Bridgestone Noranza 001 vs Continental IceContact 3
In the 3 independent tests that ran both tires, the Continental IceContact 3 finished ahead 2 times and the Noranza 001 once. The IceContact 3 was stronger in dry, wet, snow and comfort.
Performance profile
11 measurements from the 3 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
Noranza 001
IceContact 3
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
In each test the better of the two figures counts as 100% and the other as its share of it, so a 118 ft stop against 112 ft is 95%; each spoke averages the shared tests that recorded it. The scale stops at 90%: a point further in sits on the hub's edge, hollow. 4 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
Noranza 001
IceContact 3
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Category scores are percentiles among tires of the same season and class: 90 means this tire out-performs 90% of them, measured across every test we hold, not only the ones it appeared in.
Every measurement, side by side
Averages of the figures both tires posted in the same tests. The gap is the average of each test's own gap, so figures from different cars and years are never mixed. Wins count the tests in which each tire did better.
| Measurement | Noranza 001 | Gap | IceContact 3 | Wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry IceContact 3 ahead | ||||
| Dry Braking ft | 121 | 3.8% | 116 | 0-2 |
| Subj. Dry Handling pts | scored | 35.7% | scored | 1-1 |
| Wet IceContact 3 ahead | ||||
| Wet Braking ft | 114 | 7.9% | 105 | 0-3 |
| Wet Handling s | 38.21 | 0.5% | 38.07 | 1-2 |
| Subj. Wet Handling pts | scored | 33.3% | scored | 0-1 |
| Straight Aqua mph | 36.2 | 3.6% | 37.5 | 0-1 |
| Snow IceContact 3 ahead | ||||
| Snow Braking ft | 133 | 3.8% | 130 | 0-3 |
| Snow Traction s | 5.37 | 2.6% | 5.25 | 0-1 |
| Snow Handling s | 63.42 | 1.6% | 62.02 | 1-1 |
| Subj. Snow Handling pts | scored | = | scored | 0-0 |
| Ice Level | ||||
| Ice Braking ft | 98 | 5.9% | 97 | 1-2 |
| Ice Traction s | 4.16 | 4.2% | 3.95 | 1-2 |
| Ice Handling s | 56.78 | 0.1% | 56.88 | 2-1 |
| Subj. Ice Handling pts | scored | 12.5% | scored | 1-0 |
| Comfort IceContact 3 ahead | ||||
| Subj. Noise pts | scored | 8.3% | scored | 0-1 |
Braking distances and lap times are better when lower; speeds, wear and grip figures when higher. A test's figures are its own: sizes, cars, surfaces and temperatures differ from one to the next, which is why the averages here are only ever of tests the two tires shared.
Head to head in 3 tests, 2019 to 2021
Each row is one published test in which both tires ran on the same car, in the same size, on the same day. The line is the whole field, winner on the left.
| Test | Noranza 001 | Field | IceContact 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 Studless and Studded Winter Tire Test | P5 of 9 | P6 of 9 | |
| 2020 Nordic and Studded Winter Tire Test | P4 of 5 | P1 of 5 | |
| 2019 Studded Winter Tire Test | P7 of 8 | P1 of 8 |
Noranza 001 vs IceContact 3: your questions
Is the Bridgestone Noranza 001 or the Continental IceContact 3 the better tire?
In the 3 independent tests that ran both tires, the Continental IceContact 3 finished ahead 2 times and the Noranza 001 once. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Noranza 001 scores 6.8 and the IceContact 3 9.1 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Noranza 001 or the IceContact 3?
The IceContact 3 led 7 of the 8 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 7.9% shorter in the wet across 3 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The IceContact 3 led 3 of the 5 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 3.8% shorter in the dry across 3 tests.
Which is better in snow?
The IceContact 3 led 5 of the 10 snow measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 3.8% shorter on snow across 3 tests.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the IceContact 3 79% from 3 reviews; the Noranza 001 has no owner reviews yet.
More comparisons with these tires
vs 
Continental IceContact 3 vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
0-7 in 7 shared tests
vs 
Continental IceContact 3 vs Michelin X Ice Snow
2-0 in 6 shared tests
vs 
Continental IceContact 3 vs Michelin X Ice North 4
3-6 in 11 shared tests
vs 
Continental IceContact 3 vs Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
1-7 in 8 shared tests
vs 
Continental IceContact 3 vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
2-0 in 4 shared tests
Every Bridgestone vs Continental test → All comparisons → Compare three or more tires →
Run either of these?
Your review is the part of this page no test can supply: how the tire wore, how it aged, what it was like in the rain in year three. It takes about five minutes.
Where this data comes from
Finishing positions and measurements are transcribed from each published test. A test only counts here when both tires ran in it, so every figure was recorded on the same car, size and day as the one it is compared to.
About the TR Score
The Tire Reviews Score rates each tire out of 10 from every independent test result and vetted owner review we hold, so two tires can be compared even before a test has run them together.
Who does the testing
Every test published as a Tire Reviews test is run by Jonathan Benson, who has been testing tires independently since 2007.