Originally Posted by Walt
Here's a review from Dan Proudfoot in the Globe and Mail. Bottom line is that the WR G3 is better than an all-season tire, but not as good as a real snow tire. Ok for driving around Toronto, but not what you want if you're going to cottage country on a regular basis.
The WR's are "all weather" as opposed to "all season". Neither are "Winter" tires. The chart below explains:
that's the choice I made, considering where I live and drive the majority of the time.
If I was living in an area that sees considerably more snow, then my choice would be different.
The article only knocks the WR G3 on the braking ability, which is not suprising, because the WR G2 sacrifaced braking ability also compared to their dedicated snows, as Nokian confirmed in their own infomercial, when it was compared to the Xice. It was barely better than a set of Blizzaks (for the car-based tread)
I had instances of braking down steep hills (on packed snow), wearing more appropriate tires, ie Nokian Hakka RSI & General Altimax Arctic, where the ABS couldn't keep up, I was accelerating down the hill with the ABS going crazy, until the road leveled out at the base of the hill. This was an instance where chains made a huge difference (which I keep handy for instances like that)
on more level ground, I use engine braking more than I use the actual brakes.
keep in mind, my previous tire was a cheap "Performance Winter", which already sacrifaced snow & ice traction compared to the Hakkas I had before, and before Nexen, I had a set of Hankook Icebear W300....all on the same car, which tires typically last 2 season, for the higher amount of miles I put on a car (my old car, I used Winterforce and Green Diamond tires)