Nokian WR year-round use? Mileage?

[al_roethlisberger]

Well shoot, since everyone else is starting a "Nokian WR" thread, I didn't want to feel left out! ;)

Anyway, I've read just about every thread on the Nokain WR I think(and there are a whole lot), but one thing that wasn't clear(although it is mentioned) is how this tire performs year-round in a climate like we have in NC.

I am very interested in an all-season tire that will be good year-round, is quiet, improves MPG, and is great in our normal inclement weather, which consists of potential rain year round, and Winter cold rain and a little ice/snow... very little... a few times a year. And of course, we have HOT dry Summers.

The Nokian seems like it has fantastic reviews here, but I'm curious if that is the right kind of tire for my climate, where we really won't be slogging through heavy snow/ice on a regular basis.

I know the Nokian seems ideal for those in more severe areas, but I wonder how well it performs year-round, how quickly it wears out, and if perhaps there is a better tire for the climate I describe?

...or maybe the Pirelli STR is just fine for what I describe? *shrug*

Thanks
al

[d2gxc]

Al,

I started with the ST's on my 2001 and then had a blowout on one of the tires at about 30k miles. The ST's were very noisy, and since the newer vehicles were being shipped with the STR's I decided to try them. They were a much quieter tire, but perhaps because of the V rating, I found the rubber very soft, which made steering very sticky, and seemed to increase rolling friction. Also, perhaps because we drive a lot of very rough roads, they wore out very quickly (only 15k miles).

I definately wanted something better, and Gibbons was raving about his WR's, but I too wondered if they would be suitable in a climate where we really don't get very harsh winters. At the time he was giving almost daily reports about how they performed as the weather heated up, and he convinced me they would do just fine in our warmer climate.

I took the plunge and like everyone else love the tires. They're very quiet, the rolling friction is extremely low, which makes cornering a joy and yes it does improve gas mileage. As regards wear, driving the same rough roads I got 30k miles out of them. I'm now on my second set.

[al_roethlisberger]

Well that's about as glowing a review as one could hope :D

What size are you running? I know it has been recommended to run a slightly different size than the OEM size with the Nokian.

al

[d2gxc]

Al,

I'm running the same 235/60-16 size that Gibbons has. It's a little wider than the standard STR and looks really nice on the car. I'm sure you've already read that it's 27.1 inch in diameter vs 27.0 inch for the standard 215/65-16 tire.

You've probably also read that you can't get the Passenger version of the WR in the standard size, only the SUV version which handles quite differently, and which Gibbons says looks rather skinny. I think you'll want the Passenger version, so the 235/60-16 is the only way to go.

[SYS]

Here's a review that should help:

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/hl/nokian.htm

Basically the reviewer thinks WR's are great for winter and wet conditions and "good" during summer. In other words, if you're one of those who places premium on ultimate performance, then get the best tires for summer and replace them with the best winter performing tires. If you can live with "good" summer performance of WR's, then get these and avoid the hassle of changing them twice every year.

From everything I've read so far, the verdict seems to be that WR's the second best thing to changing tires twice a year.

[gibbons]

Our WRs have never been off road, they get mostly freeway miles, and we have 25K miles on them. They still have a long way to the wear bars, I am guessing they will go 40K.

Where we live in Utah, the roads are fairly promptly plowed and salted. The tires don't regularly see deep snow and extreme slick. But when they do, I am ready. When they don't, which is 95% of the time, I still get a nice, quiet, comfortable ride on the dry winter roads. The Hakka Q's on the Subaru are not very pleasant on dry roads, they are noisey and squirly. By spring time, I can't wait to take them off.

So, looking at trade offs for our driving conditions, I like the WR idea because they are much better on slick roads than the Hakkas are on dry roads.

As far as summer performance goes, the XC with its high center of gravity isn't that much of a spirited driving car. I think that the performance capabilities of the WRs exceeds the suspension dynamics of the XC. In my warped opinion, anything higher performance than the WR couldn't be utilized anyway.

[cbob]

I think that the performance capabilities of the WRs exceeds the suspension dynamics of the XC.

I certainly must disagree so far, but then I have only used them for 3 weeks on either dry roads or in really ugly wet & windy conditions on the highway. Not time for a complete review yet.

First impressions :

Plus side :
- very smooth and quiet compared with the Scorpion ST.
- nice and sticky in the wet, comparing well with the ST
- go around corners quite well when pushed.

Minus side :
- almost total lack of road feel compared with the ST.
- who said stiffer sidewalls? I now must be very carefull over speed humps and such. Compared to the ST, these booties have way too much travel. Lots more lean in the corners too. Very Mushy.
- Less amenable to throttle steer. If you don't really put your foot in on hard corners, they run much wider than the ST.

Overall verdict : I like them OK so far. Let's see how they work in the ice and snow.

Question for Gibbons : what tire pressures are you running for the XC?
I note that the WR is good up to 51 psi, so I might consider going up a couple of pounds from my ST pressures to see if it makes a performance difference.

[gibbons]

It's the SUV 215/65's that are stiffer. Waaaayyy stiffer.

I started out with 36 psi, but in a couple of days I could see that the little "teets" on the tread from the mold were worn off in the center of the tread, but not towards the side. I concluded that with the wider tread, 36 was too much. I dropped to 32 and have kept them there and the treadwear is even all the way across. When they are new, the sipes will "feather" quite a bit. Don't be alarmed, they come to an equilibrium and stay there.

I guess I am a whimp. I will push my skis hard into a gate, my mountain bike hard into a berm, but never my XC hard into a turn :)

[SYS]

Since I replaced Pirelli Scorpions with 235/60/16 Nokian WR's about a week ago, I haven't had a chance to test them either on snow or on freeway at high speed until yesterday (dry, sunny condition). I was driving at around 70mph, and I found myself becoming a bit more tense in my hands than usual due to the feeling that I could only describe as "floating." I didn't get this feeling with the Scorpions while driving across 5 different states during this past summer doing 80-85 mph on average.

So I re-read the Canadian Driver's review on WR, and the following passage really grabbed my attention:

"But, like every compromise, there has to be a drawback. And with the WR, that sacrifice is made in dry weather performance. Don't get me wrong: they are perfectly acceptable in all summer driving conditions, but if you're one who places precise handling and accurate, high-speed stability at the top of your list, the WRs will disappoint.

Under normal driving conditions around town, there are no drawbacks to this tire. But throw a fast corner or quick zig-zag into the mix, and the lack of precision makes itself evident. There's a floaty, disconnected feeling that will have performance fiends cringing. But it's those same fanatics that don't see a problem with owning two sets of tires.

On the highway, the tires are reasonably quiet and offer very good ride quality. In strong cross-winds, more steering correction is required because the tires' tread blocks allow the car to stray off the intended path more easily. And during high-speed passing on two-lanes, the same issue arises: concentration is required to keep the car on the straight and narrow. I should note, though, that this was only an issue during, um, very high speed passing on two lanes. The average two-lane pass occurred drama-free."

Has any of you also experienced anything similar? Should I check my tire air pressure and possibly lowering it would help? Any other thoughts?

Don't get me wrong, I'm quite satisfied with the tire change so far. Just feel a bit insecure when driving at over 60 mph....

[cbob]

I was driving at around 70mph, and I found myself becoming a bit more tense in my hands than usual due to the feeling that I could only describe as "floating."
(snip)
There's a floaty, disconnected feeling that will have performance fiends cringing.


That's the lack of road feel I mentioned in my previous post. :(

If you note my exchange with Gibbons, I had the idea that a bit more tire pressure mught help, but it looks like 34-35 psi is about the limit, and it does not improve the situation. Those soft sidewalls are great for comfort though. ;)
It may be something you just have to relax, and get used to. Millions of folks are driving around on tires that transfer no feedback through to the steering wheel at all, and it's only those of us who are used to a bit of performance driving who get a bit nervous when we get too disconnected from the road surface.
I'm sure that the tires are not actually 'floating', and in fact I found that small steering deviations at 70-80 mph were in fact a bit less dramatic than with the Scorpion ST, even in the wet. My first driving experience with the WR was in high winds, and I noted none of the "wind sensitivity" reported in the review quoted. I think they were just looking at the tread and making a guess.

[cbob]

I guess I am a whimp. I will push my skis hard into a gate, my mountain bike hard into a berm, but never my XC hard into a turn :)

Well there you go! :p
As a FOG, I stopped downhill biking after my last broken-rib endo. :o

You should try setting up tight turns in your XC they way you set up a tight gate - turn early, extra pressure to make the skis (I mean XC) power into a slight oversteer, then hold across the apex of the turn and accelerate onto the outside of the track (lane). :D

Actually, it's one reason I've been avoiding skiing with john@canadianrockies -if he skis as aggressively as he drives his XC, I'm toast. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the tire pressure info. I'll hold at 34-35 psi and see what happens.

[ChuckK]

As far as summer performance goes, the XC with its high center of gravity isn't that much of a spirited driving car. I think that the performance capabilities of the WRs exceeds the suspension dynamics of the XC. In my warped opinion, anything higher performance than the WR couldn't be utilized anyway.

Using that logic, we don't need DSTC either. DSTC only comes into play when the limits of traction between the tire and the road are exceeded. I doubt many people in this forum drive an XC70 like it's a sports car, yet most believe that DSTC is a worthwhile option. You don't have to drive the XC aggressively to encounter conditions when tire traction becomes critical. If you need to suddenly swerve around a deer or a drunk driver, the better your tire, the better your chances of avoiding the obstacle and staying in control. Similarly, a wet corner, a poorly designed exit ramp with a decreasing radius of curvature, or an emergency stop on a wet road can quickly bring a tire to its limit of traction, regardless of the vehicle's suspension. Maybe such events are rare, but air bag deployment is also rare and yet we want air bags to protect us in those rare instances. Better to avoid an accident in the first place than rely on air bags.

I don't disagree with anyone who chooses to use the same tires year-round. Our lives tend to be too complicated with all the consumer products we buy, so the convenience of not changing tires has a lot going for it. And it is hard to know exactly what performance capability one gives up (if any) in buying the Nokian WRs without a quantitative comparison test between the Nokians and dedicated seasonal tires. So there are good reasons to consider the WRs. "The performance capabilities of the WRs exceeds the suspension dynamics of the XC" isn't one of them.

[gibbons]

So there are good reasons to consider the WRs. "The performance capabilities of the WRs exceeds the suspension dynamics of the XC" isn't one of them.

Many, many years ago we had a 79 Accord. I bought some Phoenix Stahlflex tires for it, thinking it would be fun to have really high performance tires on it. It actually made it scarey to drive, the new tires could cut in so much harder that it would body roll like crazy, and then oversteer. I had to buy swaybars for it to feel comfortable with my wife driving it. But that made it really fun to drive, so oh well. But I dunno, I just wouldn't want to start messing with the XC. It's not a 70R

[John@CdnRockies]

Well there you go! :p

Actually, it's one reason I've been avoiding skiing with john@canadianrockies -if he skis as aggressively as he drives his XC, I'm toast. :rolleyes:



Well, I'll be darned ... it's a good thing I keep the occasional lookout on activity on this board!:D

Mike (CBob) may possibly be referring to my having cracked my ski helmet and having to invest in more headgear. Then again, I returned last night from a 2,000 km marathon commute (Calgary/Pender Island & return) and am proud to report that no one passed me. And furthermore, the DSTC is a wonderful option that saved my backside at least twice on that weekend of driving joy.

Unfortunately, the improptu drive wound up deferring a planned switch to new Nokian's, so the old STR's were pressed into service again. No worries Mike, I'll get those mounted, jog over to Whistler and have a fine time with you on the hills in a couple of months.:eek:

John

[ChuckK]

Don't get me wrong, I'm quite satisfied with the tire change so far. Just feel a bit insecure when driving at over 60 mph....

Unless you rarely drive over 60 mph, which seems unlikely given today's highway speed limits, feeling "a bit insecure" while you're driving on the highway doesn't seem very compatible with being "quite satisfied." About a year or so ago, I posted the same quote you did from the Canadian magazine regarding the summer performance of the WRs. It's the reason I decided to choose tires that I thought would offer better performance. My Kumho HP4 and Michelin Pilot Alpin PA tires both perform very well, and so far I have managed not to spin out of control by imagining myself as an Indy 500 driver. (Of course, the XC70 is primarily my wife's car, and I save my delusions of grandeur for when I'm driving my WRX.)

I think the Pirelli STR tires you switched from are actually quite good performance tires. (My only objection to them was that they wandered badly on grooved highway pavement, as countless customers on tirerack.com have attested.) So it is not surprising that, after switching, you are seeing the same WR performance issue noted in the Canadian article. All tires are a compromise, so for the Nokians to perform reasonably well in the winter, have long life, and be runnable year-round they have to give up something. It is also possible that you are comparing Pirellis with little tread left to new Nokians with a lot of tread. Dry road adhesion and handling will be better with less tread. So your Nokians may handle better after their tread wears down. Or you may just gradually forget what the Pirellis felt like and get used to the Nokians.

[SYS]

Unless you rarely drive over 60 mph, which seems unlikely given today's highway speed limits, feeling "a bit insecure" while you're driving on the highway doesn't seem very compatible with being "quite satisfied."

No, they're very compatible. I feel very insecure riding in a high speed roller coaster with a great deal of satisfaction... :D Okay, bad analogy, I admit.... Seriously, I think it's a matter of getting used to the floaty feeling. At worst, doing high speed would only make me a more careful and alert driver.


I think the Pirelli STR tires you switched from are actually quite good performance tires. (My only objection to them was that they wandered badly on grooved highway pavement, as countless customers on tirerack.com have attested.)

Yes, they did wander quite a bit on grooved highway pavement. I initially thought it was something that I needed to take it into the service and have them look at the alignment. Glad that I didn't when someone pointed out that it could be grooved pavements that are causing the symptom.

My Pirelli is only used 6K, and I like them a lot enough to keep them as extra set of tires rather than selling them.

[ChuckK]

My Pirelli is only used 6K, and I like them a lot enough to keep them as extra set of tires rather than selling them.

Have you considered running the WRs in the winter and the Pirellis in warm weather until they wear out?

[gibbons]

I thought about that, but then why not just get dedicated winter tires instead of the WRs? Besides, in my opinion, for my tastes and driving conditions, the WRs have better ride comfort and noise levels compared to the STRs. I would have dreaded swapping the WRS for STRs for the summer.

[SYS]

Have you considered running the WRs in the winter and the Pirellis in warm weather until they wear out?

Yes, absolutely. That's another reason why I'm not selling the Pirelli's. It all depends on how I truly feel about WRs after using them long enough to know whether that "insecure" feeling in high speed will go away by getting used to the handling -- or not. Even if I do get used to the WR's handling, I'm keeping the Pirelli's. So called noise problem that many reported about Pirelli's doesn't bother me, so why get rid of them?

[d2gxc]

SYS: The so-called noise problem reported for the Pirelli's usually refers to the ST's that were shipped OEM with the 2001 (and possibly 2002?) models. The Pirelli's shipped with your 2004 would be the STR's which do not have the noise problem.

However, the handling between the STR's and the Nokian WR's is like night and day. While the noise levels may be comparable, you may find this difficult to adjust to. Ironically, the handling between the ST's and the Nokian's was much more comparable (although the noise levels were not!).

For what it's worth, my own feeling about the Nokian's is conveyed somewhat by CBOB's comments. Because they are an extremely low-friction tire, they basically go where you point them. If you take your hands off the wheel, good luck! As regards cornering, I follow the so-called European method, slow slightly approaching the bend, and accelerate through it. You, the car and the road will be as one. I did not get this feeling with the STR's, which preferred to keep going straight!

[SYS]

SYS: The so-called noise problem reported for the Pirelli's usually refers to the ST's that were shipped OEM with the 2001 (and possibly 2002?) models. The Pirelli's shipped with your 2004 would be the STR's which do not have the noise problem.

However, the handling between the STR's and the Nokian WR's is like night and day. While the noise levels may be comparable, you may find this difficult to adjust to. Ironically, the handling between the ST's and the Nokian's was much more comparable (although the noise levels were not!).

For what it's worth, my own feeling about the Nokian's is conveyed somewhat by CBOB's comments. Because they are an extremely low-friction tire, they basically go where you point them. If you take your hands off the wheel, good luck! As regards cornering, I follow the so-called European method, slow slightly approaching the bend, and accelerate through it. You, the car and the road will be as one. I did not get this feeling with the STR's, which preferred to keep going straight!

Thanks for pointing out the difference between the older ST's and the newer STR's. I wasn't aware of it. Learn something new everyday on this site!!

[SYS]

By the way, Gibbons mentioned on another thread on WR something about doing a VADIS calibration if the car is equipped with DSTC. For those with DSTC, like myself, does this mean we need to take the car to the dealer and have them calibrate upon changing the tires? What if I decided not to, would DSTC malfunction or not work at all or not work efficiently?

[cbob]

Ironically, the handling between the ST's and the Nokian's was much more comparable (although the noise levels were not!).

I have not found the handling characteristics of the WR to be favourably comparable to my former Scorpion ST boots. They are much quieter though. :D



For what it's worth, my own feeling about the Nokian's is conveyed somewhat by CBOB's comments. Because they are an extremely low-friction tire, they basically go where you point them. If you take your hands off the wheel, good luck!

I'm not convinced that they are a particularly "low friction" tire either. Tests that I did when I first bought my XC with the ST tires showed that the Volvo (true to its name) had much less resistance to movement than my previous vehicles.
It rolls!
Letting the car run down the same hills, with the throttle closed and starting from the same speed has shown that if anything, the WR tires hold the vehicle back a bit from what I'm used to. But they do it quietly. :D
The tendency to go straight in a curve unless you point it in has less to do with the tires, than with the normal understeer characteristics of the basically front-wheel-drive car. You do need to turn the wheel and apply some pedal to get the vehicle smartly nto a corner, and with the rear wheel drive liable to kick in, and DTCS working if you have it, critical oversteer is 'almost' impossible.

[SYS]

By the way, Gibbons mentioned on another thread on WR something about doing a VADIS calibration if the car is equipped with DSTC. For those with DSTC, like myself, does this mean we need to take the car to the dealer and have them calibrate upon changing the tires? What if I decided not to, would DSTC malfunction or not work at all or not work efficiently?

Gibbons, or anyone with the answers?

[John@CdnRockies]

Gibbons, or anyone with the answers?

SYS, I just swapped out the STR's for winter Nokians and put 1,300 kms on the car. I tried a couple of corners with considerable gusto (no other cars around) and my DSTC continues to work fine. Didn't really notice any difference in terms of how the DSTC kicked-in when needed.

This is by no means scientific, but my perception is that DSTC is still faithfully doing its job to correct my errors.:o

John

[Art]

Here's what All Data says about DSTC and wheel alignments.


Note: When working on the steering or wheel alignment on cars with DSTC, the adaptation of the steering wheel angle must be set to zero using VADIS

John,

I look forward to an updated report on how the WR's perform in our frigid Alberta winters. :)

[gibbons]

As Art pointed out, the VADIS recalibration is only required with an alignment, not tires. Sorry for my unclear previous post.

[SYS]

Thanks, guys. Sounds like a VADIS calibration is ONLY needed when wheel alignment is being done, NOT when merely changing tires.

[cbob]

I tried a couple of corners with considerable gusto (no other cars around) and my DSTC continues to work fine.
John

How could you tell, John?
Were the rear brakes smokin'? :D :D

(Inside joke) :eek: