In the emergency wet stop from 80 km/h, I ended up having to call it a draw. My first couple of laps were in the red Mustang running the g-Force COMP-2 A/S tires, and the stop pad had been freshly doused with water. By the time I ran comparison laps in the white Conti-equipped Mustang, the pad was noticeably drier, and my stopping distances were consequently shorter. When I did my extra laps with more evenly-distributed water, I missed the brake mark on my first run, so I only got one good stop in the BFGoodrich-equipped Mustang, versus two stops in the Conti-equipped car. Ignoring the bad stop, I got essentially identical distances with either tire this time around. Comrie-Picard then took me out for a couple of laps, and put in results that showed the g-Force COMP-2 A/S stopping about 10 feet shorter than the Conti in the wet.
In the corners on dry pavement there was a more noticeable difference, although it remained subtle. The g-Force COMP-2 A/S tires did seem somewhat less squirmy than the Continentals (so they provided crisper turn-in), and they were a little less abrupt on breakaway. Indeed, g-Force COMP-2 A/S really didn’t want to break away at all: it squealed less in the corners, and would sometimes hop fractionally sideways a few times at the back before finally letting go. When the rear tires did let go, bringing them back in line was reasonably effortless.
In comparison, the Continentals hung in extremely well, but they did seem to exhibit a bit more initial understeer in the S-bends, and they let go at the back a little more abruptly after they’d transitioned to oversteer, and they squirmed more in the slalom. This made steering the Continental-equipped car a little more of a busy exercise. However, I found that the additional feedback provided by the Continental’s fraction of squirm actually felt a little more comfortable to me in the slalom – I was better able to predict the car’s weight transfer and better able to get it into a rhythm. With Comrie-Picard behind the wheel the g-Force COMP-2 A/S definitely seemed the faster tire through the slalom, but in my less expert hands it was a tough call. I did prefer the driving feel of the g-Force COMP-2 A/S over the Continentals in the S-bends, however.
Where the difference between the two tires was perhaps most apparent was after the laps, looking at the tread. Both tires were in remarkably good shape considering the punishment that had just been handed out to them, but the Continentals had the noticeable beginnings of feathering on the outer tread blocks (a result of the tire squirming), while the g-Force COMP-2 A/S showed no such feathering. For drivers who give their tires an occasional workout, this alone might tip the comparison to the g-Force COMP-2 A/S’s favour, but the real decisive factor may be pricing: On Canadian Tire’s website the Continental ExtremeContact DWS60 shows a retail price of $218.99 each in the size tested, while the BFGoodrich g-Force COMP-2 A/S sells for $193.99 each in the same size. If you can get a good deal on a set of Continentals the ExtremeContact DWS06 is excellent tire, but the BFGoodrich g-Force COMP-2 A/S is at least as good – indeed in the testing I did it appears to have the edge in both performance and wear – and it retails for about 12 percent less