gibbons
02-26-2004, 07:16 PM
I've stated before, I really like Nokians (have them on our 3 winter vehicles), so I bought a set of 215/65 WR's to replace the 04's brand new Pirelli STRs. I thought the 215 WR's are great: fabulous slick traction and very quiet. But the ride was not as smooth as the STRs. That bothered me, they made the XC ride pretty rough. "Trucky" as one forum-er described them. I was a little dismayed at the actual ride, because if you read WR reviews in other car forums, everyone says they are nice riding. When I contacted the Nokian importer, they were puzzled too. But they have a 30 day satisfaction gaurantee, so cool, I wanted to explore!
The 215/65's are designated as "SUV" (bad sign IMHO). On the Tellus 7" rims, their sidewalls were quite vertical. I think Nokians are traditionally tall and skinny looking for their stated size. In high school we would have called them pizza cutters.
Looking at the other sizes in the WR Passenger car line, I saw the 235/60's were only .1" taller, a fraction of a mile per hour difference at 60mph. Plus, the reference rim width for them is 7". I asked the Nokian guys to let me try the 235s, since I wasn't totally satisfied with the 215's. They cheerfully obliged.
The 235's look really great on the wheels. Measuring the body width with my caliper, the WR 215/65's were 8.75" wide (tall and narrow theme) the 215/65 STRs were 9.0", and the WR 235's are 9.38" (.2 wider on each side than the STRs). But tread width is only 16mm wider than the 215. They don't look like 4x4 monster mudders, just tastefully more aggressive kinda like the Audi All-Roads. There are no fenderwell clearance issues.
The SUV and P versions have the exact same tread, but different sidewall graphics. I don't know if the SUV models have beefed up or stiffened sidewalls, or if the 7" wheel was too wide for optimum fit. I guess I will never know.
So, what do I think? As the post description says, I think there is an astonishing difference. These ride much smoother than the 215's and even the STRs, but they're not like driving a water bed. The noise level seems to be the same as the 215/65 WRs. Hitting expansion joints no longer produces that annoying thump/thud. My body no longer gets jolted on rough roads. They are great. The seller's remorse for selling the STRs has finally gone away. Yea!
I drove them on snow today, and I think the traction is as good as the 215's even though some would argue the contact patch PSI theory. I read somewhere, though, that with siping technology, a larger patch is better. Whatever. Since I didn't buy the XC for autocross, I don't think I will care much how they handle in the summer time.
I liked the WR 215s a lot, but I'm totally satisfied with the 235s. Interesting, though, I would never have thought to buy them in the first place. I sure am glad that Nokian has that guarantee. I recommend the 235's, these babies are nice http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/thumbs-up.gif
EDIT: Here is a picture of the tires on the car, it's in another thread too.
http://www.xc70.com/pics/albums/userpics/10001/WRs.jpg
The 215/65's are designated as "SUV" (bad sign IMHO). On the Tellus 7" rims, their sidewalls were quite vertical. I think Nokians are traditionally tall and skinny looking for their stated size. In high school we would have called them pizza cutters.
Looking at the other sizes in the WR Passenger car line, I saw the 235/60's were only .1" taller, a fraction of a mile per hour difference at 60mph. Plus, the reference rim width for them is 7". I asked the Nokian guys to let me try the 235s, since I wasn't totally satisfied with the 215's. They cheerfully obliged.
The 235's look really great on the wheels. Measuring the body width with my caliper, the WR 215/65's were 8.75" wide (tall and narrow theme) the 215/65 STRs were 9.0", and the WR 235's are 9.38" (.2 wider on each side than the STRs). But tread width is only 16mm wider than the 215. They don't look like 4x4 monster mudders, just tastefully more aggressive kinda like the Audi All-Roads. There are no fenderwell clearance issues.
The SUV and P versions have the exact same tread, but different sidewall graphics. I don't know if the SUV models have beefed up or stiffened sidewalls, or if the 7" wheel was too wide for optimum fit. I guess I will never know.
So, what do I think? As the post description says, I think there is an astonishing difference. These ride much smoother than the 215's and even the STRs, but they're not like driving a water bed. The noise level seems to be the same as the 215/65 WRs. Hitting expansion joints no longer produces that annoying thump/thud. My body no longer gets jolted on rough roads. They are great. The seller's remorse for selling the STRs has finally gone away. Yea!
I drove them on snow today, and I think the traction is as good as the 215's even though some would argue the contact patch PSI theory. I read somewhere, though, that with siping technology, a larger patch is better. Whatever. Since I didn't buy the XC for autocross, I don't think I will care much how they handle in the summer time.
I liked the WR 215s a lot, but I'm totally satisfied with the 235s. Interesting, though, I would never have thought to buy them in the first place. I sure am glad that Nokian has that guarantee. I recommend the 235's, these babies are nice http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/thumbs-up.gif
EDIT: Here is a picture of the tires on the car, it's in another thread too.
http://www.xc70.com/pics/albums/userpics/10001/WRs.jpg