Nokian WR winter tires
Does anyone here have these? How are they? They are apparently the only All-Weather tire that meets the new Severe Winter Traction Standard and can still be used year round (but I think I would just use them for winter.)
I was going to get Blizzaks for winter (that's what everyone tells me I should get!) - but here in Connecticut, even though there is enough snow to justify winter tires, most of the winter driving will be on dry pavement, with plenty of days that are not that cold. The Nokians seem to be higher rated than Blizzak for dry pavement, rain, and tread wear, and have an "excellent" but slightly lower rating for snow. So it seems that they would last longer and handle better most winter days here . . . but I wanted to talk to someone who had used them. Anyone here? Thanks!!
I was going to get Blizzaks for winter (that's what everyone tells me I should get!) - but here in Connecticut, even though there is enough snow to justify winter tires, most of the winter driving will be on dry pavement, with plenty of days that are not that cold. The Nokians seem to be higher rated than Blizzak for dry pavement, rain, and tread wear, and have an "excellent" but slightly lower rating for snow. So it seems that they would last longer and handle better most winter days here . . . but I wanted to talk to someone who had used them. Anyone here? Thanks!!
I'm looking for them too. They're legendary among Saab people. For years now, I've used 4-season tires in the narrow base-car size for winter, instead of 'real' snow tires. That works real well for me, but these sound even better.
Nines magazine (saab club) just reviewed them, really sounded good. They said they're even better than the NRW which they replaced.
I've had Blizzaks (on an '89 Saab) and they're pretty soft & mushy. Great on ice, tho. I prefer the stiffer tires like Pirelli, or Dunlop S2 snows.
Nines magazine (saab club) just reviewed them, really sounded good. They said they're even better than the NRW which they replaced.
I've had Blizzaks (on an '89 Saab) and they're pretty soft & mushy. Great on ice, tho. I prefer the stiffer tires like Pirelli, or Dunlop S2 snows.
nokian makes the best snow tire out there, but i would not run them in the summer regardless of what they say. a great snow tire cannot be a great summer tire. you should have 2 sets if wheels and tires for summer and winter. if you need a set of wheels for snow tires, check my sig.
The WR is the least aggressive tire that Nokian makes. It's basically an all season tire...particularly interesting for those running low profile tires in the winter, in exactly the climate Draka mentioned (mostly dry). This niche has not been exploited by other tire manufacturers (again, for those folks that must run a low profile tire year round -- like me). In terms of dry handling, dry traction, etc., they fall somewhere between a good high perf all season tire (Z rated), and an H rated high perf winter tire (like a wintersport M2).
I live in PA, and run these on my Audi. I love them! The only caveat is that the sidewalls are still soft (despite the H/V speed rating)...like you would find on a Wintersport M2. It's not nearly as soft as some of the blizzak models (Q speed rated) though. Overall, this tire is a nice middle ground for those wanting something oriented for the dry. You'll be able to use these through the summer if you like...the rubber won't shred off like they will with most winter tires. In fact, Nokian warranties these tires for 50K miles. Cost is a significant downside. I bought a set with an H speed rating for $600 (225-45-17)...normal price is closer to $750.
Draka...the only thing I would think carefully about is whether you want ice traction. These tires will not cut it on ice (nor will most all seasons). For ice you really need one of the Q rated snows that has a multicellular rubber compound. Going that route means dealing with the soft squirmy feeling of winter tires. I know CT tends to get it's fair share of ice storms, so this may be a consideration for you.
Okay, that's it for my first post!
Gotta start browsing the forum for info. Later gents!
I live in PA, and run these on my Audi. I love them! The only caveat is that the sidewalls are still soft (despite the H/V speed rating)...like you would find on a Wintersport M2. It's not nearly as soft as some of the blizzak models (Q speed rated) though. Overall, this tire is a nice middle ground for those wanting something oriented for the dry. You'll be able to use these through the summer if you like...the rubber won't shred off like they will with most winter tires. In fact, Nokian warranties these tires for 50K miles. Cost is a significant downside. I bought a set with an H speed rating for $600 (225-45-17)...normal price is closer to $750.
Draka...the only thing I would think carefully about is whether you want ice traction. These tires will not cut it on ice (nor will most all seasons). For ice you really need one of the Q rated snows that has a multicellular rubber compound. Going that route means dealing with the soft squirmy feeling of winter tires. I know CT tends to get it's fair share of ice storms, so this may be a consideration for you.
Okay, that's it for my first post!
Gotta start browsing the forum for info. Later gents!
Thanks to all three of you guys for the great information . . . I guess I do need to think about the ice issue - other than that the Nokians sound perfect to me. I was only planning on using them for winter - but nice to know it wouldn't ruin them if I was a little late getting them removed in the spring.
On the other hand - I wouldn't be getting them in a low profile tire, I was just going to get the stock size (195/65-15) that came with my car. So, they should cost less anyway. And, does this mean that some of the more conventional snow tires, like Blizzaks, would be okay for me in terms of ride quality? (I mean, I guess they would be worse in 17s than in 15s because of the softness - is that right? I don't know much about snow tires - I've just been researching.)
RKA - thanks for the great first post - and welcome :wavey:
On the other hand - I wouldn't be getting them in a low profile tire, I was just going to get the stock size (195/65-15) that came with my car. So, they should cost less anyway. And, does this mean that some of the more conventional snow tires, like Blizzaks, would be okay for me in terms of ride quality? (I mean, I guess they would be worse in 17s than in 15s because of the softness - is that right? I don't know much about snow tires - I've just been researching.)
RKA - thanks for the great first post - and welcome :wavey:
You're on the right track. I'm not sure exactly what tire is equipped on your car, and what the speed rating is...so I'm giving the following advice blindly.
The disparity between the road feel afforded by your stock tire, and either the Nokian, or other high perf. winter tire (like the M2/M3's) will be marginal. In fact, you may notice that the Nokian or other H rated winter tires I'm mentioning is a little better due to the stiffer tire structure. You'll notice that the Nokian's are a little quieter than most high perf. winter tires, and they will wear a lot better, whereas the high performance winter tires will have marginally better snow grip, and some ice traction (as opposed to none with the WR's or other conventional all seasons).
Going to something like the Blizzak WS50's will result in a significant compromise in dry weather handling, even compared to your factory tires. That's just a trademark of Q rated winter tires...soft compound + marshmallow tire structure = sloppy dry handling. They'll be a little noisier than the tires above, but nothing that should bother you too much.
If I were in your shoes, I would choose one of the high perf. winter tires, because of the possibility of ice. Looking at the tire rack, it seems 4 tires are offered in the size you need. Dunlop M3's (replacing the M2's), Dunlop M2's, Michelin Pilot Alpin PA2 (replacing the Pilot Alpins), and Michelin Pilot Alpin's. I would recommend them in that order. I'm fairly certain that the M2's will be discontinued soon, so if you puncture a tire in a year, it would be nice to know that you can get an exact replacement. Same goes for the PA2's replacing the Pilot Alpins. The Dunlops are $20 cheaper per tire, so I would go with those. In the grander picture, the differences between the Dunlop and Michelins should be minor. You won't go wrong with either tire though. If you're a Michelin fan, and you feel better about spending the extra $20, the Michelin's are bound to be good tires as well.
FWIW, I'll relate a personal experience. About 2 years ago I drove with some friends from PA up to the northern tip of NH for a winter driving school. All the cars in our caravan were running on high perf. winter tires. Most had Dunlop M2's, one had Pilot Alpin's, and I was running Bridgestone LM22's. It had been raining throughout the trip, but once the sun set, temps started to drop below freezing. We drove our last 1.5 hours on ice covered highways. The other cars in the caravan were unaware that the highway was covered with ice...however I could feel the my car shifting on the ice. Now, none of the tires any of us were running were supposed to have astonishing ice traction, however the M2's were marginally better on ice than the LM22's. All the people in the caravan were quite impressed with their M2's after I told them exactly how slippery the pavement underneath was.
Good luck! And Thanks for the Welcome!
The disparity between the road feel afforded by your stock tire, and either the Nokian, or other high perf. winter tire (like the M2/M3's) will be marginal. In fact, you may notice that the Nokian or other H rated winter tires I'm mentioning is a little better due to the stiffer tire structure. You'll notice that the Nokian's are a little quieter than most high perf. winter tires, and they will wear a lot better, whereas the high performance winter tires will have marginally better snow grip, and some ice traction (as opposed to none with the WR's or other conventional all seasons).
Going to something like the Blizzak WS50's will result in a significant compromise in dry weather handling, even compared to your factory tires. That's just a trademark of Q rated winter tires...soft compound + marshmallow tire structure = sloppy dry handling. They'll be a little noisier than the tires above, but nothing that should bother you too much.
If I were in your shoes, I would choose one of the high perf. winter tires, because of the possibility of ice. Looking at the tire rack, it seems 4 tires are offered in the size you need. Dunlop M3's (replacing the M2's), Dunlop M2's, Michelin Pilot Alpin PA2 (replacing the Pilot Alpins), and Michelin Pilot Alpin's. I would recommend them in that order. I'm fairly certain that the M2's will be discontinued soon, so if you puncture a tire in a year, it would be nice to know that you can get an exact replacement. Same goes for the PA2's replacing the Pilot Alpins. The Dunlops are $20 cheaper per tire, so I would go with those. In the grander picture, the differences between the Dunlop and Michelins should be minor. You won't go wrong with either tire though. If you're a Michelin fan, and you feel better about spending the extra $20, the Michelin's are bound to be good tires as well.
FWIW, I'll relate a personal experience. About 2 years ago I drove with some friends from PA up to the northern tip of NH for a winter driving school. All the cars in our caravan were running on high perf. winter tires. Most had Dunlop M2's, one had Pilot Alpin's, and I was running Bridgestone LM22's. It had been raining throughout the trip, but once the sun set, temps started to drop below freezing. We drove our last 1.5 hours on ice covered highways. The other cars in the caravan were unaware that the highway was covered with ice...however I could feel the my car shifting on the ice. Now, none of the tires any of us were running were supposed to have astonishing ice traction, however the M2's were marginally better on ice than the LM22's. All the people in the caravan were quite impressed with their M2's after I told them exactly how slippery the pavement underneath was.
Good luck! And Thanks for the Welcome!
i'm running dunlop graspic DS-1s, they kick ass in the snow, but of course are terrible in the dry. living in NH and commuting to and from work in snowstorms, it's a tradeoff i have to deal with.
Well, we actually woke up to a dusting of snow this morning . . . it's getting closer . . .
Thanks, RKA, for all that great information. I've done a little more research, and those Dunlop M3s sound like they've got everything going for them that the Nokian WRs have except the "all season" name - which doesn't really matter because I would only be using them for winter anyway. And, the Dunlops are not too expensive . . . now I think that's what I'll do.
And, AccordSleeper, I was also wondering about the Dunlop Graspics - they sound like a great deal - but I guess where I am I'm better off with the M3s since they're supposed to be a lot better on dry roads, right? I'm sure you get way more snow in NH than we do, and therefore less dry roads.
Thanks again, all!!!
Thanks, RKA, for all that great information. I've done a little more research, and those Dunlop M3s sound like they've got everything going for them that the Nokian WRs have except the "all season" name - which doesn't really matter because I would only be using them for winter anyway. And, the Dunlops are not too expensive . . . now I think that's what I'll do.
And, AccordSleeper, I was also wondering about the Dunlop Graspics - they sound like a great deal - but I guess where I am I'm better off with the M3s since they're supposed to be a lot better on dry roads, right? I'm sure you get way more snow in NH than we do, and therefore less dry roads.
Thanks again, all!!!


