Test Charts / Vi Bilagare

2024 Nordic Friction 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: 225/45 R17
Tires tested: 8
Disciplines: 13

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	Residual speed
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	85 ft	Best	0 mph
2Continental VikingContact 8	102 ft	+17 ft	33 mph
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	103 ft	+18 ft	34 mph
4Michelin X Ice Snow	104 ft	+19 ft	34 mph
5Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	105 ft	+20 ft	35 mph
6Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	106 ft	+21 ft	36 mph
7Radar Dimax Ice	107 ft	+22 ft	36 mph
8Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	107 ft	+22 ft	37 mph

The difference between best and worst was 26.6% (22 ft ≈ 1.5 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15 would still be travelling at 37 mph when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 had stopped.

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	5 Points	Best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	5 Points	Best
3Michelin X Ice Snow	4 Points	-1.00 Points
3Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	4 Points	-1.00 Points
3Continental VikingContact 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	3 Points	-2.00 Points
7Radar Dimax Ice	1 Points	-4.00 Points
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	1 Points	-4.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 80% (4 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	90 ft	Best	0 mph
2Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	123 ft	+33 ft	41 mph
3Michelin X Ice Snow	128 ft	+38 ft	44 mph
4Continental VikingContact 8	132 ft	+42 ft	45 mph
5Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	132 ft	+42 ft	45 mph
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	138 ft	+48 ft	47 mph
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	139 ft	+49 ft	48 mph
8Radar Dimax Ice	140 ft	+50 ft	48 mph

The difference between best and worst was 55.2% (50 ft ≈ 3.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Radar Dimax Ice would still be travelling at 48 mph when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 had stopped.

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

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	38.4 s	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	40.6 s	+2.20 s
3Continental VikingContact 8	41.2 s	+2.80 s
4Michelin X Ice Snow	41.7 s	+3.30 s
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	41.7 s	+3.30 s
6Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	42.5 s	+4.10 s
7Radar Dimax Ice	43.9 s	+5.50 s
8Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	44.3 s	+5.90 s

The difference between best and worst was 15.4% (5.9 s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	53.4 mph	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	42.6 mph	-10.8 mph
3Michelin X Ice Snow	40.2 mph	-13.2 mph
4Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	39.3 mph	-14.1 mph
5Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	38.8 mph	-14.6 mph
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	37.2 mph	-16.2 mph
6Continental VikingContact 8	37.2 mph	-16.2 mph
8Radar Dimax Ice	36.2 mph	-17.2 mph

The difference between best and worst was 32.3% (17.2 mph).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	41 ft	Best	0 mph
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	41 ft	0 ft	4 mph
3Michelin X Ice Snow	41 ft	0 ft	6 mph
4Continental VikingContact 8	42 ft	+1 ft	12 mph
5Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	42 ft	+1 ft	12 mph
6Radar Dimax Ice	42 ft	+1 ft	14 mph
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	43 ft	+2 ft	16 mph
8Michelin CrossClimate 2	44 ft	+3 ft	20 mph

The difference between best and worst was 6.8% (3 ft). From 80 mph, the Michelin CrossClimate 2 would still be travelling at 20 mph when the Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 had stopped.

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

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	4.04 s	Best
2Continental VikingContact 8	4.19 s	+0.15 s
3Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	4.2 s	+0.16 s
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	4.2 s	+0.16 s
5Michelin CrossClimate 2	4.21 s	+0.17 s
6Michelin X Ice Snow	4.23 s	+0.19 s
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	4.3 s	+0.26 s
8Radar Dimax Ice	4.46 s	+0.42 s

The difference between best and worst was 10.4% (0.42 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	79.6 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	79.7 s	+0.10 s
2Continental VikingContact 8	79.7 s	+0.10 s
4Michelin X Ice Snow	81 s	+1.40 s
5Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	81.5 s	+1.90 s
6Radar Dimax Ice	81.8 s	+2.20 s
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	83 s	+3.40 s
8Michelin CrossClimate 2	84.7 s	+5.10 s

The difference between best and worst was 6.4% (5.1 s).

Ice

Ice Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin X Ice Snow	35 ft	Best	0 mph
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	37 ft	+2 ft	20 mph
3Continental VikingContact 8	39 ft	+4 ft	26 mph
4Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	42 ft	+7 ft	32 mph
5Radar Dimax Ice	51 ft	+16 ft	45 mph
6Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	51 ft	+16 ft	45 mph
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	60 ft	+25 ft	52 mph
8Michelin CrossClimate 2	60 ft	+25 ft	52 mph

The difference between best and worst was 72% (25 ft ≈ 1.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Michelin CrossClimate 2 would still be travelling at 52 mph when the Michelin X Ice Snow had stopped.

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

Ice Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin X Ice Snow	7.53 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	8.01 s	+0.48 s
3Continental VikingContact 8	8.44 s	+0.91 s
4Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	8.99 s	+1.46 s
5Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	11 s	+3.47 s
5Radar Dimax Ice	11 s	+3.47 s
7Michelin CrossClimate 2	13 s	+5.47 s
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	13 s	+5.47 s

The difference between best and worst was 72.6% (5.47 s).

Ice Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental VikingContact 8	64.6 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	65 s	+0.40 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	66.4 s	+1.80 s
4Radar Dimax Ice	67 s	+2.40 s
5Michelin X Ice Snow	67.8 s	+3.20 s
6Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	69.3 s	+4.70 s
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	69.7 s	+5.10 s
8Michelin CrossClimate 2	72.8 s	+8.20 s

The difference between best and worst was 12.7% (8.2 s).

Comfort

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	71.5 dB	Best
2Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	71.7 dB	+0.20 dB
2Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	71.7 dB	+0.20 dB
4Continental VikingContact 8	71.8 dB	+0.30 dB
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	71.9 dB	+0.40 dB
6Radar Dimax Ice	72 dB	+0.50 dB
7Michelin X Ice Snow	72.1 dB	+0.60 dB
8Michelin CrossClimate 2	72.9 dB	+1.40 dB

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

Value

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	5.25 l/100km	Best	$0
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	5.3 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km	$9
2Continental VikingContact 8	5.3 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km	$9
4Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	5.4 l/100km	+0.15 l/100km	$28
5Michelin X Ice Snow	5.45 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
5Michelin CrossClimate 2	5.45 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
7Radar Dimax Ice	5.55 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	$55
8Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	5.6 l/100km	+0.35 l/100km	$64

The difference between best and worst was 6.7% (0.35 l/100km). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15 uses about 18 gal ($64) more fuel than the Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3.

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.