Hi, I'll repeat what I said earlier, the Nokian RSi is their newest dedicated winter tire, less performance oriented than the WR, but not bad on dry at all, believe me, you can barely tell you have snows on. But man, they grip like crazy.

Two nights ago, we sat waiting in a ski area parking lot while a fully loaded old Volvo 240 tried repeatedly to get a running start up the very icy access road to exit, getting nowhere, backing up ourselves and two other cars. I estimate the slope to be about 12 degrees, and a long way out at that same incline. Not sure if it had snows on or not. All it did was sit and spin that one skinny rear tire over and over. Finally they gave up, coasted back and waited.

From a standing start next to them I proceeded, and zip, up we went, no problem, no hesitation, just the traction control light flaring away, and we were gone.

There you go. The contrast couldn't be plainer, two heavy old rear drive wagons, one with hi-tech snows/electronic traction enhancements, and one without. It was like being in a car magazine controlled testing environment.

We has a set of WS-50's on our Outback Wagon and even on dry roads, they weren't that bad. Are you sure they're inflated properly, installed properly? Lots of people use Blizzaks in my area and while they're no handling demons on dry roads, we're not flying into the ditch by any means.

Just to echo some of the other comments on Blizzaks; I've had a couple sets on Saabs over the years. They are indeed great on ice when new, and on snow; the ice qualities wear off as the first layer of special-compound rubber does, and the dry handling is definitely not as good as your all-seasons will be. They were nice to have here in Grand Rapids, especially for a car that wasn't out on the highways much, but I'm getting along with all-seasons for now and might think about something a bit more versatile like the Nokians if I go to a winter tire again.

According to a test on Winter tires in Consumer Reports back in November, 2002, (the last test) the best performing "H" Rated Snow tires at the time were the Good-Year Ultra Grip GW-2. An "H" rating means that these tires are rated for speeds up-to 130MPH. The retail price at the time was $132

The "Kumho L'zen stud KW-11" were rated best in the "T" Category, and cost $54 each.

A "T" rating means that these tires are rated for speeds up-to 118 MPH. The retail price at the time was $132

Phil

The WS-15 Blizzak had the dual layer tread and it was not well received by many. The WS-50 is different in that the ice-tread compound is deeper and snow tires should be replaced at 6/32nd's anyway.

I am a Kuhmo fan. We have the KW-11 on both our 01 Outback and 98 C230, and they're great. Of course, we have 'em studded, and that makes a big difference. However, they're awesome on wet roads (unlike many studded tires) and are wearing like iron. Our Forester is on cruddy Tiger Paw all-seasons and there are no snows available for it now. The C230 on it's KW-11's will leave the Forester long behind despite one-wheel-drive and no ASR. The OBW on KW-11's in incredible!

Our OBW had a set of WS-50's on, and I liked them. I don't like the price, and I think that you can spend half and get 90%+ of the performance. There is better value to be had.

Next fall I'm going to buy steelies for the Forester and go with either KW-19 Kuhmos studded or WS-50's. For those of us that have weeks and weeks of horrifically icy and snowy roads, the poor dry road performance is a compromise we have to make.

blizzarks vs. nokian
 

...my $0.02

I have owned both blizzarks ws-50 and nokian NRW (precursor to WR).
My choice is the nokians any day. They are relatively quiet in dry conditions and excellent in snow and ice. While the blizzarks are good in snow and ice they are horrible in dry conditions period. 61K miles on 91 300D and 72K miles on a subaru Legacy. I still have a set of MB wheels w/ NRW's w/ 4100K on them that I'll be parting with.

Overall.... the nokians are the way to go.... my $0.02.

Thanks.

We have a set of Nokian NRW's on the E320, and haven't had the chance to try them in snow / ice yet but they are fine on dry pavement and in the wet. We used to have a Volvo 760 Turbo wagon (rear drive) with Nokian Hakkapelita's, that went great in winter, so expect the same with the E320. Also have a set of Nokian WR's (255x65x16) for our Range Rover, not that it needs snow tires but they came with it, so defintely a Nokian fan.

I think of the tires the same way I think of the cars:
Bridgestone Blizzak--American
Kuhmo--Asian
Nokian--European

Which do you think performs the best?

I just put on 4 Blizzak WS-50 tires....they are better in the rain than my Toyo Proxy summer wheels....not at all horrible handling...off to find out thursday AM how they are in the snow when I cross the mountains.

You have to read the FINE print people.
As per Tire Rack

WS - 50 = Studless Ice & Snow.
LM 22/LM 25 = Performance Winter.
Revo 1 = Studless Ice & Snow.

The WS - 50 is meant for DEEP snow. ;)

An update on my latest choice for winter tires...selected Nokian WRs for my Suby and studded Nokian Hakka 2s for my wife's Merc.

The WRs replaced Michelin Arctic Alpines which were used year-round and lasted remarkably well - three seasons. Got a lot of tire noise and uneven wear with them, but Michelin is a good tire. That said, I really like the Nokian WRs. They perform better than the Michelins did, are much quieter, and the rubber is the silicone variety that stays soft in cold temps. Have to say I like the Nokian WR and doubt I would ever go back to Michelin. Cheaper too.

The studded Hakka 2s for the Merc are killer tires. I cannot imagine using another winter tire on a rear-driver. Now there are no excuses for not getting up our steep driveway, hell, I think the wife could drive up a vertical wall with these tires...those crafty Finns make good stuff, know something about winters, they do.

I have used Blizzaks but won't be buying them anymore...too many compromises for possibly slightly better ice performance. And they won't last long if temps rise above freezing.

FYI,

230/8

Blizzaks
 

<<I had them installed from sears, and used them for a week. During snow they were excellent no doubt, but when the snow melted, on dry road they are the "worst" tires I have ever driven with. the car's handling was like a boat.>>

You did install all four, one assumes. Blizzaks on the rear only make a car nearly undriveable. Personal experience.

As with most products, there appears to always be room for improvement . . . according to the Swedes, the new king of the hill for snow and ice w/o studs is the Continental Viking Contact 3. Of course, as luck would have it, they are not available (according to the article) in the US. As far as the Blizzaks, they have fallen off the radar as newer technology in design has come along. So now it seems to be back to what is the best snow and ice for the ole' 300TD . . .

FWIW, I bought a set of Hankook w401 winter tires for my car. They worked well on the snow and ice over the T'day weekend. A little noisy on dry pavement, but they ride and handle better than the no-name crap that was on the car when I bought it.

I disagree. I installed a set of the new Revo 1's on the C230, and have driven in some terrible winter driving conditions this fall, and they are outstanding.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/bs_blizzak_revo1.jsp

I just recently took off a set of Nokian WR's with 48,000 miles on them. I ran them the last 3 years summer and winter and summer in Nebraska (with the last 8 months being in Arizona). I am a previous Blizzak owner but after running the WR's would never switch back to Blizzak. When you consider the cost and trread life, comfort, speed rating the Nokian is the winner hands down. I really feel the Nokians had as good as if not better traction than my blizzaks. I changed out the WR's for a set if new Nokian I3's and really have enjoyed them as well.