Need suggestions for Winter Tires

[Geordon]

Winter IPike W409 235/45 R17, they are cheap and great winter tires. I've driven with these on several vehicles and loved them. They are on my taurus right now, cost $65 each from the local service station/tire place. I bet the 17's will be a bit more though.

Those studdables look like truck tires. You are right that the 17s are a lot more. For Hankook, I think I would go with Ice Bear W300.

[bluemax_1]

I second the Nokian recommendation. Screw Blizzaks.

Ran non-studded Nokian Hakka RSi's for 3 winters and those things were friggin great, Could have used them for at least 1 more winter but I got a sidewall puncture so I replaced all 4 to maintain rolling circumference for the AWD. Replaced the Hakka RSi's with the Hakka R and these puppies are awesome too.

For ultimatre winter performance, I would go with either Nokian (Hakka R if you see quite a lot of snow and ice and can't run studded tires), studded Nokian Hakka 5's if you CAN run studded tires and see a lot of icy (and snowy) roads (mountain folks like in Colorado or Utah). And for folks who occasionally see snowfall but don't get THAT much of it (or your city clears snow very efficiently), Dunlop 3D's. The Dunlops are decent in snow (better than all-seasons) but nowhere near the Nokians. Their forte is the middle ground where you want decent performance on cold but dry roads.

As with Blizzaks, the Nokians are a dedicated winter tire and they're squirmy on dry roads, where the Dunlop M3 (and newer 3D) handle like a lower to mid-level all-season in the dry, and a decent winter tire in snow/ice. So Nokian for ultimate snow/ice traction, but poorer dry handling or 3D for better dry handling with decent snow/ice traction.

Unless something has changed with the Bridgestone WS-70, the reason to not really bother with Blizzaks is because their grip is based on their multicell rubber compound which only accounts for the outer part of the tread. Once this compound is worn away, you're left with a tire that performs like a low to mid level all-season (as opposed to winter tire) in snow and ice. The mutlicel compound on Blizzaks wears pretty quick, and you want to make sure you swap 'em out when the weather warms up to the point you don't hit freezing temps anymore. Above 60f, they wear super fast.

The Nokian compound on the other hand is the full tread depth, and wears much better than the Blizzaks. The 3 winter seasons that I drove on the Hakka RSi included one summer where while waiting for new summer tires, I daily drove the Hakka RSi into the middle of June. As I mentioned, they could have easily been run for another winter with stellar winter grip if not for the unrepairable puncture (stupid screw). Blizzaks have shitty winter traction by the 3rd winter even when you DO make sure to change them out when it gets warmer.

BTW, the Hakka R and RSi are not going to be up to par with good studded tires on smooth ice (nothing is), but in the snow, I didn't encounter anything that could accelerate or turn like the VR4 (including trucks and SUV's) with those tiresand there were always folks who would try from a stoplight. They'd see me take off and I'd hear their engines rumble/roar louder when their egos wouldn't allow the low slung sportscar to out accelerate them in 6" of snow. Fat chance. Like I said, none of them could keep up. The VR4 accelerated in 4-6" of snow as hard, or harder than, a regular car could accelerate on dry pavement in the summer time.

If you're interested in the Nokian Hakka's, you can look on google. There are numerous folks who've come to the same conclusion after switching from Blizzaks: reasonably comparable performance on ice when new, similar or not quite as good as Hakka's in snow, Hakka's winter traction last at least twice as long.

BTW, it's possible that the Nokian WRG2 might be a great tire for the same conditions Dunlop 3D's are good for, but I've never tried them. My personal philosphy (with the lake effect snow here in southwest MI), is that I'd rather have the absolute best snow/ice traction I can buy for when there IS crap on the roads, and I'm not going to be driving like a nut on dry roads in the winter time anyway (although I will admit, I like driving like a nut when there's 4"+ of snow).


Max

[colt45 gto]

I second the Nokian recommendation. Screw Blizzaks.

Ran non-studded Nokian Hakka RSi's for 3 winters and those things were friggin great, Could have used them for at least 1 more winter but I got a sidewall puncture so I replaced all 4 to maintain rolling circumference for the AWD. Replaced the Hakka RSi's with the Hakka R and these puppies are awesome too.

For ultimatre winter performance, I would go with either Nokian (Hakka R if you see quite a lot of snow and ice and can't run studded tires), studded Nokian Hakka 5's if you CAN run studded tires and see a lot of icy (and snowy) roads (mountain folks like in Colorado or Utah). And for folks who occasionally see snowfall but don't get THAT much of it (or your city clears snow very efficiently), Dunlop 3D's. The Dunlops are decent in snow (better than all-seasons) but nowhere near the Nokians. Their forte is the middle ground where you want decent performance on cold but dry roads.

As with Blizzaks, the Nokians are a dedicated winter tire and they're squirmy on dry roads, where the Dunlop M3 (and newer 3D) handle like a lower to mid-level all-season in the dry, and a decent winter tire in snow/ice. So Nokian for ultimate snow/ice traction, but poorer dry handling or 3D for better dry handling with decent snow/ice traction.

Unless something has changed with the Bridgestone WS-70, the reason to not really bother with Blizzaks is because their grip is based on their multicell rubber compound which only accounts for the outer part of the tread. Once this compound is worn away, you're left with a tire that performs like a low to mid level all-season (as opposed to winter tire) in snow and ice. The mutlicel compound on Blizzaks wears pretty quick, and you want to make sure you swap 'em out when the weather warms up to the point you don't hit freezing temps anymore. Above 60f, they wear super fast.

The Nokian compound on the other hand is the full tread depth, and wears much better than the Blizzaks. The 3 winter seasons that I drove on the Hakka RSi included one summer where while waiting for new summer tires, I daily drove the Hakka RSi into the middle of June. As I mentioned, they could have easily been run for another winter with stellar winter grip if not for the unrepairable puncture (stupid screw). Blizzaks have shitty winter traction by the 3rd winter even when you DO make sure to change them out when it gets warmer.

BTW, the Hakka R and RSi are not going to be up to par with good studded tires on smooth ice (nothing is), but in the snow, I didn't encounter anything that could accelerate or turn like the VR4 (including trucks and SUV's) with those tiresand there were always folks who would try from a stoplight. They'd see me take off and I'd hear their engines rumble/roar louder when their egos wouldn't allow the low slung sportscar to out accelerate them in 6" of snow. Fat chance. Like I said, none of them could keep up. The VR4 accelerated in 4-6" of snow as hard, or harder than, a regular car could accelerate on dry pavement in the summer time.

If you're interested in the Nokian Hakka's, you can look on google. There are numerous folks who've come to the same conclusion after switching from Blizzaks: reasonably comparable performance on ice when new, similar or not quite as good as Hakka's in snow, Hakka's winter traction last at least twice as long.

BTW, it's possible that the Nokian WRG2 might be a great tire for the same conditions Dunlop 3D's are good for, but I've never tried them. My personal philosphy (with the lake effect snow here in southwest MI), is that I'd rather have the absolute best snow/ice traction I can buy for when there IS crap on the roads, and I'm not going to be driving like a nut on dry roads in the winter time anyway (although I will admit, I like driving like a nut when there's 4"+ of snow).


Max

do you sit and type all this out or copy n paste? are you sure you aint LW's brother?

[Geordon]

I second the Nokian recommendation. Screw Blizzaks.

Ran non-studded Nokian Hakka RSi's for 3 winters and those things were friggin great, Could have used them for at least 1 more winter but I got a sidewall puncture so I replaced all 4 to maintain rolling circumference for the AWD. Replaced the Hakka RSi's with the Hakka R and these puppies are awesome too.

For ultimatre winter performance, I would go with either Nokian (Hakka R if you see quite a lot of snow and ice and can't run studded tires), studded Nokian Hakka 5's if you CAN run studded tires and see a lot of icy (and snowy) roads (mountain folks like in Colorado or Utah). And for folks who occasionally see snowfall but don't get THAT much of it (or your city clears snow very efficiently), Dunlop 3D's. The Dunlops are decent in snow (better than all-seasons) but nowhere near the Nokians. Their forte is the middle ground where you want decent performance on cold but dry roads.
[snip]
Max

Thanks for including your thoughts here. I know you have answered my questions in the past regarding these tires, and it is greatly appreciated. Your recommendations are one reason why I never promote Blizzak. BTW, do you run stock sizes, or put a narrower tire on stock width or on a smaller wheel? What size tire would you recommend for the stock 17x8.5 rims?

Thanks,

Geordon

[B-Man]

Unfortunately, I'm limiting myself to tire that tirerack carries. I have a few reasons (discounts) to do so, so the Nokians are out. Thanks for your input. Sounds like an awesome tire.

[Geordon]

For those who can select between the Nokian and Dunlop, here is an interesting read: WR/WR G2 vs M3/3D

[bluemax_1]

do you sit and type all this out or copy n paste? are you sure you aint LW's brother?

The difference is information vs ramblings/rants

Thanks for including your thoughts here. I know you have answered my questions in the past regarding these tires, and it is greatly appreciated. Your recommendations are one reason why I never promote Blizzak. BTW, do you run stock sizes, or put a narrower tire on stock width or on a smaller wheel? What size tire would you recommend for the stock 17x8.5 rims?

Thanks,

Geordon

I actually run the stock size for a few reasons:
1) I knew the dry handling would be squirmy/squirrelly so I figured the 245 wide tires would help the dry performance.
2) Although the general theory is narrower is better for winter performance, the gains are in specific areas. One of the key gains is that the narrower tire cuts through snow more easily and as such has lower rolling resistance. Folks also like to thick of the narrower tires as cutting through the snow to reach the firmer ground but that advantage for a narrower tire only happens under a very narrow range of conditions with non-studded tires, i.e. no significant advantage there. And the siping plays more of a role in ice traction than the width of the tire between say a 225 vs 245 width. On deeper snow, a wider tire is actually going to be better (especially for a low slung vehicle).
3) I couldn't find 225 sizes that worked too well for 18" wheels. (they only have 225/40/18 which makes for a very short sidewall and quite a bit smaller than stock rolling circumference).

1 & 2 were the main reasons I didn't run narrower sizes.

On 17x8.5 wheels, I would personally run the stock 245/45/17 for the reasons O stated, although in 17", they DO offer 225/50/17 which is usable for folks preferring the 'narrower for winter' approach (only 0.7% difference in rolling circumference). Personally, in the amateur rallying that I used to do, I found it only really effective with narrow studded tires. The narrow tires would cut through the snow and the studs would dig in the dirt or ice layer.

With non-studded tires, the tires cutting down to the ice layer didn't help much and you would only hit the dirt layer with narrower tires if it was light snow (not packed from other vehicles driving over it) and there was less than ~1.5" of it. The only slight difference it made was in drifting, where the narrower tires would dig in and be a little more resistant to sliding sideways as they would build a berm/bank against the side of the wheel. Everything's a compromise so I chose to sacrifice the (not-as-common-IMO) region where narrower non-studded tires would be a benefit in exchange for better dry performance.


Max