Nokians vs, Blizzaks vs. Winter Sport M3

[chefwong]

Wear vs. traction.

Most roads are plowed and mainly used with between Dec-Mid March in typical Northeast winters. Sometimes we get it easy and sometimes we get hit hard.

I do hit the mtns in the winter though.

For those fsmiliar....Nokians vs. Blizzak LM22/LM25 vs. Winter Sport M3's. Wear vs. traction..

I'm going to expect 75% of it's use during these months will just be cold / slushy roads with the remainder being on snow....

 

[gregmp]

I have M2's which are very close to the M3's. They have worn very well. Try Tirerack for very accurate tests and ratings.

 

[chefwong]

Famailar with the M and LMN series.

Nokians and Vredestrians....not familiar with but have heard good things about. Dunno about wear, noise, dry vs. snow, etc

 

[ccs v2.0]

I have about 12k miles on a set of M3s and see about 75-80% cold/dry roads. Wear is excellent, but at the expense of traction on anything past 6 inches of snow, IMO. They are pretty good on slush.

Noise wise, the M3s have a low drone at slow speeds, because of the V tread pattern. At higher speeds and wet roads, the M3s have a raspy, higher pitch noise, almost like a scraping noise (don't know how else to describe it). When I first heard it, I thought there was something wrong with the car, but later figured it was tire noise on wet roads (it doesn't happen with my summer tire set or on dry pavement).

 

[lobo11]

Look at the Nokian WR. I personally think they are very good on any roads that you should be driving on. Meaning, if they are failing you, you probably should not be on the road with any tire.

 

[bluemax1]

This will be the 3rd winter for me on the same Nokian RSi tires. The 1st winter, due to procrastination (waiting for the summer tires to get in) I drove them daily all the way into June. They still have a good amount of tread remaining.

They do hum on dry roads and on dry roads, you can fel tread squirm but they still handle pretty well. I do tend to brake more gently with them on dry roads than I do with the Yokohama Advan Neova AD07 ultimate performance summer tires.

The RSi's will last much longer than Blizzaks while continuuing to provide excellent snow traction.

There is a Finnish magazine that conducts tests of the best winter tires from all over the world every year, the Nokian Rsi is one of the best 3 non-studded tires available, the other 2 not being available in the US (Continental ContiViking Contact 3 and Gislaved Softfrost 2). With the twin turbo AWD I have them on, the car will easily out accelerate anything else (SUV's etc.) in snow and the traction is amazing. I can accelerate harder in the snow in this car with these tires than a Taurus can on dry pavement. They also stop and turn very well.

Performance on ice is not as good as studded tires but still better than just about any non-studded winter tire.

If you're considering the Blizzaks, don't get the Nokian Rsi. They last longer, have similar performance on ice and superior performance in snow.

Between the Rsi and the M3's it depends on what you'll be driving more often. The M3 is superior on dry roads. If the roads you're on will be cleared more often than not and you prize handling on those dry cold roads more, get the M3's. If you will be driving in snow, slush or ice more often and you're willing to sacrifice some dry pavement handling for a significant increase in snow/ice/slush traction then the Rsi is the better choice. The WR would be in the same league as the M3.

BTW, the RSi is one of the favorites in amateur snow rallying non-studded classes (along with the Yokohama Ice Guard IG10).


Max

 

[allwheelsdriven]

i ran the nokian WR year round on my sti - good in the dry and wet and decent in the snow, but not stellar. very long wearing.

 

[AlfaGuy]

I've used a lot of snow tires on the AWD Audis and Subies, here are couple of observations:

For ultimate deep snow traction, nothing beats the "old school" Nokian Hakkapeliita designs like the Hakka 10 (long gone), the Hakka 1, and the Hakka 2.

Last year I tried a set of Dunlop Wintersport M3s. Their deep snow traction is about 80% as good as the Hakkas, they actually seem better on ice and slush, and they are absolutely amazing in the dry for a snow tire! They also seem to wear better than the Hakkas which always feathered even with perfect alignment.

 

[rjundi]

My take owning two of those three and but hearing about Dunlop is they all are slightly better in one condition but winter is so variable buy on price.

 

[RFIRE]

I have had good luck with M2's and M3's. Good wear, decent snow and ice traction, and good dry road performance.

 

[oilnoob425]

Quote:

---

I've used a lot of snow tires on the AWD Audis and Subies, here are couple of observations:

For ultimate deep snow traction, nothing beats the "old school" Nokian Hakkapeliita designs like the Hakka 10 (long gone), the Hakka 1, and the Hakka 2.

Last year I tried a set of Dunlop Wintersport M3s. Their deep snow traction is about 80% as good as the Hakkas, they actually seem better on ice and slush, and they are absolutely amazing in the dry for a snow tire! They also seem to wear better than the Hakkas which always feathered even with perfect alignment.

---

Question for you.

I also have Hakka 2 and Hakka RSi on both of my cars right now.

Hakka 2 is on 7gen Civic(coupe, no ABS, no traction control) - it's great in deep snow, but I ve noticed they behave funny on snowy but somewhat cleaned road, icy roads too. There is no good feel of directional stability, they just don't give me any safe and secure feel when I'm driving on them, and often times they trying to slip or skid of their intended direction. Deep snow performance is great on the other hand, car goes through deep snow like a tank. They are not bold, plenty of thread left. So what should attribute to this behaviour? Of course I realize that my Civic is not an Audi or a Subaru, but should I entirely blame such weird behaviour on the car? There is something strange about these Hakka 2 tires. Any thoughts?

Hakka Rsi - is on my mom's car previous gen Elantra(abs, traction control, tad heavier than Civic yet has 15" wheel as opposing to Civic's 14" wheels). I don't drive them often enough to form solid opinion on their behaviour, but from what I've experienced, they seem better in that regard, yet they are pretty much as good in deep snow as Hakka 2. Of course car that they are on is heavier, has ABS and traction control, or maybe because they are friction tires and Hakka2 suppose to have studs is the reason for Hakka 2 weird icy/cleand snow behaviour? Or maybe because Hakkas 2 is better designed for deep snow and this is some kind of a tradeback? Also Hakka Rsi is a newer tire. Sorry for a long text. Any oppinion on this mattter would be much appreciated.

 

[oilnoob425]

Quote:

---

I've used a lot of snow tires on the AWD Audis and Subies, here are couple of observations:

For ultimate deep snow traction, nothing beats the "old school" Nokian Hakkapeliita designs like the Hakka 10 (long gone), the Hakka 1, and the Hakka 2.

Last year I tried a set of Dunlop Wintersport M3s. Their deep snow traction is about 80% as good as the Hakkas, they actually seem better on ice and slush, and they are absolutely amazing in the dry for a snow tire! They also seem to wear better than the Hakkas which always feathered even with perfect alignment.

---

Question for you.

I also have Hakka 2 and Hakka RSi on both of my cars right now.

Hakka 2 is on 7gen Civic(coupe, no ABS, no traction control) - it's great in deep snow, but I ve noticed they behave funny on snowy but somewhat cleaned road, icy roads too. There is no good feel of directional stability, they just don't give me any safe and secure feel when I'm driving on them, and often times they trying to slip or skid of their intended direction. Deep snow performance is great on the other hand, car goes through deep snow like a tank. They are not bold, plenty of thread left. So what should attribute to this behaviour? Of course I realize that my Civic is not an Audi or a Subaru, but should I entirely blame such weird behaviour on the car? There is something strange about these Hakka 2 tires. Any thoughts?

Hakka Rsi - is on my mom's car previous gen Elantra(abs, traction control, tad heavier than Civic yet has 15" wheel as opposing to Civic's 14" wheels). I don't drive them often enough to form solid opinion on their behaviour, but from what I've experienced, they seem better in that regard, yet they are pretty much as good in deep snow as Hakka 2. Of course car that they are on is heavier, has ABS and traction control, or maybe because they are friction tires and Hakka2 suppose to have studs is the reason for Hakka 2 weird icy/cleand snow behaviour? Or maybe because Hakkas 2 is better designed for deep snow and this is some kind of a tradeback? Also Hakka Rsi is a newer tire. Sorry for a long text. Any oppinion on this mattter would be much appreciated.

 

[VelociRacer]

Check rear tire toe-in. My 6th gen Civic, and to a lesser degree our 8th gen, have too much toe-in (about 2mm total from factory) in the back for my taste. Not only does it feather directional tires if left back there too long, but it also causes the car to bounce side-to-side when the rear tires roll over a slippy surface (slush/ice) at medium-high speed. I'm going to try 0 total toe for my 6th gen, and 1mm total for our 8th gen.

 

[Mustang_Cougar]

I've run M3's w/an AWD Vibe the last two winters (Nov-Feb) on what has been mostly bare pavement; the tread still looks new. However, they've performed well on snow/ice when we've had it. BTW: Purchased from Tire Rack...very happy w/their services.