2010 Winter Tire Tests

[outahere]

This link (also posted elsewhere I am sure) is not to a tire test, but it is very relevant to purchasing winter tires. It is a very good article about what the "snowflake in a mountain" symbol on the sidewall really tells the consumer (hint: not that much). For instance, a winter tire does not have to pass any kind of ice traction test to get the snowflake approval.

 

http://www.tirereview.com/Article/75478/with_changing_technology_oe_focus_do_old_winter_tire_standards_need_updating.aspx

 

Canada's Automobile Protection Association had this comment:

 

"Until recently, the snowflake on a mountain symbol was a reliable indicator of the winter performance of a tire. However, BF Goodrich, Goodyear, Michelin and Nokian now offer tires bearing the aforementioned symbol, which have tread patterns more typical of an all-season tire and are approved for year-round use. These all-season tires are not true winter tires. When new, they have sufficient tread depth to pass the snow test devised by the CRA. But they weren’t designed to confront really cold weather, and their performance diminishes over time as their tread is used up. If the CRA performance standard incorporated an ice test, these tires might not meet the requirements for the mountain and snowflake symbol. The standard needs to evolve so the winter tire designation doesn’t lose its significance, like the M+S symbol has."

[ssbtech]

While still better than most all-season tires, my Nokian WRG2 tires are definately not as good after two years as when they were new.

[TSiWRX]

Finally, finally, finally!!!! Trumpets are blowing and music is playing from the sky!!!!!

 

Thank you, outahere - I've been trying to find that article since I stumbled across it back in late July. I keep wanting to cite it in my various posts cautioning people from putting too much faith on that symbol - but could never find it.

 

THANK YOU!

[outahere]

Here is an interesting test from Russia of performance winters.

http://www.autoreview.ru/_archive/section/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=74504&SECTION_ID=2208

 

 

"We collected six sets of winter tires such as the European average - Continental ContiWinterContact TS 830, Goodyear Ultra Grip Performance 2, Pirelli Sottozero Serie II, Sava Eskimo S3, Toyo Snowprox S953, Vredestein Snowtrac the third was subjected to a standard test program. And to illustrate the main difference between these tires from the so-called Scandinavian, the tables with the results of each test, we present the averaged results shown on the same tracks studded and non-studded tires for the harsh winter. In addition, the trials took part worn tires Continental ContiWinterContact TS 810 with a residual tread depth of 5 mm."

[seabass07]

Anyone have anything good to say about green diamond icelanders? I don't feel like creating a thread to satisfy my curiosity...so any info?

[sfxnightmare]

First forum post here as I just bought a 2008 Legacy 2.5i yesterday. I have brand new Riken 205/50zr17 89w - Raptor zr - tires on it. Are these tires okay in the snow or will the chaincheck not allow me to pass in the snow? If not, what type of snow tires would you recommend I purchase? I live in a city so 90% of the year I'm on city streets and highways. I'd therefore like a dual purpose tire that won't eat away at gas mileage for the majority of the year.

 

Thanks!

[outahere]

Here is a Swedish test of 15 winter tires. A mix of studded, non-studdable, and performance winters.

 

http://extra.expressen.se/pdf/101109-dacktest.pdf

[outahere]

First forum post here as I just bought a 2008 Legacy 2.5i yesterday. I have brand new Riken 205/50zr17 89w - Raptor zr - tires on it. Are these tires okay in the snow ...........

 

They are UHP summers and will be dangerous in the snow. Nokian WRG2 would be a good choice for a year long tire with snow capability.

[seiyafan]

Before I always thought that UHP all season tires don't have as good snow traction as Touring tires, but how would you interpret that from this rest result: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=124 , the DWS is way ahead of the others so does it mean that it is as good as Michelin Primacy or even better in winter?

[outahere]

The DWS is ahead of the other 4 UHPAS tires in that test. If TR had included a performance winter and a standard all season in that same test, the DWS would have looked a lot less impressive on snow in comparison.

[dawkins20]

Based on these tests, has anyone ever seen a comparison of a very good A/S like the Conti extreme DWS or Nokian WRG2 versus a performance winter like the dunlop witersport or the michelin pilot alpin PA3? I understand none of these are true "snow tires" but I wanted to know how much difference there really is between these classes

[krzyss]

WR G2 is routinely tested among performance winter tires in European tests and usually (if not always) places in bottom half of contestants.

Its weaknesses are wet handling and snow lateral traction (if I remember correctly).

 

Krzys

[ssbtech]

The WRG2s are designed for places that see little snow and ice during the winter.

 

They're a true all-season tire that won't leave you stranded when it does snow unexpectedly unlike a lot of all-season tires. However, if you get more than a few feet of snow per year, having dedicated snow tires would be a better option.

 

The WRs are not good on ice because the harder rubber compound (and other design differences) is designed to last longer during the summer months.

[outahere]

Based on these tests, has anyone ever seen a comparison of a very good A/S like the Conti extreme DWS or Nokian WRG2 versus a performance winter like the dunlop witersport or the michelin pilot alpin PA3?........

 

Yes, see the Swedish test linked a few posts earlier, see the German ADAC tests, and see the Nov 2010 issue of CR

[outahere]

The WRG2s are designed for places that see little snow and ice during the winter.

 

They're a true all-season tire that won't leave you stranded when it does snow unexpectedly unlike a lot of all-season tires. However, if you get more than a few feet of snow per year, having dedicated snow tires would be a better option.

 

The WRs are not good on ice because the harder rubber compound (and other design differences) is designed to last longer during the summer months.

 

You obviously did not see the post at Nasioc from a Nokian dealer.

The WRG2 is the long awaited magical tire.

 

"all weather tyres would be the best for you Nokian wrg2 [.......] full out snow and ice traction no compromise on performance and you can run them year round aprox 50k millage much more in some cases"

[krzyss]

This dealer tires me.

 

Krzys

[09_Red_GT]

^ (rimshot)

[TSiWRX]

This dealer tires me.

 

+1.

 

I don't mind a hard sell. A person's gotta make a living.

 

But please get the facts right.

 

One of the things that I love to do, in person (i.e. "live"), is to trap a hard-sell salesperson into a corner, and make them eat their own words. Yeah, I know, I'm mean like that.

[Garandman]

You obviously did not see the post at Nasioc from a Nokian dealer.

The WRG2 is the long awaited magical tire.

 

"all weather tyres would be the best for you Nokian wrg2 [.......] full out snow and ice traction no compromise on performance and you can run them year round aprox 50k millage much more in some cases"

Have you owned them? Driven on them in ice/snow/rain/dry?

 

Unlike our online experts, I actually have them, and I have no affiliation with any dealer or any tire manufacturer. We run them year-round on a Honda Accord V6. We have another Honda Accord V6 with Nokian RSI's. For my WRX I have both WRG2's (17") and Nokian Hakka R's (16").

 

For the vast majority of people from Central New England down to the middle-Atlantic states who usually drive on roads that are not snow-covered, they are excellent. Much better winter traction than any all-seasons, and much better in the dry and wet than most winter tires. Like any other tire, don't expect much snow and ice traction once they've worn under 6/32nd / 4mm.

 

They do have some drawbacks. First, their ultimate grip is not as good as the best winter tires, but better than some pure winter tires. Second, they are noisier when they wear down then all-seasons. Finally, they are relatively expensive.

 

We have a work associate with an Outback who is in sales and covers from MA north to Quebec City. She wanted one set of tires, and we suggested the WR's. I think I got calls from her every two weeks over that winter to thank me. And she just replaced them with WRG2's. You will find a great deal of brand loyalty to Nokian because they work. I just purchased my eighth set. I used Contis for years (bought my first pair of new-fangled "Contacts" in 1979), and Michelins here and there, but the Nokians work very well in the real world. When you spend $1-2,000 a year on snow tires, that counts for something.

 

The first convenient snow storm (probably next week) we'll be able to compare Nokian RSI's, WRG2's, R's, Hankooks, and Yokohamas back-to-back-to-back on Subarus. Should be interesting. We each drive each car, take notes, and swap. We don't compare notes until the end. That's how we first wound up with Nokians.

 

WR G2 is routinely tested among performance winter tires in European tests and usually (if not always) places in bottom half of contestants.

Its weaknesses are wet handling and snow lateral traction (if I remember correctly).

 

Krzys

Citation needed. They tend to be middle-of-the-pack performers versus dedicated winter tires on various tests. They were the #1 rated Performance Winter on Consumer Reports, but their tests are not very predictive. In the ADAC winter test of 225/45r17, they're about in the middle. They were at the bottom-end of the Swedish test, but that test included studded tires and Nordic-spec tires. I don't believe the Norwegians tested them.

 

They all work, some people here just seem obsessed with test results. When you drive in real winter conditions those don't matter, because the conditions are always changing, around here, at least.

[robinlsb]

+1.

 

I don't mind a hard sell. A person's gotta make a living.

 

But please get the facts right.

 

One of the things that I love to do, in person (i.e. "live"), is to trap a hard-sell salesperson into a corner, and make them eat their own words. Yeah, I know, I'm mean like that.

 

:wub:

[TSiWRX]

 

WR G2 is routinely tested among performance winter tires in European tests and usually (if not always) places in bottom half of contestants.

Its weaknesses are wet handling and snow lateral traction (if I remember correctly).

 

Krzys

 

Citation needed. They tend to be middle-of-the-pack performers versus dedicated winter tires on various tests. They were the #1 rated Performance Winter on Consumer Reports, but their tests are not very predictive. In the ADAC winter test of 225/45r17, they're about in the middle. They were at the bottom-end of the Swedish test, but that test included studded tires and Nordic-spec tires. I don't believe the Norwegians tested them.

 

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpost.php?p=32730523&postcount=1558

 

all weather tyres would be the best for you Nokian wrg2 or the Vredestein quadtrac 3 the best of both worlds full out snow and ice traction no compromise on performance and you can run them year round aprox 50k millage much more in some cases

 

No such thing as a "no compromise on performance" tire. All-Weather tires such as the WRG2 and the Quadtrac have performance compromises, as do all seasons, and summer tires, and studded tires, etc. All-Weather tires do not have "full out snow and ice traction".

 

The Nokian WRG2 came in first place in the snow tire testing.And a question for you have you ever drivin the WR?

 

I will agree the Quad 3 has it's limitations.

 

...and later....

 

Consumer report.Nokian also dominated the euro testing.

 

If you are speaking of the WRG2, that's definitely not the case:

 

2010 and 2009 ADAC - perhaps the most highly regarded of the European "Performance Winter"/"Continental" tire tests - of the H-rated tires, it's second tier. Far from "dominating."

 

2010 Auto Bilde, the WRG2 was dead last of the 5 tires tested

 

2010 AMS slots the Pirelli SottoZero Serie II, Vredestein Quatrac3, and Nokian tires into virtually the same tier. Again, not a dominating finish, by any means.

 

The 2010 Auto Express results closely correlates with those seen in the 2010 AMS, with the WRG2 a bottom-tier finisher.

 

2010 Auto Zeitung - a top-third finish, but far from dominating, with three other tires deemed "better overall."

 

Dominating the European tests? Hardly.

 

Oh, and before you flame :diaf: again, you should search up how many times SubLGT - as well as myself - have recommended Nokian tires, including the WR and WRG2, not only in this community, but also others. :unamused:

 

Oh, and as for this year's Consumer Reports testing?

 

You do know that they rank "snow traction" only in terms of acceleration, right? no turns, no braking?

 

The truth of the matter is that this year in particular, to say that the CR data has been controversial is an understatement, particularly as it seems that virtually none of the respected European sources' data really jibes with it. That's a rather big can-of-worms to open (possible market-related differences in tire composition? the difference between V and H rated? as-tested? why does CR so steadfastly refuse to open their books, to let enthusiasts/hobbyists see the raw quantified data?).

 

And don't worry, everyone knows that I'm "LGT+WRX", on NASIOC.

 

They all work, some people here just seem obsessed with test results.

 

You were the one who brought up test results, on NASIOC:

 

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2078358

 

So, if test results aren't important for you, why would you have said:

 

Yes, I think we all got that reference to LegacyGT, since you've posted it five times. So what year SpecB do you own?

 

My intention was to make this a thread with the pertinent results of various winter tire reviews.

http://www.jerzeedevil.com/gallery/files/4/thread_failed.gif

 

What snow tires do you own?

 

:confused:

 

If test results aren't important to you, again, I ask, why did you bother to create such a thread?

 

:confused:

 

And yes, it's true:

 

When you drive in real winter conditions those don't matter, because the conditions are always changing, around here, at least.

 

Conditions *are* always changing, but those same conditions are accounted for in the various sub-components of each and every test: which, unlike the "real-world," works to eliminate subjective preferences/biases, and furthermore, allows actual "hard-numbers" quantification of data.

 

By studying the various tests, we can hope to identify areas where one tire is stronger or weaker than another, and in doing so, can match a specific tire to our specific driving needs and preferences.

 

Road conditions are always varying - by that statement alone, *NO* tire is better/best.

 

It is, instead, towards specific situations/circumstances where those who buy tires must try to fit their purchase towards:

 

Fear ice, with temperatures hovering around freezing? studded tires are the way to go - live in an area where the temperature is well below 5 deg. F. all winter long? then the story changes to a "Studless Ice & Snow."

 

See significant snowfall, but you live in an area where roads are cleared quickly and efficiently, and you routinely commute for 20+ miles on the highway? a "Performance Winter" would likely be a better bet.

 

Live in an area that rarely sees any true frozen precipitation, but you still need some winter-precip. capabilities? An "All-Weather" may be a better solution than even the most aggressively winterized all-season.

 

Live in an area that's truly mild, and you have the luxury of staying home when it's bad out? Go for an all-season or even a less-aggressively compounded "summer" tire, to hope to achieve best-safety under the widest scope of warmer weather conditions.

 

The real world varies, but it is through the basic break-downs of each performance task into its most basic and elemental structures that we are able to judge a tire's best-fit capabilities to any one - or multiple/varying - real-world scenario.

[krzyss]

I do read and analyse test results because I cannot test all tires myself.

I wish I could afford it but I can't.

 

Krzys

[Garandman]

Been running the WRG2 for a couple of years now. Tread down to 7/32" (I think they start at 11/32" or something.

 

Expecting a colder winter here than normal. What usually happens is the snow falls for a couple of days then turns to ice/ice with snow on top. Lots of hills here and the road crews aren't always on top of things.

 

The G2's are good in the deeper snow, handle sluch well but ice traction is the G2's achilles heel. Combined with an already tail-happy, understeering Subaru, I'd like better ice traction.

 

A lot of the Nokian reviews seem to be in foreign languages, so I was wondering what the general consensus is on the Hakkapeliitta R especially when it comes to ice.

 

I don't want anything studded as a lot of our winter is just rain/dry as well.

If you filled out your profile with what car you have and where you live that would be helpful.

 

I just put the Nokian R's on my WRX. I went to 16" as I punched a hole in the sidewall of the 17" WRG2's early 09. While it was covered under their road damage warranty, I didn't want to be stuck in East Bumf#ck ME some Friday afternoon with a flat.

 

I'd previously driven our Ford Transit Connect with Hakka R's and was extremely impressed. They're excellent winter tires but much quieter than the RSI's and based on mpg, seem to have low rolling resistance. We recently purchased some X-Ice and they're quiet as well: the biggest difference I noted was the X-Ice has 10/32nd tread depth versus 12/32nd for most Nokians. In the past we've gotten an extra season out of them relative to the "old" X-Ice.

 

If your car is both "tail happy" and "understeering" I'd get a four wheel alignment done. If you have a rear wheel "off" it seems to make quite a difference on wet, icy or snowy roads. I found the WRX to understeer less with the WRG2's than the stock Dunlops.

[outahere]

Have you owned them? Driven on them in ice/snow/rain/dry?...............

 

No, I have not driven them. Personal experience is not a prerequisite for offering an informed opinion. I have no personal experience of walking on the moon, yet I can be 100% certain that it is not covered in vanilla yogurt. I have no personal experience driving a F1 slick tire on ice, but I can be 100% certain that it will be useless on ice.

 

You have an irrational disdain towards tire testing. Your Nokian tires would not have the performance you so love, without testing and data collection during their development.

[Garandman]

No, based on a lot of experience driving these tires, I offer that folks draw conclusions that are too definite from tests where the user is not given the raw test data. In short, some of the tests suck.

 

And I do so based on actually shelling out money for the tires in question and using them in the real world, not a blithely offered conclusion.

 

It seems one of you at least endlessly restates advice based on conclusions drawn on unknown assumptions. In the case of Consumer Reports, in response to a question on their forums, their rankings of tires includes data not shown in their tables.

 

Some tests are better than others. Some of the Scandinavian magazines post the raw test results so you can see for yourself what the actual stopping distance was, or the actual skip pad time, and can compare the results you are interested in. ADAC doesn't give you the raw data, but does give you the weights they use and individual scores in those categories so you can also draw some conclusions based on your use. And the tirerack videos showing the same car in real world conditions with different tires gives you a LOT more information.

 

And while many give a wear "rating" there are precious few who continue to test the tire while it wears. Again, some of the Scandinavian tests have done so - but Nordic conditions differ greatly from the conditions that most Americans drive under and only some of the products are offered here.

 

But sense we are offering opinions, I'll opine that you and WRX+LGT have made yourselves the resident "experts" on snow tire selection and bludgeon anyone who disagrees with your conclusions.

 

How about we agree that test data is useful to create a short list of tires that will do the job, but real-world considerations may make one more compelling than another? In that circumstance, actual life, actual price, and actual resale value come into play.