Complete Winter Tire Test Review

[sputnik]

[quote name='outahere']I have re-read this thread from a year ago, and it is one of the better threads on winter tires, and it deserves a resurrection. :) The links to other websites also provided some very interesting reading.[/QUOTE] To help in the resurrection effort, here's another link to a TireRack summary of winter tires on MB forum: [url]http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=86973[/url]

[sputnik]

Sorry if it was already quoted elsewhere but here's an excellent thread from NASIOC of personal experiences with different winter tires (includes many reviews of Nokian WR, Dunlop M2/M3 and Blizzaks): [url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=449392[/url]

[LGT Chris]

I've decided to go with the Dunlop Winter Sport M3 at 205/55/17. Highly rated with a good price. I'll post a review once the snow starts flying.

[outahere]

And here is the link to the summarized test results of H speed rated winter tires, from the German Auto Club: [url]http://www.adac.de/Tests/Reifentests/Winterreifen/205-55-R16-HT-2004-10/tab.asp?ComponentID=94934&SourcePageID=94888[/url] I just ordered a set of Blizzak LM25 in 215/45x17, and will also report on them in the future.

[emlevins]

[quote name='sputnik']To help in the resurrection effort, here's another link to a TireRack summary of winter tires on MB forum: [url="http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=86973"]http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=86973[/url][/QUOTE] TireRack does not sell Nokian's and so those are not in the mix here....but might be a viable option as well.

[sputnik]

Here's another test from Norway. It does not cover new performance-oriented winter tires but gives another dimension for comparison (ratings are 1 to 6 from worst to best): [url]http://www.bilnorge.no/vis_artikkel.php3?aid=19440&tid=[/url]

[outahere]

The TireRack recently posted test results for the new Blizzak REVO 1, compared to the WS50, the Dunlop Graspic DS-2, and the Michelin X-ICE. In their limited testing, mostly on ice (no testing in snow) the REVO came out on top, and the DS-2 was last. [url]http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/bs_blizzak_revo1.jsp[/url]

[sputnik]

Here's a test from a Colorado TV station: [url]http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_041145025.html[/url]

[sputnik]

Here's a take on Nokian RSIs from another great snow tires' site: [url]http://www.snowtire.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56&sid=4c3f42c2195523be5ccda3efbb89b0ab[/url] When I talked to a Nokian rep to see if I should get RSIs or WRs, he was trying to discourage me from getting RSIs saying that in most part of the US they are overkill. He mentioned that one of their distributors in Northeast likes to go to snow rallies and normally he uses WRs but one time he decided to try RSIs and afterwards said that he's going back to WRs. RSIs simply had too much grip to be any fun.

[highwaydrifter]

[quote name='outahere']The TireRack recently posted test results for the new Blizzak REVO 1, compared to the WS50, the Dunlop Graspic DS-2, and the Michelin X-ICE. In their limited testing, mostly on ice (no testing in snow) the REVO came out on top, and the DS-2 was last. [url]http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/bs_blizzak_revo1.jsp[/url][/QUOTE] if luke wasnt such an asshat i would totaly support them.. but seeing how he is a complete asshat by trying to censor competing products on nasioc i have to give him the asshat of the year award.. (he deleted my nokian deal thread, and then gave me 5 warning points for posting the deal) total dick move.. he then posted those two winter tire reviews right after he did that. Talk about shady, i will NEVER BUY FROM TIRE RACK EVER AGAIN

[highwaydrifter]

Nokian RSI review [url]http://snowtire.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56&sid=c748190a9eb394e20d804607948bf11a[/url] Nokian WR review [url]http://snowtire.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9&highlight=nokian+wr[/url]

[outahere]

See [url]http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/bil/story/0,2789,709278,00.html[/url] for the results of 2005 testing in Sweden of winter tires. The Swedish publication Aftonbladet has a reputation for doing thorough and demanding winter tire testing testing, but unfortunately I do not read Swedish. Anybody out there who can translate? Cosumersearch.com has the following to say: "However, in the stringent tests conducted by Sweden's Aftonbladet newspaper, the Blizzak shows its age. Although editors say the Blizzak WS-50 was an icon a decade ago, it no longer compares as well to newer technology. In terms of ice and snow braking and acceleration, the Blizzak was the worst in the test group. Tires easily lost traction in icy slush. In fact, Aftonbladet's review found nothing positive about the Blizzak WS-50 compared to other non-studded tires like the top-performing Continental Viking Contact 3 (not available in the U.S.), Gislaved SoftFrost 2 (*est. $85), Nokian Hakkapeliitta RSi (*est. $90) and Michelin X-Ice" "In the most recent tests, several non-studded tires come close to matching studded tires for performance on ice. Improvements in materials and tread design help boost ice traction. At Aftonbladet, the top non-studded tire, the Continental Viking Contact 3, isn't available in the U.S., but the Gislaved SoftFrost 2 (*est. $85) is. Swedish Gislaved tires are marketed in the United States by Continental, but they are sometimes hard to find. Two more widely available tires tie in performance with the Continental and the Gislaved tires, the Nokian Hakkapeliitta RSi (*est. $90) and the Michelin X-Ice (*est. $80). Reviews say the Nokian Hakkapeliitta RSi is a high quality non-studded tire, with excellent ice braking and acceleration, aw well as very good snow traction. The Nokian also rides a bit better and is quieter than some other winter tires. The one area where the Nokian does not excel is on wet asphalt, where it is more prone to hydroplaning than others. The Michelin X-Ice replaced Michelin's popular Arctic Alpin series last year and has since received excellent reviews overall. Editors at Aftonbladet say the X-Ice really has no serious drawbacks, with very good ice and snow traction. Testers say the Michelin X-Ice is a very predictable tire, which means handlng is controlled and calm. As with the Nokian, the Michelin is best for harsh winters; it doesn't do as well on wet and dry asphalt, where it can be prone to hydroplaning." "Among studded snow tires, there are several excellent options, however. In fact, in Aftonbladet's latest 2005 winter-tire test, it's a five-way tie for first, though several of these aren't sold in the U.S, including the Michelin X-Ice North, Continental Winter Viking 2 and Uniroyal MS Plus Nordic. The Gislaved NordFrost 3 (*est. $90) and Nokian Hakkapeliitta 4 (*est. $90) can be found in the U.S. In reviews, the Nokian Hakkapeliitta 4 never loses grip and is easy to control. The Gislaved NordFrost 3 is its equal, with fast responsiveness and excellent grip in snow and ice. The Pirelli Winter Carving (*est. $70) ranks a bit behind the Nokian and Gislaved, but it's also a little less expensive."

[rporter]

Overall, I'm not sure that tests in Sweden have a lot of relevance here, except for the very northernmost sections of the US. And studded tires are illegal about everywhere. Before I got the deal on the slightly-used Hankook Icebears, I was looking at the WS-50, rather than their LM series. With the driving that I will have in northern MI this year, I wanted better snow traction, and screw the dry performance. If I spent the winter here in the Detroit area, I wouldn't even bother with anything other than a/s tires. Dry handlng in the cold is a misnomer anyway. NO tire handles worth a squat when the temps are below freezing. We tend to get ice early (like the week of Thanksgiving) and late in the season around April. Unless I wanted to have 2-3 sets of winter-only tires to switch around, I accept that a decent snow tire may not work the best on ice, or dry pavement, and the same with a better ice tire, or one that has better dry performance and sacrifices snow & ice performance. Pick your own poison. I do well enough to have summer-only tires, plus a winter set on the stock rims. I'll bet that any winter tire willl do better than the RE92s.

[Were Here]

[quote name='nicd']:clap: Nice guy as I am, I translated the latest, yearly mega-comparision of winter tires from Swedish into English. <snip> Hhmmm ... Home town brand came out on top. I should begin by saying I put studded Hakka 1's on my WRX and they were fine - when there was snow or ice on the roadway. Otherwise, they were too much of a compromise at 42-45N. I put Dunlop Wintersport M3's on my STi and felt that I could safely cruise well into 3-digits (on dry roads, of course) on Maine's "Airline", they were excellent in snow and adequate on ice. More importantly, they weren't the compromise that dedicated snow/ice tires are on dry roads (where 90% of my winter driving takes place). Fortunately, they fit the LGT and didn't go with the guy who bought my STi. They're mounted on 17 x 7 Tarmac II's (bronze) and look nearly as nice on a white LGT as the Spec B's wheels. IMHO.

[outahere]

[quote name='rporter']........... And studded tires are illegal about everywhere...........[/QUOTE] Not true. From the Washington Department of Transportation: "Nationwide, 24 states allow studded tire use for at least part of the year. Other states, most notably the snowy climate states of Minnesota and Michigan, have banned studded tires since 1972 and 1974 respectively. Both states banned studded tires due to pavement wear. Neither state has allowed the reintroduction of studded tires."

[rporter]

[quote name='outahere']Not true. From the Washington Department of Transportation: "Nationwide, 24 states allow studded tire use for at least part of the year. Other states, most notably the snowy climate states of Minnesota and Michigan, have banned studded tires since 1972 and 1974 respectively. Both states banned studded tires due to pavement wear. Neither state has allowed the reintroduction of studded tires."[/QUOTE] Well, OK....I'll "sorta" take back what I said. Here's a lst of states and regs: [url]http://www.rma.org/tire_safety/tire_maintenance_and_safety/seasonal_driving_tips/regulations_2004.cfm[/url] Or, in a small URL: [url]http://tinyurl.com/7ehvg[/url] States like MI, WI, and MN prohibit. Some states are only when "ice & snow are on the roads"......yeah, like who determines that, and do you want to change your wheels 2x-3x a week?? And do we care that states like Louisiana and Mississippi allow studs? Besides, with some of the snow tire testing, they cmplain about dry pavement handling. FWIW, I had studded tires in the early '70s in MI on my AMX. Talk about squirrely handling!!

[outahere]

Here is a link to a test of non studded and studded winter tire tests, from Sep 2005, done by Motor magazine in Norway. A PDF file is available when you click on "vinterdekktest 2005" [url]http://www.motor.no/templates/pdf.cfm?kat_id=3[/url] Unfortunately, they tested the Blizzak WS50 instead of the newer Revo1 (probably not available yet over there). The WS50 had the lowest total score out of 20 tires tested. It is time for bridgestone to retire the WS50. The top four non studded tires were (1)Continental Conti Viking Contact3, (2)Gislaved Soft Frost2, (3)the Nokian RSi, and (4)Michelin X-Ice

[Bici OBXT]

[SIZE=2]Thanks for the all the links to tests and reviews.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2][/SIZE] [SIZE=2]It's interesting to read all the incredibly bad comments about the Blizzak WS-50s. I've had nothing but success with them on ice and snow.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2][/SIZE] [SIZE=2]The claim that they're "...an outright traffic danger..." on dry-pavement is a bit farfetched. They may not handle as well as performance or even all-season tires on dry-pavement, however they're far from being dangerous.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2][/SIZE] [SIZE=2]If you avoid burn-outs and extremely hard cornering, IMO, you'll be fine: these tires will treat you well.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2][/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Bridgestone should [I]not[/I] retire these tires, no pun, nor should you discount them as a serious possibility for excellent snows.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2][/SIZE] [SIZE=2] [/SIZE]

[rporter]

[quote name='Bici OBXT'][SIZE=2]Thanks for the all the links to tests and reviews.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]It's interesting to read all the incredibly bad comments about the Blizzak WS-50s. I've had nothing but success with them on ice and snow.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]The claim that they're "...an outright traffic danger..." on dry-pavement is a bit farfetched. They may not handle as well as performance or even all-season tires on dry-pavement, however they're far from being dangerous.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]If you avoid burn-outs and extremely hard cornering, IMO, you'll be fine: these tires will treat you well.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Bridgestone should [I]not[/I] retire these tires, no pun, nor should you discount them as a serious possibility for excellent snows.[/SIZE] [/quote] I agree. The couple of tests that I looked at knocked them for their dry performance, but snow performance was great. I was gong to get a set, rather than the LMs, before a got a deal on these slightly-used Icebears. Screw dry performance in winter, I'm buying winter tires because I need to get through the snow. If I was in town all winter and only commuted around the area, I would never even bother with winter tires, I would just go with "good" (meaning about anything other than RE92s) all-seasons for the winter.

[firedawgs]

I just put on Nitto SN-N1 snow 225/40/18. They just came out so there is no reviews. I guess I will be doing my own independent test.

[outahere]

[quote name='Bici OBXT'][SIZE=2]Thanks for the all the links to tests and reviews.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2][/SIZE] [SIZE=2]It's interesting to read all the incredibly bad comments about the Blizzak WS-50s. I've had nothing but success with them on ice and snow.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2][/SIZE] [SIZE=2]The claim that they're "...an outright traffic danger..." on dry-pavement is a bit farfetched. They may not handle as well as performance or even all-season tires on dry-pavement, however they're far from being dangerous.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2][/SIZE] [SIZE=2]If you avoid burn-outs and extremely hard cornering, IMO, you'll be fine: these tires will treat you well.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2][/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Bridgestone should [I]not[/I] retire these tires, no pun, nor should you discount them as a serious possibility for excellent snows.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2][/SIZE] [SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/QUOTE] The Revo1 is the upgraded replacement for the WS50, and thus the retirement of the WS50 has begun. I would be surprised if Bridgestone manufactured any more WS50 tires in 2006. I can see no compelling reason to buy the WS50 now, when there are superior alternatives available from Bridgestone, Michelin, Nokian, and Gislaved.

[Garandman]

I bought RSI's for my new OBW because we had great success with them on a company Accord V6 last winter. Within two days we got a bad storm and the combination of excellent snow tires and AWD was great. Just to experiment we put X-Ice on a company 05 Nissan Quest minivan. It's the "non-minivan" in the way it drives, with very direct steering, pretty stiff suspension and the 3.5l Nissan V6. Yesterday we drove the Quest to Northern NH from Boston. In our apples and oranges comparison, they seem a little quieter than the RSI's,but not a big difference in dry road ride or handling. Today we drove back, initially in heavy snow, changing to rain. The X-Ice were very confidence inspiring, with very good traction and excellent snow and ice braking. They seem quite resistant to hydroplaning as well. Another tire that is gaining adherents around here is the Yokohama Ice Guard, but I only know one person with them. I spoke to the the Nokian dealer (who sells Michelin as well as others) and he said RSI's are the Gold Standard in studless snows are far as his customers are concerned. We bought the X-Ice at NTB in Manchester NH and the salesperson there commented that "I wish we could sell Nokians" and that he thought they lasted longer than the X-Ice. All three of the sets we have are fairly new so I can't comment on that yet. We are measuring tread depth relative to mileage. We put the snows on December 1 and take them off March 20 as we assume the warmer temps and dry roads eat them up.

[LittleBlueGT]

I got RSIs on my Mazda MPV. Best winter tires I have ever tried, period. (tried PA2, GW3, Blizzak, BFG, M3) Of course I don't have these on my LGT because I need performance winter tires. If you don't performance winter tires get the RSIs. Even on ice they are not too bad.

[rporter]

[quote name='LittleBlueGT']I got RSIs on my Mazda MPV. Best winter tires I have ever tried, period. (tried PA2, GW3, Blizzak, BFG, M3) Of course I don't have these on my LGT because I need performance winter tires. If you don't performance winter tires get the RSIs. Even on ice they are not too bad.[/quote] ???? If you need good snow performance, why bother with performace tires? I was going to go with the WS-50s, rather than the LMs, just to get better snow performance.....screw the dry performance in the winter. the LGT doesn't "neeed" performance winter tires. Yes, my dentist gets LMs on his M5, but he doesn't need snow tires for his commute, anyway.

[LittleBlueGT]

I live in Winnipeg Canada, we get a fair bit of snow (-40 at times) and the snow does not go away until spring. If my wife drove the car it would have RSIs on it. Even though we have snow all winter, for about half the winter we are driving on dry pavement. It is during those times that I care about the performance, and I don't want to wear out my soft normal winters in 30 mins of hard driving. (when Blizzaks first came around '97 I saw someone wreck them in 10 mins on an Acura Vigor) I have chosen the Dunlop M3s and am reasonably happy with them. The RSIs are a much better winter performer though, but the M3s are still a god winter tire. My MPV equiped with RSIs will out-brake my LGT, but the LGT will out-accelerate the MPV on snow or ice.