Wouldn't the more modern low profile rubber be better? At clearing water, lateral grip, safer stopping etc...?
Or perhaps the remade XWX and Cinturatos incorporate new technology - they just look old ? (have the same tread pattern?) I'd certainly like to think for the price they charge we are not getting 50 year old tech..!!
I have both tyres - the XWX looks nice, driving is ok, good on dry roads, not so good in the wet.
Many XWX's have problems with balancing and concentricity, they may cause serious vibrations. My tyre dealer almost refused to put them on my Jaguar.
The CN 36 is great on all conditions, and this was the original equipment specially developed for the Fiat Dino 2400. Performance is like a modern tyre - tested by a german magazine. 36 m stopping distance from 100 kmph to 0.
I have a set of CN36 on an Alfa Romeo GTV (185/70-14) - they completely transformed the handling of that car - better grip, easier steering (as though it suddenly had power steering), sharper turn in, more confidence etc. I highly recommend them and need to buy a set for my Dino Coupe (currently on Vredesteins).
Interesting to read the Longstone Tyres history of the CN36 and how they were basically developed for Dino cars. I've never owned XWX tyres but I did hear the fitment/balancing stories when I owned a Maserati. I would always go with Pirelli.
I’m new to this forum and just completing a purchase on a 2000 spider. I will need new tires and was reading that the 2000 came with 185s as opposed to the 2400 that came with 205s.
The car presently has a set of old 205s. I was reading that the 205s may be a tight fit on the 2000.
Is the geometry on the 2400 different to allow the wider tires or can I go ahead and put 205s on the 2000 without concern of rubbing?
I have a 67 spider #282 and my friend also has a 67 #323. We both have 205s on our car and we are not experiencing any rubbing. They look and fill the wheel wells better than 185.
