jim1969 Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 How do these all-seasons match up to the Toyo Proxes 4, Pirelli PZero Nero M+S and Falken Ziex ZE 512? Dry? Wet? Snow? Handling? Noise? Wear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerGT2.5 Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Will do better in the snow and slush....but will wear faster on dry pavement. OBAMA......One Big Ass Mistake America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeLoo Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 I don't think Nokians WR are intended as a performance tire like the others you're mentionning. You're comparing an orange against apples. 2005 Legacy GT Wagon Ltd 5EAT Garnet Red 1999 GTI VR6 Black - sold but not forgotten... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanoswrx Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 The Nokian WR's are all season tires rated as snow tires as well. They will perform much better in the snow then the tires you listed above (Nero's/Proxes 4's/Ziex). But the trade off will be probably a less performance in the dry. From what I have read on the Nokian's they last a long time, and the WR's can actually be run year round so they should have just as good of tread life as the others. I think if you are looking for a winter tire but also want decent dry/wet traction the WR's are for you. If all you see is cold weather but little to no snow, then any all season tire would work better. Just comes down to how much snow you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 The WRs are awesome. I ran them, and ran them hard, last year. They start getting squirmy once the speedometer passes 100. Nokian bills them as an "all-weather" tire, which means all-season, but they also are the only all-season to get the vaunted snowflake on the sidewall, which means it will do well in the white stuff. They also have a 50,000-mile treadlife guarantee, which is quite impressive. They weren't as good a snow tire as my WS Blizzaks, but duh. They were also a much better dry tire than the Blizzaks. But given the reasons I would be purchasing a snow tire, I would rather slow down a bit in the dry, than be compromised in the snow. In about 5" of wet, slushy snow last year, conditions in which the Blizzaks would have driven around like all was pretty close to normal, the WRs were a bit slippy. The high silica content and siping makes them a very good inclement weather tire. Hope that helps, Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim1969 Posted September 29, 2004 Author Share Posted September 29, 2004 I live on Long Island,NY (east of NYC). We regularly don't get a lot of snow but the past few winters have given us a few good snows. Would you consider handling in slush more a factor of snow or wet handling properties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerGT2.5 Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 If you live in Chi-town you can get these tires for $175 a piece (mount and balance included) in 215/45/17..:) Although I'm still debating about these some Blizzaks, and the Toyo Garrit HT OBAMA......One Big Ass Mistake America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rao Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 For $175 each they better be gold plated :lol: Rob   IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR CAR YOU SHOULD NEVER DRIVE IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 [quote name='jim1969']I live on Long Island,NY (east of NYC). We regularly don't get a lot of snow but the past few winters have given us a few good snows. Would you consider handling in slush more a factor of snow or wet handling properties?[/quote] Snow handling. The tires get all gummed up with the slush. rao, I didn't say they were cheap, just good. The stock WRX size was $150 per tire. I haven't priced the GT stock size. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malachii Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 The WR's are a fantastic tire when considering winter use. They handle amazingly well in the dry for a 'winter' tire, but not as well as the other tires you are listing. I use them as my winter tires. I change to dedicated summers when springtime comes around. Last winter I had two comparable cars in my driveway. One was shod with Michelin Arctic Alpin snow tires, the other with Nokian WR "All-Weather" tires. One of the cars had RE92's on during the summer so I can compare against those as well. Let me summarize for you with some numbers that I'm basing on my personal experience - others will disagree to some extent, but I'm sure agree with the general idea. The nokians were 90% as good as the michelins in snow. The nokians were 200% as good as the michelins on cleared roads. The nokians lasted 150% as long as the michelins. The nokians are 90% as good as the RE92's in the dry. Both tires are MUCH MUCH better in the snow than regular all seasons. So if you live in an area that clears the roads fairly well (an urban environment), then I STRONGLY suggest buying the WR's. If you live in a rural area, then a dedicated snow tire like the alpin or blizzak is probably the better choice. The price of the WR might be high, but it is offset by the tire's durability. I'm getting a set this winter on my new 2005 GT - I live in Toronto, which gets lots of snow in the winter, but it doesn't stay on the ground for long. Mal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malachii Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Oh yeah - the pricing of the tire should be around $150 US since I can buy them from Steelcase Tire in Toronto for $200 Canadian. Of course this is a good price I'm getting. Mal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim1969 Posted September 29, 2004 Author Share Posted September 29, 2004 For a Legacy they run $190+ each installed where I live. I've priced them at a couple of places. The Pirelli's would run me about $139 and the Toyos $108. Big difference. How do they compare in handling to the RE92's? That's the only benchmark I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerGT2.5 Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 [quote name='jim1969']For a Legacy they run $190+ each installed where I live. I've priced them at a couple of places. The Pirelli's would run me about $139 and the Toyos $108. Big difference. How do they compare in handling to the RE92's? That's the only benchmark I have.[/quote] Wooden wheels handle better than the RE92's. :P OBAMA......One Big Ass Mistake America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim1969 Posted September 30, 2004 Author Share Posted September 30, 2004 cheaper too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptplt Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 seems to depend a lot on the car, I have NRWs (the WRs predecessor) on a 98 Legacy, 2 winter seasons and only half worn if that (maybe 12K total on them). I have WRs on a 00 Windstar, after 1 winter and this summer they are half worn already after 10K! 50K warranty my foot! I have Hakka CS on a Winnebago Rialta, after 4K the drive tires are half worn! I'm not optimistic on their having great tread wear on heavy vehicles! I'd still buy them but forget the great tread wear hype! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerGT2.5 Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 [quote name='jim1969']cheaper too.[/quote] LMAO... :lol: OBAMA......One Big Ass Mistake America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.