back in 2019, I was coming out of Cocoa Beach on the 528 doing 80mph, so I stepped into it and ran it up to 100 for a couple minutes on those Venezia 787s....smooth as silk.

I do not like the look of the Hankooky tires on my 65 NYer, (the sidewalls are too modern looking), but those Hankookys are too new to replace. When the time comes I will put the Venezia 787s on the New Yorker. And they are priced very well. Here's a look at my Riv with the 787 Venezia tires.
Classic 787 Tire by Venezia Tires

riv davis island.jpg
 
Last edited:
I put these Venezia Classic 787 tires on my 63 Riviera and my 67 Newport 5+ years ago. They are wearing great, the whitewalls are still in excellent shape. These are a great tire in my opinion. After I got the Newport operational back in 2019, I was coming out of Cocoa Beach on the 528 doing 80mph, so I stepped into it and ran it up to 100 for a couple minutes on those Venezia 787s....smooth as silk.

I do not like the look of the Hankooky tires on my 65 NYer, (the sidewalls are too modern looking), but those Hankookys are too new to replace. When the time comes I will put the Venezia 787s on the New Yorker. And they are priced very well. Here's a look at my Riv with the 787 Venezia tires.
Classic 787 Tire by Venezia Tires

View attachment 698429
Awesome Riv!
 
Back
Top