Long hot summer over, final report on Nokian WR 235/60-16

[gibbons]

Hey, it snowed in the mountains today. You gotta love Utah weather, it was 98 degrees two days ago. Anyway, I guess summer is over, so I would like to post my final report on my impressions of the Nokian WR 235/60-16's. While not a tire engineer, I feel like I am pretty sensitive to tire performance and personalities. For winter time I have Nokian Hakka Qs and LTs on our Subaru and F-250 truck, and while I love them when it's cold, above about 60 degrees I find them really disturbing. They turn too squirmy (as expected) and I can't wait to take them off and kiss them good-night for the summer. As such, I was a little nervous about how the WRs would do when the temperatures got to 100 degrees since they did so well in the winter.

You have the right to be skeptical, I was too. But here it is: I couldn't tell any difference in handling, performance, and personality in the tires from 10 degrees to 100 degrees. Maybe there are some subtle differences that went unnoticed because of the slow changing of the seasons. But I don't think so, as we went from summer to almost winter in 2 days. But the bottom line is, I find these tires incredibly satisfying in all conditions.

In the heat, they don't squeal on hot asphalt. They don't float on high speed sweeper turns. They don't wander. That's all I wanted from them. I think their performance capabilities exceed the suspension design and kinematics of the XC. In other words, there are higher performance tires out there, but they won't make your XC handle any better (IMHO, FWIW).

The cool thing is, as I reported in the winter, I find them as good as or better (in some things) than the Qs. Plus, in the winter, they are good performance tires for when the roads are dry. And I didn't have pay $1600 for extra wheels (I won't use aftermarket wheels) and $500 for dedicated snows.

There has to be something negative I can say... so...... well, when they surface oxidize (as all tires do), the color is kinda brownish instead of more blackish....they're not cheap....their rolling resistance is so low that I think they are more road crown sensitive (but the fuel economy is better)....

When the Subaru's 16" Potenza's (great summer performance tires) wear out, I am going to put 16" WRs on full time and eBay the 14" Hakka Q setup. That's how much I like WRs. In fact, if I lived where it never snowed, I would use these tires. Honest.

[birddog]

Thanks Ken, we were all waiting to hear the wrap-up.
I ordered mine today.
You've been very dedicated to informing anyone interested in the performance of these throughout the year and I for one would like to thank you! :)

[Tom H]

Gibbons,
Sorry if you've already mentioned this before but how are the WRs in terms of road noise? Did you notice a pronounced difference between the WR and the stock factory tires?

[gibbons]

Tom H- Yeah, there's a pronounced difference, they're quieter. They will let you notice the wind noise from the roof rails that I didn't realize was there until I got the 235's :) But I must note that it's the WR 235/60's that are quieter and smoother running. The WR 215/65's are quiet running until you hit a road imperfection, then they produce quite a "thud" from their stiffness. I wasn't that fond of the 215's I had for a short time.

BirdDog- I sure hope you like them... I would hate to lead anyone astray. Several other people put the 235's on their cars after I did and told me they really like them.

By the way, the size and tread design looks really cool on the car. Not juvenile, just more serious. It's amazing that a tire that looks so aggressive can be so civilized.

[bigtomhammer]

By the way, the size and tread design looks really cool on the car. Not juvenile, just more serious. It's amazing that a tire that looks so aggressive can be so civilized.

I would definently agree with this statement. I put 225/60/16 on my 03 Honda Odyssey and love them. Also, I have the tracking in the road groves as well. Not bad, just something to get use to.

Thanks Gibbons for all the info you have provided.

Tom

[John@CdnRockies]

Thanks Gibbons. Car is at our country place on Pender Island (BC) right now, but it should be heading back to Calgary in time for the ski season. I have already priced out the Nokian's, so expect to be wearing new treads for this winter.

Nice report and great to bring closure to this area.

John

[kbdixon]

Gibbons, Can you leave the exact model Nokian you are using? I looked briefly yesterday at a wholesalers site and could not find a straight WR. Also how is tire wear compared to STR at this time?
Regards,
Keith

[gibbons]

Keith- I think they are just WR AWP (All Weather Plus). They have two WR lines, the SUV and Passenger. The 215/65's are from the SUV line exclusively, the 235/60's that I like are from the Passenger line exclusively.

I don't know how they will wear compared to the STRs, I sold the STRs with 900 miles on them. I then put on WR 215/65's, and had them on for about 1000 less than satisfied miles while Nokian and I worked out swapping to WR 235/60's. At about 6000 miles on the WRs, all is well. No weird cupping or anything.

A Nokian guy I met told me I probably wouldn't get 60,000 miles out of them. I asked what, like 50,000? He said yeah. That sounds a little high to me, and I don't expect that at all. But I gotta tell ya, if I only got 25,000 out of them, to me, they will have been well worth it.

I really have no affiliation with Nokian, and I don't know why I stand on a soap box for the tires. But every once in a while, I buy something so thoroughly satisfying that I just can't help it :)

[coastal]

Thanks a ton for the update Ken, this drives the WR's home yet again.

I've still got some good tread on my second set of ST's so will probably wait another winter before I get the Nokians...

I'm starting to think we should get Nokian to sponsor the community, as a group and particularly Ken, I'm sure we sell a ton of their tires :D

[Hiro's XC]

Gibbons,
Sorry if you've already mentioned this before but how are the WRs in terms of road noise? Did you notice a pronounced difference between the WR and the stock factory tires?


I ran them too when we owned our XC. they are indeed more quiet. I also run them on our VW and had them on a BMW 3ser convertible. Great all-around tire.

[d2gxc]

Keith,

As gibbons says, you want the Passenger version of the Nokian WR tire. The Product code (which you will find on Nokiantyres.com and also on tirefactory.net - from whom we got ours) is T443458.

For what it's worth, the treadware rating on the Nokians is 420, that of the STRs is in the low 300's if I remember correctly. As everyones knows by now, I found the STR's wore very badly (others have had much better results). I'm pleased to say after about 3500 miles, I can't see any noticable wear at all on the Nokians.

Furthermore, I endorse everything gibbons says about these tires. They seem to me to be a perfect fit for the car. After the stickiness of the STR's, I am amazed how much more responsive the steering is, especially on twisty mountain roads, and the rear end always feels totally solid.

The low rolling resistance does takes a little getting used to, but is definately a gas-saver, even though it probably does contribute, as gibbons says, to a tendency for the car to drift slightly to the low side of the road. Since I lack his expertise and equipment to test this for myself, I have gratefully accepted his observation that no amount of realigning appears to solve this problem, and I content myself to check the tire pressures periodically and enjoy the ride.

Viva Gibbons and the Nokian Revolution(s)!

[kbdixon]

Thanks All,
Any info you would care to share on price I also checked tirefactory.net but there web site is not very friendly for tire pricing of Nokians.
Thanks, Keith

[d2gxc]

Keith,

You're right, tirefactory.net does not price Nokians on their website, but if you call them, you'll find they are actually very friendly. We got ours from them for about $140 a tire including shipping. If you go this route, you'll need to find someone to install and balance them. You'll typically pay about $12-15 a tire for this. We had the local dealer do it for a total of $51.60 (which seems to me to be hard to beat for dealer pricing)!

[Tom H]

Ken,

Let me first declare myself as being "tire ignorant" but I have a question related to tire sizing in general. The XC70 stock tire size is 215/65. Does changing to 235/60 change the overall diameter? If it does, won't that effect the accuracy of the speedometer and odometer? I ask this because back in the early eighties I owned a Ford E150 van and had changed the stock tire to larger all terrain tires. After the change my odometer registered .9 mile for every true mile and my speedometer read 55mph when the van was actually going 60mph. I was told back then that I would have to change out a small gear where the speedometer cable tied into the trans to make the speed register correctly. I am wondering if this situation exists in moving away from the stock XC70 tire size.

Tom

[gibbons]

Tom, when the math is done on this situation, it shows that the diameter of the 235/60 is 27.1", and the 215/65 is 27.0". That difference is .3% (x1.003). So, IFF the speedo was accurate, at an indicated 60mph, you would be going 60.2. BUT, if you can see that on the XC speedometer, you have better eyes than me. What are those tiny marks, anyway, 2.5 mph? Dang, the needle is alot wider than .2 mph :rolleyes: I would say that's my number one puzzlement with the car: a 160 mph speedo that renders no useful resolution at normal driving speeds.

Back to the story, in practical application, the 235/60 radius is theoretically .050" larger. That's about a spark plug gap. Not much. Now look at the tread depth. That's much bigger than a gap. My point is, I am not concerned about .050" when the tread will burn off almost 10 times that much in its lifetime. FWIW, I GPS vs speedo tested them and it looks fine, at least as well as can be seen from the "rough order of magnitude" resolution speedo.

Elsewhere in my rantings about these tires I have discussed the larger size and particularly the width. No problem there. They are actually the right size for the XC's OEM 7" wheel, the 215 is actully optimally a 6.5" wheel. BUT, that's a 235/60 WR. Nokians seem to run narrow, no fit promises on any other 235/60. For example, the 215 STR's body width is 9.0", the 215 WR is 8.7". I know because I bought a giant caliper to check. I did a lot of math, measuring, and sticking my arms in the wheel wells before changing to 235's. BTW, the 235 WR is 9.4" and looks great on the wheel and car!

There is another concurrent thread topic about when to change tires. My silly answer is: "Any time you don't have 235/60 WRs".:p

[Tom H]

Gibbons, what can I say. I really do appreciate your taking the time out to answer my question so thoroughly. It's clear that the initial difference in diameter is of no consequence compared to the change in diameter as the tire wears. I wouldn't be surprised if the original designers calculate the speedometer take off gear ratio on the expected half life of the tire anyway. It seems it would be a better representation of the actual accumulated miles over the life of the vehicle.

Question - When you made your measurements, did you take into account the possibility of installing front mud guards? We really need them in our slush laden part of the country.

[dlr97]

This site has a nice tire size calculator:

Miata tire size calculator
(http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html)
Despite the name, it covers tire sizes for most cars.

Cheers,
Dave

[Tom H]

dlr97, Very handy link. I ran Ken's numbers and he is rite on the. I'm adding this one to my favorites as it will come in handy in the future. You should contact coastal about adding this to the referance section of the forum.

[Ron3KL]

gibbons wrote:

There is another concurrent thread topic about when to change tires. My silly answer is: "Any time you don't have 235/60 WRs".

My silly response is: Well I reckon I better put my car up on blocks then, 'cos the Australian distributor for Nokian tyres doesn't seem to import passenger car or 4x4 tyres any more. If nothing other than Nokian 235/60s will do, then by the definition above, as soon as I put other new tyres on, its time to replace them! :D

[gibbons]

Tom- I have the front mud flaps and there is not a clearance problem at all. I need to take a picture and post it, I guess. I had the rear flaps, but took them off for two reasons: 1. The color didn't match the umber cladding, and it's easy to see the color difference on the rear of the car (not so obvious on the front where they are more tucked under) 2. The rear flaps blocked clear view of the WRs which look so cool. No kidding. I know, I know, I am whacked.

By the way, I have changed transmission speedo drive gears in my Chevelle to get it just right. And as far as designers compensating for tire wear in drivetrain calibrations, they didn't used to care that much about accuracy. My Ford truck has tiny, tiny dots on the face of the speedometer at 57 and 64 mph. I wondered what they were, and looked it up in the factory service manuals I bought for it. In the speedo diagnosis section, it says that if the needle is within the dots at an actual 60 mph, that's good enough :eek:

[Tom H]

Tom- I have the front mud flaps and there is not a clearance problem at all. I need to take a picture and post it, I guess. I had the rear flaps, but took them off for two reasons: 1. The color didn't match the umber cladding, and it's easy to see the color difference on the rear of the car (not so obvious on the front where they are more tucked under) 2. The rear flaps blocked clear view of the WRs which look so cool. No kidding. I know, I know, I am whacked.

By the way, I have changed transmission speedo drive gears in my Chevelle to get it just right. And as far as designers compensating for tire wear in drivetrain calibrations, they didn't used to care that much about accuracy. My Ford truck has tiny, tiny dots on the face of the speedometer at 57 and 64 mph. I wondered what they were, and looked it up in the factory service manuals I bought for it. In the speedo diagnosis section, it says that if the needle is within the dots at an actual 60 mph, that's good enough :eek:

Glad to hear the mud flaps clear. No, your not whacked at all. I like the look of the stock tires from the rear. I think tire shape and yes, tread pattern are a big part of the overall look and feel of a car. I can only imagine how much better the Nokians look, especially with that extra width. I wonder if a shorter after-market rear flap can be found. I know what you mean about the color. It initally stopped me from even considering the Volvo flaps. I don't believe they don't sell color keyed flaps, especially since prior to MY05 they only had black, umber, and slate to deal with. The black against umber cladding sounds horrible. I suppose I could have them painted umber to match.

[Prepo]

A postscript to the concern about change of speedo accuracy: Further to the comment by Gibbons the the Nokians make an insignificant change to the indicated speed, do realise that the XC speedo reads 4-5% high anyway - at least as measured on my car and not challenged in a thread some time ago on this subject. Perhaps the legally permitted tolerance is adjusted by manufacturers (not just Volvo) to err on the high side to give the impression of better acceleration, or am I just a cynic?

[gibbons]

I mentioned I changed the transmission's speedo gears to calibrate my '68 Chevelle. In my '92 F250 truck's speedo works off of a sensor on the rear differential ring gear. In my $195 official Ford factory service manual (not a Chiltons), there is a procedure to calibrate the speedo electronically. As I recall, you first check the odometer on a measured mile, and then determine some conversion constant factor. In the truck, you do this magic ritual like: turn ignition to acc, put on the emergency flashers, tune the radio to 99.3, click your heels together, and then push and hold the trip select button for 8 seconds. After this, the odometer display would start blinking a conversion constant. You would then use the trip reset button to change the constant.

That way, you could change your speedo calibration if you changed tire sizes. I actually thought it was so they could use the same speedo for all the F-series trucks and the plethora of tire sizes for each. The funny thing was, there was a warning that you could only change it twice, and after that, you had to live with the second change.

So, Prepo, if you think your speedo is off and it bothers you, I betcha that somewhere in VADIS there is a way to change the calibration. But good luck finding it, it took my dealer a while to find the transmission software update for our '04 :rolleyes:

[cetaft]

Prepo, back in the late '60's, the Fords I drove had their speedometers factory set to read a bit high so the drivers would have a "cushion" before they hit the speed limits and met the Boys in Blue. I wonder if that's still the manufacturers' thinking on high-reading speedos?

[coastal]

The speedo does read high from what I've been told.

To view what is said to be your actual speed, check out the hidden menu chart (http://www.volvoxc.com/resources/audio_menus/hu613/index.html) and look for the CONSTANT DISP>>>>> option.

This supposedly (according to service guy at dealership) shows your actual speed in addition to the number of additional decibels the audio system raises the volume to compensate for the speed's road noise. These menus work for the HU-613, let me know if they work for more recent and different models. :)

That said though, cbob would beg to differ as he tried to use this excuse after getting caught in a speed trap, saying that he knew the speedo reads high and was "compensating for the overage". I think he was going a little faster than the built in error though :D LOL

[dlr97]

I've read on other forums that laws in some countries (Germany, for example) hold the car maker responsible if speedometers read below the true speed, and that this holds regardless of what tire diameter the owner fits. So German cars in particular may have an offset programmed in. In my own recently owned cars here are some figures based on GPS readings and/or mile markers on highway (to nearest 0.5 mph approx.):

Volvo XC70, 2004: actual 60 mph, indicated 61 mph
Volvo V70XC, 2000: actual 60 mph, indicated 60.5 mph
Porsche Boxster, 2002: actual 60 mph, indicated 63.5 mph
BMW 328i, 1997: actual 60 mph, indicated 63 mph
Dodge Neon ACR, 1995: actual 60 mph, indicated 61 mph
GMC truck, 1994: actual 60 mph, indicated 61 mph

The Porsche does appear to have a constant offset, not a % of speed. So actual 30 mph reads 33.5 mph. I haven't checked that on the other cars.

Cheers,
Dave

[cbob]

The speedo does read high from what I've been told.
That said though, cbob would beg to differ as he tried to use this excuse after getting caught in a speed trap, saying that he knew the speedo reads high and was "compensating for the overage". I think he was going a little faster than the built in error though :D LOL

Actually, I did not try to use an excuse. :(
My speedo read 142.5 (yes, right on one of those curious little divisions) and the Mountie had me at 143 on her speed gun.
A "fair cop" as they say.
Maybe there is a "hidden menu" on the speedmeter to tell the cops how far out of calibration their equipment is. ;)

The only consolation was that seeing I was a FOG, she said I "probably don't normally drive that fast" and reduced the size of the ticket considerably.

Wooahahahahaha! :D

After spending a week in Europe, it's hard to believe our 4 lane highways are still posted at 80km/h.

Still, I'm not going to be relying on any claims of "high reading speedos to protect the innocent".

The Nokians might be worth a look tho!

[birddog]

JUST LEET ME TELL YOU THESE TYRES ARE THE BEST THING SINCE GETTING THE CAR ITSELF!!!!!!
It's just amazing what a difference they've made in the short time we've had them on. And yup!, they do look very cool! And aggressive! :D :D :D

[Supertoyz]

Thanks for the tire tip, tire selection is always a crap shoot so it's nice to hear somebody else's experience with a particular tire. I happened to order a set of WR's after reading this thread that were just dropped off.....they look pretty nice. Don't really need them yet but I'll probably put them on in November. We've only run the OEM tires on the XC and they are at that frustrating stage when the tires are really fine for dry roads and would probably go another 8-10K but would be marginal this winter in the snow. I hate replacing them with 10k left but I figure why suffer through the winter with tires 60% worn only to replace them next summer, why not just replace them now and enjoy the benefits in the snow. Especially since the wife drives the car and usually has the kids with her. What did you other guys pay for your WR's anyway? $140 seemed a little high compared to $87 for another set of Scorpions, however adding freight to the Tireracks prices pushed them to about $98 and I with a little prodding I got our local Nokia distributor down to $102.90 on the WR's.........for $5 per tire more I couldn't go wrong and thought it was a damn good deal.

If anybody needs a cheap set of Scorpions with 24K on them let me know :-)

PS - Our speedo seems to be right on.....I've only been able to judge it with the roadside radar stations they use here and when I drive by at 50MPH the radar flashes 50MPH.....I assume it's accurate.

[birddog]

I just paid $666.30 for the set of four, mounted, balanced, stems, disposal (of the Pirellis I hated) and a 50,000 mile road hazzard warranty on each of them for replacement should anything happen to them. (this also includes free rotation, etc.) I'm so happy with these that I would buy them again even if they cost more. I just wanted them on and didn't shop around very much. They were purchased through Jack Williams Tires, an eastern PA distributer of Nokian.

[KazDog]

Perusing Nokian web site for WR's and came across this:

Safety Benefits

• Can inform driver of road conditions based on outside air temperature surrounding the tire

Anybody out there understand how?

[Art]

Perusing Nokian web site for WR's and came across this:

Safety Benefits

• Can inform driver of road conditions based on outside air temperature surrounding the tire

Anybody out there understand how?

As taken from Nokian's website:


The side of the Nokian NRZi includes an info pin, which displays the tyre's temperature. The green button turns darker as the tyre temperature decreases. In the spring and autumn, the colour change is a reminder of the risks of freezing roads and black ice. The info pin also comes in handy during storage and when changing tyres, as the driver can set the arrow on the button to mark the mounting position of the tyres.

http://www.nokiantyres.com/files/nkr/innovaatiot/infonappi.jpg

[edwa]

Gibbons,
You said the tires are sensitive to road crown. Do you have concrete hwy's that are grooved out there? Do the tires stay put, or does the car's direction feel effected? I don't go to the snow anymore, traded in my ski's for kayaks and surfboards, would you still recommend them for Los Angeles/So. Calif. weather?

Thanks, Ed

[gibbons]

Ed, I don't recall seeing rain grooving in Utah. But I know how California puts it on concrete roads, I was on it yesterday in the bay area in that S80 rental car. I can see how it would be annoying if your tires tracked it, because the lines seem to jog around a bit especially in curves.

d2gxc is in SoCal (I think) and got a set, maybe you could PM him about how they work on grooves. Birddog got some too, maybe they groove the roads in Pennsylvania. Now I am curious....

As I noted in another thread, my XC with WRs (235 size) is quieter and smoother than the S80 with Michelins I rented. The tires did more than fine in summer heat, I never noticed any bad side effects at all. I am getting a set for my widowed mom's Altima, and she never drives in the snow. Conclusion: if they make the car ride so nice and the heat doesn't bother them, I (personally) would use them on an XC no matter where I lived. I probably wouldn't put them on a 70R if I lived in Arizona, but they are perfect for an XC.

[d2gxc]

I'm up to about 8.5k miles on the WR's now and still loving them. I can't say I've noticed any problems using them on the concrete freeways in the LA area(whether grooved or not), but I do think that if all you've had previously is the STR's, you will notice a difference.

We started with the original ST's, which was probably a good all-round tire for the XC (particularly as AWD*V70XC has indicated in off-road situations), but they sure got noisy. They also tended to make the steering somewhat light, so I got used to holding onto the wheel to prevent the car going off course.

We then switched to the STR's, which were much quieter, but also a lot "stickier", presumably because of the higher speed rating. Consequently, far less prone to wander, and, IMHO, much harder to steer, especially on winding mountain roads.

As Gibbons has said, the WR's have amazing low rolling resistance. They're much more responsive, quieter than church mice, and a hell of a lot more fun to drive. They do tend to follow the path of least resistance if you don't hold onto the wheel, but I'm used to that from my ST's experience, and anyway I've never felt I'm getting stuck in a groove.

Gibbons seems to feel that the drift is caused by the road camber or crowning, which certainly makes sense, but personally I can never get the car to drift to the left regardless of where I am on the road. I think the car just wants drift right. I thought at one time it might have something to do with the relative weight of the driver and the passenger(s), but I'm not brave enough to test out that theory...

I'm curious what other people's experience on this might be, especially in the UK. Do they drift left there? Or is it some sort of political thing dreamed up by a partisan Volvo engineer?

In conclusion, Edwa, I think the tires are great. I'd drive them even if I never went to the Sierras in winter again. I had some concern that the red-rock roads we drive in the Central Coast might mess up the tiny sipes in the treads, but I'm not seeing any evidence of it, and they're clearly wearing much better than the STR's did on those roads.

[edwa]

dg2xc,

Thanks, once again you've been a good source of info.

The only reason I've hesitated on grabbing a set is I detest a wandering car and I'm not keen on plopping down the cash to be disappointed.

Anyone with any feeback on the Conti's?

Ed

[PDXXC]

Wow, what a difference!

We just replaced the stock Pirelli STs with WRs.
I cant believe the difference.
The handling is quite good and the reduction in road noise is staggering.
We can actually hold a conversation at normal levels on the highways!
The cost was a bit high at $145 but they should much better than the STs on snow. Our last storm here in January left our XC in the garage.
I was amazed/pissed off at how poorly the Pirellis handled in the snow.
We live up a 14% grade and a less steep driveway and the Volvo basically couldn't make it up our hill.
I've driven many many cars off road and in snow both in Colorado and California and was really disappointed at how this car behaved. Hopefully these WRs will do the trick.
Cheers,
Jorge

[xc7010]

great report on the WR!

[ltoolio]

I just paid $666.30 for the set of four, mounted, balanced, stems, disposal (of the Pirellis I hated) and a 50,000 mile road hazzard warranty on each of them for replacement should anything happen to them. (this also includes free rotation, etc.) I'm so happy with these that I would buy them again even if they cost more. I just wanted them on and didn't shop around very much. They were purchased through Jack Williams Tires, an eastern PA distributer of Nokian.

BirdDog - how did you find the local distributor of them? I'd prefer to have them installed directly versus ordering them, shipping them to myself and then carting over to the dealer (or some other store) to get them done.

[doublecheese]

I had the Michelin Syncrone's and I replaced them with Nokain WR SUV's (215/65/R16) last year before the snow season started.

I have tested the WR SUV's at rain, on Snowy roads also on heavy snow at the mountains, I was very happy with their performance . I even overtook an Audi Q7 while going up a snowy 2way street mountain road.

After the winter season we had the hot summer days and still we have an average of 30C degrees (86F). At the summer time I have driven the WR SUV's 4 times on long trips to south plus daily usage at the city. So far I'm still very happy with these tires. Thanks to VolvoXC.com

However in a couple months time the winter season will slowly begin to kick in and I can't stop wandering if the performance on snow would be as good as last year's performance after a long and hot summer season.

It's been about 8000 miles since I bought these tires. I hope this hot summer and so much distance didn't damage the ingredients of the tire so they are as good last year's performance on snow. Anybody has any experience on this ?

Secondly, I had started a thread some months ago about the speedometer readings of the XC, according to my tests I could see that XC's speedometer reads 5.6% more than the actual speed.

See the link (w/pictures)
http://www.volvoxc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9401

A Belgian friend told me that European Car's spedometers show more speed than actual speed on purpous, I think it was something to the with the speed limits

[Forkster]

How much of the performance and stability of a tire is directly related to the design of our vehicle vs the brand of the tire? Meaning, our vehicles will be outstanding performers in all kinds of weather condition because of the drivetrain.

[doublecheese]

How much of the performance and stability of a tire is directly related to the design of our vehicle vs the brand of the tire? Meaning, our vehicles will be outstanding performers in all kinds of weather condition because of the drivetrain.

meaning what ??

[JRL]

How much of the performance and stability of a tire is directly related to the design of our vehicle vs the brand of the tire? Meaning, our vehicles will be outstanding performers in all kinds of weather condition because of the drivetrain.
You just keep on believing that :confused:

[cbob]

great report on the WR!
Great report; yes, but I'd like to see the report about 20k km down the road. :)

I've now got about 30k km on my WRs and all of the positive points I noted in my reviews just after I installed them have pretty well disappeared. You can search out my various posts as the tires began to were in if interested.
In summary :
-yes they were quiet -initially. :D
The smoothness and quiet of the new installation was gone by the first 10k km and they rumble over bumps and hum at speed almost as bad as the original Scorpions, which were also quiet at first. To be fair, the Scorpions developed a really annoying loud whine at speed as they got near their end-of-life so the book is still open on the WRs.

- the WRs have been fine in the snow but no better than Scorpions I've had on other vehicles and the XC. They are no better in the wet than the Pirellis.

- handling was noticeably less precise and quite mushy compared to the original Pirellis. :(
I've become used to the characteristics now and have no problems but the lower, softer sidewall of the WR certainly hurts their overall handling paired with the XC suspension and essentially front wheel drive configuration.

-one aspect has actually improved as the WRs have worn- they roll easier now than when new. Tests with the new WRs showed that the rolling resistance was higher (despite the anecdotal evidence from Gibbons) and allowing the vehicle to find its own speed down well known hills on my local highways resulted in a lower speed than with the Scorpions. This has now corrected itself with wear. [thumbup]

Overall I have no actual complaints with the tire. After some experience, I just take issue with the hype . I don't regret trying them -putting my money where the mouths of others went- but I'll be shopping for a better tire when these ones are done. I'll let you know if they last a significantly shorter time than the OEM Pirellis. :D

[gibbons]

- the WRs have been fine in the snow but no better than Scorpions I've had on other vehicles and the XC. They are no better in the wet than the Pirellis.

- handling was noticeably less precise and quite mushy compared to the original Pirellis. :(

-one aspect has actually improved as the WRs have worn- they roll easier now than when new. Tests with the new WRs showed that the rolling resistance was higher (despite the anecdotal evidence from Gibbons) and allowing the vehicle to find its own speed down well known hills on my local highways resulted in a lower speed than with the Scorpions. This has now corrected itself with wear. [thumbup]


These three observations look pretty anecdotal (ie, based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation) to me :rolleyes:

1. In my experience, they were superior to the Scorpions in snow, which I thought were scary. 2. Is the mushiness a result of wearing suspension bushings and shocks? 3. Down my known hills, they rolled easier from the get go.

I think the general impression from people on this group is that they are good. All that being said, I didn't buy more WRs for the XC. I wanted 17" Pegasus, and since I would have some 16" wheels laying around, I went Nokian's i3 for summer and Hakka 2 for winter. But for our Subaru, with only 1 set of wheels, I chucked the OEM Bridgestone Potenzas at 13K miles (right before winter) and got WRs for it. Happy, happy.

[cbob]

These three observations look pretty anecdotal (ie, based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation) to me :rolleyes:

1. In my experience, they were superior to the Scorpions in snow, which I thought were scary.

[cool2][cool2][cool2]
You mean from your "personal observation" you "thought" they were "scary"?
[thumbup][thumbup]
Now there's a great example of "pretty anecdotal". :D

Hey! I tried the WRs based very much on YOUR claims of "systematic scientific evaluation" and experience, only to discover that my experiences were, in the main, quite different from yours.
So we differ in our "personal observations".
No call to :rolleyes: and accuse ME of "random investigations".

I call 'em as I see 'em.

[gibbons]

Anecdotal part 2: When we got the XC, I told my wife all about the great AWD system. She said good, then we won't need an extra set of snow tires for it like we have had for all of our other cars. Deal, I can live with that. It was her that got caught in a storm when the Scorps were still on, she called me from her cell ranting, "these tires suck!" The WRs soon followed and I never heard another tire complaint.

Yeah, it's all opinion. I hated, hated, hated a set of Michelin MXV4's I had, and they were highly rated, as I recall. I like the car though :)

[cbob]

I like the car though :)

We can certainly agree on that point! [thumbup][happy][happy]

[Tommia]

Hello ! I have a 2006 XC70, 2.5T with 215/65/16. If I change to 235/60/16 will it cost more fuel? Is this ok to have 235/60/16?
thanks
Tom

[gibbons]

I've had 235 width tires on the car for 4 years. No problems whatsoever. Fuel economy, one way or the other, is insignificant compared the price you paid for the car.