Snow and Ice Tires 2005...

[Dean]

Since Debbie now lives within spitting distance of the summit of Peavine, and has some pretty steep curvy roads to get down to civilization, we were looking at what the ultimate in ice/snow tires are. Please note this has nothing to do with dry performance, only pure snow and sheet ice...

By combining Consumers Reports, and Tirerack data, with a little extrapolation and reading between the lines, here are the results.

There are 3 main contenders that we actually have some useful data on.

Bridgestone Blizzak REVO 1
Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50
Michelin X-Ice

Subaru Sizes:
205/55-16 - All
225/60-16 - Revo, X-Ice
225/45-17 - Revo, and WS-50

From a sheet ice perspective, they are almost indistinguishable, but if we had to sort them, according to TR it would be Revo, WS-50, X-Ice. According to CR, it would be X-Ice, WS-50, and no info on the Revo. (Cr did braking, TR did acceleration and cornering)

From a snow perspective, the X-Ice wins, followed by the WS-50, and we have no real data on the Revo, but assume it is in the ballpark.

None of these are spectacular in the wet or dry, scoring only fair in wet and dry braking, with the Revo being the worst in wet braking. Handling is good for all 3 with the X-Ice apparently on top.

From a price perspective, they are all within a couple bucks of each other per tire, and are in the neighborhood of $100 + or - depending on size. the 225/60-16s are cheapest at $96-$97 for no apparent reason, followed by the 205/55-16s at $100-$106, and he 17s are the most expensive at $135.

By the way, the Nokian Hakkapelittas long known for there snow/ice performance are quite a bit behind these 3...

So from a bottom line perspective, you can't go Wong with any of the 3, so pick one that is in stock in the size you want. Maybe Khail can tell us what the "discount price" is for them in each choice.

There are some good choices that are still rated good and very good in either snow and/or ice, (The 3 listed are rated excellent, 1-2 grades higher) and have better wet/dry performance. One stand out is the Viking Snowtech which is rated good in snow and ice, and very good in wet/dry/handling, hydroplaning, etc... The Mastercraft Glacier Grip II is excellent in snow, and good in all other areas. The Toyo 800 ultra, a M&S, not pure snow tire also did very good in snow and ice, but had the same issue of only doing fair in wet and dry.

Sorry, none of the "performance" snows made the cut as far as I can tell. At least on ice, they appear to fall into the performance range of the last generation Blizzak LM-22s which can't touch the new bread.

[sperry]

Nothing about the Dunlop Wintersport M2/3's? The SVX was unstoppable with a set of 225/50/16 M3's during last year's snow. Plus the dry/wet handling is on par with most all seasons (and better than RE92's IMO). They're also fairly quiet in the dry as well. I'd go so far as to call them "3 season tires", with summer being the out season.

[sybir]

What's the significance of 225/60/16?
I'm not sure what OEM Subaru that came on.

Great info, though!

[Nick Koan]

The OB (BH) that Debbie now has came with 225/60/16.

[sybir]

That makes sense, then

Welcome to the family, Deb

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

Nothing about the Dunlop Wintersport M2/3's? The SVX was unstoppable with a set of 225/50/16 M3's during last year's snow. Plus the dry/wet handling is on par with most all seasons (and better than RE92's IMO). They're also fairly quiet in the dry as well. I'd go so far as to call them "3 season tires", with summer being the out season.

Actually, it is the Wintersport M2s, and the Perelli SnowSports that were slightly worse than the old Blizzak LM-22s back in 2000.

Again, I am doing some interpretation, and extrapolation, but from what I can tell, those tires are significantly worse than the current batch, and would probably be rated a only "good" today compared to the "excelent" ratings on the new ones. The Dunlop Graspic DS-2s were included in the most recent TR test and got crushed by the 3 newer tires, but the Dunlops got numbers very similar to the M2s, and LM-22s did back in 2000.

These next gen snows are using some very interesting compounds in the first 45% or so of the tread depth from what I read, as well as some interesting tread designs and constructions, but they are paying the price in wet and dry performance.

Again, I did this to search for the best dang ice/snow tire without consideration for dry/wet performance. These are not likely to be the best bet for people who drive a lot of miles on dry/wet pavement. they will likely want something that is slightly more of a compromise.

[Kevin M]

I have WS-50s on the Van, but there's only been one snow night over the summit so far. But they did a pretty damn good job of sticking to the 1/2" sheet of ice the plows left on the road. I only felt the electronic center "diff" in the van do it's thing twice in about a 9 mile stretch of road, on each trip. The van weighs about 4500 pounds or so, and I was on 205/75R14s at about 36 psi. Hard to measure dry grip and braking in the van however. All I can say is that I've never slid a tire in spite of reasonably strong attempts to, not counting a few intentional brake lock-ups. No front ABS.

I picked these because TireRack's survey had them rated the highest among ice and snow tires in ice grip, and that's the most important thing to me too going over the summit.

I really liked the M2s last year myself. My one snow donkey run-in aside, they kept my n00b winter driving ass on the road the rest of the season, including a few trips over the summit with snow on the road. The M3s are supposed to be a significant leap forward with the newer compound though, so I wouldn't lump them in with old technology just yet.

Getting back to your research Dean, I was led to believe by what I read that the Revo 1 isn't much superior to the WS-50 on ice, but it should kick its ass in dry conditions. For a car, I'd be considering between the Revo, WS-50, and M3, with M3 probably being the first choice. However, I think only the WS50 is available in the 14" Miata size, so I'll be making it a second set of those probably.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Getting back to your research Dean, I was led to believe by what I read that the Revo 1 isn't much superior to the WS-50 on ice, but it should kick its ass in dry conditions. For a car, I'd be considering between the Revo, WS-50, and M3, with M3 probably being the first choice. However, I think only the WS50 is available in the 14" Miata size, so I'll be making it a second set of those probably.

From what I see, the Revo is slightly worse in dry braking, and much worse at wet braking. It scores ever so slightly better on ice, but not significantly vs. the other two. Some of TRs subjective numbers are better, but the hard data doesn't back it up.

2005 TireRack winter tire tests (See more graphs link under the useless summary graph.

I have no data on the M3s, only the M2s, so they were all I commented on. I do think if the M3s were major contenders, they might have included them in either the CR, or TR test, but I don't know why they were not included.

Again, this was about pure ice/snow performance. I really don't think that was the design criteria of the M3, as it is more of a compromise/really good 1.5-3 season tire. If I had to guess, if it had been tested, it might have been similar to the Dunlop DS-2, but again, I have no data to prove, or disprove that.

While TR has the Revo winning by a smidge in ice acceleration, and cornering, CR has the X-Ice winning over the WS-50 in ice braking by a significant enough margin for the WS-50 to only get a very good compared to the X-Ice Excelent. My contention remains that these 3 tires are the best of bread, and that they are mostly indistinguishable, especially since different widths have different tread patterns, and therfore different performance characteristics.

20000 TireRack testing

[Kevin M]

I frankly don't put a lot of stock in what CR says about anything. Basically my skepticism with them stems from one thing- the most expensive example of whatever it is they test is never the best. The thing they call the best out of whatever product they're testing is ALWAYS priced mid-pack to slightly higher than mid-pack. They factor cost too heavily into the equation, and when it comes to some things (like say, winter tires) cost should not be a factor.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

I frankly don't put a lot of stock in what CR says about anything. Basically my skepticism with them stems from one thing- the most expensive example of whatever it is they test is never the best. The thing they call the best out of whatever product they're testing is ALWAYS priced mid-pack to slightly higher than mid-pack. They factor cost too heavily into the equation, and when it comes to some things (like say, winter tires) cost should not be a factor.

Um, while cost is listed, it has nothing to do with the data I am refering to. You can debate their "overall score", but thier data IMHO is above reproach. Thier scientific method has held up to intense scrutiny for years. Since they have no vested interest in the products they review, I would hold their results above an industry test such as TireRack...

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

Um, while cost is listed, it has nothing to do with the data I am refering to. You can debate their "overall score", but thier data IMHO is above reproach. Thier scientific method has held up to intense scrutiny for years. Since they have no vested interest in the products they review, I would hold their results above an industry test such as TireRack...

CR may be considered the de facto standard for reviews, but their data are hardly "above reproach". Unless those tires were tested day after day for months on end, across every possible condition, while sticking to the strictest recording methods, the data presented is still based on one or two particular testing sessions, and can't empirically demonstrate which tire is better than the other. Remember, testing is *always* an attempt to extrapolate long term facts from short term examples. Sometimes the data lies, no matter how well gathered it is.

...'course you haven't even linked us to the testing procedure, or data, so it's even easier to despute the data, since within the context of this conversation it's simply your word that the data supports your conclusions.

That said, I would be surprised if there weren't winter tires out there that school my M3's in the snow and ice. The M3 is designed to be a competant snow tire without completely giving up dry performance and a high speed rating; it's a snow tire for sports cars. Which is exactly in line with my needs, something allow me to drive November-February regardless of conditions, which for me means maybe 2 weeks of actual snow on the street, the rest of the time it's just cold and perhaps wet.

IMO, if you want the "ultimate" in snow/ice performance, get studded tires. Hell, make your own



...but seriously, if absolute snow and ice performance is the goal, and dry handling is of zero concern, how come you're not looking at studded tires?

[Dean]

OK, "beyond reproach" may have been to strong, but I would say that there data is far less likely to be biased than TireRacks, whose sole purpose is to sell tires.

I don't have the energy to scan The CR test, and it is not freely available on-line. Feel free to go look it up at the library, or better yet, subscribe yourself... Oh, and I won't tell you which car batteries they liked either...

Studs are an option, but from what I have read, they only have value on ice, and can actually harm performance in wet/dry as well as being noisy.

Oh, and my extrapolations and interpretations of the data are far more supect than either the sources I used.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

OK, "beyond reproach" may have been to strong, but I would say that there data is far less likely to be biased than TireRacks, whose sole purpose is to sell tires.

I don't have the energy to scan The CR test, and it is not freely available on-line. Feel free to go look it up at the library, or better yet, subscribe yourself... Oh, and I won't tell you which car batteries they liked either...

Studs are an option, but from what I have read, they only have value on ice, and can actually harm performance in wet/dry as well as being noisy.

Oh, and my extrapolations and interpretations of the data are far more supect than either the sources I used.

I'm certainly not going to waste my time or money trying to get the Consumer Reports data... frankly, I trust CR about as far as I can throw their rag. I'd much rather get my reviews from people that are experts on the product, rather than from an editorial magazine that considers itself an expert on *everything*, who's real goal isn't to give unbiased reviews, but to sell magazines. If I want to know what microwave works the best, I'll ask a chef that uses one 10 hours a day, 5 days a week. If I want to know what tire works best in the winter, I'll ask over at the Swedish Subaru Club, etc.

And, I understand that studs "actually harm performance in wet/dry" conditions. But you started this thread saying you were "looking at what the ultimate in ice/snow tires are. Please note this has nothing to do with dry performance, only pure snow and sheet ice..." If that's actually your goal, then studs are exactly where you should be looking.

Otherwise, you need to include wet and dry performance in your conclusions, which is why I wonder where tires like the M2/M3/LM-22 are, since they're (AFAIK) still some of the best snow/sports tires around. Although, I would suspect the wintersports are probably *not* what the doctor ordered in Debbie's case... since they probably compromise snow/ice for wet/dry too much for those hills you mentioned, but I'd guess for the majority of the people on the board with WRX's and STI's, a set of M3's are just about right when it comes to wet/dry performance, adequate snow/ice handling, and value for the dollar. At least that's what I concluded last winter when I did similar research.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

I'm certainly not going to waste my time or money trying to get the Consumer Reports data... frankly, I trust CR about as far as I can throw their rag....

To each their own. However, you might want to know something about a organization, their staff, and their methods, etc. prior to dismissing them so quickly. 'nuff said.

Hell Scott, if the Swedish Bikini team has some decent tire test data, I'd be happy to see/use it. I used what I had access to. Annecdotal information from swedish chefs(Bork, Bork), not withstanding.

None of these tires are unsafe in the wet/dry, they just don't excel there. For somebody in Tahoe, Truckee, or drives the summits often in the winter, the results I have presented may be perfectly applicable. I have been clear all along about my intent for this thread. Feel free to start a "2005 3 season tire" or "2005 pretty good snow/ice/wet/dry" tire thread.

My intent is not to diss any other tires, including the M3s, only summarize my findings for use by those who might be interested.

I personally use W300s cause they are cheap, and are probably better than the HTR+s on the Audi, and actually did OK in the wet at Laguna Seca, but I got no science to back that up.

[doubleurx]

The best snow / ice tires I have ever used up here that don't totally suck in the dry and wet are the Blizzack MZ-01. I have tried the Lm-22 and they are no comparison at all. I had the M2's on my old WRX and now have the M3's on the STI. The M3's are far superior as the compound is much softer. Unless you live in an area that always has snow on the road (which we don't), I think dedicated studded snow / ice tires area a waste as they suck on the dry pavement. Granted there are those few days when they are great, but those are the days you should just stay home.

[Kevin M]

It occured to me this evening that I do definitely need to qualify what I said about the WS50s- it's only the second snow tire I've used, and I've used them very little so far. So what I said about them applies only to that tire, I have no reason to naysay anything about the other tires.

[Joeyy]

I had a friend that lived up on the top of Tahoe Donner in Truckee. He drove a Audi A4 and his drive way was crazy. He used the Nokian studdless tire and the only thing that could stop that car was a snow berm.

[dknv]

Originally Posted by sybir

Welcome to the family, Deb

D'ya mean, welcome back? (I had the wrx wagon; and still have the 90 red legacy wagon too, but that one needs fixing) ... or do you mean OB wagon?

As far as my application, I figure there will be days this winter where I will need great grip to get up & down that hill, but also driving on I-80 to get to my office. I think studded tires are great for icy condition grip, but not the best choice when I also drive a fair amount of time on the interstate.

[sybir]

The OB wagon part. I knew you never really left the wagon mafia

[Kevin M]

Deb, the guy I replaced on my route uses a Chevy S10 4wd. In the winter he used to use studded tires for the trek to Sacramento and back- at least 60% of his miles were on dry or wet pavement. He says that it's not much of an issue, you just have to keep driving like you would on studless tires on ice, and not push.

[M3n2c3]

Blizzaks or X-ice. That's good to see - I was reading up on winter tires a couple of weeks ago and that was pretty much the conclusion I came to. I'm willing to give up a bit of dry performance if it means I'll be able to get to and from work safely when there's snow between Carson and Dayton.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Dean

but thier data IMHO is above reproach. Thier scientific method has held up to intense scrutiny for years.

If a scientifc method were above reproach, it would not be a scientific method.

My parents used to run Toyos on their Outback. No one else seems to use them, but they were awesome.

[Ezdno]

Well if it ever snows, I will give everyone a critique on the Falkon ZE502 89V supposedly the Falken All Season Tire.

[Kevin M]

Oh yeah, one thing I forgot- I chose the WS50s for the van because the consumer reviews on Tire Rack rated it a 9.7 in ice grip- with like 11,000,000 total miles. It's fair to say a good portion of those who buy snow tires every year really know their stuff, and it takes a very small percentage of people disliking a characteristic to knock it down... and it was damn near perfect. That and the extremely reasonable cost made the decision pretty easy.

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by Dean

Since Debbie now lives within spitting distance of the summit of Peavine, and has some pretty steep curvy roads to get down to civilization...

I didn't know anybody lived up there (or are you exagerating a bit?). Just curious, where does she live and what road(s) does she take?

I just ordered some X-Ices for my old beater 'yota 4WD wagon. I'm biased toward Michelins having worked for them for 12 years. I also get the impression that they're better on dry and wet roads, which is 95% of what they'll see even in winter.

I live on Peavine too, but still on paved roads.