Premium vs. Budget Snow tires

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
21,226
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
Hey guys,

Here is interesting video of difference between premium (nokian) and budget (tristar, or something like that) tires. The test was done at Nokian testing facility, but let's give it benefit of doubt that everything was square and fair.
Also, I think most important thing to remember is that key to good tire is not initial performance, but keeping initial performance for long time.
 
The only area where the Nokian is really better is handling, and even then if you're looking to drive like an idiot in the snow you're going to have a bad time regardless.

Other than that, it's honestly a pretty sad showing from the Nokian, especially when you realize they're comparing it to a garbage Malay tire.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for post, but I have to call a foul. At time 17 sec it shows two tires. The Premium Tire looks like a winter tire. The Budget Tire looks like a summer or at best a M & S Tire. No surprise here. Still, a cool video of performance driving.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Thanks for post, but I have to call a foul. At time 17 sec it shows two tires. The Premium Tire looks like a winter tire. The Budget Tire looks like a summer or at best a M & S Tire. No surprise here. Still, a cool video of performance driving.
smile.gif



If you click through to their site where the actual data is presented, you see the budget tire is a Myanmar made Tristar SnowPower 2. It's an absolute bottom tier tire, selling for about $50-75 per tire. It's still quite close to the Nokian in everything, which you'd never guess by how the host gushes over the 3x as expensive Finnish tire.

That said, the real lede here is how the Burmese tire is still wildly superior to any all season in these sorts of conditions.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Thanks for post, but I have to call a foul. At time 17 sec it shows two tires. The Premium Tire looks like a winter tire. The Budget Tire looks like a summer or at best a M & S Tire. No surprise here. Still, a cool video of performance driving.
smile.gif


It is snow tire. Compound is more important than design. It is full of small sipes across all tread blocks.
 
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
The only area where the Nokian is really better is handling, and even then if you're looking to drive like an idiot in the snow you're going to have a bad time regardless.

Other than that, it's honestly a pretty sad showing from the Nokian, especially when you realize they're comparing it to a garbage Malay tire.

I was expecting bigger margin.
That said, having Nokian's on my wife's car, I am not at all surprised by their almost equal performance in wet and dry. The real question here is how long each tires keep that initial performance? And I am not at all impressed by Nokian's ability to keep that performance.
 
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
The Premium Tire looks like a winter tire. The Budget Tire looks like a summer or at best a M & S Tire. No surprise here.

AMEN!

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell which will perform better in snow/ice conditions.
 
Originally Posted by Lolvoguy
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
The Premium Tire looks like a winter tire. The Budget Tire looks like a summer or at best a M & S Tire. No surprise here.

AMEN!

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell which will perform better in snow/ice conditions.

My Michelin Xi2 look far less aggressive than Blizzak DM-V2 I had, but they are better in snow and especially ice.
It is compound not looks. We could argue about design if it was about slushing, but this is ice and packed snow.
 
The only unfair piece was the Nokian went first mucking up the track before the budget tire went. I wonder how closer they would be if Budget then Nokian. I doubt they ran the groomer for test track between runs.

I guess they don't want to sell the budget tire but have a testing control with one of the Golf's with OEM all-seasons would have been a nice benchmark.
 
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
The only area where the Nokian is really better is handling, and even then if you're looking to drive like an idiot in the snow you're going to have a bad time regardless.

Other than that, it's honestly a pretty sad showing from the Nokian, especially when you realize they're comparing it to a garbage Malay tire.

Agreed.

Nobody is trying to beat lap times when it comes to snow/winter driving. Considering the price difference, I think the budget tire is the real winner here.
 
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
The only area where the Nokian is really better is handling, and even then if you're looking to drive like an idiot in the snow you're going to have a bad time regardless.

Other than that, it's honestly a pretty sad showing from the Nokian, especially when you realize they're comparing it to a garbage Malay tire.

Agreed.

Nobody is trying to beat lap times when it comes to snow/winter driving. Considering the price difference, I think the budget tire is the real winner here.

I still think Nokian will do much better in the long run.
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
The only area where the Nokian is really better is handling, and even then if you're looking to drive like an idiot in the snow you're going to have a bad time regardless.

Other than that, it's honestly a pretty sad showing from the Nokian, especially when you realize they're comparing it to a garbage Malay tire.

Agreed.

Nobody is trying to beat lap times when it comes to snow/winter driving. Considering the price difference, I think the budget tire is the real winner here.

I still think Nokian will do much better in the long run.


Maybe, but will it do 3x better? Keeping in mind you can buy 3 sets of the Burmese tires for the price of one set of the Nokians, the Burmese rubber could wear out more quickly and still come out ahead.

Personally, I wouldn't run either. I avoid ultra low priced tires like the plague mostly due to ethical issues (Myanmar, for example, is not a country known for just treatment of their people) but I also think you do hit a point of diminishing returns, where you spend a lot more to get only a little more. My snow tires are profoundly middle of the road, and while you can do all sorts of insturmented tests showing that, say, Michelins are better, at the end of the day mine have never failed to get me into my driveway, so why spend more?
 
Last edited:
Quote
Maybe, but will it do 3x better? Keeping in mind you can buy 3 sets of the Burmese tires for the price of one set of the Nokians, the Burmese rubber could wear out more quickly and still come out ahead.

Personally, I wouldn't run either. I avoid ultra low priced tires like the plague mostly due to ethical issues (Myanmar, for example, is not a country known for just treatment of their people) but I also think you do hit a point of diminishing returns, where you spend a lot more to get only a little more. My snow tires are profoundly middle of the road, and while you can do all sorts of insturmented tests showing that, say, Michelins are better, at the end of the day mine have never failed to get me into my driveway, so why spend more?

Personally I do not like to say tire is 3X better than some other tire or 2X better. In my vocabulary, if tire has better braking in wet and handling, it is simply better and I will pay for that price. It is the MOST important safety feature on the vehicle.
Now, I do not think Nokian is worth of money. Absolutely not, nor I consider them top tier manufacturer on par with Michelin, Continental, Bridgestone. I have their R2 on my wife's Tiguan now. I paid $167 per tire in 215/65 R16 size, which is ridiculously expensive for that size (Xi3 was $112, and WS80 was $115). But, i wanted to check it. They performed brilliantly in deep snow and are very good in ice. But in every other category they are mediocre at best and in wet they are plain scary. On top of that, performance deterioration is faster than on previous winter tires she had, Blizzak's WS70.
So I agree about price and value of Nokian's comapred to Michelin's etc. But, if only these two from video were available for purchase, I would go Nokian in heartbeat.
 
Nokian Snowproof is their "Central European" winter tire. So it gives up some snow and ice performance for better cold dry and cold wet performance

I would expect different results if they compared the Hakkapeliitta R3 tire to it.
 
Nokian Snowproof is their "Central European" winter tire. So it gives up some snow and ice performance for better cold dry and cold wet performance

I would expect different results if they compared the Hakkapeliitta R3 tire to it.
 
Originally Posted by UG_Passat
Nokian Snowproof is their "Central European" winter tire. So it gives up some snow and ice performance for better cold dry and cold wet performance.

Is the Tristar SnowPower 2 in the same performance category? If so, it's still a valid comparison and a good showing for the budget tire, IMO.
 
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by UG_Passat
Nokian Snowproof is their "Central European" winter tire. So it gives up some snow and ice performance for better cold dry and cold wet performance.

Is the Tristar SnowPower 2 in the same performance category? If so, it's still a valid comparison and a good showing for the budget tire, IMO.


The Tristar website tells you no information.
 
Originally Posted by UG_Passat
Nokian Snowproof is their "Central European" winter tire. So it gives up some snow and ice performance for better cold dry and cold wet performance

I would expect different results if they compared the Hakkapeliitta R3 tire to it.

I am afraid how would dry and wet comparison go.
 
More than 4 years ago, my independent dealer recommended Nittos over Michelins, and I have very much liked them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top