Data Explorer / Teknikens Varld
2026 Teknikens Värld Studded, Nordic and Central European Winter Tire Test
- Tested size
- 235/45 R18
- Tires tested
- 18
- Disciplines
- 8
- Test vehicle
- Volvo V60 (petrol)
Set the weightings
Move a slider. The other categories rebalance automatically to keep the total at 100%.
No test-specific category weights are recorded; this starts with season defaults.
Season defaults
Results
Movement is compared with the default calculation, not the published finishing order. Scores use unrounded totals for ranking.
This test ranks different groups separately. Read the full verdicts for each group; there is no single overall finishing order.
No ranking for this setup. Give at least one category a positive weight and include a discipline in each active category, or reset the weights.
Filtering never changes the benchmark, scores or positions.
No tires selected. Add tires to your shortlist to focus the ranking.
| Points ↑ | mph ↑ | Points ↑ | mph ↑ | Points ↑ | Points ↑ | Points ↑ | l/100km ↓ | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central European Winter Tires | |||||||||||||||||
| 1= | 2 | 93.53 | 9 | 46.6 | 95.0 | 10 | 45.7 | 98.6 | 5 | 83.3 | 5 | 100.0 | 8 | 100.0 | 6.15 | 97.4 | |
StrengthsThe Continental WinterContact TS 870 P was the fastest tire in the elk test and took full marks in both wet and dry braking and in wet handling. Its stability and comfort were among the best in the test. ConsiderationsAs a Central European tire it has far less grip on ice and snow than the Nordic and studded tires, which is expected of the type. Within its class it trailed the Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 in snow handling and was mid-table for fuel use. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry95 × 19% = 18.05 Wet98.62 × 33% = 32.54 Snow83.33 × 29% = 24.17 Ice100 × 5% = 5 Comfort100 × 5% = 5 Fuel Consumption97.41 × 9% = 8.77 | |||||||||||||||||
| 1= | 3 | 90.31 | 6 | 46.0 | 79.3 | 10 | 47.0 | 100.0 | 5 | 83.3 | 5 | 100.0 | 7 | 87.5 | 6.20 | 96.6 | |
StrengthsThe Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 had the highest aquaplaning speed of the whole test, full marks in wet braking and wet handling, and was joint second fastest in the elk test. Its snow braking was better than the Continental's. ConsiderationsIts ice grip was limited, as for all tires of this type, and its stability and comfort were rated below the Continental. Only the Pirelli P Zero Winter 2 used more fuel among the Central European tires. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry79.34 × 19% = 15.07 Wet100 × 33% = 33 Snow83.33 × 29% = 24.17 Ice100 × 5% = 5 Comfort87.5 × 5% = 4.38 Fuel Consumption96.57 × 9% = 8.69 | |||||||||||||||||
| 3 | 1 | 94.84 | 7 | 45.4 | 83.7 | 10 | 45.8 | 98.7 | 6 | 100.0 | 4 | 80.0 | 7 | 87.5 | 5.99 | 100.0 | |
StrengthsThe Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 took full marks in wet handling, was strong in wet and dry braking and in the elk test, and used the least fuel of the Central European tires. It also had the best snow handling in its class. ConsiderationsIce grip is its weak point, as it is for every Central European tire, and its ice handling was a step behind the best in its class. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry83.67 × 19% = 15.9 Wet98.68 × 33% = 32.56 Snow100 × 29% = 29 Ice80 × 5% = 4 Comfort87.5 × 5% = 4.38 Fuel Consumption100 × 9% = 9 | |||||||||||||||||
| 4 | 4 | 86.48 | 9 | 46.0 | 94.3 | 10 | 46.0 | 98.9 | 4 | 66.7 | 3 | 60.0 | 8 | 100.0 | 6.29 | 95.2 | |
StrengthsThe Pirelli P Zero Winter 2 was one of the best tires on wet and dry roads, with full marks in wet handling and wet and dry braking, high aquaplaning resistance and a fast elk test. It was also among the most comfortable and stable tires. ConsiderationsIt had the lowest ice handling score of the Central European tires and trailed the best of them on snow. It also used the most fuel in its class. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry94.34 × 19% = 17.92 Wet98.95 × 33% = 32.65 Snow66.67 × 29% = 19.33 Ice60 × 5% = 3 Comfort100 × 5% = 5 Fuel Consumption95.18 × 9% = 8.57 | |||||||||||||||||
| 5 | 5 | 83.46 | 10 | 45.4 | 98.7 | 10 | 46.7 | 99.6 | 3 | 50.0 | 4 | 80.0 | 7 | 87.5 | 6.01 | 99.6 | |
StrengthsThe Bridgestone Blizzak 6 Enliten was rated the most stable tire in the test and took full marks in wet handling and in wet and dry braking. Its aquaplaning resistance was the second best in the test and its fuel use was low. ConsiderationsIt was among the weakest Central European tires on snow and ice, with joint-lowest snow handling in its class and the lowest snow braking score of the class apart from the Falken. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry98.67 × 19% = 18.75 Wet99.61 × 33% = 32.87 Snow50 × 29% = 14.5 Ice80 × 5% = 4 Comfort87.5 × 5% = 4.38 Fuel Consumption99.62 × 9% = 8.97 | |||||||||||||||||
| 6 | 6 | 75.28 | 6 | 45.4 | 78.7 | 8 | 41.3 | 83.9 | 3 | 50.0 | 5 | 100.0 | 7 | 87.5 | 6.14 | 97.6 | |
StrengthsThe Falken Eurowinter HS02 Pro was good in wet and dry braking and in the elk test, and comfort was acceptable. ConsiderationsIt was the weakest Central European tire, with the lowest snow braking score and joint-lowest snow handling of its class, and the weakest aquaplaning result of the Central European tires. The testers noted less grip, slower responses and poorer balance than its rivals. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry78.67 × 19% = 14.95 Wet83.86 × 33% = 27.67 Snow50 × 29% = 14.5 Ice100 × 5% = 5 Comfort87.5 × 5% = 4.38 Fuel Consumption97.6 × 9% = 8.78 | |||||||||||||||||
| Nordic Friction Winter Tires | |||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 97.10 | 8 | 43.5 | 93.7 | 6 | 34.1 | 95.2 | 10 | 100.0 | 10 | 100.0 | 10 | 100.0 | 5.84 | 98.8 | |
StrengthsThe Continental VikingContact 8 had the best ice handling of all 18 tires, ahead of every studded tire, and took full marks for snow handling and snow braking. It was also rated the most comfortable tire in the test, felt calm and stable on the road and had the second-lowest fuel use. ConsiderationsAquaplaning is its weak point: it was the second slowest of the Nordic tires in the straight-line test, a trait of the type. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry93.74 × 19% = 17.81 Wet95.15 × 33% = 31.4 Snow100 × 29% = 29 Ice100 × 5% = 5 Comfort100 × 5% = 5 Fuel Consumption98.75 × 9% = 8.89 | |||||||||||||||||
| 2 | 2 | 95.47 | 9 | 43.5 | 99.3 | 6 | 37.8 | 100.0 | 9 | 90.0 | 9 | 90.0 | 8 | 80.0 | 5.77 | 100.0 | |
StrengthsThe Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 used the least fuel of any tire in the test. It was strong on snow, with full marks for snow braking, joint second on ice handling, and one of the best rated for stability and comfort. Its aquaplaning resistance was better than most of the Nordic tires. ConsiderationsIts ice braking was a step behind the best of the Nordic tires, and its wet braking was among the weaker results in the Nordic group. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry99.3 × 19% = 18.87 Wet100 × 33% = 33 Snow90 × 29% = 26.1 Ice90 × 5% = 4.5 Comfort80 × 5% = 4 Fuel Consumption100 × 9% = 9 | |||||||||||||||||
| 3 | 3 | 91.57 | 6 | 44.1 | 83.3 | 6 | 37.8 | 100.0 | 9 | 90.0 | 8 | 80.0 | 8 | 80.0 | 6.01 | 96.0 | |
StrengthsThe Pirelli Ice Friction took full marks for snow braking, handled well on snow and was the fastest Nordic tire in the elk test. It shared the best aquaplaning resistance of the Nordic tires, its comfort was among the best in the test and its fuel use was low. ConsiderationsIt had a little less grip on ice than the Continental and Goodyear, with ice braking a step behind the Continental, and it was not as stable on the road as the VikingContact 8. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry83.34 × 19% = 15.83 Wet100 × 33% = 33 Snow90 × 29% = 26.1 Ice80 × 5% = 4 Comfort80 × 5% = 4 Fuel Consumption95.96 × 9% = 8.64 | |||||||||||||||||
| 4 | 4 | 88.66 | 5 | 42.9 | 76.4 | 6 | 33.6 | 94.5 | 9 | 90.0 | 9 | 90.0 | 7 | 70.0 | 5.86 | 98.5 | |
StrengthsThe Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 was among the best on ice and snow, joint second in ice handling with full marks for snow braking, and it had the third-lowest fuel use in the test. ConsiderationsIt was the slowest of the Nordic tires in the straight-line aquaplaning test, and its stability on the road was rated below the other leading Nordic tires. Ice braking was good rather than class-leading. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry76.37 × 19% = 14.51 Wet94.49 × 33% = 31.18 Snow90 × 29% = 26.1 Ice90 × 5% = 4.5 Comfort70 × 5% = 3.5 Fuel Consumption98.53 × 9% = 8.87 | |||||||||||||||||
| 5 | 5 | 80.24 | 5 | 42.9 | 76.4 | 4 | 36.7 | 81.9 | 8 | 80.0 | 7 | 70.0 | 7 | 70.0 | 6.12 | 94.3 | |
StrengthsThe Dunlop Winter Snow1 took full marks for snow braking and its ice braking matched the best Nordic tires. Comfort was reasonable. ConsiderationsIt was the weakest of the Nordic friction tires. The testers found the steering slow and imprecise, with heavy understeer and a tendency to slide, and it was sensitive to standing water in corners. Its wet handling score was the lowest of the Nordic tires. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry76.37 × 19% = 14.51 Wet81.94 × 33% = 27.04 Snow80 × 29% = 23.2 Ice70 × 5% = 3.5 Comfort70 × 5% = 3.5 Fuel Consumption94.31 × 9% = 8.49 | |||||||||||||||||
| Studded Winter Tires | |||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 94.31 | 7 | 43.5 | 100.0 | 7 | 39.7 | 96.9 | 9 | 90.0 | 6 | 66.7 | 6 | 100.0 | 6.18 | 98.9 | |
StrengthsThe Pirelli Ice Zero 2 was the best all-round studded tire. On wet and dry roads it was the strongest of the studded tires, joint best among them in wet and dry braking and best in wet handling and the elk test, and it was the most comfortable and stable of the studded group. It also took full marks for snow braking. ConsiderationsIts ice handling was second weakest of the studded tires, ahead only of the Trazano, and the testers noted that it lacks the ice grip of the best studded designs. Fuel use was average. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry100 × 19% = 19 Wet96.92 × 33% = 31.98 Snow90 × 29% = 26.1 Ice66.67 × 5% = 3.33 Comfort100 × 5% = 5 Fuel Consumption98.87 × 9% = 8.9 | |||||||||||||||||
| 2 | 2 | 89.53 | 5 | 42.9 | 85.0 | 5 | 39.0 | 81.8 | 10 | 100.0 | 8 | 88.9 | 5 | 83.3 | 6.26 | 97.7 | |
StrengthsThe Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic 2 was one of the best tires on snow, with full marks for snow handling, and its ice braking was joint second best, behind only the Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3. It meets the new stud-wear rules with an A+ rating. ConsiderationsThe testers found its ice grip lower than its predecessor, with a less precise feel and a rear end that could slide out. Its stability on the road was only mid-field among the studded tires, and it used more fuel than most of them. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry85 × 19% = 16.15 Wet81.75 × 33% = 26.98 Snow100 × 29% = 29 Ice88.89 × 5% = 4.44 Comfort83.33 × 5% = 4.17 Fuel Consumption97.7 × 9% = 8.79 | |||||||||||||||||
| 3 | 3 | 87.32 | 6 | 42.9 | 92.1 | 5 | 37.0 | 79.4 | 9 | 90.0 | 8 | 88.9 | 5 | 83.3 | 6.18 | 98.9 | |
StrengthsThe Michelin X-Ice North 4 had strong ice braking, joint second best behind the Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3, and handled well on ice and snow. ConsiderationsIt had the weakest wet and dry braking of the studded tires, alongside the Trazano. The testers expected more ice grip from a studded tire from this maker. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry92.14 × 19% = 17.51 Wet79.4 × 33% = 26.2 Snow90 × 29% = 26.1 Ice88.89 × 5% = 4.44 Comfort83.33 × 5% = 4.17 Fuel Consumption98.87 × 9% = 8.9 | |||||||||||||||||
| 4 | 4 | 85.34 | 3 | 42.9 | 70.7 | 5 | 36.0 | 78.2 | 10 | 100.0 | 9 | 100.0 | 4 | 66.7 | 6.28 | 97.3 | |
StrengthsThe Nokian Hakkapeliitta 01 had the best ice handling of the studded tires, took full marks for snow handling and was among the best in ice braking. It is built to the new stud-wear rules. ConsiderationsThe testers found clearly less stud grip than in last year's Hakkapeliitta 10, and the tread showed damage around the studs after only the run-in, winter tests and fuel runs. Comfort and stability were among the lowest of the studded tires, and it used more fuel than most of them. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry70.72 × 19% = 13.44 Wet78.23 × 33% = 25.81 Snow100 × 29% = 29 Ice100 × 5% = 5 Comfort66.67 × 5% = 3.33 Fuel Consumption97.26 × 9% = 8.75 | |||||||||||||||||
| 5 | 5 | 81.78 | 3 | 41.6 | 69.3 | 5 | 41.6 | 84.9 | 9 | 90.0 | 7 | 77.8 | 2 | 33.3 | 6.15 | 99.4 | |
StrengthsThe Dunlop SP Winter Ice 03 took full marks for snow braking and was good in ice braking, and its aquaplaning resistance was among the best of the studded tires. ConsiderationsIt was the slowest tire in the elk test and one of the least comfortable, with poor stability. The testers found its performance on dry roads weak. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry69.29 × 19% = 13.16 Wet84.91 × 33% = 28.02 Snow90 × 29% = 26.1 Ice77.78 × 5% = 3.89 Comfort33.33 × 5% = 1.67 Fuel Consumption99.38 × 9% = 8.94 | |||||||||||||||||
| 6 | 6 | 76.45 | 3 | 42.9 | 70.7 | 3 | 42.3 | 71.4 | 9 | 90.0 | 7 | 77.8 | 1 | 16.7 | 6.38 | 95.7 | |
StrengthsThe Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3 had the best ice braking of the whole test by a wide margin. Its studs stood out further than allowed even under the older rules, and the magazine kept it in the test to see what long studs deliver. Its aquaplaning resistance was the best of the studded tires. ConsiderationsThe testers found it unpredictable in ice corners, where grip came and went, so its ice handling was only mid-field. It was the least comfortable tire in the test, had the lowest wet handling score and the highest fuel use. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry70.72 × 19% = 13.44 Wet71.43 × 33% = 23.57 Snow90 × 29% = 26.1 Ice77.78 × 5% = 3.89 Comfort16.67 × 5% = 0.83 Fuel Consumption95.74 × 9% = 8.62 | |||||||||||||||||
| 7 | 7 | 73.53 | 6 | 42.3 | 91.4 | 5 | 37.2 | 79.6 | 5 | 50.0 | 4 | 44.4 | 5 | 83.3 | 6.11 | 100.0 | |
StrengthsThe Trazano IceMaster Spike Z-506 was the cheapest studded tire in the test. Its snow braking was good and its fuel use was the lowest of the studded tires. ConsiderationsIt had the lowest ice handling score of the studded tires, with ice grip the testers described as very poor for a studded tire, and oversteer in the elk test. Its wet and dry braking were joint weakest of the studded tires, alongside the Michelin. Score contributionCategory score × of overall score Dry91.43 × 19% = 17.37 Wet79.62 × 33% = 26.27 Snow50 × 29% = 14.5 Ice44.44 × 5% = 2.22 Comfort83.33 × 5% = 4.17 Fuel Consumption100 × 9% = 9 | |||||||||||||||||
Raw results do not change when you move the sliders. Scroll horizontally to see every discipline.
Not ranked: a measurement needed for these weights is missing. Missing results are not treated as zero or redistributed.
Reference tires provide context only. They do not set the benchmark and cannot win the personalised ranking.
Weighting vs real impact
What decides this ranking
The weighting is how much each category counts. The real impact is how much of the difference between the tires it creates: a discipline in which every tire performed about the same barely changes the order, however much it counts.
No weighting is recorded for this test, so the weighting here starts from Tire Reviews’ season defaults, not from the test’s own scoring.
- Dry Weighting 19% Real impact 35%
- Wet Weighting 33% Real impact 11%
- Snow Weighting 29% Real impact 34%
- Ice Weighting 5% Real impact 8%
- Comfort Weighting 5% Real impact 10%
- Fuel Consumption Weighting 9% Real impact 2%
- Subj. Road Score counts for 9.5% of the score but creates 34% of the difference between the tires, because their results in it were far apart.
- Subj. Wet Handling counts for 16.5% of the score but creates almost none of the difference, because most tires performed about the same in it.
Every discipline 8
| Discipline | Weighting | Real impact |
|---|---|---|
| Subj. Road Score | 9.5% | 34% |
| Dry Lane Change | 9.5% | 1% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 16.5% | 0% |
| Straight Aqua | 16.5% | 11% |
| Subj. Snow Handling | 29% | 34% |
| Subj. Ice Handling | 5% | 8% |
| Subj. Comfort | 5% | 10% |
| Fuel Consumption | 9% | 2% |
How it is worked out: each discipline’s weighting is multiplied by the spread of its results (the gap across the middle half of the tires, as a percentage of the best result), then shared out so that all the disciplines add up to 100%. It estimates what separates the tires; it is not a second set of weights, and it follows the weights you set.
This test ranks its groups separately, so the spread is measured within each group.
How your ranking is calculated
Each discipline is scored against the best non-reference tire in the full test field: best ÷ result × 100 when lower is better, or result ÷ best × 100 when higher is better. Discipline scores are rounded to two decimal places, then combined using your weights.
Within-category weights divide that category’s share of the overall score. A 50% wet category and 40% wet-braking share give wet braking 20% of the total. A weight is a scoring priority, not a measure of its actual effect on the ranking: the performance gaps matter too. What decides this ranking ↑
Published joint positions are preserved separately. Calculated positions tie only when their underlying scores match; two displayed scores can look equal after rounding.
A zero weight excludes that category or discipline. At least one active discipline is required, and the disciplines in every active category must have a positive total.