Test Charts / Tire Reviews

HT vs AT vs MT vs Winter Tires on Snow

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: 265/70 R17
Tires tested: 5
Disciplines: 7

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.

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1General Grabber Arctic	60 ft	Best	0 mph
2General Grabber HTS60	65 ft	+5 ft	23 mph
3General Grabber ATx	66 ft	+6 ft	24 mph
4General Grabber APT	66 ft	+6 ft	25 mph
5General Grabber X3	75 ft	+15 ft	37 mph

The difference between best and worst was 26.4% (15 ft ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the General Grabber X3 would still be travelling at 37 mph when the General Grabber Arctic 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
1General Grabber Arctic	6.5 s	Best
2General Grabber APT	7.6 s	+1.10 s
2General Grabber ATx	7.6 s	+1.10 s
4General Grabber HTS60	8 s	+1.50 s
5General Grabber X3	10.7 s	+4.20 s

The difference between best and worst was 64.6% (4.2 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber Arctic	84.96 s	Best
2General Grabber HTS60	89.48 s	+4.52 s
3General Grabber APT	89.52 s	+4.56 s
4General Grabber ATx	90.84 s	+5.88 s
5General Grabber X3	95.43 s	+10.47 s

The difference between best and worst was 12.3% (10.47 s).

Subj. Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber Arctic	10 Points	Best
2General Grabber HTS60	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
3General Grabber APT	8 Points	-2.00 Points
4General Grabber ATx	7 Points	-3.00 Points
5General Grabber X3	6 Points	-4.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 40% (4 Points).

Ice

Ice Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1General Grabber Arctic	47 ft	Best	0 mph
2General Grabber APT	50 ft	+3 ft	19 mph
3General Grabber HTS60	56 ft	+9 ft	31 mph
4General Grabber X3	58 ft	+11 ft	35 mph
5General Grabber ATx	59 ft	+12 ft	36 mph

The difference between best and worst was 25.7% (12 ft ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the General Grabber ATx would still be travelling at 36 mph when the General Grabber Arctic had stopped.

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

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber Arctic	10 Points	Best
2General Grabber HTS60	9 Points	-1.00 Points
2General Grabber APT	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4General Grabber ATx	8 Points	-2.00 Points
5General Grabber X3	7 Points	-3.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 30% (3 Points).

Subj. Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HTS60	10 Points	Best
2General Grabber Arctic	9 Points	-1.00 Points
3General Grabber APT	8 Points	-2.00 Points
4General Grabber ATx	7 Points	-3.00 Points
5General Grabber X3	6 Points	-4.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 40% (4 Points).

Test setup & methodology

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

Show full testing methodology

Recorded test conditions

Snow Braking: 24.9 → 0.0 mph
Snow Traction: 0.0 → 12.4 mph
Ice Braking: 12.4 → 0.0 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
Snow · 72%
Snow Braking	32%	23.04%
Snow Traction	27%	19.44%
Snow Handling	32%	23.04%
Subj. Snow Handling	9%	6.48%
Ice · 14%
Ice Braking	100%	14%
Comfort · 14%
Subj. Comfort	50%	7%
Subj. Noise	50%	7%

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.

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.

Subj. Snow Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated snow handling circuit. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tires are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I score steering precision, turn-in behavior, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence on snow using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tire before evaluating each candidate.

Ice Braking

For ice braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 35 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a prepared ice surface. Surface temperature is continuously monitored as ice friction properties vary substantially with temperature. My standard programme is twelve runs per tire set but with ice testing, you often do many more. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tires are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing surface conditions.

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.

Subj. Noise

For subjective noise assessment, I drive at constant speeds across multiple surface types with the windows closed, ventilation off, and audio system off. I assess overall noise level, tonal quality, cavity boom, pattern noise, broadband roar, and sensitivity to both speed and road texture. Each tire is rated on a 1–10 scale and supported by written observations on noise character and annoyance.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tire shortlist →Read the test →

More tire tests