or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do I need a snow tire? - Page 5

post #121 of 150
I was just looking at Hakka 8 yesterday, they are almost twice the price of studless in my size. frown.gif
post #122 of 150

Studs suck.........the life out of roads!

post #123 of 150
post #124 of 150
Quote:


Very interesting link Ghost.  Nice read.

post #125 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

Nothing beats a GOOD (not also-ran) set of studded tires for reliable ice traction in all conditions.   The better studded tires don't give up that much in wet pavement traction either.

http://tekniikanmaailma.fi/winter-tyres-2016.  

Thinking strongly about getting some Nokian Hakka 8 studded this fall.

 

Very good comparison, @Ghost. Thanks.  

 

A point in this comparison test stuck with me, about grip reduction after 15,000 km (9320 mi). To quote from the article:   

 

"The tyres also underwent braking tests on ice at the beginning of the test and every 5,000 kilometres thereaf­ter. The tests were run indoors under carefully adjusted standard conditions. The interesting outcome was that, for both studded and non-studded tyres, grip reduced evenly during the test, and after 15,000 kilometres, grip was approx. 80% of that of a new tyre. Grip reduction was very similar between the different brands. The order of the tyres in terms of grip was the same at the beginning, middle and end of the test."

 

The studded Michelin was the only tire that wore less, but it's ice grip wasn't that good to begin with, since Michelin aims for overall balance in performance -  snow, wet, or dry.  

 

Not sure what the implications of this are, except that most winter tires - studded or non-studded - lose ~20% of their grip performance by their first 10,000 miles, according to this test.   


Edited by ski otter - 8/20/16 at 10:45am
post #126 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski otter View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

Nothing beats a GOOD (not also-ran) set of studded tires for reliable ice traction in all conditions.   The better studded tires don't give up that much in wet pavement traction either.

http://tekniikanmaailma.fi/winter-tyres-2016.  

Thinking strongly about getting some Nokian Hakka 8 studded this fall.

 

Very good comparison, @Ghost. Thanks.  

 

A point in this comparison test stuck with me, about grip reduction after 15,000 km (9320 mi). To quote from the article:   

 

"The tyres also underwent braking tests on ice at the beginning of the test and every 5,000 kilometres thereaf­ter. The tests were run indoors under carefully adjusted standard conditions. The interesting outcome was that, for both studded and non-studded tyres, grip reduced evenly during the test, and after 15,000 kilometres, grip was approx. 80% of that of a new tyre. Grip reduction was very similar between the different brands. The order of the tyres in terms of grip was the same at the beginning, middle and end of the test."

 

The studded Michelin was the only tire that wore less, but it's ice grip wasn't that good to begin with, since Michelin aims for overall balance in performance -  snow, wet, or dry.  

 

Not sure what the implications of this are, except that most winter tires - studded or non-studded - lose ~20% of their grip performance by their first 10,000 miles, according to this test.   


In my experience all-season tires loose just as much of their winter grip after 10,000 miles.   Definitely something to be aware of (with both types of tires), especially if you have a front wheel drive and leave tire rotation a bit late before swapping front to back.

post #127 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post
 

Studs suck.........the life out of roads!

 

 

That's why an Iceland company invented "Green Diamond" tires...  they embedded chunks of silicon carbide and aluminum oxide chunks throughout the tread, to claw into the packed snow & ice.... the technology was great.... had a few sets.  It may freak people out that they were remolded tires (the "Green" part of green diamond).

 

 

the shiny dots are the traction chunks.

 

later, other manufacturers joined the party...

 

Toyo has their Microbit Technology, which is ground walnut shells.

Falken has eggshells in their European tires.

Nokian with the Hakka R2 has "metallic" bits in tread (maybe the Hakka 8 has them also).

post #128 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanscrazydaisy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post
 

Studs suck.........the life out of roads!

 

 

That's why an Iceland company invented "Green Diamond" tires...  they embedded chunks of silicon carbide and aluminum oxide chunks throughout the tread, to claw into the packed snow & ice.... the technology was great.... had a few sets.  It may freak people out that they were remolded tires (the "Green" part of green diamond).

 

 

the shiny dots are the traction chunks.

 

later, other manufacturers joined the party...

 

Toyo has their Microbit Technology, which is ground walnut shells.

Falken has eggshells in their European tires.

Nokian with the Hakka R2 has "metallic" bits in tread (maybe the Hakka 8 has them also).


Yea, I used the walnut tires.  They were good.  Been though several brands of studless.  I think my next set will be Bridgestone.  I've had those and they were great.

post #129 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


I would just run a good all terrain, which is what I do smile.gif.

Goodyear Duratrac is probably the #1 winter all terrain - guys in the PNW love it specifically for wet weather in the winter performance (dealing with water running in road ruts, etc.)

BFG AT ko2 (currently on my rig, some extra bias there to rocky terrain performance)

Hankook Dynapro ATM if you want to bias more to dry pavement.

Nitto Terra Grappler, Toyo AT/2 and there are other choices, although I think only the Goodyear and BFG actually bear the winter tire designation (although all of them could).

But I think the Duratrac is probably tops for your needs. That's the tire the Clear Creek Sheriff Dept uses for the I-70 rodeo and elsewhere.

 

Once I saw the tread on the KO2s (and KOs), I realized that the KO is the AT tire I'd run on for years with my Pathfinders.  You had to be careful with ice, and standing water some, but it was like a tank in snow, as I recall.  The deeper the better, relatively speaking.  

 

This tire upgraded (to KO2) is what I'm leaning towards now, I guess.  A known commodity.  It's sure dynamite off road (if like the KO).  :)

 

I've been reading about these various tires and results, and there isn't much I could find on the Duratrac.   What I found seemed to indicate it had potential problems in terms of treadlife and noise, but also on wet, oddly.   But there was so little on it, seemingly.  Much more on the KO and KO2.   I'd have never known to look for the Duratrac if @NayBreak hadn't mentioned it. 

 

 

From what I've found so far from the tire Co sites (correct me if I'm wrong, please), the KO2 in my Xterra size is an E rated tire (heavier load - 50 or 60 fps max pressure instead of 40), though I can still only haul or carry the same weight as the vehicle allows already.   Not sure what this will mean.  So my guess is the ride might be a tad stiffer and a tad more stable than my usual 40 psi tires.  

 

 

 

Every time I analyze the tests on the winter truck tires (consumer reports and the ones Ghost listed above, especially, this time around),  I keep coming back to how poorly the non-studded snow tires,  Nokian, etc., seem to do on wet pavement, and dry.  

 

If I lived up in Summit County, or in a ski town with snow-packed streets most days all winter, this would be a no brainer - get the winters.   But in dry Colorado, snows evaporate or melt out so fast that it must be over half the drive days from Denver to Summit are on dry or just wet roads, not snow & ice.   

post #130 of 150

P.S.  Correction: There were plenty of reviews of the Duratrac, once I stopped looking for just comparisons, and looked just for that tire.   It does look better, perhaps, on wet, snow and ice.   Hard to say, compared to the KO2.  The Duratracs would be a C rated tire instead of an E, for my Xterra standard tire size.  

post #131 of 150
I see it the other way around - if I lived in Summit I'd get the off-road tire (I would go full on to MT class), because it will smoke the car winter tire in heavy stuff and anything deep. The point of the winter tire is the commute through variable conditions (and having a no traction vehicle to start with).

I did some additional research on the Duratrac vs. BFG ko2, and on the 4x4 sites there is a lot of talk about them getting sketchy around 10K miles in the wet because the siping is shallow - plenty of them have moved to the ko2 and reported improvement.

And there is zero doubt about the ko2 superiority off-road because unless you can get the Duratrac in load range E, the sidewall is garbage (and even then...).

BFG claims a 19% winter performance improvement with the ko2 over the ko, and I think it's more than that because the compound doesn't freeze up in really cold temps so it's very predictable where the old tire often was not.

Either way, if you were satisfied with the ko, you will love the ko2. It is MT class in deep snow, quiet, and wears well. And a great Colorado off-road tire.

That's at 24K miles.

post #132 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

I see it the other way around - if I lived in Summit I'd get the off-road tire (I would go full on to MT class), because it will smoke the car winter tire in heavy stuff and anything deep. The point of the winter tire is the commute through variable conditions (and having a no traction vehicle to start with).

I did some additional research on the Duratrac vs. BFG ko2, and on the 4x4 sites there is a lot of talk about them getting sketchy around 10K miles in the wet because the siping is shallow - plenty of them have moved to the ko2 and reported improvement.

And there is zero doubt about the ko2 superiority off-road because unless you can get the Duratrac in load range E, the sidewall is garbage (and even then...).

BFG claims a 19% winter performance improvement with the ko2 over the ko, and I think it's more than that because the compound doesn't freeze up in really cold temps so it's very predictable where the old tire often was not.

Either way, if you were satisfied with the ko, you will love the ko2. It is MT class in deep snow, quiet, and wears well. And a great Colorado off-road tire.

That's at 24K miles.

 

Really great, thanks.  I wonder, is there any minus or plus to the KO2 being only in E (a heavier LT) grade in my tire size, versus the C grade I've had before?   It's 3 ply and ten, instead of the 2 ply of the Duratrac, with its softer sidewalls.  

 

On my first Pathfinder, I think, I got a bigger wheel and tire (KO), I dimly recall....   I had aspirations/delusions of grandeur off road, I guess.   :D 

post #133 of 150

I'm running BFG TA KO2 on my 4Runner and Nokian WRG3 - SUV XL on my Highlander.  I did tons of research for year round tires that perform very well in ALL winter conditions: deep snow, hard pack snow, ice, slush, rain, and yes, even dry.  (There are some tires, even dedicated snow tires that do well in deep soft snow but are terrible on hard pack and ice).  Nokian hands down winner if you want an all season highway tire and KO2 if you want an AT tire. I'm on my second set of Nokians on the Highlander.  I purchased my 4Runner new last October, first thing I did is got rid of the OEM Bridgestone Dueller's, Tried 2 sets of the Cooper Discoverer ATW's both LT's and P's - SUCK SUCK SUCK - DO NOT BUY - returned them and went for the KO2's. So, in the first 3,000 miles on my new 4Runner I had 4 sets of tires - Normally that would take 200,000 miles!   For anyone in the PNW, Discount Tire is awesome - they were willing to special order any tire I wanted and still had installed prices lower than any price I could find online.  When I didn't like the tires, no problem, they just took them back and gave me the new ones, no charge, no complaints.  Anyone near Bothell / Mill Creek WA - Discount Tire on Bothell-Everett HWY #1!  PM me and I can give you a referral to the guy that really helped me out.

post #134 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski otter View Post

Really great, thanks.  I wonder, is there any minus or plus to the KO2 being only in E (a heavier LT) grade in my tire size, versus the C grade I've had before?   It's 3 ply and ten, instead of the 2 ply of the Duratrac, with its softer sidewalls.  

On my first Pathfinder, I think, I got a bigger wheel and tire (KO), I dimly recall....   I had aspirations/delusions of grandeur off road, I guess.   biggrin.gif  

I just run load E at a bit lower PSI so the tire doesn't crown and is a bit softer. All upsides in terms of durability and probably better rolling resistance...

I run mine at 29 PSI - that's not a recommendation, just a reference point. How a tire feels is more related to compound softness and aspect ratio (how thin or fat the sidewall is) than load rating in my experience. The load rating does add some weight as you go up, but again on 'regular' sized tires that is splitting hairs in my view, and you definately will prefer the E rating off-road (just air down a bit more).

What I wouldn't do is listen to people who think LT tires are supposed to be run at really high pressures like 40 PSI and up. It turns them into bricks and one of the reasons to buy a tire like the ko2 is that it is off-road designed, not commercial pickup truck designed.

My tires are load rated at like 3,650 a tire. Since I am not going be carrying an entire extra Cruiser I run them softer - excellent for comfort and handling, excellent for winter conditions...
Edited by NayBreak - 8/31/16 at 10:32am
post #135 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


I just run load E at a bit lower PSI so the tire doesn't crown and is a bit softer. All upsides in terms of durability and probably better rolling resistance...

I run mine at 29 PSI - that's not a recommendation, just a reference point. How a tire feels is more related to compound softness and aspect ratio (how thin or fat the sidewall is) than load rating in my experience. The load rating does add some weight as you go up, but again on 'regular' sized tires that is splitting hairs in my view, and you definately will prefer the E rating off-road (just air down a bit more).

What I wouldn't do is listen to people who think LT tires are supposed to be run at really high pressures like 40 PSI and up. It turns them into bricks and one of the reasons to buy a tire like the ko2 is that it is off-road designed, not commercial pickup truck designed.

My tires are load rated at like 3,650 a tire. Since I am not going be carrying an entire extra Cruiser I run them softer - excellent for comfort and handling, excellent for winter conditions...

Again he does it!  Much thanks.   I'm syked for KO2s, briefly almost as much as for winter.   

 

I just went to the tattered cover and bought most of the ski gear review mags, so season's close.   Soon time for a hike with gators on.   :ski

post #136 of 150

I just pulled the trigger on a set of Michelin X-Ice 3 tires for my 2011 Outback.

 

I had 215/70/16 X-Ice 2's on the car since I bought it.  They have 60,000 miles on them over 6 seasons and still have a decent amount of tread.

 

I bought 225/65/16 X-Ice 3's to go on my 16X6.5 rims that Tirerack delivered the 2's on.

 

Having them shipped to an installer by Tirerack to mount.  I wanted to buy locally as they'll match Tirerack's price (with shipping) but there is a rebate that is not valid if the tires are bought from that dealer.

 

I hope they don't mind my buying from Tirerack and having them mount them!

 

$504 with shipping, less a $70 rebate Visa card.  Mounting should cost about the same as the rebate.

post #137 of 150

Got a set of those on my wife's car.  They do last longer, but not as good of traction on ice as the Bridgestone Blizzack's.

It's a trade off.

post #138 of 150

I would be very interested to see winter tire test results for tires with a year or two and  25,000 miles on them. 

post #139 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

I would be very interested to see winter tire test results for tires with a year or two and  25,000 miles on them. 


Well, you know as they age the traction on ice becomes way less whatever brand.  The siping on the Michelins is not nearly as radical as the Bridgestones.

post #140 of 150

Yeah.  I have a lot of tread and had thought about using them again, but they just have to be worse than a new tire.  Plus I've read great things about the X-Ice 3.

post #141 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

I would be very interested to see winter tire test results for tires with a year or two and  25,000 miles on them. 

Nokian did some year 1 and year 2 testing. They admitted that the Blizzak was better over the first few thousand miles, but then it went the other way until the tire was worn.

The moral of the story being that unless you want to buy tires every year, you make some trade offs.

Which is precisely why most truck owners don't bother with dedicated snow tires and that market it very small. A good winter oriented off-road tire delivers plenty of traction, can be run in the summer, and does so without a short tread life.
post #142 of 150

...just a few comments from my own experience:

 

I found Nokian WRG's much better on ice than Blizzaks.  Blizzaks did great in soft and deep snow - no complaints there, but on ice and very hard pack, even when brand new, I was quite disappointed (this was a few years ago, so maybe they may have changed compound, tread or siping since than).

 

KO2's I played around with pressure, and for highway driving, I found a sweet spot to be 42 psi front and rear (non-snow portion of the year). Seemed to have the best handling without any noticeable firmness going up from 32 psi (32 was the lowest I tried on Hwy).  Now for off-road, definitely air down depending on terrain. Really depends on your vehicle and your personal preferences (mine are on my 2016 4Runner).  Haven't experimented with pressure in snow yet - this past season I ran them at 35 psi ('cause that's what  the installer filled them with) - but it was mostly spring  season with shallow snow and quick melt's s - so not at all a test of their capability.  Tire pressure really depends on the vehicle, terrain, driving conditions / style, on-road vs off-road,  what you want to achieve (grip, comfort, fuel economy, noise reduction, handling - ( straight tracking, cornering, wet dry, hot, cold)) etc.  A good starting point is the placard on your door jam, than move up and down from there - now this applies to AT tires mostly, where you may want to adjust pressures.  Standard all season highway tires on a sedan - go with pressure recommended on door jam.  

 

...there you have it, $3.57 worth of words for my 2 cents.

post #143 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILOJ View Post
 

...just a few comments from my own experience:

 

I found Nokian WRG's much better on ice than Blizzaks.  Blizzaks did great in soft and deep snow - no complaints there, but on ice and very hard pack, even when brand new, I was quite disappointed (this was a few years ago, so maybe they may have changed compound, tread or siping since than).

 

KO2's I played around with pressure, and for highway driving, I found a sweet spot to be 42 psi front and rear (non-snow portion of the year). Seemed to have the best handling without any noticeable firmness going up from 32 psi (32 was the lowest I tried on Hwy).  Now for off-road, definitely air down depending on terrain. Really depends on your vehicle and your personal preferences (mine are on my 2016 4Runner).  Haven't experimented with pressure in snow yet - this past season I ran them at 35 psi ('cause that's what  the installer filled them with) - but it was mostly spring  season with shallow snow and quick melt's s - so not at all a test of their capability.  Tire pressure really depends on the vehicle, terrain, driving conditions / style, on-road vs off-road,  what you want to achieve (grip, comfort, fuel economy, noise reduction, handling - ( straight tracking, cornering, wet dry, hot, cold)) etc.  A good starting point is the placard on your door jam, than move up and down from there - now this applies to AT tires mostly, where you may want to adjust pressures.  Standard all season highway tires on a sedan - go with pressure recommended on door jam.  

 

...there you have it, $3.57 worth of words for my 2 cents.


There are too many tires in the WRG Nokian line up.  Which one are you talking about?

post #144 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post
 


There are too many tires in the WRG Nokian line up.  Which one are you talking about?

For any given tire size, there really isn't much in the way of options: If you search by your tire size and SUV or Passenger car, you'll only find one or maybe 2 at most in your size (SUV and SUV XL for example - some sizes only come in XL). The Nokians I've owned are WRG 2 SUV and WRG 3 SUV XL.

 

G2 is Generation 2, G3 is Generation 3 -  They updated from G2 to  G3 maybe 2 years ago?  When they updated from G2 to G3 they went from 40,000 milse to 50,000 miles (change in tread design and most likely in compound also).  Both sets of Nokians I've owned have been on my 2007 Toyota Highlander.

post #145 of 150

^ Yes.  Thing is some i saw were pure winter and some were more like all season designed like a half and half tread pattern.  Half winter and half all season.

post #146 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post

^ Yes.  Thing is some i saw were pure winter and some were more like all season designed like a half and half tread pattern.  Half winter and half all season.


 



the SUV"s went from an asymmetric pattern (G2) to a directional pattern (G3). Nokian classifies them as all-weather tires.


in the car sizes...

the G2 was a asymmetric pattern. But, the G3 is a little confusing. It is a combination of the WR D3 (directional) for smaller sizes, and WR A3 (assymetric) pattern for larger sizes. Still "all-weather" tires.
post #147 of 150

tanscrazydaisy what are you running on your car now (or I should say will you be in the Winter.)

post #148 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post
 


There are too many tires in the WRG Nokian line up.  Which one are you talking about?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILOJ View Post
 

 

KO2's I played around with pressure, and for highway driving, I found a sweet spot to be 42 psi front and rear (non-snow portion of the year). Seemed to have the best handling without any noticeable firmness going up from 32 psi (32 was the lowest I tried on Hwy).  Now for off-road, definitely air down depending on terrain. Really depends on your vehicle and your personal preferences (mine are on my 2016 4Runner).  Haven't experimented with pressure in snow yet - this past season I ran them at 35 psi ('cause that's what  the installer filled them with) - but it was mostly spring  season with shallow snow and quick melt's s - so not at all a test of their capability.  Tire pressure really depends on the vehicle, terrain, driving conditions / style, on-road vs off-road,  what you want to achieve (grip, comfort, fuel economy, noise reduction, handling - ( straight tracking, cornering, wet dry, hot, cold)) etc.  A good starting point is the placard on your door jam, than move up and down from there - now this applies to AT tires mostly, where you may want to adjust pressures.  Standard all season highway tires on a sedan - go with pressure recommended on door jam.  

 

 

That's interesting re: the ko2.  I can't stand any of the more offroad oriented tires I have run at higher PSI, although granted, I am about 6 sizes up so that changes things.  I've settled in at around 29 PSI on a 37x12.5r17 as the sweet spot (1995 Land Cruiser, so about a half ton heavier than your 4Runner).

 

But to your broader point, with a heavier duty tire, playing around with PSI a bit can yield significant improvements.

post #149 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post

tanscrazydaisy what are you running on your car now (or I should say will you be in the Winter.)


 



I had the Nokian WR G3 (asymmetric) on my old car as my winter tires.

since I traded that car in in February, I have Nitto NT-SN2 on steel wheels for my new cute-ute.

Since it was a relatively mild winter for NJ, cannot comment on their performance where it matters.

My mechanic recommended them, as they replaced Nokian Hakka R's on his wife's car a few years ago, and she has to get to work, snow or not.
post #150 of 150
Thought I needed snow tires on my 03 suburban 2500 2wd...I was wrong. All season Michelin's do just fine in blizzard conditions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Automotive/Car Talk