tirewheelguide

Falken ZIEX ZE329 looks discontinued: no new owner reviews or road tests in five years and no current EU tyre label.

Head-to-head Updated

Falken ZIEX ZE329 vs Toyo Proxes CF2 — Compared

Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews. Based on 0 + 1 road tests and 23 + 110 owner reviews. How we score

Proxes CF2 is ahead, 72–49

Check price on Amazon · Proxes CF2 or ZIEX ZE329 on Amazon
Add your size for an exact match
/R

Both Amazon links then search this exact size.

TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.

Falken ZIEX ZE329
Tire AFalken

ZIEX ZE329

All-Season

Tests – · none yet Owners 41 · 23 reviews

Toyo Proxes CF2
Tire BToyo

Proxes CF2

Summer

Tests 69 · 1 test Owners 76 · 110 reviews

Category by category

Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.

  1. 50

    Dry

    Proxes CF2 +21
    71
    Why this score
    SourceZIEX ZE329Proxes CF2
    Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests≈ 56 (est.)67
    Reviews found online4077

    ZIEX ZE329: 60% × 56.4 (est.) + 40% × 39.6 = 50

    Proxes CF2: 60% × 67 + 40% × 77.2 = 71

    No road tests of dry for ZIEX ZE329. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.40).

  2. 51

    Wet

    Proxes CF2 +22
    73
    Why this score
    SourceZIEX ZE329Proxes CF2
    Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests≈ 56 (est.)70
    Reviews found online4577

    ZIEX ZE329: 60% × 55.8 (est.) + 40% × 44.8 = 51

    Proxes CF2: 60% × 70.2 + 40% × 77.2 = 73

    No road tests of wet for ZIEX ZE329. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.56).

  3. 57

    Snow

    No comparison
    –
    Why this score
    SourceZIEX ZE329Proxes CF2
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 63 (est.)–
    Reviews found online48–

    ZIEX ZE329: 60% × 62.5 (est.) + 40% × 47.7 = 57

    No road tests of snow for ZIEX ZE329. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.33).

  4. 51

    Comfort

    Proxes CF2 +21
    72
    Why this score
    SourceZIEX ZE329Proxes CF2
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 63 (est.)≈ 70 (est.)
    Reviews found online3476

    ZIEX ZE329: 60% × 63 (est.) + 40% × 33.7 = 51

    Proxes CF2: 60% × 70.3 (est.) + 40% × 75.8 = 72

    No road tests of comfort for ZIEX ZE329 or Proxes CF2. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.

  5. 62

    Noise

    No comparison
    –
    Why this score
    SourceZIEX ZE329Proxes CF2
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 67 (est.)–
    Reviews found online53–

    ZIEX ZE329: 60% × 67.3 (est.) + 40% × 53.2 = 62

    No road tests of noise for ZIEX ZE329. The test half is the tested tires’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.

  6. 46

    Treadwear

    Proxes CF2 +24
    70
    Why this score
    SourceZIEX ZE329Proxes CF2
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 55 (est.)≈ 68 (est.)
    Reviews found online3272

    ZIEX ZE329: 60% × 55.3 (est.) + 40% × 32 = 46

    Proxes CF2: 60% × 67.7 (est.) + 40% × 72.4 = 70

    No road tests of treadwear for ZIEX ZE329. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.31).

    No road tests of treadwear for Proxes CF2. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.31).

  7. 41

    Handling (owners)

    Proxes CF2 +36
    77
    Why this score
    SourceZIEX ZE329Proxes CF2
    Reviews found online4177
Scores at a glance
CategoryFalken ZIEX ZE329Toyo Proxes CF2
Relative Score 49 72
Dry 50 71
Wet 51 73
Snow 57 –
Comfort 51 72
Noise 62 –
Treadwear 46 70
Handling (owners) 41 77

Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.

Weight the categories that matter to you

Wet grip starts at “Important”. Treadwear starts at “Neutral” here: road tests measured it for at most one of the two tires, so it rests on owner reviews. Move the sliders and the scores update instantly.

Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost

Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.

Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost

Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.

Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Recomputed
Headline score

ZIEX ZE329

Proxes CF2

Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.

Pros, cons & observations

Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.

Tire A ZIEX ZE329

Pros

  • Affordable price point offering great value
  • Good traction and grip on dry pavement
  • Balanced overall performance for everyday commuting

Cons

  • Rapid and premature tread wear, falling short of expected mileage
  • Poor wet and winter weather traction, described as dangerous in snow
  • Excessive road noise and highway hum reported by multiple users
All owner themes in the ZIEX ZE329 review

Tire B Proxes CF2

Pros

  • Excellent value for money compared to premium competitors
  • High levels of ride comfort and low road noise
  • Strong wet and dry grip with predictable handling

Cons

  • Reports of rubber hardening or cracking after 2-3 years in hot climates
  • Soft sidewalls can feel less precise during aggressive cornering
  • Requires a significant 'scrub-in' period to reach peak grip levels
All owner themes in the Proxes CF2 review

Specs side by side

Attribute A · Falken ZIEX ZE329 B · Toyo Proxes CF2
CategoryAll-SeasonSummer
Vehicle typePassenger Car / CrossoverPassenger Car / Crossover
Sizes available—55
Rim diameters—13″ – 18″
Tread depth6/32″—
UTQG480 A A—
Treadwear warranty60,000 mi—
SidewallBlackwall—
Max pressure51 psi—

Which one should you actually buy?

Falken ZIEX ZE329

Toyo Proxes CF2

Winner: Toyo Proxes CF2 — better handling, treadwear and wet. It leads or ties in every category we score.

Pick tire B You enjoy sharp, responsive handling

Toyo Proxes CF2 scores 77 vs 41 on handling.

Pick tire B You want the longest tread life

Toyo Proxes CF2 scores 70 vs 46 on treadwear.

Pick tire B Your priority is wet-weather safety

Toyo Proxes CF2 scores 73 vs 51 on wet.

Pick tire B You want the most grip on dry roads

Toyo Proxes CF2 scores 71 vs 50 on dry.

Tire A · Falken ZIEX ZE329
Check price on Amazon
Tire B · Toyo Proxes CF2
Check price on Amazon

TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.

ZIEX ZE329 or Proxes CF2?

Which is better in the wet, ZIEX ZE329 or Proxes CF2?

Toyo Proxes CF2, 73 vs 51 on our wet score.

Which grips better on dry roads, ZIEX ZE329 or Proxes CF2?

Toyo Proxes CF2, 71 vs 50 on our dry score.

Which is more comfortable, ZIEX ZE329 or Proxes CF2?

Toyo Proxes CF2, 72 vs 51 on our comfort score.

Which lasts longer, ZIEX ZE329 or Proxes CF2?

Toyo Proxes CF2, 70 vs 46 on our treadwear score.

How do we compare tires?

Every category score blends two independent signals. 60% comes from professional tire tests (braking distances, lap times, noise measurements), each result compared with every other tire in the same test and newer tests counting more. 40% comes from owner reviews found online, adjusted for how generously each site rates. Both use one scale: the average tested tire gets 70, the best 100. When a tire has only one of the two, the missing half is estimated from the other and the score stays closer to average; with no road test and fewer than five owner reviews it gets no score yet.

Handling is the exception: road tests measure it inside the dry and wet scores, so its own row comes from owner ratings only and starts as less important.

Community buzz from Reddit and forums is shown for context only — it never changes the score. Full methodology