While perusing summer tires that I'm in dire need of with summer just around the corner, I started thinking. Since I'm looking for tires that are at the top end of the performance category that will see both track time AND lots of daily driving, I started to think where the compromise needs to come from. There is no way I can afford what I really want, so something's got to give.
Ideally what I want is 255/35R-18 Michelin Pilot Super Sports all around. That ain't gonna happen, at $235 each for a total of $940 for a set not even including mounting.
So, here is what I was thinking.
In the size I want (255's all around), the Bridgestone Potenza S-04 Pole Position tires are significantly cheaper at $656 for a set and seem to fall into second place in most of the tests when compared to the Michelin PSS tires. To me, this is far greater value, and would be OK with buying these as the performance of them is most definitely close. But, this leads me to the important question.
What is more important: tire width or the compound?
For a heavy car like the E46, I would think both are equally important, but need to hear this from those with experience. I've always bought cheaper tires, so the PSS would in theory be way over my usual price range, so I've never actually taken such an advanced compound to the limit before (with the exception of some Hoosier A6's in autox on a RX8 a couple of times). I don't know what makes a bigger difference; the amount of tire tread you have on the road or compound.
Having the answer to this question will allow me to make the choice between slightly narrower Michelin PSS tires (easing the cost pain) or full width Pole Positions.
Anyone with experience with track and autox care to chime in?