Nokian R2 vs Nokian Hakka 7, which one to choose?

[Rolla07]

Now I realize that the Hakka 7's are studded and the R2's are not. Besides the standard benefit of running studded tires, what would you choose between the two and why? Personally, I have had studded tires before (not Nokian) and they were noisy and most of the studs came out.. I dont know if its because I need to be gentler in driving, or if the studs were not set correctly.. I am looking for the best possible winter tires, and was wondering how effective their diamond shaped studs are? Does anyone have experience with either of these 2? All opinions appreciated! Thank you! I am looking for a set for next year in 185-65-15 or 195-65-15. Both sizes are ok for my car-- Corolla 2007.

 

[rslifkin]

If you spend a good bit of time on near-freezing ice or hardpack, get the Hakka 7s and appreciate the studs. If most of your driving is in fresh snow, slush, or colder, dryer hardpack / ice, then go for the Hakka R2s. In most conditions, the studs won't help a lot, so they're not worth the noise, etc. unless you regularly see conditions that they'll help in.

 

[Nederlander75]

I’ve got the Hakka R2's on my RX8 this winter coming off of BStone LM-60s. I can’t comment on studds or not, but they are pretty bullet proof as a winter tire goes. Just barely better than the LM-60s overall. Ice traction is definitely superior, though they do not perform quite as well with slush/water nor do they perform as well on dry. But, for the confidence in overall winter driving for me the tradeoff is acceptable.

 

[dparm]

I wouldn't bother with studs unless you're driving in truly awful conditions on a regular basis. Studs are a hassle.

 

[SubLGT]

If your #1 priority is the best possible ice traction under all conditions, and you can tolerate the noise, get a set of studded Hakka 8 tires.