Conti Extreme WinterContact v Gislaved NordFrost 5

[pez]

Hello all,
I'm trying to find a little more information than seems readily available re: the relative merits of the Continental Extreme WinterContact vs. the Gislaved NordFrost 5.

Looking around the boards here, I've not been able to find a definitive answer, and Continental has been of no help either.

The vehicle is a 2003 Saab 9-3. I'll be getting 16" steel rims, and am looking for 215/55R16 tires.

Driving in New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ottawa. Looking for good snow and ice traction, as well as reasonable dry/wet road performance and treadwear. Studding tires is NOT an option.

SO - studdable Nord Frost 5's that won't ever be studded, or studless ExtremeWinterContacts (maybe Blizzak WS-60's)? Which will give better ice/snow performance? The Nord Frost 5's are excellent tires, but it seems to me that they're meant to be studded and as such the compound and tread may not be optimized for studless ice traction.

Any thoughts?


Thanks,
Colin

 

[MGregoir]

Nokian is the way to go if you can get some. Even some relatively inexpensive Hakkapelitta RSi tires give incredible winter traction.

 

[wimgid]

I think Gislaveds studdless tires are called Soft Frost. Nokian studless are good too.

 

[SubLGT]

In the latest annual comprehensive Scandinavian winter tire test, the Michelin Xi2 came in 1st among the non-studded tires.

See:
http://www.naf.no/Forbrukertester/Dekk/Dekktester/Vinterdekktest-2009/Piggfrie-dekk/

 

[Rand]

I voted with my wallet when I bought the conti's myself.

 

[UG_Passat]

I voted with my wallet and bought General Altimax Arctic....

either way.. Continental technically got my money since they own General Tire & Gislaved (which the Generals are actually Gislaved Nord Frost 3)

 

[Ken2]

Gislaved is one of Continental's brand names.

I'd get the studless tires, not stud-type without studs.