Test Charts / Vi Bilagare

2018 Vi Studded Winter Tire Test

Compare each discipline in the tested size. See the measured result, position and gap to the best tire, then read the verdict for the trade-offs behind the finishing order.

Tested size: 205/55 R16
Tires tested: 8
Disciplines: 9

Read the measurements, not just the rank

Lower is better for braking distances and lap times; higher is better for subjective scores and aquaplaning speed. Bars start at zero. Read the gap alongside the position: adjacent tires can be separated by very different margins.

Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tires does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental IceContact 2	169 ft	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	171 ft	+2 ft
3Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	171 ft	+2 ft
4Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	172 ft	+3 ft
5Gislaved Nord Frost 200	172 ft	+3 ft
6Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	173 ft	+4 ft
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	176 ft	+7 ft
8Bridgestone Noranza 001	177 ft	+8 ft

The difference between best and worst was 4.3% (8 ft ≈ 0.5 Car Lengths).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	181 ft	Best
2Continental IceContact 2	183 ft	+2 ft
3Gislaved Nord Frost 200	183 ft	+2 ft
4Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	185 ft	+4 ft
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	190 ft	+9 ft
6Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	191 ft	+10 ft
7Bridgestone Noranza 001	195 ft	+14 ft
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	210 ft	+29 ft

The difference between best and worst was 15.9% (29 ft ≈ 1.9 Car Lengths).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	60 ft	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	60 ft	0 ft
3Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	60 ft	0 ft
4Gislaved Nord Frost 200	62 ft	+2 ft
5Continental IceContact 2	62 ft	+2 ft
6Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	62 ft	+2 ft
7Bridgestone Noranza 001	63 ft	+3 ft
8Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	63 ft	+3 ft

The difference between best and worst was 4.1% (3 ft).

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	5.77 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	5.79 s	+0.02 s
3Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	6.03 s	+0.26 s
4Continental IceContact 2	6.05 s	+0.28 s
4Gislaved Nord Frost 200	6.05 s	+0.28 s
4Bridgestone Noranza 001	6.05 s	+0.28 s
7Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	6.09 s	+0.32 s
8Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	6.4 s	+0.63 s

The difference between best and worst was 10.9% (0.63 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental IceContact 2	90.5 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	92 s	+1.50 s
3Gislaved Nord Frost 200	92.1 s	+1.60 s
4Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	93 s	+2.50 s
5Bridgestone Noranza 001	93.2 s	+2.70 s
6Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	94.5 s	+4.00 s
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	94.8 s	+4.30 s
8Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	97.5 s	+7.00 s

The difference between best and worst was 7.7% (7 s).

Ice

Ice Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental IceContact 2	35 ft	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	35 ft	0 ft
3Bridgestone Noranza 001	38 ft	+3 ft
4Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	38 ft	+3 ft
5Gislaved Nord Frost 200	40 ft	+5 ft
6Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	40 ft	+5 ft
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	50 ft	+15 ft
8Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	58 ft	+23 ft

The difference between best and worst was 67% (23 ft ≈ 1.6 Car Lengths).

Ice Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	3.97 s	Best
2Continental IceContact 2	3.99 s	+0.02 s
3Bridgestone Noranza 001	4.12 s	+0.15 s
4Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	4.3 s	+0.33 s
5Gislaved Nord Frost 200	4.71 s	+0.74 s
6Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	5.1 s	+1.13 s
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	5.74 s	+1.77 s
8Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	6.98 s	+3.01 s

The difference between best and worst was 75.8% (3.01 s).

Ice Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	73.5 s	Best
2Continental IceContact 2	74.6 s	+1.10 s
3Bridgestone Noranza 001	76.9 s	+3.40 s
4Gislaved Nord Frost 200	80.9 s	+7.40 s
5Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	81.3 s	+7.80 s
6Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	81.5 s	+8.00 s
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	83.3 s	+9.80 s
8Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	86.4 s	+12.90 s

The difference between best and worst was 17.6% (12.9 s).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	4.12 kg/t	Best	$0
2Bridgestone Noranza 001	4.19 kg/t	+0.07 kg/t	$5
2Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	4.19 kg/t	+0.07 kg/t	$5
4Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	4.3 kg/t	+0.18 kg/t	$13
4Gislaved Nord Frost 200	4.3 kg/t	+0.18 kg/t	$13
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	4.36 kg/t	+0.24 kg/t	$17
7Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	4.39 kg/t	+0.27 kg/t	$19
8Continental IceContact 2	4.59 kg/t	+0.47 kg/t	$34

The difference between best and worst was 11.4% (0.47 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Continental IceContact 2 uses about 9 gal ($34) more fuel than the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions. These calculators use the full test field, independently of your tire selection above.

Gas/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

12,000 mi

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

$3.60/gal

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

Estimates based on typical driving conditions. Rolling resistance accounts for approximately 20% of IC vehicle fuel consumption and 25% of EV energy consumption. Actual savings vary based on driving style, vehicle weight, road conditions, and tire age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.

Tire shortlist →Read the test →

More tire tests