which dunlop m3 or 3d?

which one should i get or do people prefer? money is about equal.

 

215/45/17 m3 91v 145e$

 

 

225/45/17 3d 94v 162e$

225/45/17 3d 91H 158e$

 

 

any opinions welcome

I honestly can't remember the M3s ever having taken top-honors, as the 3Ds have in the past...and what's more, even now, the 3Ds continue to rank in the upper half of virtually all tests of that particular sub-genre.

 

My personal vote would be to go with the V-rated 3Ds.

M3s are probably 10 year old design.

3Ds are 4-5 year old design.

 

I would chose 3D.

 

V should be better in dry, stiffer sidewall - more feedback.

 

H should be better in snow.

 

Your choice.

 

Krzys

^ Frankly, I'm not sure that the H will be better in the snow - given that a lot of snow-moving capability is inherent to tread design, the compounding should not have primary effect.

 

Handling, in the various different elements of wet/dry as well as on ice, though, I certainly do agree could indeed be affected.

3D. I have a set and they are surprisingly good at both snow and dry tarmac.

^ Just be sure you keep an eye on treadwear.

 

Once at around the 1/2-way point, their snow-moving capabilities will rapidly diminish, so be careful to inspect your tires before the start of the season.

Doesn't 3Ds have snow wear bars at 6/32nd?

 

When (Nov 06) CR did H and V rated tires (often the same models) Hs were better rated than Vs in winter conditions. <-- apparently I paid attention to TS810 results that I bought.

 

TS810 H good snow, very good ice

TS810 V good snow, good ice

 

but to contradict myself

 

M3 V excellent snow, fair ice

M3 H good snow, fair ice

 

So apparently speed rating has some impact on some models. So it depends :-)

 

Pilot Alpin PA2 H and V rated the same (good snow, very good ice) but without raw data one cannot tell if they were identical.

 

Krzys

Doesn't 3Ds have snow wear bars at 6/32nd?

 

Yep.

 

I'm just a hair above the bars. I've got something south of 12K miles on my set, which is now going on their 4th season - I drive the snot out of them during the warmer parts of the transitional months.

 

I noted a significant decrease in snow-moving capabilities towards the second part of last winter, and that's one of the reasons why I was looking at another set of winter tires.

 

I'm rotating the 3Ds into a "transitional season" usage.

 

When (Nov 06) CR did H and V rated tires (often the same models) Hs were better rated than Vs in winter conditions. <-- apparently I paid attention to TS810 results that I bought.

 

TS810 H good snow, very good ice

TS810 V good snow, good ice

 

but to contradict myself

 

M3 V excellent snow, fair ice

M3 H good snow, fair ice

 

So apparently speed rating has some impact on some models. So it depends :-)

 

Pilot Alpin PA2 H and V rated the same (good snow, very good ice) but without raw data one cannot tell if they were identical.

 

Indeed, it looks like that there is some difference, based on the specific tire....wow, that's actually more different than I would have thought - thank you for extracting those sets of data.

 

Huh......

 

Perhaps the compounding can affect snow performance based on how much deflection/stretch it allows the sipping as well as perhaps even larger tire elements (i.e. snow brakes/breaks) to have?

............Pilot Alpin PA2 H and V rated the same (good snow, very good ice) but without raw data one cannot tell if they were identical.

 

Krzys

 

The Michelin PA2 H and V tires had different tread designs. I don't know if the same was true for the Dunlop M3 H and V tires.

 

The current PA3 is available as the H rated Primacy Alpin and the V rated Pilot Alpin. Totally different tread designs on these two versions of the PA3.

^ Great catch....

 

I honestly don't know enough about the PA2s, but IIRC, the Pilots are superior to the Primacys in virtually every respect, correct? Yet, by looking at the tread design, I'd imagine the Primacys would be better snow-movers.

 

Too complicated.....

As I understand it, the Alpin Pilot line is more "sporting", and emphasizes dry and wet traction, and a responsive feel, whereas the Alpin Primacy line emphasizes snow and ice traction.

 

Too complicated? Heck yeah! Michelin even has a tire called the Pilot Primacy.

 

http://www.michelinman.com/tire-selector/category/luxury-performance-touring/pilot-primacy/tire-details

^ That's the way I understood their winter nomenclature, too - I'm trying to recall the exact circumstances of why I have the impression that the Pilots are superior overall (including in more wintry conditions), but I may simply be confusing myself .

Doesn't 3Ds have snow wear bars at 6/32nd?

 

When (Nov 06) CR did H and V rated tires (often the same models) Hs were better rated than Vs in winter conditions. <-- apparently I paid attention to TS810 results that I bought.

 

TS810 H good snow, very good ice

TS810 V good snow, good ice

 

but to contradict myself

 

M3 V excellent snow, fair ice

M3 H good snow, fair ice

 

So apparently speed rating has some impact on some models. So it depends :-)

 

Pilot Alpin PA2 H and V rated the same (good snow, very good ice) but without raw data one cannot tell if they were identical.

 

Krzys

 

And this year CR tested the Nokian WR G2 in a H speed rated 16" size, and a V speed rated 18" size. The results were opposite of what I would expect.

 

H: good on ice, good on snow

V: excellent on snow, very good on ice

 

H: very good on dry braking, very good on wet braking

V: good on dry braking, good on wet braking

 

 

Maybe CR mixed up the data for these two tires.

^

 

So, with the latter in-mind, here's something interesting.

 

Harking back to our conversations regarding studded tires, this is interesting.....

 

About a year ago, outahere led the charge against the mistaken beliefs that many North-Americans seem to share, with regard to modern studded tires. The following two threads are among the best representations:

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/stud-not-stud-tires-123392.html?t=123392&highlight=studded

 

and

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/which-flavor-tires-year-126404.html?t=126404

 

More recently, we see propagation of this old-time belief - that, somehow, studded tires contribute to lesser performance on clear roadways (wet or dry):

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/study-studded-winter-tires-decreases-death-risk-42-winter-roads-145643.html?p=3120380#post3120380

 

In this year's Russian Auto Review winter tire test, there's this excerpt, here translated by Google Translate:

 

Now the asphalt.

Опираясь на результаты измерений, мы в очередной раз хотим развеять миф о том, что шипованные шины на асфальте работают хуже нешипованных.

Based on the results of measurements, we again want to dispel the myth that the studded tires on asphalt work worse than non-studded.

Взгляните на таблицу, где приведены значения тормозного пути на мокром асфальте: первые девять результатов — за шипованными шинами!

Look at the table where the values of stopping distance on wet pavement: the first nine results - for the studded tires!

И среди них, кстати, есть «пожилые».

And among them, incidentally, is "mature."

Объясняется это просто: в большинстве случаев структура протектора у «скандинавских» нешипованных шин мягче, чем у шипованных, а на асфальте «мягкие» покрышки работают хуже.

The reason is simple: in most cases the structure of the tread of "Scandinavian" non-studded tires softer than a studded, and on the asphalt "soft" tires work worse.

Хотя бывают исключения.

Although there are exceptions.

Например, при выполнении «переставки» с торможением на мокром асфальте лучший результат — у нешипованных шин Goodyear UltraGrip Ice+.

For example, when performing "perestavki with braking on wet pavement the best result - a non-studded tires Goodyear UltraGrip Ice +.

И на сухом асфальте эти покрышки хорошо показали себя с точки зрения управляемости.

And on dry pavement, these tires performed well in terms of manageability.

Значит, на них стоит обратить внимание жителям крупных городов.

Hence, they should pay attention to the inhabitants of large cities.

 

So this has me wondering, given your post above, outahere, regarding the H- and V-rated tires....

 

Is it that in CR's test, the testing conditions were such that the tire's different compounding came to the fore - and what's more, that the data may actually *not* be representative of most real-world circumstances?

..........Is it that in CR's test, the testing conditions were such that the tire's different compounding came to the fore - and what's more, that the data may actually *not* be representative of most real-world circumstances?

 

I think we have to be careful when making generalizations about winter performance from the CR test reports. Their ice and snow testing is very limited in scope, and may not be an accurate representation of real world winter performance. I suspect an ice braking test from 10mph, and a snow acceleration test from 5-20mph will not give us the whole picture regarding winter performance.

 

CR and Tirerack make no assessment at all about slush performance. Does it correlate with hydroplaning resistance? Beats me! I would like to see a slush test (from anyone) that simulates a lane change over slush.

^ I would PAY for a slush lane-change test.

 

That's actually probably the worst of what we have to deal with here, in NE-Ohio's metro suburbs, on a regular basis during the winter.

 

----

 

RE: generalizations -

 

Definitely true. And I guess I would actually extend it to the other publications/testing as well.

 

Hopefully, with more detail about testing conditions and how the tests were physically conducted (the other thing I forgot to ask, above, regarding the 16-inch H-rated vs. 18-inch V-rated...was the vehicle platform different?) given by these publications, we the end-consumers can get a better idea of exactly what conditions are simulated, and better match them to our own unique and differing needs.

 

As you know, I banked heavily on the Russian and NAF tests, on my Winter Carving purchase.

 

I can't help but wonder if perhaps I didn't go about it the right way, given that even the worst of our winters in the past few years pales with stories told to me by some of my colleagues who grew up (and were adults, in some cases, of driving age) in those frigid areas.

.........the other thing I forgot to ask, above, regarding the 16-inch H-rated vs. 18-inch V-rated...was the vehicle platform different?.......

 

CR does not specify what vehicle was used for testing the 16" Nokian. For the 18", they used what looks (in the photo) like a Chevy Cruze.

^ As you know, I'm very interested in cross-platform differences.

 

The same set of tires/rims fitted to my Legacy drove distinctly differently when fitted to my wife's then WRX, and now, again, to the FXT - and that's with me behind the wheel: untrained layman, with a rather heavily insulated butt-dyno, unfortunately, too!

CR does not specify what vehicle was used for testing the 16" Nokian. For the 18", they used what looks (in the photo) like a Chevy Cruze.

 

I thought it may be Cobalt SS.

I may be wrong but never uncertain.

 

:-)

 

Krzys