The all weather category of tires is quickly growing in popularity, as a tire that can be used in all weathers is a big advantage for people living in snowy climates, it saves changing tires twice a year between an all season and a winter product.
To find out which of these new all weather category tires is best, I have tested them in the dry, wet, snow and ice to give you a really good overview of their abilities, and also looked into the the rolling resistance, comfort, noise levels and value, to find out which tire is best in all conditions.
Test setup & methodology
The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.
Show full testing methodology
Recorded test conditions
- Dry Braking
- 62.1 → 3.1 mph · 57–59 °F
- Dry Handling
- 46–50 °F
- Wet Braking
- 49.7 → 3.1 mph · 57–59 °F
- Wet Handling
- 46–50 °F
- Snow Braking
- 24.9 → 3.1 mph · 18–16 °F
- Snow Traction
- 3.1 → 24.9 mph · 18–16 °F
- Snow Handling
- 23–21 °F
- Ice Braking
- 12.4 → 3.1 mph · 12–14 °F
- Ice Traction
- 3.1 → 12.4 mph · 12–14 °F
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Dry · 30% | ||
| Dry Braking | 50% | 15% |
| Dry Handling | 40% | 12% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 10% | 3% |
| Wet · 35% | ||
| Wet Braking | 40% | 14% |
| Wet Handling | 35% | 12.25% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 10% | 3.5% |
| Straight Aqua | 10% | 3.5% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 5% | 1.75% |
| Snow · 20% | ||
| Snow Braking | 30% | 6% |
| Snow Traction | 30% | 6% |
| Snow Handling | 30% | 6% |
| Subj. Snow Handling | 10% | 2% |
| Ice · 5% | ||
| Ice Braking | 50% | 2.5% |
| Ice Traction | 50% | 2.5% |
| Comfort · 5% | ||
| Subj. Comfort | 25% | 1.25% |
| Subj. Noise | 25% | 1.25% |
| Noise | 50% | 2.5% |
| Value · 5% | ||
| Value | 50% | 2.5% |
| Rolling Resistance | 50% | 2.5% |
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.
Dry Braking
For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tires are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.
Dry Handling
For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behavior without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.
Subj. Dry Handling
I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated dry handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behavior, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence 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.
Wet Braking
For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tire performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tires repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.
Wet Handling
For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behavior without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.
Subj. Wet Handling
I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behavior, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence 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.
Straight Aqua
To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tire set and average the valid results.
Curved Aquaplaning
For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 meters in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.
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.
Ice Traction
For ice traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a prepared ice 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. 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 ice twice. Surface temperature is continuously monitored. I complete multiple runs per tire set and average the valid results, with reference tires run typically every two candidate test sets.
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.
Noise
I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tire is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.
Wet
All weather tires are a bunch of compromises by default - no tire can be the best in every condition. This leaves the manufacturer with the ability to choose whether to go for an even balance of performance in the dry, wet and snow, or priorities one area more than others. Based on this wet testing it seems we have some differing opinions on how important wet is.
The results give us essentially three groups of tires. None of them are budget tires, so none have been horrific, however it is quite a big spread of wet abilities.
The Toyo, Firestone and Bridgestone were in one group, and perhaps this is the group that want the best snow and ice performance as they all struggled in the wet, offering almost minimal feedback and lots of understeer. Snow and wet are performance trade offs in tire development, so we will find out later in the test if these tires are more snow focused.
Then you have Nokian, Michelin and Pirelli. The Nokian felt more towards the first group subjectively but it did offer decent lateral grip. The Michelin turned out to be one of the most fun tires as it actually let the car rotate, something to do with the sharp front end but braking was better than turning which helped the time, and the Pirelli was another step on, feeling sharp on the front end but taking longer than its peers to recover from slides.
Finally, there was the new Goodyear, the easiest and most consistent to drive fast, and the closest to a summer tire in terms of handling.
Speaking of a summer tire, I did have one in the test as reference. Just a touring suv summer tire but it felt like a race tire in comparison, the steering felt heavier, the brakes were sharper, and the grip was a good step on, even in these cooler test conditions.
Wet Handling
Wet handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 48°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefReference Summer |
71.53 s | -2.25 s |
| 73.78 s | Best | |
| 74.48 s | +0.70 s | |
| 74.65 s | +0.87 s | |
| 74.72 s | +0.94 s | |
| 75.02 s | +1.24 s | |
| 75.1 s | +1.32 s | |
| 75.54 s | +1.76 s |
The difference between best and worst was 5.6% (4.01 s).
Wet braking is one of those things where a tire can really make a safety different in the real world the difference, and the wet braking results almost track wet handling perfectly, with the Goodyear once again having the best stopping distance and the Toyo the worse. The Pirelli and Michelin also perform well, but then the gap to 4th was over 10% worse, around 13ft, which is quite the difference and nearly the length of a car.
Wet Braking
Wet braking in feet (50 - 3 mph) [Average Temperature 58°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
RefReference Summer |
96 ft | -12 ft | 0 mph |
| 108 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 111 ft | +3 ft | 14 mph | |
| 113 ft | +5 ft | 17 mph | |
| 119 ft | +11 ft | 24 mph | |
| 122 ft | +14 ft | 28 mph | |
| 123 ft | +15 ft | 29 mph | |
| 125 ft | +17 ft | 30 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 30.8% (29 ft ≈ 2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Toyo Celsius 2 would still be travelling at 30 mph when the Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
The Goodyear didn't so as well in the deeper water of the aquaplaning tests, with the Nokian, Michelin and Bridgestone all performing well.
Straight Aqua
Float Speed in mph
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 52.0 mph | Best | |
| 51.5 mph | -0.5 mph | |
| 49.8 mph | -2.2 mph | |
| 49.5 mph | -2.5 mph | |
| 49.4 mph | -2.6 mph | |
| 48.8 mph | -3.2 mph | |
| 48.4 mph | -3.6 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 6.9% (3.6 mph).
Curved Aquaplaning
Remaining lateral acceleration
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 31.2 ft/s² | Best | |
| 30.2 ft/s² | -1.0 ft/s² | |
| 28.9 ft/s² | -2.3 ft/s² | |
| 27.2 ft/s² | -4.0 ft/s² | |
| 24.6 ft/s² | -6.6 ft/s² | |
| 24.0 ft/s² | -7.2 ft/s² | |
| 23.3 ft/s² | -7.9 ft/s² |
The difference between best and worst was 25.3% (7.9 ft/s²).
Dry
The differences between these tires in the dry is small. It ended up as Bridgestone, Toyo and Firestone having too little front grip to post a fast time, Michelin, Nokian and Pirelli all doing great, and Goodyear again feeling the most summer like with the quickest most direct steering. Sub limit, doing lane changes, they were all fine, but again the Bridgestone and Firestone just seemed a little less controlled when doing aggressive lane changes.
Dry Handling
Dry handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 48°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefReference Summer |
72.46 s | -0.66 s |
| 73.12 s | Best | |
| 73.29 s | +0.17 s | |
| 73.63 s | +0.51 s | |
| 73.85 s | +0.73 s | |
| 74.04 s | +0.92 s | |
| 74.08 s | +0.96 s | |
| 74.76 s | +1.64 s |
The difference between best and worst was 3.2% (2.3 s).
Dry braking did spread things out. The Michelin Crossclimate 2 pulled its usual party piece by being the best at stopping the car, with the Goodyear second, but not what I'd call a close second as it was 7 feet back. Then Pirelli and Nokian almost tied for third another meter back, it was almost another 7 feet to the toyo then ANOTHER 7 feet to the Bridgestone and Firestone. As an illustration, from 80 mph the Michelin would take 207 feet and the firestone 246 feet, Another way of looking at it, when you're stopped from 80 mph on the Michelin, you're still doing over 30 mph on the Firestone.
Dry Braking
Dry braking in feet (62 - 3 mph) [Average Temperature 58°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
RefReference Summer |
113 ft | -9 ft | 0 mph |
| 122 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 130 ft | +8 ft | 19 mph | |
| 134 ft | +12 ft | 24 mph | |
| 134 ft | +12 ft | 24 mph | |
| 139 ft | +17 ft | 28 mph | |
| 145 ft | +23 ft | 32 mph | |
| 145 ft | +23 ft | 32 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 29% (32 ft ≈ 2.2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Firestone WeatherGrip would still be travelling at 32 mph when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Snow
The good news for tire shoppers is that all these tires are very good in the snow! The bad news is for the Bridgestone and Firestone, which i'd hoped had traded some wet grip for class leading snow grip, but sadly that's not the case. They were very good, but not the best.
The slowest tires around the lap were the Toyo and Goodyear, and I say slowest, both under 3% off the fastest lap time. Subjectively they were noticeably the 'worst' too, in that the steering inputs took slightly longer to register, and they felt a tiny bit down on traction but honestly, still good tires in the snow.
Then you have the Pirelli, Bridgestone and Firestone, all under 2% off the best. I liked how the Bridgestone and Firestone felt once you had them turning, they dug in nicely and held on well, and the Pirelli was probably the most fun with a playful rear, but the rear took slightly longer to recover when sliding which slowed it down.
Finally it was the Nokian and Michelin. The Nokian was a nicely balanced tire, I don't think it had as much grip overall as the Michelin but as it was a really rounded grip circle and everything happened exactly as you would expect, I found it easy to do consistently fast laps on.
And then of course we have the Michelin CrossClimate 2. The European version of this tire, which is slightly different, is always one of the best in the snow and once again the US version proves it is the king in winter by having the fastest lap. Like the European version it's balance was a little understeer heavy, nice and safe, but also slow so I'm sure it has even more grip than this tiny advantage shows.
And finally, instead of including a summer tire, I included one of the best, if not the best, winter tire, the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5. While there was just 3% between the best and worst all weather tires, the R5 was nearly 10% ahead and you could feel it. Just a delight to drive. Keep that in mind if you live in a heavy snow climate.
Snow Handling
Snow handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 22°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV |
79.8 s | -4.46 s |
| 84.26 s | Best | |
| 84.28 s | +0.02 s | |
| 85.24 s | +0.98 s | |
| 85.3 s | +1.04 s | |
| 85.81 s | +1.55 s | |
| 86.62 s | +2.36 s | |
| 86.78 s | +2.52 s |
The difference between best and worst was 8.7% (6.98 s).
The traction and braking data backed up the handling, with the Michelin CrossClimate 2 being the best in snow traction, closely followed by the Firestone and Nokian. Bridgestone jumped to the front in snow braking, with the Michelin in second and Nokian third. In both tests, the full winter tire had a significant advantage over the pack
Snow Braking
Snow braking in feet (25 - 3 mph) [Average Temperature 17°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV |
50 ft | -4 ft | 0 mph |
| 54 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 54 ft | 0 ft | 5 mph | |
| 54 ft | 0 ft | 9 mph | |
| 54 ft | 0 ft | 10 mph | |
| 55 ft | +1 ft | 12 mph | |
| 55 ft | +1 ft | 13 mph | |
| 55 ft | +1 ft | 13 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 11.1% (5 ft ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive would still be travelling at 13 mph when the Bridgestone WeatherPeak had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Snow Traction
Snow acceleration time (3 - 25 mph) [Average Temperature 17°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV |
3.08 s | -0.13 s |
| 3.21 s | Best | |
| 3.22 s | +0.01 s | |
| 3.24 s | +0.03 s | |
| 3.24 s | +0.03 s | |
| 3.25 s | +0.04 s | |
| 3.26 s | +0.05 s | |
| 3.35 s | +0.14 s |
The difference between best and worst was 8.8% (0.27 s).
As promised I got ice data on smooth ice, which is the hardest type of ice to get grip on, and where compound really does make the difference. The Pirelli proved to be best overall, having the best ice traction and the second best ice braking, but the Michelin was again also excellent. Nokian finished third with very good traction, but lost out a little in braking, and as we saw in snow, the Goodyear, Firestone and Toyo struggled. The full winter tire had its biggest advantage yet, finishing in a totally different class to the all weathers.
Ice Braking
Ice braking in feet (12 - 3 mph) [Average Temperature 13°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV |
29 ft | -4 ft | 0 mph |
| 33 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 34 ft | +1 ft | 14 mph | |
| 36 ft | +3 ft | 21 mph | |
| 36 ft | +3 ft | 22 mph | |
| 36 ft | +3 ft | 23 mph | |
| 37 ft | +4 ft | 24 mph | |
| 38 ft | +5 ft | 28 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 31.1% (9 ft ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Toyo Celsius 2 would still be travelling at 28 mph when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Ice Traction
Ice acceleration time (3 - 12 mph) [Average Temperature 13°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV |
6.4 s | -2.99 s |
| 9.39 s | Best | |
| 9.61 s | +0.22 s | |
| 9.79 s | +0.40 s | |
| 10.1 s | +0.71 s | |
| 10.42 s | +1.03 s | |
| 11.14 s | +1.75 s | |
| 11.5 s | +2.11 s |
The difference between best and worst was 79.7% (5.1 s).
Comfort
Comfort and noise is very intricate, I've been driving on all sorts of surfaces and don't have a single solution for those of you who want comfort beyond everything else.
The Firestone did have the best subjective comfort overall, but of all the tires, it was the only one that had a bit of a tread pattern whine in the cabin, which could be really annoying if it got worse as it wore. Then you had the Toyo that was excellent in noise, but firm over all the bumps. Then you had the goodyear which was composed over the stones, it had reassuring control of what it was doing, but hit pretty hard over the big impacts. Every tire had it's positives and negatives, however there was one tire that had a small lead in terms of manners, and that was the Pirelli. Not only did it have the lowest external noise, I also rated it the best for subjective noise, and the second best overall on all the surfaces. So there's your answer, if you want the ultimate refinement, it's the Pirelli. But really, they were so close you'll be happy with any of them.
Subj. Comfort
Subjective Comfort Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Points | Best | |
| 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 9 Points | -1.00 Points | |
| 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points | |
| 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points | |
| 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 15% (1.5 Points).
Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 70.3 dB | Best | |
| 71.7 dB | +1.40 dB | |
| 71.8 dB | +1.50 dB | |
| 72 dB | +1.70 dB | |
| 72.5 dB | +2.20 dB | |
| 72.8 dB | +2.50 dB | |
| 72.9 dB | +2.60 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 3.7% (2.6 dB).
Value
There is quite a spread in the rolling resistance levels of the tires, in fact over 30%, with the Michelin the best and the Goodyear the worst. As a tire uses around a fifth of the energy for a gas powered vehicle and around a quarter in an electric car, that means in theory, you could be using around 4-8% more gas / electricity. Not massive, but also significant.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.05 kg/t | Best | $0 | |
| 7.14 kg/t | +0.09 kg/t | $4 | |
| 7.31 kg/t | +0.26 kg/t | $11 | |
| 7.65 kg/t | +0.60 kg/t | $25 | |
| 7.78 kg/t | +0.73 kg/t | $30 | |
| 8.55 kg/t | +1.50 kg/t | $63 | |
| 9.24 kg/t | +2.19 kg/t | $91 |
The difference between best and worst was 31.1% (2.19 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2 uses about 25 gal ($91) more fuel than the Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
Finally, I couldn't do a wear test this time to work out which tire offers the best cost per mile in the real world, but as these all have treadwear warranties I CAN work out the warranted cost per mile, which I think is worth looking at. There's a 40% difference in cost per mile between the most expensive, the Michelin, and the cheapest, the toyo, however, if you take the time to compare that to the final results, you will see that more expensive generally means more better. Donut Media would be proud.
Value
Dollars/1000 miles based on mileage warranty
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | cost per 1,000 miles |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10.33 Price/1000 | Best | $16.87 | |
| 11.08 Price/1000 | +0.75 Price/1000 | $14.39 | |
| 12.06 Price/1000 | +1.73 Price/1000 | $13.51 | |
| 13 Price/1000 | +2.67 Price/1000 | $15.24 | |
| 13.2 Price/1000 | +2.87 Price/1000 | $22.13 | |
| 14.2 Price/1000 | +3.87 Price/1000 | $18.07 | |
| 14.67 Price/1000 | +4.34 Price/1000 | $16.00 |
The difference between best and worst was 42% (4.34 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Bridgestone WeatherPeak) works out $215 cheaper than the most expensive (Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2).
How this is calculated
Tire life here is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, NOT measured wear - treat it as the maker's promise, not a test result.
Tire life is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, not measured wear. Assumes a typical car doing 29 mpg (rolling resistance causing 20% of fuel use), fuel at $3.60 per gallon and $80 fitting per set of four. US prices are from the time of the 2025 test; financing costs are excluded.
Results
The 7 BEST All Weather Tires TestedWatch the full video of this test on YouTube Watch on YouTube
Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
225/65 R17 102H
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 | 1st / 7 | 122 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 73.85 s | +0.73 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 113 ft | +5 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 74.65 s | +0.87 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 52.0 mph | Best in this discipline |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 28.9 ft/s² | -2.3 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 54 ft | 0 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 1st / 7 | 3.21 s | Best in this discipline |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 84.26 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 33 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 9.79 s | +0.40 s |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 4th / 7 | 72 dB | +1.70 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 7th / 7 | 14.67 Price/1000 | +4.34 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 1st / 7 | 7.05 kg/t | Best in this discipline |
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 12.30 kgs
- Tread
- 8.1 mm
- Price
- 220.00
Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
225/65 R17 102H
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 | 2nd / 7 | 130 ft | +8 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 73.12 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 108 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 73.78 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 49.4 mph | -2.6 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 23.3 ft/s² | -7.9 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 55 ft | +1 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 7th / 7 | 3.35 s | +0.14 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 86.62 s | +2.36 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 36 ft | +3 ft |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 5th / 7 | 10.42 s | +1.03 s |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 7th / 7 | 72.9 dB | +2.60 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 5th / 7 | 13.2 Price/1000 | +2.87 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 7th / 7 | 9.24 kg/t | +2.19 kg/t |
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 14.05 kgs
- Tread
- 8.8 mm
- Price
- 198.00
Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
225/65 R17 102H
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 | 3rd / 7 | 134 ft | +12 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 73.29 s | +0.17 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 111 ft | +3 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 74.48 s | +0.70 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 49.8 mph | -2.2 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 24.0 ft/s² | -7.2 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 55 ft | +1 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 5th / 7 | 3.25 s | +0.04 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 85.81 s | +1.55 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 34 ft | +1 ft |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 1st / 7 | 9.39 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 1st / 7 | 70.3 dB | Best in this discipline |
| ValueLower is better | 6th / 7 | 14.2 Price/1000 | +3.87 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 5th / 7 | 7.78 kg/t | +0.73 kg/t |
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 13.30 kgs
- Tread
- 9.1 mm
- Price
- 213.00
Nokian Remedy WRG5
225/65 R17 106H XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 | 4th / 7 | 134 ft | +12 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 73.63 s | +0.51 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 122 ft | +14 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 74.72 s | +0.94 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 51.5 mph | -0.5 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 31.2 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 54 ft | 0 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 3.24 s | +0.03 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 84.28 s | +0.02 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 37 ft | +4 ft |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.61 s | +0.22 s |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 7 | 72.8 dB | +2.50 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 4th / 7 | 13 Price/1000 | +2.67 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 7.31 kg/t | +0.26 kg/t |
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 12.1 kgs
- Tread
- 8.4 mm
- Price
- 195.00
Bridgestone WeatherPeak
225/65 R17 102H
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 | 6th / 7 | 145 ft | +23 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 74.76 s | +1.64 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 119 ft | +11 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 75.02 s | +1.24 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 49.5 mph | -2.5 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 30.2 ft/s² | -1.0 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 54 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 6th / 7 | 3.26 s | +0.05 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 85.3 s | +1.04 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 36 ft | +3 ft |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 4th / 7 | 10.1 s | +0.71 s |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 71.7 dB | +1.40 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 12.06 Price/1000 | +1.73 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 7.14 kg/t | +0.09 kg/t |
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 10.5 kgs
- Tread
- 7.8 mm
- Price
- 211.00
Firestone WeatherGrip
225/65 R17 102H
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 | 7th / 7 | 145 ft | +23 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 74.04 s | +0.92 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 9.25 Points | -0.75 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 123 ft | +15 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 75.1 s | +1.32 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 48.8 mph | -3.2 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 27.2 ft/s² | -4.0 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 55 ft | +1 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 3.22 s | +0.01 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 85.24 s | +0.98 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 36 ft | +3 ft |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 6th / 7 | 11.14 s | +1.75 s |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 5th / 7 | 72.5 dB | +2.20 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 11.08 Price/1000 | +0.75 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4th / 7 | 7.65 kg/t | +0.60 kg/t |
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 11.45 kgs
- Tread
- 8.2 mm
- Price
- 180.00
Toyo Celsius 2
225/65 R17 102H
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 | 5th / 7 | 139 ft | +17 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 74.08 s | +0.96 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 125 ft | +17 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 75.54 s | +1.76 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 48.4 mph | -3.6 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 24.6 ft/s² | -6.6 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 54 ft | 0 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 3.24 s | +0.03 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 86.78 s | +2.52 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 38 ft | +5 ft |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 7th / 7 | 11.5 s | +2.11 s |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 71.8 dB | +1.50 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 1st / 7 | 10.33 Price/1000 | Best in this discipline |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 6th / 7 | 8.55 kg/t | +1.50 kg/t |
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 13.10 kgs
- Tread
- 8.7 mm
- Price
- 155.00
These AW tires are quite close to the Hakka R5 reference tire in the winter tests. R5 is northern European friction tire? How much closer would the AW tires be to a central European winter tire? As a road rep in NW Colorado mountains and into Wyo and Montana, I've always gravitated toward performance winter tires vs studless just to get better wear and longer life, but with better winter characteristics than all seasons. Seems I could now go All Weathers year round now and not give up much except pure ice ability?
How much variation might tire size add to the equation? I'm currently running some Pirelli P7 AS Plus 3 in size 245/40-19, and may be needing some replacements in the not too distant future. Being in the southeast, snow/ice is not a significant concern, plus, if necessary, I have other vehicles that would be better suited to those conditions.
There can be some small variances based on test size, however we regularly see that a good tire is a good tire, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Hi. This are all weather tires for USA. This tires are avaible in Europe? Correctly in Poland? I search best of the best. You show us - all weather tires are better than all season. In Europe we have all season, thats right. Can i buy all weather tires in Europe, Poland? Searching at sites www give not satisfactionary results. Have a nice day, my English is poor.
No, you can't purchase these in Europe. They are similar performance to European all season tires, so don't worry you're not missing out. Buy tires from this category: https://www.tyrereviews.com...
PS your english is good.
I am looking into a new set of Tires. I am currently in the warranty process of getting rid of Pirelli Scorpion AS 3plus. They dry rotted at 50k miles. They are a 70k mile tire. I am currently looking at the Michelin CC2 and Goodyear Assurance Weather Ready 2. I live in the Northeast of the USA and we haven't had a ton of snow in my area in a while, plus I drive to the South often (I often drive very "spirited" so I need great handling as well). Would the CC2 be the better choice or should I give the Weather Ready 2 a chance?
This might be a dumb question but what's the difference of an all weather vs. an all season tire given the fairly recent review of https://www.tyrereviews.com/Tyre-Tests/Best-All-Season-Tyres-2024-2025.htm ? At least in Germany, the terminology is mixed into one category basically while this review shows a focus on the AW part. E.g., the Michelin CrossClimate 2 appears to be available with and without the "AW" in its name. At the same time, Michelin apparently mixes it into one category on its German website as well? https://www.michelin.de/auto/tipps/leitfaden-winterreifen/winterreifen-oder-allwetterreifen
Just looking at the Snow Braking distances of the Michelin CrossClimate 2 in the linked review compared to this one, it appears the "AW" variant has 1.69m shorter distance to brake in your testing.
Not a dumb question, tires are very confusing. All weather is basically the same as the European all season tire, except its designed for the american market so the CC2 AW is a different tire (more tread depth, higher rolling resistance etc)
Comparing snow braking between tests is sadly not possible as snow can offer quite a varying amount of grip. Michelin say the two tires should have comparable snow grip.
Hi, thanks for the response!
Does the linked all season test refer to European variants then or is there a differentiation in the US regarding all season vs. All weather? Just trying to wrap my head around on which tests can be referred to for the all season / all weather tires
I have not performed a US spec all season test before, all the all season articles on the site are EU region specific. All weather are US specific. I have made a few UHP all season tests, which are US specific.
I will work out a way of highlighting that in the article.
Thanks for clarifying and the in-depth reviews in general!
Sorry, I still don't get it.
I live in Denmark and I need a tire that will stay on my car all year. I have the money to spare and I just want the best tire available.
Do I go with the Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3, as this article would indicate I should do? https://www.tyrereviews.com/Tyre-Tests/Best-All-Season-Tyres-2024-2025.htm
Or do I go with the Michelin CrossClimate 2, as this article would indicate I should do? https://www.tyrereviews.com/Tyre-Tests/The-7-BEST-All-Weather-Tyres-Tested.htm
Sorry if I'm just incredibly daft.
SF3 is better than CC2.
Straight to the point - I like it! Thank you very much :)
All Weather tires in North America carry the snowflake and mountain label similar to Snow/Winter tires. All Season Tires do not. In some designations (eg, Quebec, British Columbia, etc) tires must have that symbol to be legal for snow conditions.
Thanks for this very useful information.
Glad you found it useful!
I love this. Thank you so much - especially for the ice braking test! This is extremely informative. Thank you!
If you ever have a chance to repeat this test in the future, there is one particular tire I would love to see tested:
Hankook WeatherFlex GT - successor to the Kinergy 4S2, which seems to get excellent reviews from European testers, so I'd love to see the American version tested against other all-weather tires.
It would also be nice to see a reference American all-season tire, rather than a summer tire. Most Americans are going to be comparing 4-season tires to 3-seasons. I'd like to see how much wet grip an all-weather sacrifices compared to a more relevant alternative.
And a few other budget tires too, if you can:
General AltiMax 365AW
Kumho Solus HA32
Falken Aklimate
Nexen N Blue 4S 2
Nitto Motivo 365
It would be particularly interesting to see how a budget all-weather tire compares to a mid-tier all-season tire. Some people can only afford mid-tier all-season tires. To afford an all-weather tire, they have to go down a step. So it would be nice to know if something like the Nexen or Nitto can be recommended in good faith to less-affluent friends and family.
Regardless, thank you again, so very much!
I agree, I should have included a US all season tire instead, that was a mistake on my part, but I do have videos comparing the categories (check the YT description)
Would have loved to include the General / Falken / Kumho etc but sadly it was out of budget.
Currently on my 3rd car using Cross Climate 2 (well, the first car was using Cross Climate 1).
I guess I am still going to stick to Cross Climate 2. In Ontario weather, I do wish it had slightly better grip on covered surfaces (I'm also used to X-Ice but stopped using them 8 years ago) but I guess I'm asking too much.
Wait for Cross Climate 3?
There will always be a delta between X-Ice type tires and all weather tires, they have very different targets to meet!
Great test and very useful results! You mentioned the reference winter tire but not the reference summer tire. Could you disclose the name of the reference summer tire?
Sure, it was the Nokian Hakka Green 3.
We're looking forward for the european test to see if goodyear will launch Vector4season GEN-4
Currently I have no information about a gen-4 so sadly I don't think I will be testing it this season as all the tests have already started
When is European results expected?
The first EU all season test will be out at the end of April
Looking forward! I it will be time to replace Goodyear Vector4seaons GEN-2 SUV 215/55/18 and it help me choose!