Menu

Nokian Line SUV

The Nokian Line SUV is a Premium Touring Summer tire designed to be fitted to SUV and 4x4s.

6.6
Tire Reviews Score Based on User Reviews
Limited Confidence View Breakdown
Dry Grip
80%
Wet Grip
74%
Road Feedback
71%
Handling
74%
Wear
46%
Comfort
68%
Buy again
39%
9 Reviews
65% Average
135,500 miles driven
4 Tests (avg: 4th)
Nokian Line SUV

Nokian Line SUV

Summer Mid-Range
BETA
6.6 / 10
Based on User Reviews · Limited Confidence · Updated 23 Feb 2026

The Tire Reviews Score is the most comprehensive tire scoring system available. It aggregates professional test data from multiple independent publications, user reviews, and consistency analysis using Bayesian statistical methods, weighted normalisation, and recency-adjusted scoring to produce a single, reliable performance rating.

Learn more about our methodology
Score Components
Professional Tests
Weight: 80%
Tests: 4
Publications: 4
Period: 2016 - 2017
User Reviews
Weight: 15%
Reviews: 9
Avg Rating: 64.5%
Min Required: 5
Consistency
Weight: 5%
Score Std Dev: 0.04
History Points: 10
Methodology & Configuration
Scoring Process
  1. Collect Test Data: Gather results from professional tire tests across multiple publications. Minimum 1 test(s) required.
  2. Normalize Positions: Convert test positions to percentile scores using exponential weighting (factor: 1.2).
  3. Apply Recency Weighting: More recent tests are weighted higher with a decay rate of 0.95.
  4. Incorporate User Reviews: Factor in user review data (minimum 5 reviews). Weight: 15%.
  5. Bayesian Smoothing: Apply Bayesian prior (score: 7, weight: 1.5) to prevent extreme scores with limited data.
  6. Calculate Final Score: Combine all components using normalization factor of 1.1. Max score with limited data: 9.5.
Component Weights
Test Data
80%
User Reviews
15%
Consistency
5%
All Configuration Parameters
ParameterValueDescription
safety_weight 0.7 Weight multiplier for safety-related metrics
performance_weight 0.55 Weight multiplier for performance metrics
comfort_weight 0.4 Weight multiplier for comfort metrics
value_weight 0.45 Weight multiplier for value-for-money metrics
user_reviews_weight 0.15 How much user reviews contribute to the final score
test_data_weight 0.8 How much professional test data contributes to the final score
consistency_weight 0.05 How much score consistency contributes to the final score
recency_decay_rate 0.95 Rate at which older test results lose influence (higher = slower decay)
min_test_count 1 Minimum number of professional tests required
min_review_count 5 Minimum number of user reviews required
score_version 1.9 Current version of the scoring algorithm
score_normalization_factor 1.1 Factor used to normalize raw scores to the 0-10 scale
confidence_factor_weight 0.2 How much data confidence affects the final score
position_penalty_weight 0.2 Penalty applied for poor test positions
gap_penalty_threshold 12 Score gap (%) that triggers additional penalties
min_metrics_count 2 Minimum number of test metrics needed per test
limited_data_threshold 2 Number of tests below which data is considered limited
single_test_penalty 0.75 Score multiplier when only one test is available
critical_metric_penalty 0.7 Penalty for poor performance on critical safety metrics
critical_metric_threshold 70 Score below which a critical metric penalty applies
position_exponential_factor 1.2 Exponent used to amplify position-based scoring
position_exponential_threshold 0.9 Position percentile below which exponential scoring applies
gap_multiplier_critical 3 Multiplier for critical gap penalties
max_category_weight 2 Maximum weight any single category can have
max_score_limited_data 9.5 Score cap when data is limited
bayesian_prior_weight 1.5 Weight of the Bayesian prior in smoothing
bayesian_prior_score 7 Prior score used for Bayesian smoothing
evidence_test_multiplier 1.9 Multiplier for test evidence in confidence calculation
evidence_metric_divisor 3 Divisor for metric count in evidence calculation
evidence_review_divisor 10 Divisor for review count in evidence calculation
combined_penalty_floor 0.2
Data Sources
TestPublicationDateSizePositionMetrics
2017 ACE SUV Summer Tire Test ACE 2017 215/60 R17 4/11 0 metrics
2017 ADAC SUV Summer Tire Test ADAC 2017 215/65 R16 4/15 0 metrics
2016 Off Road Summer SUV Tire Test Off Road 2016 215/65 R16 2/6 0 metrics
2016 AMS SUV / 4x4 Tire Test Auto Motor Und Sport 2016 215/60 R17 6/9 0 metrics
4
Tests
4th
Average
2nd
Best
6th
Worst
Latest Tire Test Results
4th/15
Good in the dry
Compared to the best on test, slightly weak in the wet. Relatively high fuel consumption
4th/11
2016 AMS SUV / 4x4 Tire Test
215/60 R17 • 2016
6th/9

Questions and Answers for the Nokian Line SUV

Ask a question
Sorry, we don't currently have any questions and answers for the Nokian Line SUV. Why not submit a question to our tire experts using the form below!
Ask a question

We will never publish or share your email address

captcha

To verify you are human please type the word you see in the box below.

Top 3 Nokian Line SUV Reviews

Given 51% while driving a Mercedes Benz GLK 350 4Matic (235/60 R17) on a combination of roads for 2,000 spirited miles
The tires came fitted on the car when I bought her second hand a year before. The tires were almost new and were advertised to be at 90%. I drove them about 10 000 km. My driving stile is a little more sporty then averege and I tend to corner harder so there is no supprise that the tread wears out quckly but with these tires the wear is a little too quick. At last, I think, the tires ware worn down to about 60%.
One summer night on a dry hiway I had a terrifying incident trying to avoid a high speed crash. I was forced to make an abrupt manoeuvre that made the car skidding several times from side to side. While there was no damage to the car itself, later I notticed the tires started to wobble a bit at low speeds, and that gradually started to go from bad to worse. Finally I had to replace them as the rear wheel tires were internally damaged and out of shape. While the tires didn't broke apart I don't think it's a good idea to buy the same model again.
September 18, 2023
Given 60% while driving a Toyota Hilux Surf (1KZ TE) (265/70 R16) on mostly motorways for 40,000 easy going miles
Initially OK, but after approx 40,000 easy motorway miles over 5 years, the tires are splitting between the circumferential grooves and have failed inspection, despite still having 3 to 4mm of thread remaining.
April 9, 2022
Given 51% while driving a Toyota RAV4 (225/45 R17) on mostly town for 2,000 spirited miles
I purchased x4 of these which I thought were quite cheap for what I thought was a good mid-range brand. Nokian love to let you know that they've got the furthest north tire test facility in the world. Therefore, during our recent snow, I thought these SUV branded tires would at least be respectable, but no. There's terrible! Literally no grip in my 4x4 unless I drive at a ridiculously slow crawl. As for ride comfort, as another reviewer has stated these are really really hard and very loud!.. you can feel every bump and the loudness is so bad it gives me a headache. The previous tires were no-name budgets and they were so much more comfortable and quieter than these. What was a calm, relaxing 4x4 to drive is now the opposite. I will say however, these are great for cutting through standing water, I've had no aquaplaning even in the deepest of water. Dry weather performance is just... Meh. I would say they break any better than budget tires. It's a real shame, as I had high hopes for this tire. I guess I know why they're so cheap now.
January 26, 2021

How would you rate the Nokian Line SUV?

Click a star to start your review

Latest Nokian Line SUV Reviews

Given 89% while driving a Volvo 2.0 T5 Saloon (215/65 R18 V) on mostly country roads for 40,000 spirited miles
Volvo XC70 AWD better and quieter than Pirelli Scorpians they replaced. Car is heavy with high center of gravity but these tires make high speed driving safe and the braking distance is improved noticeably. Liked them so much bought a set of Nokian Winter tires. Hence summer tires have lasted four seasons and still have a couple of thousand miles in them. Chech pressure regularly and rotate tires front to back. These have proved quiet on good surfaces and returned great mpg and comfort. They are cheaper than many comparable makes. The winter tires are fantastic too.
January 1, 2019
Given 69% while driving a Mitsubishi shogun sport (265/70 R16) on mostly country roads for 7,000 spirited miles
As usual a very thight fit to get them on the rims, so be aware if your ride is bumpy, it might be that they do not sit correct on the rim. When properly done, they are accurate circular.
Grip is absolutely approved. On my Pajero Sport they perform beautiful in all conditions on tarmac.
Except from wear. Approx 5mm left after less than 10.000KM is not pleasing at all.
Still, I consider these next time. Never I had better all-purpose-tires. At 100KM/h and full brake (newly serviced quality brake parts) the ABS hardly work at all, and the 2 ton car stops really fast, at dry lukewarm tarmac. In wet they slip a tiny bit, but better than several premium tires. Turns, curves and hills are all done excactly as I want them to, no surprising understeer.
November 23, 2018
Given 54% while driving a Mitsubishi Outlander (225/45 R17) on a combination of roads for 5,000 average miles
Very, very loud and they ride hard, really hard, even at 2.2 bar (the lower limit of the tires). You literally feel every bump on the road. I bought them last year and drove them on a Mitsubishi Outlander XL. Had to replace 3 tie-rod ends on the front suspension (2 left, 1 right) in 4 months. Also, the brakes started rattling (the holes where the slide pins go widened and changed shape from circle to ellipse). On top of that, for such a hard tire, it wears super fast.
This winter I got Michelin Pilot Alpin 4 and oh boy, the difference is night and day. They ride super quiet and very soft, a total pleasure... unlike the Nokians, which I plan to replace every minute now, because I can't stand how bad they ride.
May 2, 2018
Given 54% while driving a Subaru Forester (205/70 R15) on mostly motorways for 9,000 easy going miles
At first I was very pleased. The tires run silent with excellent grip.
I use the car to make longer trips in modest speed, Rarely over 100 km/h
After 1500 km three of the tires turned oval, they "separated".
Sent the tires to Nokian but they did not recognize my complaint. They could see that the tires was oval but they were not to blame!?
I've been driving my car the same way for 15 years, 200000 km. Not even ONE tire has turned into an egg. With Nokian i got THREE.

Never Nokian again!



January 16, 2018
Given 73% while driving a Honda CR V III (235/65 R17 H) on mostly motorways for 15,500 average miles
Only positive words for grip and handling but very fast wear, after 25000 kilometers there is 1mm of tread left.
November 6, 2017
Given 74% while driving a Chevrolet Tahoe (265/70 R16 H) on mostly motorways for 15,000 average miles
Excellent tire for the first 20000km. Very comfortable ride, excellent handling in both dry and wet, low rolling resistance.

However things change in the negative direction after 20k, even though there is plenty of tread (6mm) left. Especially the emergency braking suffers dramatically and they get noisier. Now that two of them went out of round and can't be balanced successfully, I will have to get rid of them way earlier than expected.
August 6, 2016
Rate the Nokian Line SUV