In this tire test we take nine of the best performance winter tires in the popular 225/40 R18 size and test them in the dry, wet and of course snow to see what the best winter tire is for the 2021/22 autumn and winter.
Test setup & methodology
The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.
Show full testing methodology
Recorded test conditions
- Dry Braking
- 62.1 → 3.1 mph
- Wet Braking
- 49.7 → 3.1 mph
- Snow Braking
- 24.9 → 3.1 mph
- Snow Traction
- 3.1 → 24.9 mph
Score Weighting
Weights express the scoring priorities, not how much each discipline actually changed the finishing order. The size of the performance gaps matters too. Category weights contribute to the overall score. Within each category, discipline weights divide that category’s share. Published finishing positions also need to be read alongside the editorial verdict.
| Test | Within category | Share of overall score |
|---|---|---|
| Dry · 20% | ||
| Dry Braking | 55% | 11% |
| Dry Handling | 40% | 8% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 5% | 1% |
| Wet · 35% | ||
| Wet Braking | 50% | 17.5% |
| Wet Handling | 25% | 8.75% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 5% | 1.75% |
| Straight Aqua | 10% | 3.5% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 10% | 3.5% |
| Snow · 30% | ||
| Snow Braking | 47.4% | 14.21% |
| Snow Traction | 10.5% | 3.16% |
| Snow Handling | 31.6% | 9.47% |
| Snow Circle | 10.5% | 3.16% |
| Comfort · 5% | ||
| Subj. Comfort | 50% | 2.5% |
| Subj. Noise | 50% | 2.5% |
| Value · 10% | ||
| Rolling Resistance | 100% | 10% |
Our standard methods
The conditions above are recorded for this test. The descriptions below explain our standard procedures; measurement windows and run counts can vary by test.
Dry Braking
For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tires are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.
Dry Handling
For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behavior without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.
Wet Braking
For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tire performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tires repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.
Wet Handling
For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behavior without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.
Straight Aqua
To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tire set and average the valid results.
Curved Aquaplaning
For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 meters in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.
Snow Braking
For snow braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 50 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a groomed, compacted snow surface, measuring 45-5 km/h. I generally use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tire ever brakes on the same piece of snow twice. My standard programme is twelve runs per tire set, although the sequence can extend further if the data justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. To correct for changing snow surface conditions, I run reference tires repeatedly — typically every two candidate test sets.
Snow Traction
For snow traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a groomed snow surface with traction control active and measure speed and time using GPS telemetry. I typically use a 5–35 km/h measurement window to reduce the influence of launch transients and powertrain irregularities. I use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tire ever accelerates on the same piece of snow twice. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I complete multiple runs per tire set and average the valid results. Reference tires are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing snow surface conditions.
Snow Handling
For snow handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated snow handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tires are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly than asphalt, control runs are carried out more frequently — typically every two candidate test sets.
Snow Circle
For snow lateral grip testing, I use a circular snow track of fixed radius, broadly aligned with ISO 4138 principles. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I progressively increase speed until the maximum sustainable cornering speed is reached. I normally record multiple laps in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions to reduce the influence of surface bias. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly, the control tire is retested at regular intervals and I often use multiple sets of control tires.
Subj. Comfort
To assess comfort, I drive on a wide range of road surfaces (often dedicated comfort tracks at test facilities) at speeds from 50 to 120 km/h, including smooth motorway, coarse surfaces, expansion joints, broken pavement, and sharp-edged obstacles. I evaluate primary ride quality, secondary ride quality, impact harshness, seat-transmitted vibration, and the tire's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tire.
Noise
I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tire is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.
These are not nordic / extreme winter tires as found in the northern parts of North America, there will be a seperate test for these in the future.
225/40 R18 is a popular winter tire size for vehicles such as the Audi A3 / A4, VW Golf GTI / R, BMW 1 Series and 3 Series, and many other vehicles with this wheel size.
Dry
Testing at 3c, the slowest around the dry handling lap were the Dunlop and Goodyear pairing, both exactly 1.21 seconds, or 2.5% off the fastest lap. Both tires felt controllable, predictable and nice to drive on, but ultimately both lacking grip in these cool dry conditions.
Next up was the Hankook and GT Radial, both around a second off the best time. The Hankook was one of the softer feeling tires around the dry handling, it didn't feel super precise and didn't appreciate being pushed laterally but it did feel great on the brakes, whereas the GT felt like it had some good traction out of the corners, but would lose some time mid apex.
Fifth, fourth and third was Bridgestone, Continental and Nokian. They all seemed to have similar levels of grip across the lap, however the Nokian was the nicest to drive quickly, offering a nice rounded grip circle and predictable handling.
Second place was the Imperial budget tire. It didn't feel that good on the brakes, but cornering it felt like the best tire here. Almost as if it's a summer compound that they've stuck some sipes in. Watch this space to see how that develops.
Finally, the fastest tire of the group, nearly matching the summer tires lap time, was the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5. This tire wasn't the most fun to drive, probably sitting 3rd or 4th subjectively, but it had lots of grip both laterally and on the brakes.
As for the summer tire, well, that was the fastest, and the most fun to drive, and the quickest to steer, and the most direct on brakes, everything you'd expect from a summer tire, but at the 3c test temperature, it didn't have a huge advantage. Summer tires usually lead in the dry at any temperature.
Dry Braking
Dry braking in feet (62 - 3 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
RefReference Summer |
115 ft | -10 ft | 0 mph |
| 125 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 128 ft | +3 ft | 14 mph | |
| 129 ft | +4 ft | 15 mph | |
| 131 ft | +6 ft | 17 mph | |
| 132 ft | +7 ft | 19 mph | |
| 133 ft | +8 ft | 20 mph | |
| 134 ft | +9 ft | 21 mph | |
| 135 ft | +10 ft | 22 mph | |
| 135 ft | +10 ft | 23 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 18% (20 ft ≈ 1.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Imperial Snowdragon UHP would still be travelling at 23 mph when the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Dry braking was again led by the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5, with over a meter gap to the second placed Hankook Winter Icept evo 3, and Continental placed third with the new WinterContact TS870P. The summer tire just edged out the winters at the cool 3c temperatures.
Dry Handling
Dry handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefReference Summer |
44.7 s | -0.10 s |
| 44.8 s | Best | |
| 45.1 s | +0.30 s | |
| 45.31 s | +0.51 s | |
| 45.51 s | +0.71 s | |
| 45.61 s | +0.81 s | |
| 45.71 s | +0.91 s | |
| 45.81 s | +1.01 s | |
| 46.01 s | +1.21 s | |
| 46.01 s | +1.21 s |
All the tires in the Dry Handling test finished less than 3% apart.
Wet
Like the dry, we tested at 2.5c to 3c in the wet, and like in dry, the group overall was very close.
Unable to repeat the surprise performance in the dry, the Imperial had the lowest levels of grip by far, it was over 10% behind the best, and if that doesn't sound much in your head, it really is when you're driving on it. Even though the grip circle felt rounded, it was rounded with no grip as you were constantly waiting on grip in all directions, you seemed to be sliding constantly, and you felt more like a passenger. Not recommended.
The next group of tires consisted of Nokian, GT Radial and Dunlop. They were around 5%, or 2 seconds of the best, and all three sets of tires just felt lower in grip than the fastest in the group. The Nokian and Dunlop both had a hint of oversteer in their balance, which made the car feel more playful, but ultimately cost time when combined with the limited traction, whereas the GT Radial needed to be driven in a really neat manner to make a quick lap.
Getting nearer the sharp end were the Continental, Michelin, and Goodyear, all around 1.5% off the best, or less then a second! The Continental felt like it had a very safe understeer balance with good lateral grip, but lost out a little in traction, and overall it just felt a little numb. The Michelin improved the steering feel a little, but again seemed to be a little traction limited, where the Goodyear was an easy tire to drive quickly, giving more confidence than previous tires and a neutral balance with just a hint over understeer.
While Hankook was only a few tenths on, I've separated it because it was my favorite subjectively being really lovely to drive and feeling like it had excellent grip in all directions. It just worked really well with the Golf 8, almost like it was an OE tire and the lap time reflected that.
The Bridgestone Blizzak LM05 was over half a second faster than any other tire! When testing blind, I've no idea what tire I'm driving on, but when I'm making my notes in the car I like to try and guess which tire is which, and after running wet braking, the Bridgestone was obvious. The tire has grip, and lots of it. HOWEVER, it didn't feel that sporty, which meant I definitely found the Hankook and Michelin way more enjoyable to drive the lap on, which is an interesting tradeoff. Best grip, vs most fun. That's why I give you this data, so you can pick.
The summer tire struggled at the cooler temperatures, it felt like it was sitting on the road rather than keying into it and it was a constant fight to get the car around the lap.
Wet Braking
Wet braking in feet (50 - 3 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 92 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 96 ft | +4 ft | 18 mph | |
RefReference Summer |
97 ft | +5 ft | 19 mph |
| 97 ft | +5 ft | 19 mph | |
| 100 ft | +8 ft | 23 mph | |
| 100 ft | +8 ft | 23 mph | |
| 102 ft | +10 ft | 25 mph | |
| 103 ft | +11 ft | 27 mph | |
| 105 ft | +13 ft | 28 mph | |
| 125 ft | +33 ft | 41 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 36.2% (33 ft ≈ 2.2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Imperial Snowdragon UHP would still be travelling at 41 mph when the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
The Bridgestone LM005s wet advantage continued in wet braking, with nearly 5 feet advantage to the second placed Continental. Hankook again placed well, nearly tying with the summer tire which fared better in wet braking than in handling. The budget winter tire stopped over TEN meters behind the bridgestone, which is a huge gap and could easily be the difference between stopping and a crash.
Wet Handling
Wet handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 49.09 s | Best | |
| 49.7 s | +0.61 s | |
| 49.76 s | +0.67 s | |
| 49.8 s | +0.71 s | |
| 49.94 s | +0.85 s | |
| 50.72 s | +1.63 s | |
| 51.31 s | +2.22 s | |
| 51.31 s | +2.22 s | |
RefReference Summer |
51.39 s | +2.30 s |
| 54.6 s | +5.51 s |
The difference between best and worst was 11.2% (5.51 s).
There were some interesting differences between straight and curved aquaplaning, but on average the Continental, Goodyear and Hankook performed the best across both tests.
Straight Aqua
Float Speed in mph
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 51.6 mph | Best | |
| 50.2 mph | -1.4 mph | |
| 49.9 mph | -1.7 mph | |
| 49.5 mph | -2.1 mph | |
| 49.5 mph | -2.1 mph | |
| 49.3 mph | -2.3 mph | |
| 47.3 mph | -4.3 mph | |
| 47.3 mph | -4.3 mph | |
| 46.9 mph | -4.7 mph | |
RefReference Summer |
45.3 mph | -6.3 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 12.3% (6.3 mph).
Curved Aquaplaning
Remaining lateral acceleration
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 279.2 ft/s² | Best | |
| 277.2 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² | |
| 276.9 ft/s² | -2.3 ft/s² | |
RefReference Summer |
276.6 ft/s² | -2.6 ft/s² |
| 275.3 ft/s² | -3.9 ft/s² | |
| 273.6 ft/s² | -5.6 ft/s² | |
| 266.4 ft/s² | -12.8 ft/s² | |
| 265.1 ft/s² | -14.1 ft/s² | |
| 255.9 ft/s² | -23.3 ft/s² | |
| 251.0 ft/s² | -28.2 ft/s² |
The difference between best and worst was 10.1% (28.2 ft/s²).
Snow
As with the all season test, I was unable to travel to Nokian tires impressive winter testing facility due to travel restrictions, so instead hired a finnish independant test driver to perform the snow testing.
Snow traction was led by the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5, with the Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+ in second and Hankook Winter i*cept evo 3 in third.
Snow Traction
Snow acceleration time (3 - 25 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 5.26 s | Best | |
| 5.3 s | +0.04 s | |
| 5.38 s | +0.12 s | |
| 5.39 s | +0.13 s | |
| 5.48 s | +0.22 s | |
| 5.52 s | +0.26 s | |
| 5.55 s | +0.29 s | |
| 5.59 s | +0.33 s | |
| 5.65 s | +0.39 s | |
RefReference Summer |
24.13 s | +18.87 s |
The difference between best and worst was 358.7% (18.87 s).
Snow braking was again led by the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5, this time with the Nokian SnowProof P and Continental WinterContact TS870P in second and third places, which also closely matched snow circle results.
Snow Braking
Snow braking in feet (25 - 3 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 51 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 53 ft | +2 ft | 12 mph | |
| 53 ft | +2 ft | 15 mph | |
| 53 ft | +2 ft | 15 mph | |
| 53 ft | +2 ft | 15 mph | |
| 53 ft | +2 ft | 15 mph | |
| 54 ft | +3 ft | 17 mph | |
| 54 ft | +3 ft | 18 mph | |
| 56 ft | +5 ft | 22 mph | |
RefReference Summer |
159 ft | +108 ft | 66 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 208.6% (108 ft ≈ 7.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Imperial Snowdragon UHP would still be travelling at 22 mph when the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Snow Circle
Snow Circle Time in Seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 33.99 S | Best | |
| 34.4 S | +0.41 S | |
| 34.69 S | +0.70 S | |
| 34.76 S | +0.77 S | |
| 34.78 S | +0.79 S | |
| 35.88 S | +1.89 S | |
| 35.92 S | +1.93 S | |
| 36.06 S | +2.07 S | |
| 36.3 S | +2.31 S | |
RefReference Summer |
53.75 S | +19.76 S |
The difference between best and worst was 58.1% (19.76 S).
Snow handling rounded out the incredible Michelin performance with the French tire again proving best in the important snow handling test, which makes it a flawless snow result for the Pilot Alpin 5. The tester said the Michelin had "Excellent overall grip level, Best balance between front and rear and steers effectively even though rear doesn’t slip much. Feels like Nordic winter tire."
Goodyear placed second across the snow handling lap, 1.5% behind the michelin and described as having good balance with good front axle grip at all steering angles. The tire oversteers a bit which helps turning.
Third place went to the consistent Hankook, which like the goodyear had excellent front axle grip at big steering angles and a stable rear axle, and the fourth place continental had a sharp front end and resisted oversteer very well.
As with the all season test, the summer tire could barely make it to the circuit.
Snow Handling
Snow handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 86.2 s | Best | |
| 87.54 s | +1.34 s | |
| 87.95 s | +1.75 s | |
| 88.22 s | +2.02 s | |
| 89.18 s | +2.98 s | |
| 90.1 s | +3.90 s | |
| 90.56 s | +4.36 s | |
| 92.65 s | +6.45 s | |
| 92.81 s | +6.61 s | |
RefReference Summer |
175.3 s | +89.10 s |
The difference between best and worst was 103.4% (89.1 s).
Environment
The Nokian Snowproof P had the lowest noise on test, with the impressive Michelin and Continental also performing well.
Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 68.6 dB | Best | |
| 69.4 dB | +0.80 dB | |
| 69.8 dB | +1.20 dB | |
| 70.2 dB | +1.60 dB | |
| 70.5 dB | +1.90 dB | |
| 70.6 dB | +2.00 dB | |
| 71.2 dB | +2.60 dB | |
RefReference Summer |
71.5 dB | +2.90 dB |
| 72.1 dB | +3.50 dB | |
| 73.2 dB | +4.60 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 6.7% (4.6 dB).
The Dunlop, Goodyear and Continental led the way in subjective comfort.
Subj. Comfort
Subjective Comfort Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Points | Best | |
| 9.8 Points | -0.20 Points | |
| 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 9 Points | -1.00 Points | |
| 9 Points | -1.00 Points | |
| 9 Points | -1.00 Points | |
| 9 Points | -1.00 Points | |
| 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points | |
| 8 Points | -2.00 Points | |
RefReference Summer |
7.5 Points | -2.50 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 25% (2.5 Points).
The Bridgestone and Continental also had the lowest rolling resistance, which is impressive given their performance in the dry and wet!
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8.57 kg/t | Best | $0 | |
| 8.76 kg/t | +0.19 kg/t | $7 | |
| 9 kg/t | +0.43 kg/t | $15 | |
RefReference Summer |
9.12 kg/t | +0.55 kg/t | $19 |
| 9.14 kg/t | +0.57 kg/t | $20 | |
| 9.43 kg/t | +0.86 kg/t | $29 | |
| 9.62 kg/t | +1.05 kg/t | $36 | |
| 9.81 kg/t | +1.24 kg/t | $43 | |
| 10.13 kg/t | +1.56 kg/t | $53 | |
| 10.61 kg/t | +2.04 kg/t | $70 |
The difference between best and worst was 23.8% (2.04 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport uses about 19 gal ($70) more fuel than the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
There was over 100% price difference between the best and worst tires on test, with the cheap Imperial tire once again proving you often get what you pay for with tires.
Results
2021 Tire Reviews Winter Tire TestWatch the full video of this test on YouTube Watch on YouTube
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
225/40 R18 92V XL
Interestingly, it didn't win a single test, but with a string of fourth, thirds and second places in every single category, you can't help but appreciate the engineering that has gone into this tire. It essentially has no drawbacks, which is an engineering masterpiece!
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 129 ft | +4 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 4th / 9 | 45.51 s | +0.71 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 96 ft | +4 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 5th / 9 | 49.94 s | +0.85 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 2nd / 9 | 50.2 mph | -1.4 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 4th / 9 | 275.3 ft/s² | -3.9 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 53 ft | +2 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 5th / 9 | 5.48 s | +0.22 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 4th / 9 | 88.22 s | +2.02 s |
| Snow CircleLower is better | 4th / 9 | 34.76 S | +0.77 S |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 3rd / 9 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 69.8 dB | +1.20 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 8.758 kg/t | +0.19 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/B/71
- Code
- 0421
- Origin
- Germany
- Weight
- 9.08 kgs
- Tread
- 8.5 mm
- Price
- 111.48
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
225/40 R18 92V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 1st / 9 | 125 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 1st / 9 | 44.8 s | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 6th / 9 | 102 ft | +10 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 4th / 9 | 49.8 s | +0.71 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 1st / 9 | 51.6 mph | Best in this discipline |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 7th / 9 | 265.1 ft/s² | -14.1 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 1st / 9 | 51 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 1st / 9 | 5.26 s | Best in this discipline |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 1st / 9 | 86.2 s | Best in this discipline |
| Snow CircleLower is better | 1st / 9 | 33.99 S | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 9 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 69.4 dB | +0.80 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4th / 9 | 9.142 kg/t | +0.58 kg/t |
- EU Label
- E/B/70
- Code
- 3320
- Origin
- Spain
- Weight
- 10.10 kgs
- Tread
- 7.6 mm
- Price
- 127.29
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
225/40 R18 92V XL
The only deficiencies in performance was a high external noise, high rolling resistance, and average dry handling, everywhere else the tire excelled. It had the second shortest dry braking, second fastest wet handling lap with my favorite subjective handling, good wet braking, good aquaplaning resistance, and very good grip in all four snow tests.
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 128 ft | +3 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 7th / 9 | 45.81 s | +1.01 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 97 ft | +5 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 49.7 s | +0.61 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 4th / 9 | 49.5 mph | -2.1 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 9 | 276.9 ft/s² | -2.3 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 4th / 9 | 53 ft | +2 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 5.38 s | +0.12 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 87.95 s | +1.75 s |
| Snow CircleLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 34.69 S | +0.70 S |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 9 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 9th / 9 | 73.2 dB | +4.60 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 8th / 9 | 10.131 kg/t | +1.57 kg/t |
- EU Label
- E/B/72
- Code
- 3420
- Origin
- Korea
- Weight
- 9.1 kgs
- Tread
- 8.1 mm
- Price
- 94.24
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
225/40 R18 92V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 8th / 9 | 135 ft | +10 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 5th / 9 | 45.61 s | +0.81 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 9 | 92 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 1st / 9 | 49.09 s | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 6th / 9 | 49.3 mph | -2.3 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 9 | 279.2 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 5th / 9 | 53 ft | +2 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 8th / 9 | 5.59 s | +0.33 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 7th / 9 | 90.56 s | +4.36 s |
| Snow CircleLower is better | 6th / 9 | 35.88 S | +1.89 S |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 9th / 9 | 8 Points | -2.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 5th / 9 | 70.5 dB | +1.90 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 1st / 9 | 8.566 kg/t | Best in this discipline |
- EU Label
- C/A/72
- Code
- 4819
- Origin
- Poland
- Weight
- 9.84 kgs
- Tread
- 8.1 mm
- Price
- 111.68
Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+
225/40 R18 92V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 7th / 9 | 134 ft | +9 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 8th / 9 | 46.01 s | +1.21 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 9 | 100 ft | +8 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 49.76 s | +0.67 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 3rd / 9 | 49.9 mph | -1.7 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 2nd / 9 | 277.2 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 5th / 9 | 53 ft | +2 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 5.3 s | +0.04 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 87.54 s | +1.34 s |
| Snow CircleLower is better | 5th / 9 | 34.78 S | +0.79 S |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 9 | 9.8 Points | -0.20 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 8th / 9 | 72.1 dB | +3.50 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 5th / 9 | 9.427 kg/t | +0.86 kg/t |
- EU Label
- E/B/72
- Code
- 4520
- Origin
- Germany
- Weight
- 9.48 kgs
- Tread
- 9.1 mm
- Price
- 106.58
Dunlop Winter Sport 5
225/40 R18 92V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 6th / 9 | 133 ft | +8 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 8th / 9 | 46.01 s | +1.21 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 9 | 100 ft | +8 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 6th / 9 | 50.72 s | +1.63 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 4th / 9 | 49.5 mph | -2.1 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 5th / 9 | 273.6 ft/s² | -5.6 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 7th / 9 | 54 ft | +3 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 4th / 9 | 5.39 s | +0.13 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 5th / 9 | 89.18 s | +2.98 s |
| Snow CircleLower is better | 7th / 9 | 35.92 S | +1.93 S |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 1st / 9 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 7th / 9 | 71.2 dB | +2.60 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 6th / 9 | 9.624 kg/t | +1.06 kg/t |
- EU Label
- E/C/72
- Code
- 2920
- Origin
- Germany
- Weight
- 9.26 kgs
- Tread
- 9.1 mm
- Price
- 101.87
Nokian Snowproof P
225/40 R18 92V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 4th / 9 | 131 ft | +6 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 45.31 s | +0.51 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 7th / 9 | 103 ft | +11 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 7th / 9 | 51.31 s | +2.22 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 9th / 9 | 46.9 mph | -4.7 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 9th / 9 | 251.0 ft/s² | -28.2 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 53 ft | +2 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 7th / 9 | 5.55 s | +0.29 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 6th / 9 | 90.1 s | +3.90 s |
| Snow CircleLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 34.4 S | +0.41 S |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 9 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 1st / 9 | 68.6 dB | Best in this discipline |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 8.995 kg/t | +0.43 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/B/70
- Code
- 0821
- Origin
- Finland
- Weight
- 10.25 kgs
- Tread
- 8.6 mm
- Price
- 100.36
GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport
225/40 R18 92V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 5th / 9 | 132 ft | +7 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 6th / 9 | 45.71 s | +0.91 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 8th / 9 | 105 ft | +13 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 7th / 9 | 51.31 s | +2.22 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 8th / 9 | 47.3 mph | -4.3 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 6th / 9 | 266.4 ft/s² | -12.8 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 8th / 9 | 54 ft | +3 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 6th / 9 | 5.52 s | +0.26 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 9th / 9 | 92.81 s | +6.61 s |
| Snow CircleLower is better | 9th / 9 | 36.3 S | +2.31 S |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 8th / 9 | 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 9 | 70.6 dB | +2.00 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 9th / 9 | 10.612 kg/t | +2.05 kg/t |
- EU Label
- E/C/72
- Code
- 2720
- Origin
- China
- Weight
- 10.75 kgs
- Tread
- 8.7 mm
- Price
- 96.28
Imperial Snowdragon UHP
225/40 R18 92V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 9th / 9 | 135 ft | +10 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 45.1 s | +0.30 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 9th / 9 | 125 ft | +33 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 9th / 9 | 54.6 s | +5.51 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 7th / 9 | 47.3 mph | -4.3 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 8th / 9 | 255.9 ft/s² | -23.3 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 9th / 9 | 56 ft | +5 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 9th / 9 | 5.65 s | +0.39 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 8th / 9 | 92.65 s | +6.45 s |
| Snow CircleLower is better | 8th / 9 | 36.06 S | +2.07 S |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 9 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 4th / 9 | 70.2 dB | +1.60 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 7th / 9 | 9.808 kg/t | +1.24 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/C/72
- Code
- 2920
- Origin
- China
- Weight
- 9.74 kgs
- Tread
- 8.0 mm
- Price
- 55.00
Hi im having trouble finding the new Continental 870 P in my tire size 225/40/R18 but I could get the TS830 P instead, would those be close enough or would you recommend I look into other options?
I'd probably go for a more modern alternative in your size, you should have plenty of good options (TS870, T005 etc)
Alright thanks I'll keep looking!
I am having a hard time finding the best all rounder winter tire for a heavy SUV with 235/55/20s on it.
I'm leaning towards the Hankook Icept Evo 3s as first choice followed by the Goodyear Ultragrip.
They both seem to be pretty close.
I think a lot of people go down the Bridgestone Blizzak route but its more suited for wet weather than combined.
Of course it depends on the climate and the UK suburban winters can change from wet to dry to snow and frozen snow, depending on the randomness of the weather. I'm not driving up the Alps but our roads are not gritted and when it does snow and then it becomes compacted and frozen you are stuck. Just before the time I swap back to summer tires, the mornings are cold below 7 degrees and then warms up to about 12 degrees and this also has an influence. You go from solid to a more bouncy ride, especially at 70 mph. Town driving is not so bad.
So this is my reason for a suitable all rounded winter tire for a car that weighs nearly two and a half tonnes.
Would you agree with the Hankooks or do you recommend anything else?
I would happily fit the Hankooks myself. Your size is rather limiting for options so I'd be happy that the hankook is made :)
I spoke to Hankook as I couldn't find any UK seller for these. Their sales guy said it had been discontinued. Not sure what to go for. Even Continentals in my size is unavailable. Maybe Bridgestone Blizzaks or dare I even say the Yokohamas which I haven't seen any tests yet for. Really wanted the Hankooks so now I am stuffed.
I'd side with the Bridgestones, they might not have the strongest snow performance in certain sizes, but they'll happily take anything the UK will throw at them and they're very good in the wet, which is most of the UK winter.
Hello, thanks for your amazingly quick reply.
Will see what I can get. Out of curiosity and I promise not to be a pain, but have you tested the Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906 and if you did can I ask what you thought of them? I don't see much information about them. The only think I am not sure about the Bridgestones is that a lot of reviews say that they are not great in the dry. Once again, thanks for your valuable thoughts.
If I had the data would be on this site :) I don't believe I have, sorry.
Great, clear review thanks.
I wondered if there were any plans to include an EU-certified retread winter tire as an alternative to the Chinese benchmark for future testing, as there seems to be little reliable performance data for them. I have been looking at King Meiler, as they seem to retail winter tires at a similar price-point to budget Chinese, and with decent environmental credentials - but clearly not much point going down that route if they don't offer superior performance.
I don't have a retread in this years tests, but I'm trying to get one for a summer test for early next year
Great information and very helpful, I'm buying winter tires for a Kona N Line this year and it needs UHP Winter tires. Overall I rated Bridgestone the highest in recent testing with Hankook a close 2nd. I'm surprised Continental didn't perform better as it's Winter Tires (VikingContact) have done very well in the European testing.
I'd like to see the Braking Testing to be to a full stop, perhaps there's a reason for the measurement to be 5km/h, my guess is because it's not as realistic from higher speeds. How often do you need to go from 120km/h to a full stop?
The videos especially are very thorough and enjoyable to watch. Also, I'm not sure why Pirelli Sottozero 3 Winter was not included but I have lots of testing results on them and they are very good in the UHP Winter segment.
No testing measures to 0 as there's too much variance from the abs systems in the final part of braking. Some publications like autobild calculate down to 0 but I find that misleading so I present the actual data.
Winter Tires size 225/45 R17
Seeking Best Fuel efficiency A rating for wet grip and 70db or lower on noise.
Not sure which ones meet that criteria or better for Fuel.
I previously used Kleber transalp 3 Tires which had excellent wet grip .
Thanks
Rolling resistance and noise levels are available from the data from this test, you just need to cross reference them to make your pick.
Hi,
Is there a chart to be able to see this data more simply and or any suggestions of options you can offer?
The charts are on this very page and in the video.
Hello, I can't decide what tires to buy for my car, please help michelin Michelin PILOT ALPIN PA4 or GoodYear UltraGrip Performance + size is 245/45 r18 car is bmw f10 530d xdrvie greetings
I'd probably take the Michelin of these two
In the video you say that this winter test was carried out on the same track and at the same time as the all season tire test. If that's correct why the differences in Reference Summer Tires performance are so large between these tests?
e.g. Wet Braking here and Wet Braking (cool) in all season test. Similar conditions, so I would expect similar performance for summer tire.
Here the result of Reference Summer Tire is 29.52 and in All Season test 35.28.
Why there is such a big difference? Is the tire size difference the factor affecting performance that much?
How can I compare the performance of winter tires to all season tires, which makes more sense than to summer tires?
My memory might be fading but I'm fairly sure they were different tire sizes and different reference tires between the tests. This year I've tested them in the same size at the same place, however even then you're testing on different days so the results can vary quite a lot.
Maybe You can test e.g. top 3 all season tires along with top 3 winter or summer tires to show how much better (or maybe similar) these perform in specific weather conditions?
Would be interesting to add an ice portion for this testing so it can be compared to the Nordic compounds. I.e. Michelin X-Ice Snow vs PA5 and Continental VikingContact 7 vs TS870P in the same conditions and speeds.
That would certainly help with purchasing and deciding what is best suited for the end customer.
I've always been curious to see how a performance winter would compare to a severe winter compound.
Keep up the great comparisons and videos on YouTube, they are a great help and very informative.
I've actually done something similar, check out this video :)
https://www.tyrereviews.com...
I did not like the Hankook as they have failed under areas that are very warm (like extreme heat areas). Tires were not able to handle the heat on the road, cause for it to blow out.
How did you find the Michelin PA4 vs the PA5. With the PA4 being an aysmmetric design, I felt it was very agile and not like a traditional winter tire as well as amazing in the snow. Would the non asymmetric design change that?
I've not compared them on the same car so I couldn't tell you, sorry. I would be surprised if Michelin made anything worse for the PA5 though.
I have a w204 C250 (Mercedes) RWD with 225/45/17 it's very twitchy in the snow and wet. I work about 40 miles away down the motorway, with some quite bad B roads in between.
I have looked at a lot of your reviews and have picked out these but open to suggestions:
Hankook i*cept evo²
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
Dunlop 5
Goodyear Ultra Performance Plus
I live in the north of england, and have been hit hard with snow and it is impossible to drive (Currently using all season) which are rubbish so am working from home.
Which would you suggest for some backroads, and mainly motorway driving?
Thank you
What all seasons are you using?
Your short list is great, but obviously I'd throw in something from Conti and Michelin for consideration
accelera phi (came with the car) never realised how lethal they were until the weather came! - They're advertised as all season, but they're rubbish summers in essence.
I have looked at Conti & Michelin but the price for 4x works out about £200 extra.
Whats your opinion on the Hankook rs2? In tests, they seem to come out quite good (I can get them £90 a tire new) so that's one I'm heavily considering too over the others as it's £360 for the fullset.
Just like to add - I don't really floor it anywhere, take it steady as it's mostly long distances i cover.
The Phi is a (bad) summer tire for sure! The RS2 looks to be awesome, but I've not driven on it yet. I trust the tests its done well in though
Thank you very much - I will stick with the RS2's as they do seem to have really good ratings in general and for £90 a pop - it's well worth the savings if it's just a tad worse off.
Do you have a donate or paetron? I didn't use an affiliate with you, as couldn't see them. So happy to donate/support you elsewhere.
I don't, thanks for the offer though. If you want to help, just share the site / channel anywhere you can :)
I have a set of 4 MICHELIN ALPIN TYRES 205/55 R16 on steel rims that I used on my VW Golf SV. My new car is a VW Polo R Line TSI with 215/45R17 wheels/tires. My question is can I fit the Michelin Alpin tires on the smaller wheels to my POLO? I am assuming that the base POLOs will use smaller wheels/tires.
What are your thoughts, thank you.
The overall size will be slightly bigger, I can't actually recommend on this subject as there's lots of variables with vehicles so many best to ask vw or an owners forum
Thanks for the reply, ill try the VW Forum and see if anything there.
The results of this test should give you some ideas :) Hankook and Bridgestone also great options
Hey Jonathan What's your thought on this: the generic Alpin 5 has a class E fuel consumption (labelled E, B, 68) whereas the homologated Alpin 5 N0 has got a class D fuel consumption (labelled D, B, 68). What do you think would happen when putting such a N0 homologated tire on an Audi A3 Sportback instead of the generic Alpin 5... would it keep the N0 classification values nonetheless, would it level itself to the values generated by the generic Alpin 5 or would it worsen the performance, i.e. generate below generic type value levels? Thanks for your insight and reflections!
Too difficult to answer, but I definitely wouldn't go with the N0 tire. Depending on the size you might be fitting the front or rear tire of a car with a totally different weight distribution. Plus in the real world, label scores aren't super accurate.
I have had both the Guislaved NordFrost and Nokian Haakapilliittta, and would heartily recommend either one. Unless you are in very severe conditions, studs are not required with either tire. I live in the snow belt of Ontario, Canada and my 1990 Volvo 240 Estate, a lovely rear wheel drive beastie, just simply get through everything. I am reduced to having the Uniroyal Tiger Paw Ice And Snow, because it is the only tire sold here in a 195/75R14 size. Such is life with an old car.
Have you looked in the homologation paper of your brave car for possibly alternative tire size(s)? Ideally in 15'.
I have 15 inch Volvo wheels from a 240 GLT/TURBO for summer. I was reluctant to buy 15 inch steel wheels as I plan not to need another set of winter tires when these wear out. I am planning to move to Belize where winter will be but a distant, bitter memory.
Is there a major supply problem in the UK for winters this year? I've been trying to buy since the end of August, but none of the online retailers have any of the latest leading contenders. Is this likely to change anytime soon?
If they're not in now I'd guess they're not coming in. UK retailers would have had to place direct orders months ago and likely due to little demand last year everyone was too conservative.
I just got the Continental TS870 from mytires.co.uk. Came from Germany took 7 days from order.
Let me know how you get on with them!
What is your opinion on Pirelli's brand new Cinturato Winter 2?
Not managed to test it yet sadly, but it's from the same cut as the SF2 so in theory it could be very good!
Good summary, Jon - thanks.
Is there any interest / thoughts about doing a comparison of the same tire in radically different sizes? i.e 16 > 18 > 20, to see how consistent the scoring is? How much can I read into the 18" scoring, when I'm needing 20" version of the same tire? Ta.
I've done 16, 17 and 18", the issue is you're unlikely to find the same tire in 16" and 20"!
Great work, as always. I am slightly confused, please help me out:
- I drive a 2016 Skoda Octavia 1.8 TSI; FWD and real bad wheel hop, I suppose you are familiar with it since you drive an Octavia RS
- my winter wheels are 16" because larger sizes would not allow the use of chains
- current (and OEM) wheels are 205/55/R16
- I would go for a UHP winter tire to help with traction and let me enjoy what the engine offers
- however, both the Michelin Pilot Alpin 6 and the Continental TS870P are available in 16" but only in 205/60, not 55
This means an increase of height ratio of more than 3%
I can't find reliable information as to why they went with this choice, or whether it is safe to change sizes?
What are you thoughts? Thank you
I wouldn't rush to change the tire size, there's probably very little difference if any between a PA5 and Alpin 6 in terms of cold weather traction.
Sadly wheel hop is a fact of powerful fwd cars without very expensive suspension setups! A 16" winter tire should slide more than hop though :)
If Conti then for 16' and very common touring size 205/55/R16 go for Continental TS870 or TS860. On snow you will be better off.
TS870P or 860S or 850P are top notch models for sport, high class and super sport cars...
In 205/55R16, there is also the Conti TS860S, but only in runflat flavor.
I'm around the same spot of indecisiveness myself.
I drive a 156 2.5 V6, very enjoyable with its summer 17" Michelin PS4 tires. But the actual winter wheels with TS860 feel quite sluggish for mild winters with mostly cold wet weather and only rare snow.
So as you, I don't know if I should stick with 16", either with the runflat TS860S or the Vredestein Wintrac, or even the TS870 or Bridgestone Blizzak LM005.
Or go up a size (215/ or 225/45R17), so UHP 4S like the Vredestein Quatrac Pro becomes available.
Price wise, the Vredestein options are the cheapest, and the Conti ones the more expensive.
That's a hard call…
Yep, it is ;)
Thanks Jon for your reply! (I wasn't expecting you were still around… :D)
Will you personnally go for runflat TS860S or another "regular" winter tire?
I've also heard your recommandation for the use of 4S in mild winters area like UK or coastal France. Do you think there would be a great difference between 4S and UHP (dry and wet biased) winter? There is very few data about this.
I'm spending a lot of time on this because of a baby on board. So I'm looking for max safety, and if possible, best feeling when she's not aboard.
Honestly I don't know what I'd do! Good arguments for each.
You can see the difference between summer and all season in my all season test, check it out.
For ultimate safety definitely ditch the runflats.
Thanks for your input. :)
If I go 4S, it would be only for winter, I will stay with summer tires for summer. ;)
Are the runflat tires that bad overall?
I'll re-read all the tests to help make my mind. Is there any way to have a clue about the summer and winter tires references in your 4S tests? :D
Runflats are pretty bad. Unfortunately I can't share the specific references for this one, but check out the 2020 all season test as those references are named :)
Great reviews! I have one question. Are the same results with the wider winter tire, for example 255x35x18. Thank man.
Where it's very close there's likely to be some small variations but the overall theme should stand
I have to admit that I don’t like the LM005. As long this tire is new, it’s fine, but with ongoing wear it deteriorates dramatically. Last year it won beneath every review, so this review hits reality very well. A winter tire which is only good in the wet, is not worth to be sold as winter tire. I could drive a allwheather with advantage in dry conditions.
When tested in wear, it's usually one of the worst of the group, eg https://www.tyrereviews.com...
Have the LT variant on my work truck. They are horrible on snow and ice.
where is the "low temperature" dry braking test? isn't that the most important of all winter-tire features?
Temperature has very little effect on dry braking tests due to the heat generated by full abs stops in the dry, however these were performed at low temperatures, it even notes "Testing at 3c" in the first line of the dry section.
3c? thats nothing. Tire changes alot down to -40c like we get up here
Do you often get -40c and dry roads?
Well, the roads are definitively not wet at -40c but they are often covered in compacted snow or groved ice. But a bare roadsurface is not uncommon. Most popular brands up here are Nokian and Conti with studs.
I assume you're somewhere very north such as Ivalo?!
Hey guys, does someone tried Kleber Krisalp HP3 on 225/40/18? I drove this tire on 205/55/16 and i can say it was really good tire with low noise and awesome traction on snow but i am not sure whether they will perform the same way on the bigger size.
See the page on this site, plenty of tests in different sizes. Usually the performance translates through sizes pretty well
hey guys, what do you think about Kleber Krisalp HP3 tire? what do you think how good or bad would it score? I'm reading some reviews and the tire is really good on snow, considering the price.
Let me know your thoughts
I only know what's on this site! It did come third in the auto bild full winter test, it should be on the site tomorrow so come back (11th Oct)
Thanks for your reply!
Kleber Krisalp HP3 are in tests in the top (overall and snow), usually best price for value. Their only backside is the test in the wet, where they are usually weaker (harder compound but that's better for their very good longevity).
Have you tested the Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice2?
How does it compare to VikingContact 7 or Hakkapeliitta R3?
I have not, I hopefully will next year. I'll be putting some test data on the site next week which includes that tire though :)
When will you do a winter tire test with a loaded van
That's a bit too niche for me, but you can find commercial / van tire tests on the site!
What’s the difference between Continental TS870 and TS870p? Which one would you choose in 225/45/R17 for Golf mk6 GTI?
P is the performance version of the tire so geared to be slightly more sporty and fit larger wheel sizes
It seems TS870P is not available in size 225/45 R17, only TS870. Can you confirm?
Would TS870 still be a good choice for GTI from your point of view?
The 870 is still a great tire. I'm not entirely sure what performance winter tires will be available in 17"
Interersting, thank you for work but where is Michelin alpin 6 ?
This is the PILOT Alpin 5, which is the latest generation for the larger wheel size. The Alpin 6 is smaller sizes.
Ah yes sorry :)
Great review as ever. Conti seems to be the go-to for most European drivers. Still preferring an All-Season for UK winter?
For where I am, and my driving pattern, yes, but I'm north London and don't drive / commute that much in the UK :)
When you're saying you use All seasons instead of dedicated Winters in the UK, are you using them all year or switching to Summer UHP tires in the summer?
I'm running PS4S's on a Fiesta ST, currently and looking for something to run in UK winter but now confused after your video if I should buy full 'winters' or all seasons to run as a winter tire?
Any advice much appreciated.
I run them as winter tires, so I switch to summers in the summer
I believe it would be nice to include a reference all season tire in summer and winter tire tests as the reference summers and winters usually show how bad they are in the other's environment (exagerated a bit), but an all season which is considered by buyers to get instead of both other types should show how much of a compromise that is under circumstances which favor a more specialized tire.
All season tires are like the intermediates in F1. They have a range in which they are the best choice (where summers aren't enough but winters are too much, which covers many wintry conditions nowadays in central Europe). We could compare the results in this year's all season and winter tire tests as the circumstances were pretty much the same, but I feel like the size difference wouldn't make it as "apples to apples".
Otherwise a great content as usual, keep it up!
I have plans for next year which will certainly help show the differences between the two :)
Naming the exact reference tire or tires would be a great step towards greater transparency
I usually do, I couldn't this year but I will certainly in the future
I agree that a comparison between those on test here and the top 2 or 3 all season tires would be well worth it, at least to show what they can do on the snow in comparison to more than one 'reference' winter tire. And also on both this size of tire (popular with 'Sport' models of many C-sector cars) and the most popular tire for the same size of car, the 205/55 R16.
Great test as always!
How about cabin noise? Winter tires tend to produce annoying sounds. Which tires were the quietest?
Sadly we didn't measure internal noise this time due to time, just external.
Great work :)
To bad this is a size with tires which aren´t available for me.
If the prices are corrct the GT Radial is to expensive for the performance.
The only tire which surprised me was the Hankook. Hankook proved in the last years they can also make good winter tires.
The tires are feeling a lot like Continental products now, which is no real surprise as I believe Hankook setup r&d right next door to Conti in Germany then borrowed some of their engineers!
Why should Conti help the competitors? Maybe Hankook send spies ;)
Hankook show since years a good progress from mid quality to almost(?) Premium quality. My first Hankook tires I bought 1991, All Season but even Hankook Germany don´t know which tires this could be ;) . I don´t have photos of it, but it looked like the 1st Goodyear Vector
Long time ago some ppl think Kumho is the next Hankook, but actually I don´t believe it. And Toyo, which had long time ago some very good tires, didn´t manage to make a good tire since more than 10 years.
Oh they didn't help, Hankook offered a lot of engineers more money to move across. A very normal way for businesses to buy big jumps in technology, and it seems to have worked
Ah, OK, I wondered about "borrows".
I love your Youtube videos and the fact that you are doing what you are most passionate about for living which allows you to put all you have to produce the best content possible while having fun doing it. No cheap content to get rating up for Youtube or warring about sponsorship and who to please with.
The fact that you tested these tires at the same time as the All Sean / All Weather tires allows people to see just how much differences there are between the premium All Season vs the premium Winter tires in all weather conditions. It was a surprise to me that the tire with the lowest tread depth (Michelin) has all the best snow performance especially they usually have a tradition of long lasting tread wear and good performance even at low depth of tread at the end of its life. Well done and thank you for the hard/fun work review.
It surprised me too, as tread depth is often useful for snow performance! Michelin obviously know what they're doing :)
Michelin works since the 1st Alpin on it. IIRC Michelin is one of the manufacturers which cut the slats (correct english word for german "Lamellen"?) to the ground while many other manufacturers don´t do that. My Yokohama V905 a good example for these other manufacturers, the tires get awful with more than 5mm tread in the snow. Michelin let TÜV Süd test it, the Alpin 6 was the best tire with very low tread, the worst was Bridgestone LM001 Evo