# Which snow tires



## mr overkill (Dec 1, 2013)

So I am looking up snow tires for the cruze for when I buy the car soon and there are 3 

these are the ones I have on my Subaru

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...el&snowSortCode=32&sortSize=16&wtpackage=true


this is the POPULAR choice 

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...el&snowSortCode=32&sortSize=16&wtpackage=true


BUT I found these

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...el&snowSortCode=32&sortSize=16&wtpackage=true


----------



## MilTownSHO (Oct 9, 2013)

I just installed the Blizzacks in stock 17' tire size.

My initial thought was they aren't as grippy as I remember my last few sets of snow's were. 

I will say they got me 45 miles home through unplowed roads later that night though.


----------



## warplane95 (May 29, 2013)

I ise nokian hakka r2 on my cruze, and from other driver, nokian have the best winter tire

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Savyy (Mar 28, 2013)

Its my 3rd winter on Michelin Xice 3 and I'm 100% satisfied with them  

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## snowvette (Oct 9, 2012)

I'm on my 2nd winter on the Blizzak WS70 and they are sill doing great. It's very rare that I can't do the posted speed limit.


----------



## 2014LT1 (Jan 16, 2014)

I would go from bottom to top. Michelin hands down first choice. I have ran X-Ice3, and X-ice2. I just installed Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice WRT on the cruze in 205/60/16 bc they were cheaper then 215/60/16. They dont have as good of reviews as the Michelins but I only paid $300 for them so I cant complain. I got a second set of wheels on here from Jnoob


----------



## Nobody (Feb 12, 2012)

Michelin Xice 3 tires are amazing! I've been using mine for two years now, not a single complaint


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

Blizzak's are designed for packed snow and ice, it isn't surprising they felt a little off on an unplowed road. Firestone Winterforce are better suited for that. Michelin and Nokian are A LOT of money for the amount of improvement you will see over some less expensive snows. They are a little bit better but you are also paying stupid money for a brand name. for my cash I'd go with Winterforces if you live somewhere that you drive in a lot of deeper snow, or Blizzak's for places where they keep up with plowing or you see a lot of ice. I'd really like to plug the Nitto NT90W since they are my favorite company and it looks like a very capable tire, have not been able to get my hands on a set yet though, maybe next year.
NT90W - Studless Winter Radial


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

I see a valid reason for paying more money for Michelin or Nokian snow tires: road manners. Those tires don't just go through snow/ice like nobody's business, they also drive like standard all-seasons when there is dry pavement. My Nokian Hakka R's have little road noise and good handling on dry pavement. They are also a LRR tire, so the fuel economy hit during the times I don't need their winter capabilities is small. 

If one drives a lot, spending more for good tires is totally worth it.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

Every set of Blizzak's I have had does the same. Granted my current winterforce tires are a bit loud. And, again, in my opinion LRR tires are the biggest waste of money going with tires. By definition they can't handle, or stop on any surface as good as a regular tire. My preference is to be able to stop and turn more than saving $.35 every time I fill up and $75-100 over 80,000 miles.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

NBrehm said:


> Every set of Blizzak's I have had does the same. Granted my current winterforce tires are a bit loud. And, again, in my opinion LRR tires are the biggest waste of money going with tires. By definition they can't handle, or stop on any surface as good as a regular tire. My preference is to be able to stop and turn more than saving $.35 every time I fill up and $75-100 over 80,000 miles.


Square that with Michelin XI-3's and Nokian Hakka R and R2's being among the top-rated snow tires for handling and stopping. All 3 of those tires are LRR tires.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

Like any other tire you will give up something to gain something. I'd imagine the harder compound and sidewall that makes those tires handle on clear roads are going to hurt you in slush and icy conditions. That is half the reason snows normally don't handle as well as their all season counterparts. But, you buy them to go in the snow and ice, not handle on clear roads. So in that aspect, I'm going to have to say that, for what they are DESIGNED to do, a non LRR snow tire still handles better than it's counterpart.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Again, I beg to differ. All 3 of the tires I mentioned have proven by TireRack, CR, and other organizations around the world to be at the top of their class for snow/ice traction and road manners. Not all LRR tires are worse than their non-LRR counterparts.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

sciphi said:


> Not all LRR tires are worse than their non-LRR counterparts.


Agreed 100%. This has been proven over and over again.

There's a lot of science in a tire's tread design and rubber compounds. Using the same tire carcass and rubber compound, two tires of different tread designs will have different levels of rolling efficiency. That doesn't mean winter traction and rolling resistance share an inverse relationship.

Even IF the Michelin Xi3 didn't perform any better in snow than other cheaper snow tires do, the road manners and ULTRA QUIET RIDE would be worth paying a premium for. I had the Xi2 on my Saturn and the best things about those were the price (cheaper back then) and the low road noise. They were only OK in the snow in my experience. I did a lot of research into the Xi3 before buying it and I'm pleased they're now a world class snow tire as far as winter performance goes. The fact they have low rolling resistance (for a snow tire) handle well and are whisper quiet is icing on the cake.

I've read excellent things about the latest Hakka R as well, another stellar winter tire. My decision to go with the Michelin was based on previous experience, cost (a bit cheaper) and availability. All factors considered they were the right choice for ME. If I had a Nokian dealer on my street I may have tried them out instead due mainly to their stellar reputation.

Around here almost everyone has snow tires (on the other side of the river, province of Quebec, they're now mandatory). Quite often I will hear someone with a set of tires so loud it will drown out my radio as they go by... this almost daily reminder makes me feel good about my purchase. I hate loud tires!


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

I always take stuff a distributor says with a grain of salt. By Tirerack's own "objective" (albeit slightly ridiculous since they did it on a hockey rink and at 12MPH) tests,the WS70 and the X-ice accelerate almost identically and the Blizzak stops measureably better on both snow and ice and turns better on ice but somehow the X-Ice scores a higher grade for winter driving. The main criticism for the X-ice from them is handling on ice. So you would think evaluating a snow tire for winter driving two of your biggest concerns would be turning and most certainly stopping power on snow and ice since they are the most critical. But I'm willing to bet Michelin pays them more and/or makes them more money. My conclusion, as an ALL AROUND compromise the X-Ice may be better, but as a dedicated snow tire it is nothing special when compared to it's less expensive competition. I personally don't need a tire for the winter that handles good on clean dry roads, I need to be able to drive on snow and ice, so my compromise is giving up that extra dry handling for better bad weather handling. But from what I see the data (and not opinion) from Tirerack themselves says the Blizzak WS70 is a better snow than the X-Ice by a small margin, at least on a hockey rink at 12MPH anyway.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=167


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

I'd also think you would be hard pressed to make up much of the $100 extra cost with efficiency with a whopping 2.5% difference in mileage. Your snows would have to last 60,000 or so miles to make any gain.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

And by the numbers the Continental tire stomps them all


----------



## 2014LT1 (Jan 16, 2014)

Realistically, the blizzaks and the michelins are on the same playing field price wise. The michelins are a tad more. You guys are also forgetting longevity. The michelins are guaranteed for 40,000 miles, the only snow tire with a warranty. I have many many customers complain about how their blizzaks wore out so fast. 

Comparing higher end snow tires to low end crap like Winterforce is a joke. A Winterforce is barely a step up from a high end all season. The Goodyear Winter Grip is crap as well. The tread lacks necessary siping for good ice traction. Now if you step up to the Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice WRT it's is definitely better but still not on the same playing field as Michelin, Nokian, or blizzak.


----------



## DVSLTZ (Apr 12, 2013)

Savyy said:


> Its my 3rd winter on Michelin Xice 3 and I'm 100% satisfied with them
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


also have the same tires on my 2012 ltz and I drive 170kms round trip to work through some bad snow storms and unplowed roads this year. great snow and ice tire, very satisfied. also the ONLY snow tire with a 60,000 km tread warranty on the market


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

NBrehm said:


> I'd also think you would be hard pressed to make up much of the $100 extra cost with efficiency with a whopping 2.5% difference in mileage. Your snows would have to last 60,000 or so miles to make any gain.


Since low rolling resistance also means less heat generated, an LRR tire will stand a better chance at lasting longer. It's too early to judge my Xi3 for longevity, but I had tons of use (four winters and a summer) with my Xi2 on the Saturn and they had about half their tread left when I sold the car. That's gotta be worth something, no?

Speaking of the Blizzak specifically, doesn't the WS70 use an open cell compound in the outer section of the tread that wears very quickly, revealing a more "all season" type of compound? I know Blizzaks used to be that way, not sure if that still applies?

Bah, Google's too easy, just looked it up:

_"The Blizzak WS70 features a dual-compound tread with Bridgestone's NanoPro-Tech silica-enhanced Tube Multicell compound layered on top of a standard winter compound."_

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=Blizzak+WS70&sidewall=Blackwall&partnum=155TR7WS70&tab=Sizes

According to their customer surveys, the Xi3 gets a 8.8 rating for wear vs 7.8 for the WS70. In the Winter/Snow performance category the WS70 scores a very slight advantage (at full tread depth), but in Ride and Noise comfort the Xi3 is clearly ahead. I personally will give up a slight edge in traction for a sizeable increase in comfort, ride, handling and wear, but that's me. Everyone's different.

Based on Tire Rack's current pricing of the 215/55-17 (17" Eco/LTZ) size, in my opinion the Xi3 is worth the $18/tire premium ($146 Xi3, $128 WS70):

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...ewall=Blackwall&partnum=155HR7XI3XL&tab=Sizes

Once again, just my opinion and observations. A healthy discussion is good for the OP's question.


----------



## Garandman (Dec 31, 2013)

2014LT1 said:


> I would go from bottom to top. Michelin hands down first choice. I have ran X-Ice3, and X-ice2. I just installed Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice WRT on the cruze in 205/60/16 bc they were cheaper then 215/60/16. They dont have as good of reviews as the Michelins but I only paid $300 for them so I cant complain. I got a second set of wheels on here from Jnoob


X-Ice are good but we've gone back to Nokian because they last one to two seasons longer and have equal or better berformance in all categories. We only but the Michelins now if a Nokian isn't available in that size.

OP, Altimax Arctics are good as you know but aren't as quiet or low rolling resistance as the latest generation snows.

WS70 is supposed to be a good performer but haven't used that model: I've only owned their predecessor. X-Ice Xi3 is a very good tire if you can't get Nokians locally. 

We put General Altimax Arctic on our Cruze because we bought it 12/31 and the dealers were sold out of Michelins and Nokians. I've had Nokian RSI, WR, WRG2, Hakka R, and now Hakka R2 and I think the price difference ($20-25 more per tire than the AA) is well worth it for better snow and ice performance, longer life, and the R2's are quiet and have low rolling resistance.

All the cars my family ride in have Nokian Hakka R2's.



NBrehm said:


> Blizzak's are designed for packed snow and ice, it isn't surprising they felt a little off on an unplowed road. Firestone Winterforce are better suited for that. *Michelin and Nokian are A LOT of money for the amount of improvement you will see over some less expensive snows. They are a little bit better but you are also paying stupid money for a brand name*. for my cash I'd go with Winterforces if you live somewhere that you drive in a lot of deeper snow, or Blizzak's for places where they keep up with plowing or you see a lot of ice. I'd really like to plug the Nitto NT90W since they are my favorite company and it looks like a very capable tire, have not been able to get my hands on a set yet though, maybe next year.
> NT90W - Studless Winter Radial


We have six company cars and two personal cars. We put winter tires on the company cars so our service staff will make customer visits even if the weather might be bad. 

You get what you pay for. Deep snow performance is the easiest goal to achieve. There are major differences in ice performance, dry road handling and braking, wet road handling and braking, noise, and rolling resistance between the best snow tires one the market and the mid-to-low performers you mention.

What's the premium? We couldn't get Nokian Hakka R2's for the Cruze Diesel as they were sold out. We paid $162.50 for General AA's mounted and balanced. The Hakka R2's on my Outback are a little wider (225/55R17 versus 215/55R17) and cost $187 each. I will very happily pay that difference in up-front cost because most of our vehicles are driven 30-40,000 miles per year and the Nokians last one or two sweats ons longer and maintain their performance as the tread depth decreases better than the others.

I've purchased three full sets of winter tires this year plus two replacements (due to a sidewall puncture). Buying cheap tires seldom saves a dime, and you are stuck with second-rate performance every mile.

So we buy Nokians because because even though the purchase price is higher, the cost of ownership is lower and the performance is better. If you drive one of the tires you mention on hard pack snow or ice and the latest Nokian, you will not be talking about "a little bit better" for "stupid money" anymore.


----------



## 2014LT1 (Jan 16, 2014)

Yep I am also a fan of Nokian but where I work we don't sell them so they arent practical for me. I also had a rough time getting some of the Nokians to seat properly on rims when I used to install them at another shop.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

2014LT1 said:


> I also had a rough time getting some of the Nokians to seat properly on rims when I used to install them at another shop.


Not that it's related, but I read several reports of the newest Hakka R having some issues with owners not being able to get them balanced properly. They would balance on the machine but were out of round, causing a vibration on the car. I'm sure they've addressed this by now, it was probably an isolated batch of tires.


----------



## Garandman (Dec 31, 2013)

Blue Angel said:


> Not that it's related, but I read several reports of the newest Hakka R having some issues with owners not being able to get them balanced properly. They would balance on the machine but were out of round, causing a vibration on the car. I'm sure they've addressed this by now, it was probably an isolated batch of tires.


Hakka R was discontinued last season. We had them on two cars and there were no balance problems.

All the R2's we've purchased were made in Nokians Russian factory, their newest. There has been some discussion about which ones are best but the Russian factory is state-of-the-art and all the R2's we've purchased have also balanced fine: that's three and a half sets.

We have noticed winter tires exacerbate any suspension problems. A Hakka R2 that seemed to be out of balance on my OBW turned out to be a bad shock (replaced under warranty). Don't know whether that's because they weigh more or are "squishier." *

* That's the technical term for low hysteresis tread compounds in thick sections - 12/32nds....I keed, I keed.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

Garandman said:


> Hakka R was discontinued last season. We had them on two cars and there were no balance problems.
> 
> All the R2's we've purchased were made in Nokians Russian factory, their newest.


Ah, my bad. It was the Hakka R2 I was referring to and one of the discussions I read was referring to tires that came from their new Russian factory. As I said, I'm sure it was a fairly isolated incident and likely corrected long ago.


----------



## Garandman (Dec 31, 2013)

Fwiw Nokian sells an older version under the Nordman name at a cheaper price. Continental sells a Viking, ditto. And the General Altimax Arctic is actually the Gislavid NordFrost 3: Conti owns both. They still sell as Gislavid in Canada, where they now have the NordFrost 5.

The Blizzak, Michelin and Nokian all use the latest technology and fight to be "top of the heap" as some parts of Europe, Quebec and elsewhere mandate winter tires.


----------



## 2014LT1 (Jan 16, 2014)

Blue Angel said:


> Not that it's related, but I read several reports of the newest Hakka R having some issues with owners not being able to get them balanced properly. They would balance on the machine but were out of round, causing a vibration on the car. I'm sure they've addressed this by now, it was probably an isolated batch of tires.


Actually it is related. Wen I used to install them, we found the rubber compound in the tire was so soft/sticky that it would often take 75+ psi to get them to seat on the rim. Even once seated they weren't seated properly/straight causing them to seam out of round. On the balancer you could see them not spinning perfectly straight. This is exactly what you are decribing, they "balance out to zero" but aren't truly balanced since the tires haven't fully seated.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

2014LT1 said:


> ...the rubber compound in the tire was so soft/sticky that it would often take 75+ psi to get them to seat on the rim. Even once seated they weren't seated properly/straight causing them to seam out of round. On the balancer you could see them not spinning perfectly straight. This is exactly what you are decribing...


HA! Waddaya know... thanks for the info!

So what was the fix? Did they change the rubber compound, devise a new tire mounting lube, come up with a new mounting techique?


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

Most snow tires are only designed to be used for 1/2 their tread depth anyway. It does not surprise me that the LRR tires last longer. One thing to take not e of is that 40K warranty is for the life of the Michelin tire if memory serves, meaning the full tread depth down to 2/32 of an inch. Most snows have a "Useable" tread only down to 5 or 6/32 of an inch and then either the compound changes to more of an all season or they lose their snow tire characteristics from lack of tread depth. But yes I am quite sure the LRR tires will last longer, but again, less heat and friction means it is gripping the road as well as it could either.


----------



## Garandman (Dec 31, 2013)

NBrehm said:


> Most snow tires are only designed to be used for 1/2 their tread depth anyway. It does not surprise me that the LRR tires last longer. One thing to take not e of is that 40K warranty is for the life of the Michelin tire if memory serves, meaning the full tread depth down to 2/32 of an inch. Most snows have a "Useable" tread only down to 5 or 6/32 of an inch and then either the compound changes to more of an all season or they lose their snow tire characteristics from lack of tread depth. //


Winter tires are exempt from UTQG ratings and most do not have a treadwear warranty. The sole passenger tire exception I'm aware of is the Nokian WRG2/WRG3, which has the severe snow (mountain snowflake) rating as well as a UTQG rating.

Austria and other countries specify that a tread depth of 4mm or less no longer qualifies as a winter tire. 4mm is roughly 5/32nd. Nokians actually have treadwear indicators molded in: one for use as a winter tire, another for the minimum requirement of 2/32nd.


----------

