jim1969 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I need to replace tires on my wife's minivan. My options are the Yokohama Avid TRZ or the Nokian WR SUV. I'm leaning toward the Nokians. I will run one set of tires. I live near NYC. Not a lot of snow but we get some. Mainly packed plowed stuff or slush. Thanks for the input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 You should consider the ContiExtremes if they come in the size you're looking for. Very good in snow and wet and pretty decent in the dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim1969 Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 I need 225/60/17. My choices are limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim1969 Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 The WR's are good on packed stuff and slush, but their weak point is ice. would they be better on ice than the average a/s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goneskiian Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Yes. They're weak on ice compared to a dedicated snow/ice tire but much better than an a/s tire. Guess I need to start thinking about getting mine out and back on the car! Cheers! -Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slissner Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I had an Audi and a Subaru, both with Nokian WR, which are really all-season tires certified (snowflake on sidewall) for use in snow. They are not as good in winter as Nokian's snow tires, but they are good, if not outstanding, during other seasons. Mounting summer tires on both cars made the warm weather performance of the Nokian WR tires seem disappointing. On the other, for four-season use, the WR tires are a good compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siper2 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Right. I'd say that the WR far exceeds most A/S tires in the snow, but conversely is less of a performer in the summer than many A/S tires are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fweasel Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I use my Nokian WR's for the cold winter months only. They did very well last season in the Chicago winter. Not a lot of snow, mostly nasty slush. They also do better in the late fall and early spring when its too warm for snow, but not warm enough for summer tires. ignore him, he'll go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjundi Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 A minivan is a good application for the WR in non-winter months due to non performance nature. A car with any performance intentions they are a definite let down on dry and hot days. I had a set on my wife's previous Civic year round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmcferon Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I had a set of WRs on a small light car and they lasted only 10,000 miles. Mostly highway miles 70/30 mix of dry/snow. I was not happy considering the price for a set. I have to say that they are very good in the snow and wet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjundi Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I had a set of WRs on a small light car and they lasted only 10,000 miles. Mostly highway miles 70/30 mix of dry/snow. I was not happy considering the price for a set. I have to say that they are very good in the snow and wet. Was your vehicle aligned or in an accident prior? I had one set on 96 Civic and got 52k out one set in the T-rated version. Our other H-rated set on my 95 Civic EX got 48k miles. Both Civic's ran the tires year round. Anytime you get short tread life like that its the vehicle or driver style. Also Nokian warranties the tires up to the H-rated versions to 50k miles. One warning to any Nokian WR buyer is to rotate the tires on a regular basis. They get quite noisy and are less tolerant to lax rotations. This was told to me by my local dealer who sells many many of the Nokain WR's to his customers. I found it true when I gave up on my Civic when I gave up maintaining except oil changes every 10k miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmcferon Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Was your vehicle aligned or in an accident prior? I had one set on 96 Civic and got 52k out one set in the T-rated version. Our other H-rated set on my 95 Civic EX got 48k miles. Both Civic's ran the tires year round. Tires were put on a 2004 Chevy Aveo that I bought new. The vehicle was never wrecked or abused. I used it to commute 110 miles to work. The car had 3,000 miles on it when the tires were installed and they were maintained (tire pressure and rotation) by the installing dealer. When I questioned the dealer about the wear I was told that it was unusual and I could get a pro-rata warranty on the purchase of another set of WRs. No refund was offered. I decided to pass on that deal. Others have had great experiences with their Nokians. Me, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Is the maximum speed rating of WRs only "H"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjundi Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Is the maximum speed rating of WRs only "H"? No its V-rated in the stock LGT size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underpowerd Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 They do wear pretty fast off season; ran mine all year (maybe 15K) and if I didn't need to change them now from curbing two of 'em, I believe I'd have only been able to eek out 1 more slow-wearing winter at best. My experience is their weak point is gravel/smaller sandish aggregates (like puddle deposits) -- maybe it clogs the sipes. Very good snow/wet, and very quiet. The sidewalls are soft/nylon, too, which makes for a caddy-like ride, but for a pothole tire, I'd rate them a 6/10 -- had 1 bubble, and the outer sidewalls will rip if you breathe on wrong them due to the soft compound. Expect a small bit of a slowdown in accel/cornering from regular stock size a/s. Don't know about the 215s, but my 225s were not v-rated. I'd say above average all around though, made me feel safe/comfortable for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Fan Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 "The nice thing about havign a tire with the snowflake thing on the side is that insurance companies will have one less thing to blame you for if there is a collision (aka, you weren't running winter tires so it is your fault...)" Actually the little "Snowflake" doesn't mean a thing in Canada......The law states that any tire that is "Sold as, or held out to be a winter tire is a winter tire" That is determined by the "M&S" markings on the sidewall.....that is the manufacturer's designation for Mud & Snow........all the little symbols are just advertising......now you know why so many idiots get stuck or crash even though they are equipped with "Winter tires":( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjundi Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 "The nice thing about havign a tire with the snowflake thing on the side is that insurance companies will have one less thing to blame you for if there is a collision (aka, you weren't running winter tires so it is your fault...)" Actually the little "Snowflake" doesn't mean a thing in Canada......The law states that any tire that is "Sold as, or held out to be a winter tire is a winter tire" That is determined by the "M&S" markings on the sidewall.....that is the manufacturer's designation for Mud & Snow........all the little symbols are just advertising......now you know why so many idiots get stuck or crash even though they are equipped with "Winter tires":( http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tires/wintertires/menu.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Fan Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tires/wintertires/menu.htm From S. 208 of the BC Motor Vehicle Act Safety equipment 208 (1) For the purpose of this section, "winter tire" means a tire that is (a) advertised or represented by its manufacturer or a person in the business of selling tires to be a tire intended principally for winter use, and that provides, or is designed to provide, adequate traction in snow or mud; and (b) in the condition respecting tread wear and other particulars the regulations prescribe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.