Menu

Test Charts /

2024 AS SUV 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
235/55 R18
Tires tested
10
Disciplines
12

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

2

Dry Braking

Dry braking in feet (62 - 0 mph)

Lower is better ↓
Dry Braking
Position / TireResultGap to bestResidual speed
141 ft Best 0 mph
143 ft +2 ft 9 mph
144 ft +3 ft 11 mph
144 ft +3 ft 12 mph
145 ft +4 ft 13 mph
145 ft +4 ft 14 mph
145 ft +4 ft 14 mph
146 ft +5 ft 15 mph
146 ft +5 ft 15 mph
146 ft +5 ft 16 mph

The difference between best and worst was 4% (5 ft ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Bridgestone Blizzak 6 would still be travelling at 16 mph when the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Dry Handling

Dry Handling Average Speed

Higher is better ↑
Dry Handling
Position / TireResultGap to best
71.8 mph Best
71.5 mph -0.3 mph
71.5 mph -0.3 mph
71.3 mph -0.5 mph
71.1 mph -0.7 mph
71.1 mph -0.7 mph
71.1 mph -0.7 mph
71.0 mph -0.8 mph
70.8 mph -1.0 mph
70.6 mph -1.2 mph

All the tires in the Dry Handling test finished less than 3% apart.

Wet

5

Wet Braking

Wet braking in feet (50 - 0 mph)

Lower is better ↓
Wet Braking
Position / TireResultGap to bestResidual speed
114 ft Best 0 mph
116 ft +2 ft 10 mph
118 ft +4 ft 15 mph
119 ft +5 ft 16 mph
119 ft +5 ft 17 mph
120 ft +6 ft 19 mph
123 ft +9 ft 21 mph
123 ft +9 ft 22 mph
125 ft +11 ft 24 mph
127 ft +13 ft 25 mph

The difference between best and worst was 11.2% (13 ft ≈ 0.9 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV would still be travelling at 25 mph when the Bridgestone Blizzak 6 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Wet Handling

Wet Handling Average Speed

Higher is better ↑
Wet Handling
Position / TireResultGap to best
40.7 mph Best
40.7 mph Best
40.6 mph -0.1 mph
40.5 mph -0.2 mph
40.3 mph -0.4 mph
40.2 mph -0.5 mph
40.2 mph -0.5 mph
40.1 mph -0.6 mph
40.1 mph -0.6 mph
39.7 mph -1.0 mph

All the tires in the Wet Handling test finished less than 3% apart.

Wet Circle

Lateral wet grip in m/s squared

Higher is better ↑
Wet Circle
Position / TireResultGap to best
16.6 mph Best
16.6 mph 0.0 mph
16.6 mph 0.0 mph
16.5 mph -0.1 mph
16.4 mph -0.2 mph
16.3 mph -0.3 mph
16.3 mph -0.3 mph
16.1 mph -0.5 mph
16.1 mph -0.5 mph
16.1 mph -0.5 mph

The difference between best and worst was 3.4% (0.5 mph).

Straight Aqua

Float Speed in mph

Higher is better ↑
Straight Aqua
Position / TireResultGap to best
46.6 mph Best
46.1 mph -0.5 mph
46.1 mph -0.5 mph
45.9 mph -0.7 mph
45.5 mph -1.1 mph
45.2 mph -1.4 mph
45.0 mph -1.6 mph
45.0 mph -1.6 mph
42.7 mph -3.9 mph
41.3 mph -5.3 mph

The difference between best and worst was 11.3% (5.3 mph).

Curved Aquaplaning

Remaining lateral acceleration

Higher is better ↑
Curved Aquaplaning
Position / TireResultGap to best
11.6 ft/s² Best
11.1 ft/s² -0.5 ft/s²
10.7 ft/s² -0.9 ft/s²
10.6 ft/s² -1.0 ft/s²
10.6 ft/s² -1.0 ft/s²
10.4 ft/s² -1.2 ft/s²
10.2 ft/s² -1.4 ft/s²
9.1 ft/s² -2.5 ft/s²
8.7 ft/s² -2.9 ft/s²
8.6 ft/s² -3.0 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 25.9% (3 ft/s²).

Snow

3

Snow Braking

Snow braking in feet (31 - 0 mph)

Lower is better ↓
Snow Braking
Position / TireResultGap to bestResidual speed
80 ft Best 0 mph
80 ft 0 ft 5 mph
80 ft 0 ft 7 mph
83 ft +3 ft 17 mph
83 ft +3 ft 17 mph
86 ft +6 ft 21 mph
87 ft +7 ft 23 mph
89 ft +9 ft 25 mph
91 ft +11 ft 28 mph
91 ft +11 ft 28 mph

The difference between best and worst was 14% (11 ft ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV would still be travelling at 28 mph when the Bridgestone Blizzak 6 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Snow Traction

Pulling Force in pounds-force

Higher is better ↑
Snow Traction
Position / TireResultGap to best
0 lbf Best
0 lbf 0 lbf
0 lbf 0 lbf
0 lbf 0 lbf
0 lbf 0 lbf
0 lbf 0 lbf
0 lbf 0 lbf
0 lbf 0 lbf
0 lbf 0 lbf
0 lbf 0 lbf

The difference between best and worst was 13.5% (0 lbf).

Snow Handling

Snow handling average speed

Higher is better ↑
Snow Handling
Position / TireResultGap to best
30.3 mph Best
30.1 mph -0.2 mph
29.9 mph -0.4 mph
29.8 mph -0.5 mph
29.8 mph -0.5 mph
29.7 mph -0.6 mph
29.6 mph -0.7 mph
29.1 mph -1.2 mph
29.0 mph -1.3 mph
28.0 mph -2.3 mph

The difference between best and worst was 7.8% (2.3 mph).

Comfort

1

Noise

External noise in dB

Lower is better ↓
Noise
Position / TireResultGap to best
71.4 dB Best
71.8 dB +0.40 dB
72.2 dB +0.80 dB
72.3 dB +0.90 dB
72.5 dB +1.10 dB
72.6 dB +1.20 dB
72.8 dB +1.40 dB
72.9 dB +1.50 dB
72.9 dB +1.50 dB
74.2 dB +2.80 dB

The difference between best and worst was 3.9% (2.8 dB).

Value

1

Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance in kg t

Lower is better ↓
Rolling Resistance
Position / TireResultGap to bestExtra fuel / year
7.3 kg/t Best $0
7.6 kg/t +0.30 kg/t $12
7.9 kg/t +0.60 kg/t $24
7.9 kg/t +0.60 kg/t $24
8.1 kg/t +0.80 kg/t $32
8.1 kg/t +0.80 kg/t $32
8.3 kg/t +1.00 kg/t $40
8.4 kg/t +1.10 kg/t $44
8.4 kg/t +1.10 kg/t $44
8.7 kg/t +1.40 kg/t $56

The difference between best and worst was 19.2% (1.4 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2 uses about 16 gal ($56) more fuel than the Continental WinterContact TS 870 P.

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.

12,000 mi
$3.60/gal
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.

Test setup & methodology

The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.

Recorded test conditions

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking
62.1 → 0.0 mph
Wet Braking
49.7 → 0.0 mph
Snow Braking
31.1 → 0.0 mph

More tire tests

Cross-check this test

All tire tests

Where these tires were tested again, and how the verdict held up.

Rate your tires

My tires

Saved in this browser on this site. No account needed. Clearing browser data removes your choices.

Vehicle and size

Check the size, load and speed ratings on your vehicle. Saving a size does not confirm fitment.

Saved tires

Save tires from a tire page, test or comparison to keep them here.

Select 2–8 saved tires. Ranked comparisons require at least two shared tests.