Jump to content
LegacyGT.com

Winter tire recommendation


fatbastard

Recommended Posts

For the past three years I have been running Dunlop M3's and at the end of last winter I noticed I was right at the snow band so I just kept them on through the summer to burn them up. But now I am going to need new winter tires and I really don't know what to go with. I live in NNJ so we get snow but not usually the light fluffy stuff since the temps seems to be above 20 when it snows. Occasionally we get big storms of 2ft but not often. Roads are usually salted and sanded like crazy so ice isn't too much of a problem. I did like the dry handling of the M3's but they were just Ok when the weather was bad and a few times I had some white knuckle events. Since I am expecting my first kid I want to make sure I have something that will keep these to a minimum. I have had Blizzaks in the past (WS-50) and thought they were really squirmy but freaking great in snow. I would prefer something a little less squirmy and something that seems to last a bit longer. As I remember they did not like even remotely warm temps and would just wear out quick. I would like something budget freindly like the General Altimax Arctic but from what I have read people seem to like the Xi2's and the WS70's. while they are a bit more expensive if there is a measureable improvement for what I need they are worth it. So what tire is a good balance of decent dry handling, very good snow capabilities, good ice traction and good wear? Would like to get at least two seasons out of them (~ 10k per year)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The new WS70 is designed to be less squirmy than the WS50, but I don't think the tread life will be significantly better. The Xi2 will have better tread life, but its weakness is braking on wet pavement. Wet pavement braking performance of the WS70 is unknown. I think the Xi2 is more likely to be a 20K tire than the WS70.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OTOH, the Altimax Artic seems to offer good performance at a very attractive price. They get good consumer reviews.

 

Consumer Reports also likes them. Text below is from the CR forum:

"Our testing is totally independent and our testing protocal follows what we at CR believe to be the important characteristics that consumers should consider in making a tire purchase. The Bridgestone Blizzak WS60 is a fine choice, but the General Altimax Arctic had better snow traction, a primary reason why consumers buy winter tires, and it had much better grip on wet roads, a more common occurance in winter driving. Our tire testing of winter tires emphazise winter traction, followed by three season driving, and then comfort and rolling resistance follow that. The idea winter tire woud do it all, but most winter tires do provide decent winter grip by sacrificing dry and wet grip, handling, and hydroplaning resistance. I expect most drivers would commonly be drivng on wet and dry roads with intermitent driving on snow and icy surfaces in winter. Even the top rated Michelin X-Ice XI 2 sacrifices three season grip. All the more reason to remove winter tires when spring comes around."

 

I find it very odd that CR considers "three season driving" to be an important factor for rating winter tires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new WS70 is designed to be less squirmy than the WS50, but I don't think the tread life will be significantly better. The Xi2 will have better tread life, but its weakness is braking on wet pavement. Wet pavement braking performance of the WS70 is unknown. I think the Xi2 is more likely to be a 20K tire than the WS70.

 

Outahere, I'm wondering why you say the Xi2's weakness is wet braking, when in the latest TR test it out-stopped its competitors by anywhere from 5-20 feet. http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=135

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I find CR to be sketchy in their testing at times but based on a thread here so is the testing at TR.

Based on the write up of the Blizzak the first 60% is the proprietary rubber, Continentals mention decreased capabilities starting at 50% and the michelins mention snow platform indicators but not at what level. I couldn't find anything on the General. Just don't know how quickly each one wears though. If anyone has had any of these feedback would be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outahere, I'm wondering why you say the Xi2's weakness is wet braking, when in the latest TR test it out-stopped its competitors by anywhere from 5-20 feet. http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=135

 

In the TR test, the Xi2 is being compared to other middling wet brakers. In that context it is a winner. But in the C&D test the Xi2 required 29 ft more to stop in the wet than the Pilot Alpin PA3, and 35 ft more than the Pilot Sport AS. In the Scandinavian NAF wet braking tests, the Xi2 ranked 17th out of 22 tires tested (studded and studless).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outahere, I'm wondering why you say the Xi2's weakness is wet braking, when in the latest TR test it out-stopped its competitors by anywhere from 5-20 feet. http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=135

 

^ It's because the TR data seems to be a standout.

 

Both the NAF as well as Consumer Reports data suggest that the Xi2's wet-asphalt traction is where it is most compromised. (REF: http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f72/cr-releases-their-2009-tire-test-results-61499/ , http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naf.no%2FForbrukertester%2FDekk%2FDekktester%2FVinterdekktest-2009%2FPiggfrie-dekk%2F&sl=auto&tl=en , and http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.naf.no/no/Forbrukertester/Dekk/Dekktester/Vinterdekktest-2009/Tabeller/Unnamanover-pa-vat-asfalt/&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhj9FApcaiKXjUGMET3KaLELmGEKMw ). Give your own experience with the TireRack's rather countering results and sometimes mysterious interpretations, I think you can see where we're coming from. :)

 

While it is possible that something changed, in the time between the NAF/CR testing from last year to TireRack's newer review of the Xi2, however, it stands to note that even in 2009, they still rated the Xi2 higher/stronger than the Conti EWC and Bridgestone WS60, in this particular testing challenge, seeing shorter braking distances in the wet.

<-- I love Winky, my "periwinkle" (ABP) LGT! - Allen / Usual Suspect "DumboRAT" / One of the Three Stooges

'16 Outback, '16 WRX, 7th Subaru Family

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I truly don't think you'll see that much difference, between 215 and 205. My personal feeling is that you'll only feel seat-of-the-pants differences going in steps of 20: say, a 205 versus a 225.

 

Certainly, when it comes down to the physics of it, narrower *is* better, but given that you're stepping between 215 and 205, I'd do it for the other reasons - such as dollar-savings - which are just as good. :)

<-- I love Winky, my "periwinkle" (ABP) LGT! - Allen / Usual Suspect "DumboRAT" / One of the Three Stooges

'16 Outback, '16 WRX, 7th Subaru Family

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm planning on running the General's in 205/50-17. Last 2 sets of snows have been 225/45's. I'm hoping to cut through slushy conditions better, which have been the most hair-raising conditions I've run into in the LGT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the TR test, the Xi2 is being compared to other middling wet brakers. In that context it is a winner. But in the C&D test the Xi2 required 29 ft more to stop in the wet than the Pilot Alpin PA3, and 35 ft more than the Pilot Sport AS. In the Scandinavian NAF wet braking tests, the Xi2 ranked 17th out of 22 tires tested (studded and studless).

 

OK. For my purposes, I'm not interested in the PA3 because of cost.** Of course the Pilot Sport AS is all-season, so it has major limitations with snow and ice conditions compared to most winter tires. Remember that the NAF testers claim that the Xi2 is the best overall winter tire, even with the weak ranking in wet braking when compared with the gamut of studded and studless tires available in Europe.

 

"Michelin wins piggfritesten with surprisingly large margin. It is the best tire on ice, with good grip and stable behavior. But Michelin also has good grip on wet asphalt, which is usually difficult for a smooth, spike-free winter.(my emphasis) Even in sudden maneuvers away, you have complete control. Michelin is extremely quiet and stable. This is our first choice among Nordic studded tires."

 

In the NAF comparison table at http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naf.no%2FForbrukertester%2FDekk%2FDekktester%2FVinterdekktest-2009%2FPiggfrie-dekk%2F&sl=auto&tl=en the Xi2 is on a par with the other studless tires tested for wet braking, maneuvering, and "confidence," except for the performance-rated Falken and Michelin. (I'm not sure how this should be interpreted when the Xi2 came in 17/22 on the maneuvering test you mentioned.) The other Michelin tested is described thusly: "In the test we have also a so-called Central European winter tires - Michelin Primacy Alpine. Compared with a Nordic winter tires are bad in snow and ice, but very good on wet and dry asphalt." So there is a major trade-off there.

 

In fact, it was the NAF results (combined with the TR tests) that convinced me to go with the Xi2 for my precious E30. I did go with the Conti EWC for my V6 Accord though, because of its seemingly better-balanced performance on snow, wet, and dry roads.

 

**EDIT: Actually, cost was not the decisive factor for me since it's pretty equivalent to the Xi2. The crucial difference was ice performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Again, remember, we're not saying that the Xi2 is a bad tire - it's just that wet-braking and wet-handling is not its utmost strength.

 

Yes, the Xi2 won the NAF testing for its segment, but remember, every test weighs different performance parameters, differently. Remember that in 2009, after the CR and NAF reports were published, when confronted, TireRack essentially retracted their "first place" claim for the Bridgestone WS60, and said that when factors were weighed as-same as CR, the Xi2 would come out on-top.

 

The truth of the matter is that we're splitting hairs, here - and when outahere - or anyone else - says that wet-performance is a weakness of the Xi2, that performance difference is typically relative to a very small margin. Look at the quantitative numbers: yes, the margin is large when going from one sub-genre to the next, but within each tire's sub-genre? that margin diminishes quickly.

 

So, then, why do we bring it up?

 

Because it is for the sake of academic debate, and also because it will be the small real-world differences which can potentially bias one person's decision one way or another.

 

The truth of the matter is that with any of these "top dog" tires, it's more than likely a combination of the specific vehicle platform, along with the precise weather conditions - and, in real-world use, how closely the end-user monitors and optimizes tire-pressures - that will actually make the true difference.

<-- I love Winky, my "periwinkle" (ABP) LGT! - Allen / Usual Suspect "DumboRAT" / One of the Three Stooges

'16 Outback, '16 WRX, 7th Subaru Family

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth of the matter is that with any of these "top dog" tires, it's more than likely a combination of the specific vehicle platform, along with the precise weather conditions - and, in real-world use, how closely the end-user monitors and optimizes tire-pressures - that will actually make the true difference.

 

And you forgot one more crucial factor--operator competence. When I think back to my black ice accident last Christmas Eve, I wonder if the fact that my PSIs were 5-6 lbs. over the recommended pressure had anything to do with the suddeness of the uncontrolled skid taking my turn at 25-30 mph onto the entry ramp. Perhaps, perhaps not. But I do know that if I had taken the turn a little slower and a little further away from the frozen run-off next to the island, my odds would have been a lot better.:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you forgot one more crucial factor--operator competence. When I think back to my black ice accident last Christmas Eve, I wonder if the fact that my PSIs were 5-6 lbs. over the recommended pressure had anything to do with the suddeness of the uncontrolled skid taking my turn at 25-30 mph onto the entry ramp. Perhaps, perhaps not. But I do know that if I had taken the turn a little slower and a little further away from the frozen run-off next to the island, my odds would have been a lot better.:mad:

 

Yes, operator competence is certainly a part of it: I tried to keep it out of the conversation, as it is more of a wildcard and not a true tire-related factor, but it's definitely one of the most important aspects of the equation, and is something which I've cited many, many times before. Post #50, on this thread - http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/recommended-tires-canadian-winter-142372p4.html?highlight=slow - was one of the more recent times when I've brought this critical factor into discussion.

 

Even with proper winter tires, properly maintained, it still behooves all of us to remember that Click and Clack are fond of citing "Subris."

 

I don't want to be that example, for sure. :)

 

And as for tire pressures, in your specific case? That's a very hard call to make.

 

I typically do not use the vehicle-manufacturer recommended tire pressures, ever. Instead, I usually wind up spending the better part of a month or so to find what pressures work best for me - and then continually adjust that as time passes.

 

Unless you're using precisely the same tire as what arrived on the vehicle, OEM, typically, such recommendations are just that: no more than "recommendations."

<-- I love Winky, my "periwinkle" (ABP) LGT! - Allen / Usual Suspect "DumboRAT" / One of the Three Stooges

'16 Outback, '16 WRX, 7th Subaru Family

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new WS70 is designed to be less squirmy than the WS50, but I don't think the tread life will be significantly better. ..........

 

Bridgestone claims the WS70 will indeed have better tread life.

 

"..........The tread depth of the WS70 is, on average, 1/64-inch deeper than other Blizzak tires for longer tread life, the company said."

 

"The new winter tire was developed to provide maximum snow, ice, slush and wet weather performance and added tire life compared to other Blizzak lines, the company said."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What tires were on your car then?

 

Michelin Pilot Alpin, 195/60R15. They will soon be for sale on Craig's List, replaced by the Xi2, to be put on the car sometime in early-mid November. My summer tires for the bimmer are Michelin Pilot Exalto PE2, which I like very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michelin Pilot Alpin, 195/60R15. They will soon be for sale on Craig's List, replaced by the Xi2, to be put on the car sometime in early-mid November. My summer tires for the bimmer are Michelin Pilot Exalto PE2, which I like very much.

 

I have the Exalto PE2 also, as my summer tires on the LGT.

 

I am not surprised that the Pilot Alpins slid on black ice. Ice traction is the big weakness of "performance winter" tires, and all-seasons. My Blizzak LM25s leave a lot to be desired in terms of ice traction. Too bad they are showing such good tread wear.:lol: By the time they are worn out, I will be researching the purchase of the XIce Xi4 or the Blizzak WS90.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not surprised that the Pilot Alpins slid on black ice. Ice traction is the big weakness of "performance winter" tires, and all-seasons. My Blizzak LM25s leave a lot to be desired in terms of ice traction.

 

^ +1. I remain surprised at how highly ice-traction is rated (as compared to other tires in its sub-genre), on the Dunlop 3D, given my experience with them.

 

It's only when put into the larger framework that we truly see just how poorly the "Performance Winters" perform when there's icier conditions.

 

This is again why I think that more cross-sub-genre comparisons would help - particularly of newcomers to this breed of tires. Such testing would help illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the sub-genres, and should be better at guiding new buyers through the decision tree.

<-- I love Winky, my "periwinkle" (ABP) LGT! - Allen / Usual Suspect "DumboRAT" / One of the Three Stooges

'16 Outback, '16 WRX, 7th Subaru Family

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was shocked at how useless the Pilot Alpins were on the slick of ice, but then again probably any tire (except studded) wouldn't have helped all that much in that case. But the other incident that convinced to dump the Alpins was in the previous spring when I brought my car behind my house for a wash & wax. The snow had just melted but the lawn was wet and slick. I actually got stuck on a VERY slight incline (~10-15 degrees) when the Alpins couldn't maintain any traction on the grass. Not only was that embarrassing (my neighbors saw my struggle) but disconcerting as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ The current crop of "Studless Ice & Snow" tires are very, very good at what they do: wicking away that layer of displaced water from the surface of glare ice, so as to effect traction.

 

In your specific case cited above, though, where there's already true standing water, that's something that some of us are wondering about - back to your old thread, on the very bottom of page 5, and spanning over onto page 6:

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/anyone-planning-trying-out-blizzak-ws-70i-142223p5.html

 

- we know how the new "Studless Ice & Snows" work, on glare ice, and we have seen, for ourselves, that they do work as-advertised/theorized...but your melt-over-ice situation above is precisely something that we're wondering about, now: how much overlaying water does it take for the capabilities of these tires to be reached.

 

Yes, their micro-level technology allows them to displace the water that's "pressed out" of the ice, by the weight of the vehicle above...but what happens when there's (much) more water than that, at the interface?

<-- I love Winky, my "periwinkle" (ABP) LGT! - Allen / Usual Suspect "DumboRAT" / One of the Three Stooges

'16 Outback, '16 WRX, 7th Subaru Family

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ The current crop of "Studless Ice & Snow" tires are very, very good at what they do: wicking away that layer of displaced water from the surface of glare ice, so as to effect traction.

 

In your specific case cited above, though, where there's already true standing water, that's something that some of us are wondering about - back to your old thread, on the very bottom of page 5, and spanning over onto page 6:

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/anyone-planning-trying-out-blizzak-ws-70i-142223p5.html

 

- we know how the new "Studless Ice & Snows" work, on glare ice, and we have seen, for ourselves, that they do work as-advertised/theorized...but your melt-over-ice situation above is precisely something that we're wondering about, now: how much overlaying water does it take for the capabilities of these tires to be reached.

 

Yes, their micro-level technology allows them to displace the water that's "pressed out" of the ice, by the weight of the vehicle above...but what happens when there's (much) more water than that, at the interface?

 

In my case cited above I don't think there was any standing water on top of the black ice. It was a narrow slick that I hit just at the apex of my turn. Does it make sense to call it "dry" black ice, and is that less slippery than "wet" black ice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing my experience into the conversation........I got 4 winters and an incredible spring out of Blizzak LM22's. Very stable in "regular" snow......less so in melt-over-ice , but not scary. Very good resistance to hydroplaning too. Total miles driven approx. 28,000.

I need to mention that at the end of their service they were incredibly strong and stable in the dry ,warm twisties this past spring.

( The ContinentalExtremeContacts that replaced them are a reduction in handling capability.......even when I pumped 6 lbs more tire pressure)

Do it right the first time.........or don't bother doing it at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my case cited above I don't think there was any standing water on top of the black ice. It was a narrow slick that I hit just at the apex of my turn. Does it make sense to call it "dry" black ice, and is that less slippery than "wet" black ice?

 

What I'd referred to was your immediate-previous post, as reflected by the "^" symbol leading off my follow-up, it was not to refer back to the earlier post (post 13), on page 1. :)

 

You'd posted:

 

I was shocked at how useless the Pilot Alpins were on the slick of ice, but then again probably any tire (except studded) wouldn't have helped all that much in that case. But the other incident that convinced to dump the Alpins was in the previous spring when I brought my car behind my house for a wash & wax. The snow had just melted but the lawn was wet and slick. I actually got stuck on a VERY slight incline (~10-15 degrees) when the Alpins couldn't maintain any traction on the grass. Not only was that embarrassing (my neighbors saw my struggle) but disconcerting as well.

 

To which I'd replied, in the very next post:

 

^ The current crop of "Studless Ice & Snow" tires are very, very good at what they do: wicking away that layer of displaced water from the surface of glare ice, so as to effect traction.

 

In your specific case cited above, though, where there's already true standing water, that's something that some of us are wondering about - back to your old thread, on the very bottom of page 5, and spanning over onto page 6:

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/anyone-planning-trying-out-blizzak-ws-70i-142223p5.html

 

- we know how the new "Studless Ice & Snows" work, on glare ice, and we have seen, for ourselves, that they do work as-advertised/theorized...but your melt-over-ice situation above is precisely something that we're wondering about, now: how much overlaying water does it take for the capabilities of these tires to be reached.

 

Yes, their micro-level technology allows them to displace the water that's "pressed out" of the ice, by the weight of the vehicle above...but what happens when there's (much) more water than that, at the interface?

 

:)

 

Now, in terms of your current question - that of "wet" versus "dry" ice....

 

That's, as what was discussed in the latter portion of my reply above, what many of us are trying to figure out. How much standing water atop a slick of ice is necessary to further compromise ice-performance, for friction tires?

 

Theoretically, ice is made "more slippery" by the very thin film of water that's either literally "pressed out" of the ice as it is compressed by the car's weight atop or produced from heat as the tire passes over (this topic is itself highly debated, and the second half of the following article provides good reading as to why: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2016/is-there-really-such-a-thing-as-black-ice [bTW, what's funny is that our driveway is blacktop, and how we know whether the day's at-risk for black-ice on the roads is whether or not we fall on our ass, as we try to make our way to our detached garage :lol:])- and that's what modern friction "Studless Ice & Snow" tires wick away.

 

http://www.drivingfast.net/techniques/winter-driving-techniques.htm

 

^ The last info. box.

 

It's said that testing tires on ice is one of the hardest things to do, quantitatively, because of how even slight variations in conditions can drastically affect the tire's ice performance. Look at the data there for "snow and ice" and "black ice" (and note, interestingly, the coefficients of "wet ice" versus "glare ice" supports the "contrarian" point of view, as-expressed in the first part of the 5th-to-last paragraph). While I don't particularly subscribe to their classifications of the different ice surfaces, what is clear is that there's tremendous variation in the surface coefficient of friction, when it comes to ice.

 

Truthfully, to me, whether you hit ice that was more or less wet on the surface really didn't matter (and it can be debated both ways :)) - what mattered was, very simply, that you hit ice, and that's what compromised your safety.

<-- I love Winky, my "periwinkle" (ABP) LGT! - Allen / Usual Suspect "DumboRAT" / One of the Three Stooges

'16 Outback, '16 WRX, 7th Subaru Family

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with BrooklynBoy above on the Blizzak winter tires. I run the tire Blizzak that replaced his tires called the LM60. I go snowboarding every weekend so getting there regardless of the conditions is extremely important. These worked well all season with appropriate adjustments for the conditions, I would def recommend them to a friend!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use