Vi Bilägare has completed their latest winter tire test, evaluating seven dedicated Nordic friction tires and one all-season tire in size 225/45 R17. The reigning champion, Continental VikingContact 7, has been replaced by the VikingContact 8, which is tested against competitors from Goodyear, Michelin, Nokian, and Hankook. The test also included two budget tires, Radar and Greenmax.

Test setup & methodology

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

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 49.7 → 3.1 mph · 59–63 °F
Subj. Dry Handling: 52–57 °F
Wet Braking: 49.7 → 3.1 mph · 55–59 °F
Wet Handling: 46–50 °F
Straight Aqua: 43–45 °F
Snow Braking: 21.7 → 3.1 mph · 16–21 °F
Snow Traction: 3.1 → 21.7 mph · 16–21 °F
Snow Handling: 19–21 °F
Ice Braking: 15.5 → 3.1 mph · 21–23 °F
Ice Traction: 3.1 → 15.5 mph · 21–23 °F
Ice Handling: 12–16 °F

The inclusion of the Michelin CrossClimate 2 in this winter tire test provides an interesting insight into the capabilities of modern all-season tires in winter conditions. While the tire demonstrated exceptional performance in wet conditions, significantly outperforming all winter tires in wet braking and handling, its winter limitations were clear. On ice, the CrossClimate 2 showed very poor grip levels with braking distances nearly twice that of the best winter tires. Snow performance, while better than ice, still fell well behind dedicated winter options.

The tire's mixed performance led to an interesting result - despite its poor winter characteristics, strong wet and dry performance helped it outperform the budget winter tires overall. However, the test highlights that while all-season tires might work for drivers in milder regions who rarely encounter severe winter conditions, they're not a suitable replacement for Nordic winter tires in areas where ice and snow are common. The CrossClimate 2 also showed the highest noise levels in the test, reflecting its stiffer, more summer-oriented construction.

Even with it's all season design goal, thanks to the huge lead it had in the dry and wet it got enough points to outscore two of the nordic winter tires overall.

Dry

The Michelin CrossClimate 2 dominated this test with a stopping distance of 85ft, significantly outperforming all winter tires. The Greenmax LL Winter Ice I-15 performed worst, needing an additional 23ft (26.6% longer) to stop.

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.

The testers didn't provide laptimes for dry handling, instead publishing subjective scores out of five.

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

The CrossClimate 2 again led by a substantial margin, stopping in 90ft. The Radar Dimax Ice performed worst, requiring 140ft - a concerning 50ft (55% longer) additional stopping distance.

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.

The CrossClimate 2 continued its wet weather dominance with the fastest lap time of 38.4 seconds. The Greenmax LL Winter Ice I-15 was slowest, taking 44.3 seconds - 5.9 seconds (15.4%) slower.

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).

The CrossClimate 2 showed exceptional aquaplaning resistance, maintaining grip until 53 mph. The Radar Dimax Ice lost grip earliest at just 36.2 mph, showing significantly worse water displacement.

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

The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 led with 41ft stopping distance. The CrossClimate 2 struggled, requiring 44ft - the longest distance of all tested tires.

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.

The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 demonstrated best acceleration with 4.04 seconds. The Radar Dimax Ice was slowest at 4.46 seconds, while the CrossClimate 2 performed mid-pack.

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).

The Goodyear excelled with a lap time of 79.6 seconds. The CrossClimate 2 was significantly slower at 84.7 seconds - the worst performer.

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

The Michelin X-Ice Snow led with 35ft. The CrossClimate 2 performed very poorly, requiring 60ft - nearly twice the distance.

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.

The Michelin X-Ice Snow was fastest with 7.53 seconds. The CrossClimate 2 tied with Greenmax for worst performance at 13 seconds - 72% slower than the best.

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).

The Continental VikingContact 8 was quickest with 64.6 seconds. The CrossClimate 2 was slowest at 72.8 seconds - 12.7% behind the leader.

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

The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 was quietest at 71.5 dB. The CrossClimate 2 was loudest at 72.9 dB, reflecting its stiffer construction.

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

The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 was most efficient at 5.25 L/100km. The Greenmax was worst at 5.6 L/100km, while the CrossClimate 2 tied with the Michelin X-Ice Snow at 5.45 L/100km.

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.

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.

Results

The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 claimed victory with impressive overall performance. It showed class-leading wet road handling and aquaplaning resistance while maintaining high levels of snow grip. Despite prioritizing tarmac performance, it still delivered strong winter capabilities, though its ice performance fell slightly behind the best. Combined with low rolling resistance and good noise levels, it proved to be the best choice for drivers who spend more time on clear roads but still need reliable winter performance.

Dry83.8%

Wet83.3%

Snow100%

Ice88.3%

Comfort100%

Fuel Consumption100%

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	5^th / 8	105 ft	+20 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	5 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	123 ft	+33 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	40.6 s	+2.20 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 8	42.6 mph	-10.8 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	41 ft	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionLower is better	1^st / 8	4.04 s	Best in this discipline
Snow HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	79.6 s	Best in this discipline
Ice BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	42 ft	+7 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	4^th / 8	8.99 s	+1.46 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	66.4 s	+1.80 s
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 8	71.5 dB	Best in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 8	5.25 l/100km	Best in this discipline

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.5 kgs
Tread: 7.5 mm
Price: 2183.00

The Continental VikingContact 8, newly released with EV certification, secured second place. This updated model improved upon its predecessor's already strong reputation with better stability on tarmac, likely designed with heavier electric vehicles in mind. While ice grip remained good, particularly in terms of handling at the limit, it wasn't quite class-leading. Its main weakness was poor resistance to aquaplaning, but strong performance across other areas and excellent noise levels kept it near the top.

Dry82.4%

Wet79.5%

Snow98%

Ice92.8%

Comfort99.6%

Fuel Consumption99.1%

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	2^nd / 8	102 ft	+17 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	132 ft	+42 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	41.2 s	+2.80 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 8	37.2 mph	-16.2 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	42 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	4.19 s	+0.15 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	79.7 s	+0.10 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	39 ft	+4 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	3^rd / 8	8.44 s	+0.91 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	64.6 s	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 8	71.8 dB	+0.30 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 8	5.3 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.9 kgs
Tread: 7.9 mm
Price: 2549.00

The Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 took third place, dominating the winter conditions alongside Continental. It excelled in both ice and snow performance, offering the best cornering grip and proving particularly enjoyable to drive in winter conditions. However, its clear focus on winter performance led to compromises elsewhere - it struggled with aquaplaning resistance and showed only average performance on dry and wet tarmac, with slightly inconsistent steering feel.

Dry78.6%

Wet77.7%

Snow98.5%

Ice95.8%

Comfort99.4%

Fuel Consumption99.1%

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	3^rd / 8	103 ft	+18 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	138 ft	+48 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	41.7 s	+3.30 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 8	37.2 mph	-16.2 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	41 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	3^rd / 8	4.2 s	+0.16 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	79.7 s	+0.10 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	37 ft	+2 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	8.01 s	+0.48 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	65 s	+0.40 s
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 8	71.9 dB	+0.40 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 8	5.3 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.6 kgs
Tread: 8.2 mm
Price: 2332.00

The Michelin X-Ice Snow finished fourth, standing out with excellent braking performance across all conditions despite being one of the harder tires in the test and the only Nordic winter tire rated above 124 mph. However, it showed lower cornering grip than its competitors in both winter and summer conditions, with a tendency to break away more suddenly in corners. It offered good straight-line stability and linear steering feel on tarmac but responded more sluggishly under pressure.

Dry81.6%

Wet80.4%

Snow97.7%

Ice98.4%

Comfort99.2%

Fuel Consumption96.3%

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	4^th / 8	104 ft	+19 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	128 ft	+38 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	41.7 s	+3.30 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 8	40.2 mph	-13.2 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	41 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	6^th / 8	4.23 s	+0.19 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	81 s	+1.40 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	35 ft	Best in this discipline
Ice TractionLower is better	1^st / 8	7.53 s	Best in this discipline
Ice HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	67.8 s	+3.20 s
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 8	72.1 dB	+0.60 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 8	5.45 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 10 kgs
Tread: 8 mm
Price: 2573.00

The Hankook Winter i*cept IZ2 W616, launched in 2016, showed its age with a fifth-place finish. While offering good straight-line stability on tarmac and low noise levels, it struggled to balance winter and tarmac performance. Ice grip was notably behind premium competitors in both braking and cornering, and while dry road steering feel was good, overall grip levels couldn't match the best performers.

Dry79.9%

Wet78.4%

Snow97.1%

Ice76.5%

Comfort99.7%

Fuel Consumption97.2%

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	6^th / 8	106 ft	+21 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	132 ft	+42 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	42.5 s	+4.10 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 8	38.8 mph	-14.6 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	42 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	3^rd / 8	4.2 s	+0.16 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	81.5 s	+1.90 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	51 ft	+16 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	5^th / 8	11 s	+3.47 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	69.3 s	+4.70 s
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 8	71.7 dB	+0.20 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	4^th / 8	5.4 l/100km	+0.15 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.6 kgs
Tread: 8.3 mm
Price: 1717.00

The Michelin CrossClimate 2 all-season tire demonstrated its split personality in the test. It dominated wet road performance and showed excellent dry road behavior, but struggled severely on ice and showed compromised snow performance. While it outperformed budget winter tires overall, its winter limitations make it suitable only for drivers who can avoid driving in icy conditions.

Dry100%

Wet100%

Snow94.6%

Ice68.2%

Comfort98.1%

Fuel Consumption96.3%

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	1^st / 8	85 ft	Best in this discipline
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	5 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	90 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	38.4 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 8	53.4 mph	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	44 ft	+3 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	5^th / 8	4.21 s	+0.17 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	84.7 s	+5.10 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	60 ft	+25 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	13 s	+5.47 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	72.8 s	+8.20 s
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 8	72.9 dB	+1.40 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 8	5.45 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.9 kgs
Tread: 6.3 mm
Price: 1567.00

The Radar Dimax Ice performed poorly overall, though showed reasonable ice grip thanks to its soft compound. However, it failed in most other areas with extended braking distances on both wet and dry surfaces, early aquaplaning, high noise levels, and unpredictable handling under pressure. Despite its low price point, its limited capabilities make it poor value.

Dry69.2%

Wet74.9%

Snow94.9%

Ice77.8%

Comfort99.3%

Fuel Consumption94.6%

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	7^th / 8	107 ft	+22 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	1 Points	-4.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	140 ft	+50 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	43.9 s	+5.50 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 8	36.2 mph	-17.2 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	42 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	8^th / 8	4.46 s	+0.42 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	81.8 s	+2.20 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	51 ft	+16 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	5^th / 8	11 s	+3.47 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	67 s	+2.40 s
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 8	72 dB	+0.50 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	7^th / 8	5.55 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.9 kgs
Tread: 8 mm
Price: 1129.00

The Greenmax Winter Ice I-15 finished last, showing almost no redeeming qualities beyond low noise levels and decent aquaplaning resistance. Its relatively hard compound delivered ice grip barely better than the all-season tire, and it showed dangerous handling characteristics with sudden breakaway on both snow and ice. Extended braking distances, poor handling on dry roads, and high rolling resistance confirmed its position at the bottom of the test.

Dry69%

Wet75.4%

Snow95.2%

Ice69.5%

Comfort99.7%

Fuel Consumption93.8%

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	8^th / 8	107 ft	+22 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	1 Points	-4.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	139 ft	+49 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	44.3 s	+5.90 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 8	39.3 mph	-14.1 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	43 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	4.3 s	+0.26 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	83 s	+3.40 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	60 ft	+25 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	13 s	+5.47 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	69.7 s	+5.10 s
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 8	71.7 dB	+0.20 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 8	5.6 l/100km	+0.35 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.8 kgs
Tread: 8.9 mm
Price: 1047.00

Tire	Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	Continental VikingContact 8	Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	Michelin X Ice Snow	Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	Michelin CrossClimate 2	Radar Dimax Ice	Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15
Position	1^st	2^nd	3^rd	4^th	5^th	6^th	7^th	8^th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	83.8%	82.4%	78.6%	81.6%	79.9%	100%	69.2%	69%
Wet	83.3%	79.5%	77.7%	80.4%	78.4%	100%	74.9%	75.4%
Snow	100%	98%	98.5%	97.7%	97.1%	94.6%	94.9%	95.2%
Ice	88.3%	92.8%	95.8%	98.4%	76.5%	68.2%	77.8%	69.5%
Comfort	100%	99.6%	99.4%	99.2%	99.7%	98.1%	99.3%	99.7%
Fuel Consumption	100%	99.1%	99.1%	96.3%	97.2%	96.3%	94.6%	93.8%
Keep researching	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results

Menu

Tire shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry

Wet

Snow

Ice

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test