Nokian WRG4

Messages
9,786
Location
USA
The WRG4 is still relatively new, so nobody has had a chance to drive them in the winter yet since the upcoming winter season will be the first winter that people drive the WRG4 through. But the outgoing WRG3 should be almost as good, and the WRG3 reviews are probably relevant to the new WRG4 smile
 

NO2

Messages
938
Location
Michigan
Consumer reports rated them in their tire issue. They were middle of the group tested. They are a winter biased all season tire. Dry braking Good Wet braking Fair Handling Good Hydroplaning Very Good Snow traction Very Good Ice braking Excellent Ride comfort Very Good Noise Very Good Rolling resistance Good Tested tread life (Miles) 60000 Highs Very good hydroplaning resistance, snow traction, and comfort. Excellent grip on ice. Lows Fair wet stopping performance. CRs Take Strong wintery grip in a tire that can be used all year long.
 
Last edited:
Messages
479
Location
PA
Thanks for the CR ratings, NO2. I thought by now there would be a few professional reviews, but I guess they are waiting for winter. I am toying with the idea of getting WRG4s this month, since my TrueContacts are wearing at a ridiculous rate for a "90K mile" tire. With 19K miles on them they are at 6/32" to 7/32". That's with rotations and alignment. A shame, since it's a mostly great tire otherwise. But I thought about replacing them while I can still get some value for them, and putting on WRG4s. I had a good experience with the directional version of the WRG3 on a Saturn a few years ago, but some said the non-directional version had less-than-ideal winter grip for an all-weather tire with the snowflake-on-mountain symbol. Looks like all sizes of WRG4 are non-directional. I would like to hear from someone who drove them in winter weather, before dropping that much $$$ on them.
 
Messages
1,246
Location
Basehor, KS
I tried to purchase either WR G3 and WR G4 two weeks ago, at Discount Tire. The Nokian warehouse said WR G3's not available and discontinued. WR G4's will not be available in my area until Jan 2019. I didn't want to wait that long, so Nokian lost my business to another tire brand. YMMV.
 
Messages
538
Location
new jersey
Originally Posted by NewEnglander
They are awesome. I have WRG3s on my car and put WRG4s on my wife's Hyundai. Comfortable and outstanding in bad weather.
How did these tires do in the snow ? Thanks
 
Messages
9,754
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted by NO2
Consumer reports rated them in their tire issue. They were middle of the group tested. They are a winter biased all season tire. Dry braking Good Wet braking Fair Handling Good Hydroplaning Very Good Snow traction Very Good Ice braking Excellent Ride comfort Very Good Noise Very Good Rolling resistance Good Tested tread life (Miles) 60000 Highs Very good hydroplaning resistance, snow traction, and comfort. Excellent grip on ice. Lows Fair wet stopping performance. CRs Take Strong wintery grip in a tire that can be used all year long.
60,000 miles will not happen with that compound. Wet performance is long standing issue for Nokian, and usually tires that have excellent ice performance will suffer in wet. It is nature of compound and Nokian focuses on ice and snow performance more than anything else.
 

Ws6

Messages
2,770
Location
South Central US
WRG3's were supposed to get 50K or 55K according to CR, too. I got <20K. They were loud AF (sounded like an 18 wheeler or all 4 wheel-bearings going bad), they had terrible hydroplaning resistance even when new. I somehow doubt t he WRG4 SUV has magically fixed all this. Nokian sucks. I replaced mine with Altimax RT43's. No real downsides, all upsides. The Nokians wore out before winter, but I did manage to hit one patch of compressed snow on the road with them. RT43's were just as good imo
 
Messages
7
Location
Chicago, IL
I've had very good results with my WRG3 -- 51,500 miles and counting, just shy of the 55K warranty, though I am going to have to change them before this winter. Hydroplaning has been decent with these tires on my Chevy Sonic, though wet cornering is a problem. They are excellent in ice and packed snow and good in loose snow and slush. They are firmer in ride than the dreadful stock Hankook H428 tires that came with the car. They are much better in the wet than those stock tires....but then I think bicycle tires would be better in the wet than the H428. I am doubting the WRG4 simply because....they seem to be slightly firmer compound, they're 1/32nd of an inch less in depth (11 instead of 12) yet with a longer tread warranty; and CR's review of them was pretty negative whereas the G3 had led the pack with CR. I am looking at Michelin's CrossClimate+ but it is based on a totally different concept, a summer tire adapted for winter use as opposed to a winter adapted for summer use, and a directional as opposed to asymmetric pattern. CR shows this tire well out in front in the all-season category.
 
Messages
379
Location
Saint Nazianz, WI
I have had a set on my 2018 Subaru Outback since last winter, I have put about 30,000 miles on so far and they hardly look worn down at all. I am extremely biased as I have replaced the factory tires on 3 of my last 4 vehicles with Nokian tires, personally I think that the WR series tire is the best all around tire for any vehicle. They are rated as an all weather (not all season) tire suited for extreme conditions. They are pretty much the next best thing to a dedicated winter tire that can be driven year round in all temperatures.
 
Messages
9,786
Location
USA
Originally Posted by shorebreeze
I've had very good results with my WRG3 -- 51,500 miles and counting, just shy of the 55K warranty, though I am going to have to change them before this winter. Hydroplaning has been decent with these tires on my Chevy Sonic, though wet cornering is a problem. They are excellent in ice and packed snow and good in loose snow and slush. They are firmer in ride than the dreadful stock Hankook H428 tires that came with the car. They are much better in the wet than those stock tires....but then I think bicycle tires would be better in the wet than the H428. I am doubting the WRG4 simply because....they seem to be slightly firmer compound, they're 1/32nd of an inch less in depth (11 instead of 12) yet with a longer tread warranty; and CR's review of them was pretty negative whereas the G3 had led the pack with CR. I am looking at Michelin's CrossClimate+ but it is based on a totally different concept, a summer tire adapted for winter use as opposed to a winter adapted for summer use, and a directional as opposed to asymmetric pattern. CR shows this tire well out in front in the all-season category.
welcome You're complaining about the WRG4 "only" having 11/32 instead of 12/32, yet the CrossClimate+ you're considering only has 9/32 smile
 
Messages
7
Location
Chicago, IL
Harder compound. Completely different tread pattern. Rather than tread depth snark, I'd be curious for people's take on why the Nokian WR G4 came out so poorly in CR's testing for conventional conditions, mainly in the wet, and how a 9/32 tire like the Michelin ends up with a 600 UTQG rating AND "very good" snow and ice and wet ratings all at the same time. Is there something about the CR test procedure I should know about? Or have Michelin broken new ground here?
 
Messages
6,080
Location
New England
Considering the WR G4 for wife's Tiguan. I have owned the Nokia WRx (NRW before) type tires since around 2000ish. They all seem to last around 40k-50k. If you have an alignment issue(check before install) or do not believe in rotating your tires they tend to get loud at end of life. If you keep up with rotations etc they are fine. They all offer great winter traction vs an all-season. I'd say superior slush traction over two winter tires I have owned Mich X-Ice/Blizzack. They are not winter tire caliber in terms of deep snow and ice. Thankfully NH we have plows and sanders smile
 
Messages
7
Location
Chicago, IL
I think that was certainly key for me on the WRG3. I drive about 10,000 miles a year, two thirds of it on the highway, and walk to work unless I'm doing a project out of town (hence the highway). I have oil changes done twice a year and rotate when I change oil. And the car I have (a Chevy Sonic) has been exceptionally good at holding alignment, so all that weight (2800 pounds for a subcompact sedan) was apparently put to good use at least somewhere. But I'm looking at the CrossClimate+ due to the decisive win in the CR test over the WRG4 in performance in the rain combined with the two tires testing close to each other in winter conditions, and a Costco sale putting the total price installed and with tax at around $480. What's giving me pause is the Nokian is an 11/32 tire with a 500 UTQG rating and the Michelin a 9/32 tire with a 600 rating; so how did such a hard wearing compound do as well in the snow and ice as it did in the CR test? Fluke or for real? The reason I ask is because in the Midwest you can't just stop driving when it's 25 below. For reference, with CR's scoring system, the WRG3 scored a 64; the WRG4 a 59 (improved over the G3 on ice but lagging in the wet); but the CrossClimate+ a 75, achieving a "very good" rating in every single category.
 

Ws6

Messages
2,770
Location
South Central US
Originally Posted by shorebreeze
I think that was certainly key for me on the WRG3. I drive about 10,000 miles a year, two thirds of it on the highway, and walk to work unless I'm doing a project out of town (hence the highway). I have oil changes done twice a year and rotate when I change oil. And the car I have (a Chevy Sonic) has been exceptionally good at holding alignment, so all that weight (2800 pounds for a subcompact sedan) was apparently put to good use at least somewhere. But I'm looking at the CrossClimate+ due to the decisive win in the CR test over the WRG4 in performance in the rain combined with the two tires testing close to each other in winter conditions, and a Costco sale putting the total price installed and with tax at around $480. What's giving me pause is the Nokian is an 11/32 tire with a 500 UTQG rating and the Michelin a 9/32 tire with a 600 rating; so how did such a hard wearing compound do as well in the snow and ice as it did in the CR test? Fluke or for real? The reason I ask is because in the Midwest you can't just stop driving when it's 25 below. For reference, with CR's scoring system, the WRG3 scored a 64; the WRG4 a 59 (improved over the G3 on ice but lagging in the wet); but the CrossClimate+ a 75, achieving a "very good" rating in every single category.
Michelin makes quality tires. There is no way I'd consider a Nokian if Michelin is an option. Or Cooper. Or General. Or some no-name re-tread. Well, maybe not that bad, but definitely the worst tires I've ever owned or heard of. (WRG3 SUV) My Toyo A36's have a 320 treadware rating. They lasted longer than my Nokians, driven and treated the same except on a much more powerful and heavier SUV. My WRG3 SUV's were loud enough I thought a semi was behind me when new, and only got worse. They never would balance up, right. Hydroplaning issues were scary when they got down to 5-8/32. Traction on snow/ice the very tiny amount I got to test them (I wore them out between March and November, so...) was "meh" on the small patch I encountered right after I got them. If you buy them through the wrong dealer (Amazon, etc.) Nokian won't honor their treadlife guarantee. In short...junk.
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,754
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted by madRiver
Considering the WR G4 for wife's Tiguan. I have owned the Nokia WRx (NRW before) type tires since around 2000ish. They all seem to last around 40k-50k. If you have an alignment issue(check before install) or do not believe in rotating your tires they tend to get loud at end of life. If you keep up with rotations etc they are fine. They all offer great winter traction vs an all-season. I'd say superior slush traction over two winter tires I have owned Mich X-Ice/Blizzack. They are not winter tire caliber in terms of deep snow and ice. Thankfully NH we have plows and sanders smile
I have R2, hardcore snow tire on Tiguan, and they are only bit better n slush compared to Xi2 on other vehicle or Xi2 I had on BMW before, as well as Blizzak's I had. They are really good in ice, and very deep snow. Absolute junk in every other aspect. Waste of $167 per tire in all terms. Not to mention that they will MAYBE make 15k in total before No. 4 gets off.
 
Top