SUV winter tire selection help

[cp3]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Quote:

The yokohama ig-51v has been getting favorable reviews but no major(north american) site has reviewed them that I could find.

Yup, the main reason I'm staying away from it is because it's somewhat of an unknown for the time being.


I put these on the Charger last year, same size you're looking for and I thought they worked great. No real complaints...didn't seem to want to dig through a foot of snow in reverse but that isn't really a priority for me. If I recall, no noticeable wear when I took them off. A little stiffer than my summers as they are an "SUV" tire. They did seem to get a bit noisier but that may have been just my desire to get the black steelies off...

 

[AboutTires]

Quattro-

I've been privileged to be able to drive on all three of the tires you're looking at on SUV's during various launches. Here's my take:

Hakka R2 SUV - For pure snow and ice performance, these are clearly the best. Grip into next week, and as normal for Nokian, they have the mostest and bestest technology packed into them. I didn't drive them on dry highways, but I did drive the car version of the R2, and their highway performance was extremely good.

Blizzak DM-V1 - Extremely good on snow and ice, second only to the Hakkas. Possibly a bit squishy in the dry because of the Tube Multicell Compound. My problem with these is always that the TM compound only goes for 60-70% of the tread, and once you've worn through that, it's an all-season tire with decent siping. I've driven the WS70 without TMC, and it was just not an acceptable winter tire.

Latitude Xi2 - Excellent snow performance, and given how Michelin prioritizes performance, probably excellent in the dry. Third in terms of pure snow grip, but second in overall quality because of the Blizzak issue with their compound.

 

[AboutTires]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

Many many years ago, I had H-rated Michelin Pilot Alpins on my A4. While dry handling was decent, their snow/slush performance was disappointing. I don't want to make the same mistake again.


The reason is that Pilot Alpins are performance-oriented winters rather than actually snow-biased. They're for people who want to drive their Porsches on cold highways.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: AboutTires
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

Many many years ago, I had H-rated Michelin Pilot Alpins on my A4. While dry handling was decent, their snow/slush performance was disappointing. I don't want to make the same mistake again.


The reason is that Pilot Alpins are performance-oriented winters rather than actually snow-biased. They're for people who want to drive their Porsches on cold highways.

That is precisely why I went with LM-60 Bridgestone for CC and not Michelin Pilot Alpin or X ice3. No issues in slush and wet snow at all. Though, they are wearing off like crazy. But then, I ski 2-3 times a week, so I usually put 10-15K in on ski season.

 

[AboutTires]

Originally Posted By: edyvw

That is precisely why I went with LM-60 Bridgestone for CC and not Michelin Pilot Alpin or X ice3. No issues in slush and wet snow at all. Though, they are wearing off like crazy. But then, I ski 2-3 times a week, so I usually put 10-15K in on ski season.


2-3 times a week? Jealousy, thou art a green-eyed monster.

I will just note that while Pilot Alpins are really a UHP tire with a cold-weather compound, the Xi3's are the real deal.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Sean, thanks for your first-hand input. Appreciate it.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: AboutTires
Originally Posted By: edyvw

That is precisely why I went with LM-60 Bridgestone for CC and not Michelin Pilot Alpin or X ice3. No issues in slush and wet snow at all. Though, they are wearing off like crazy. But then, I ski 2-3 times a week, so I usually put 10-15K in on ski season.


2-3 times a week? Jealousy, thou art a green-eyed monster.

I will just note that while Pilot Alpins are really a UHP tire with a cold-weather compound, the Xi3's are the real deal.

Yeah, have very flexible job, so I can do it 2-3 times a week, plus last winter was a blast.
Reason why I did not buy Xi3 is that tread blocks are too dense, so was thinking that evacuation of slush is not as good as LM-60.
Some of friend who have Xi3 said that in slush and deep non-packed snow they are not as confident as Bridgestone.
Then again, they have 40K warranty, so that explains a lot.

 

[geeman789]

Originally Posted By: AboutTires
Quattro-

I've been privileged to be able to drive on all three of the tires you're looking at on SUV's during various launches. Here's my take:

Hakka R2 SUV - For pure snow and ice performance, these are clearly the best. Grip into next week, and as normal for Nokian, they have the mostest and bestest technology packed into them. I didn't drive them on dry highways, but I did drive the car version of the R2, and their highway performance was extremely good.

Blizzak DM-V1 - Extremely good on snow and ice, second only to the Hakkas. Possibly a bit squishy in the dry because of the Tube Multicell Compound. My problem with these is always that the TM compound only goes for 60-70% of the tread, and once you've worn through that, it's an all-season tire with decent siping. I've driven the WS70 without TMC, and it was just not an acceptable winter tire.

Latitude Xi2 - Excellent snow performance, and given how Michelin prioritizes performance, probably excellent in the dry. Third in terms of pure snow grip, but second in overall quality because of the Blizzak issue with their compound.


The DMV-1 has the first 55 % of the tread using the Multicell compound. And that has always been the big complaint with certain Blizzak models... fantastic grip on ice for 1/2 the tire life... but at a premium price.

Exactly why Michelin came out with the X-Ice3, and advertised heavily... lasts twice as long as a leading competitor... any guesses who that competitor was... hint hint...