I hate to bring up tires again......

[Maine_XC]

but I am really torn on what to do here. I am not a big Pirelli fan, and the S/T's on my 02 XC70 need replacing. There is some dry rot looking cracking on the sidewall and man are they noisy! I would really like to get what consensus says is the best and get the Nokian WR's ($650 installed), but I have a few issues with that purchase. First of all, the money! Second of all, I have read that the 235/60s are a better ride because they're in the passenger catergory versus the stock size 215/65 in the SUV category. Well, in Maine, most reputable garages (incl dealerships) can not put an inspection sticker on a vehicle if the tires don't match the sticker on the door panel. So it's a gamble, some garages might not care, some might.

I can get the S/Ts for around $150 cheaper ($500 installed), but haven't found anyone that has STRs in stock. Should I hunt around for the STRs, my understanding is they are a quieter ride.

And a few other wild cards....I have had real good luch with BFG Traction T/As on my old V70 T5, again the size issue comes into play there. And the cheapest option I have found is a set of leftover Kumho HP4s, which are out of production now. Anyone have experience with the HP4s?

I'm in Maine, and would like an all-season to avoid the snow tire scene. I know, WRs are the way to go....BUT THE TIRE SIZE ISSUE! ARGGGGH! HELP!

[Willy]

As to the title:
Tires are (or should be) top priority), together with brakes and suspension they are (among) the most important parts of the car and therefore, tires are worthy of some of our attention, to say the least.
Although I am not a proponent of all season tires (I believe that no all season tire can match seperate summer and winter tires), I also understand the laws of economics :) (however, the extra cost of 2 sets of tires is not excessive).
Concerning size, I think you should keep in mind that a wider tire is worse on water/snow.
Willy

[Ron N]

John,
The best price I have been able to find in my area (Nashua NH) was $600 for a set of four Nokians (235/60). The dealer is Maynard-Lesieur. I have not had any problems regarding vehicle inspection regulations with these tires. NH has as strict rules (if not worse) than Maine. I am on my second set of Nokians and have not had any issues with travelling in the snow.

Ron

[maine xc]

I don't have anything to add about the tires, but I guess i need to choose another name..... I guess its a matter of uppercase vs lowercase.

[Maine_XC]

sorry maine_xc, unintentional of course. You got here first, so let me see if I can change my screen name. I guess we're just both proud to be Maine-ahs and of our XC!

[Prepo]

As to the title:
Tires are (or should be) top priority), together with brakes and suspension they are (among) the most important parts of the car and therefore, tires are worthy of some of our attention, to say the least.
Although I am not a proponent of all season tires (I believe that no all season tire can match seperate summer and winter tires), I also understand the laws of economics :) (however, the extra cost of 2 sets of tires is not excessive).
Concerning size, I think you should keep in mind that a wider tire is worse on water/snow.
Willy

I have heard all the arguments about wide vs. narow in snow. but I can say without doubt that the Nokian 235 mm profile is great in snow and rain - that is why they are very correctly designated as an all weather tire.

Returning to the original question, I am a little puzzled. I don't believe that the tire size is shown on my car. In any case, Volvo now permits different XC wheel options which can also be purchased as replacements from the dealer. Are you saying that the dealer would then put on a sticker to signify a change from 16" to 17" rims which would involve a different aspect ratio for the required new tire than the OEM? I think not but, by your reasoning, the legitimate new wheels would not pass the Maine test. I think that you may want to check the Maine regulations again just in case you are under a misapprehension.

[ChuckK]

I can get the S/Ts for around $150 cheaper ($500 installed), but haven't found anyone that has STRs in stock. Should I hunt around for the STRs, my understanding is they are a quieter ride.

And the cheapest option I have found is a set of leftover Kumho HP4s, which are out of production now. Anyone have experience with the HP4s?

I'm in Maine, and would like an all-season to avoid the snow tire scene. I know, WRs are the way to go....BUT THE TIRE SIZE ISSUE! ARGGGGH! HELP!
I use HP4s. Kumho makes excellent tires. But they definitely are only fair in the snow. I went through a summer and winter with them in the Denver area and this winter decided to put on winter tires (Michelin Pilot Alpins, which are great). So I probably would not recommend you run HP4s all year-round in Maine.

Tire size should not be an issue with the Nokians, as has been pointed out on this forum. Nokians are quite expensive and I don't feel they will perform (i.e., handle) as well in the summer as good all-seasons. But in a snowy climate, not having to change out tires is a significant convenience.

[Prepo]

I use HP4s. Kumho makes excellent tires. But they definitely are only fair in the snow. I went through a summer and winter with them in the Denver area and this winter decided to put on winter tires (Michelin Pilot Alpins, which are great). So I probably would not recommend you run HP4s all year-round in Maine.

Tire size should not be an issue with the Nokians, as has been pointed out on this forum. Nokians are quite expensive and I don't feel they will perform (i.e., handle) as well in the summer as good all-seasons. But in a snowy climate, not having to change out tires is a significant convenience.

With respect, you are saying that the Nokians will not perform as well as (good) A/S in the summer with, I suspect, no experience or evidence to back this up. I beg to differ. The Michelin Pilot Sport A/S is about as premium an A/S that you can get in XC sizes and I can tell you from my experience that the Nokian WR is its equal in the summer in performance and quietness. I am afraid that speculation about this new generation of all weather tire is not convincing without solid evidenc.e

[KCsXC]

I have had firsdt hand expierience with the Nokian WR's. I too was not happy with the Pirelli ST and when it was time for new skins at 60,000 kms I went with the Nokians. I first thing I noticed was the are definately looser in the corners on dry pavement. Rain there is no difference and in snow the Nokians by far are indeed better. Ice (freezing rain) they both seem the same. Living in Canada and after installing actual winter tires on my wifes Subaru I would strongly recommend if you were worried about witner driving to have a set of dedicated winter tires. They out perform hands down. With a recent coil spring breakage taking out my front tire I am forced to buy a new set. I have decided to go back to the Pirellis and if next winter is a real problem I will invest in actual winter tires. Interesting thng I found out about the Nokians when I went to get a quote. They no longer make the 215/65 R16 98H rated tires, they have upgraded that size to 215/65 R16 98V rated which I can only assume that they had issues with side walls. If you do decide to buy Nokians make sure they have the new rating 98V you will be much happier.

Casey.

[Prepo]

I have had firsdt hand expierience with the Nokian WR's. I too was not happy with the Pirelli ST and when it was time for new skins at 60,000 kms I went with the Nokians. I first thing I noticed was the are definately looser in the corners on dry pavement. Rain there is no difference and in snow the Nokians by far are indeed better. Ice (freezing rain) they both seem the same. Living in Canada and after installing actual winter tires on my wifes Subaru I would strongly recommend if you were worried about witner driving to have a set of dedicated winter tires. They out perform hands down. With a recent coil spring breakage taking out my front tire I am forced to buy a new set. I have decided to go back to the Pirellis and if next winter is a real problem I will invest in actual winter tires. Interesting thng I found out about the Nokians when I went to get a quote. They no longer make the 215/65 R16 98H rated tires, they have upgraded that size to 215/65 R16 98V rated which I can only assume that they had issues with side walls. If you do decide to buy Nokians make sure they have the new rating 98V you will be much happier.

Casey.

It sounds like you had 215/65 R16 rather than the 235/60 R16 which has been more recommended on this forum. Do I understand you correctly? If so, this might explain your reservations. Going back to OEM does seem retrogessive in terms of noise and performance, even for the summer.

[Willy]

Hi Prepo,
I understand your reasoning, but no matter how good a given tire, wider will still give a larger ground patch and is therefore less penetrating (eg take a look the tires of cars during a winter rally).
I can recommend the tire (very thorough) tests conducted by the German Adac at http://www.adac.de/Tests/Reifentests/default.asp?ComponentID=4772&SourcePageID=70159
Willy

[Willy]

Just for the fun of it, take a look at this video. It is not about winter versus all season, but about winter versus summer tires:
http://www.anwb.nl/published/anwbcms/content/pagina/auto/tests/winterbanden-2005-test-entree.nl.html
Click on the text (under the picture of the XC90) next to the video logo to see it: Video remproef op sneeuw met winterbanden en zomerbanden (1.2 mB)
Willy

[Prepo]

Hi Prepo,
I understand your reasoning, but no matter how good a given tire, wider will still give a larger ground patch and is therefore less penetrating (eg take a look the tires of cars during a winter rally).
I can recommend the tire (very thorough) tests conducted by the German Adac at http://www.adac.de/Tests/Reifentests/default.asp?ComponentID=4772&SourcePageID=70159
Willy
It is not as simple as that. A narrower ground patch may give more penetration but there is then less tread to give traction. For example, a tire of bicycle tire width would penetrate OK but be pretty bad for traction on the XC. The trade off is different for each tire. The Nokian WR has excellent smow grip per unit of width and, in my experience, does very well in deep snow in Canada. (I am sorry that I don't understand the German article.)

[Willy]

You are right, tires are not a simple matter (hence the many and long threads I suppose :))
I am sorry about the German language, and I don't have the courage to translate it all :o
The matter of specific conditions is ideed very important, so it is perfectly possible that a given tire is best for what you need it most. This is why the german tests are so good, they list the qualities of all the tested tires according to their behavior on snow, ice, rain, etc. They also include figures for noise, wear, etc. This means that you can choose the best tire for the conditions you meet most.
There are other factors as well in choosing tires, not in the least personal preference and perhaps most of all the ability of the driver to make a good estimate of the conditions and the limits of his vehicle.
Willy

[Maine_XC]

well, despite what others say, I've tried a handful of garages and they are adament that I need to stick to the stock tire size in order to get an inspection sticker. And I'm not hearing great things about the stiffer ride from the Nokian WR SUV tire in the stock size....

so what's the big difference between the ST and STR Pirelli's, because that's what I'm leaning towards.

[dlr97]

well, despite what others say, I've tried a handful of garages and they are adament that I need to stick to the stock tire size in order to get an inspection sticker. And I'm not hearing great things about the stiffer ride from the Nokian WR SUV tire in the stock size....

so what's the big difference between the ST and STR Pirelli's, because that's what I'm leaning towards.

See the Tire Rack (www.tirerack.com (http://www.tirerack.com)) for discussion of these two Pirelli tires.

If there is a law like this in your state, I suggest writing your legislator. It is absurd to require exactly the same DIMENSION tire that is OEM. There are many tires of dimensionally similar size but equal or greater load index or rating. I could see requiring an equal or higher load index, but not exactly equal dimensions. The Pirelli STR tires have a load index of 98 in size 215/65-16, and a load index of 100 in 235/60-16. The later tire will have a safer full-load margin than the former. The speed rating (V for 215's vs H for 235) is irrelevant for US road driving, especially since your XC has a speed limiter built-in.

I'm thinking of going with a 97 load index replacement with a bit better handling and snow traction, the ContiExtremeContact in 225/60-16 (97V). Seems to get good reviews. I'll run these at 35-40 psi to take care of the slightly lower load index. Fortunately I have a choice.

Dave

[Prepo]

well, despite what others say, I've tried a handful of garages and they are adament that I need to stick to the stock tire size in order to get an inspection sticker. And I'm not hearing great things about the stiffer ride from the Nokian WR SUV tire in the stock size....

so what's the big difference between the ST and STR Pirelli's, because that's what I'm leaning towards.

And what do the garages say if you had gone to your Volvo dealer and changed from OEM 16" wheels to OEM 17 " wheels with a necessarily different profile tire. If you can't pass the test with these then official Volvo options will be ilegal in Maine! This is all very strange to me.

[BillAileo]

I tried to Google Maine laws & regs. The only apparently relevant thing I ran across was a restriction that stated if the wheel diameter is changed the resulting total diameter of the changed wheels and tires must be within the manufacturer's specifications for the vehicle.....

Bill

[Prepo]

I tried to Google Maine laws & regs. The only apparently relevant thing I ran across was a restriction that stated if the wheel diameter is changed the resulting total diameter of the changed wheels and tires must be within the manufacturer's specifications for the vehicle.....

Bill

The 235-60 R16 gives the same diameter as the original 225-65 R16 (27.1" if my memory serves me correctl and therefore meets what you read.

[ChuckK]

With respect, you are saying that the Nokians will not perform as well as (good) A/S in the summer with, I suspect, no experience or evidence to back this up. I beg to differ. The Michelin Pilot Sport A/S is about as premium an A/S that you can get in XC sizes and I can tell you from my experience that the Nokian WR is its equal in the summer in performance and quietness. I am afraid that speculation about this new generation of all weather tire is not convincing without solid evidenc.e
The excerpts below are from a review of Nokian WR tires that appeared in Canadian Driver. Regarding your statement about the Michelins, I've driven my WRX on 3 different sets of tires--Bridgestone Potenzas, Dunlop SP 5000s, and the most recent set of Michelin Pilot Sport A/S. The Pilot Sport A/S is the highest performance tire I've ever experienced in 40 years of driving that have included many expensive tire brands on BMWs, a Mazda RX7, and numerous other vehicles. On several occasions on windy, remote roads, I've pushed the WRX to its limits of cornering (which are impressive, to say the least) to the point where all four tires would begin to slide out uniformly, and the Michelins were absolutely superb. About a year ago, someone suddenly pulled into my lane from a side street and I had to make an extreme emergency high-speed lane change. The WRX on those tires didn't give even a hint of fishtailing. Your claim that a tire designed to excel in the snow performs as well on dry roads as a tire properly classified by tire rack as "ultra-high-performance" could hardly be more at odds with my experience. I have also pasted below an excerpt from the Canadian Driver review of the Michelin Pilot Sport A/S.

Excerpts from Nokian WR review in Canadian Driver:

"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."

"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."

"So the WR hasn't broken any rules: it's still a compromise. But its priorities have been shuffled compared with most all season tires: winter and wet traction are most important, and dry performance, while good, is clearly not the WR's forte."

Excerpt from Michelin Pilot Sport A/S review in Canadian Driver:

"The Pilot Sport A/S makes my car capable of things it could never do with more humble all-seasons. Grip on dry roads is phenomenal. Even when cornering on rough roads that unsettle the car, the tires seem to grab hold of the road every chance they get in an effort to keep the car planted. When it's time to give up their grip, the A/S tires do so with appropriate audible warning before resigning to the laws of physics. Breakaway is progressive and controlled."

[d2gxc]

ChuckK,

Yes, well, we've all read that review. It's, what, now nearly 3 years old? It's not even clear whether he tested the SUV version or the Passenger version. Who knows what size he tested, and who cares what car he used. As gibbons has pointed out before, it's a question of what what goes well together, and the Nokian Passenger 235's and the XC are a darned good fit.

I drive in Southern California, in what is basically summer conditions year round, and I'm now on my second set of these tires, and I have no plans to ever go back to anything else.

As regards which is better between the ST's and the STR's, to my mind its pretty simple. If you want a tire that's actually quite a good fit for the car, will allow you to go off road, but is as noisy as hell, stick with the ST. If you want a tire that's a lot quieter, wears out a lot quicker, and basically makes the car a misery to drive, switch to the STR. If you want something more reasonable choose another brand. Not that I have a stong opinion about this, of course...

[ChuckK]

ChuckK,
Yes, well, we've all read that review. It's, what, now nearly 3 years old? It's not even clear whether he tested the SUV version or the Passenger version.
I'm not sure what the age of the review has to do with it, unless the Nokian WR tire model has been significantly changed since that review, and there are plenty of photos of the tire in that article that should allow you to determine that (http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/hl/nokian.htm). The review indicates they were tested on a Volkswagen Jetta, so it doesn't seem likely that they would have tested the SUV version of the tire. You will note in my original posting that I did not have the audacity to recommend against buying the Nokian WR. (Heaven forbid I should do that in this forum, where some members apppear to take product devotion regarding that tire to an extreme.) On the contrary, I said that using the same tire year-round in a cold weather climate is a significant convenience.

However, I happen to agree with the reviewer that every product involves compromises and the Nokian WR is no exception. It is an excellent (albeit very expensive) all-season tire that has been designed to emphasize winter performance over summer performance. And as long as one prefers all-seasons to dedicated winter tires (the reviewer prefers the latter) and cares less about dry road performance than behavior in the snow, it is a good choice. One can certainly adopt Gibbons' argument that hey, the XC70 is just a station wagon, so dry road performance doesn't matter very much. I happen to believe that any vehicle will perform noticeably better, especially in an emergency maneuver, with higher-performance tires. (As Consumer Reports points out in their latest issue, carmakers these days are using expensive high-performance tires as an easy way to make their cars perform better. Volvo is no exception with their choice of the Pirellis on the XC70.) You are perfectly free to choose the Nokian WRs in southern California, just as I have a right to express my opinion that there are better choices for that.

Regarding the Pirelli STRs, I replaced them with Kumhos because of their poor tread life, as you experienced, and their extreme tramlining on grooved pavement, which I felt was unacceptable. However, I found they were otherwise quite high-performing tires.

[Willy]

I would find it kind of strange that anyone would not care about dry road performance. If not for accelerating or cornering, it is still of major importance while braking (braking isalso something where AWD does'nt have any advantage over 2WD).
While re-reading a reply of Prepo, I do find the comparison of car tire performance and bicycle wheels somewhat farfetced as an argument that smaller tires would not be better that wide ones in winter conditions.
Willy

[d2gxc]

Aw, Chuckk, what in the whole of my post would lead you to possible believe that a) I knew what the heck I was talking about, and b) that I expected to be taken seriously. I was just letting of a little steam. Sorry if you felt you got burned!

There may well be objective standards for measuring the performance of one tire over another, and yes, Willy, of course we care about dry road performance, why else would I share my experiences of driving in California.

The question in my mind is what is a reasonable compromise between the best possible performance which MAY give you a better chance of avoiding a serious accident in an emergencey, and having tires that give you good performance and a high degree of safety yet make the driving experience pleasurable.

The STR may well have been a better performance tire than the Nokians in dry weather. My reason for not replacing them was not so much of the wear, but because they did not make driving the car enjoyable given the distances we drive and the type of roads we drive on. For me, the Nokians give me a compromise which I find acceptable. As I said, there are, I'm sure several other tires that others will find just as good or better.

Finally, if manufacturers are putting high performance tires on their vehicles, it may well be because, firstly, it is a selling feature and secondly, they want to defend themselves against lawsuits from people who choose to drive their station wagons as if they are sports cars.

[Willy]

Just wondering: how do the STR's perform under dry hot conditions (I never had these tires, I didn't like them (on first impression) when I made a test drive proir to ordering the car, I had it delivered on other (Pirelli) tires without extra cost. Hot weather is another condition not or very seldom experienced in Belgium)
Willy

[Prepo]

I would find it kind of strange that anyone would not care about dry road performance. If not for accelerating or cornering, it is still of major importance while braking (braking isalso something where AWD does'nt have any advantage over 2WD).
While re-reading a reply of Prepo, I do find the comparison of car tire performance and bicycle wheels somewhat farfetced as an argument that smaller tires would not be better that wide ones in winter conditions.
Willy

Well, Willy, as an engineer I don't find it farfetched to bracket performance by obvious limits. Somewhere between a very narrow (cycle) tire and a monster truck tire will be one width that will give optimum grip in deep snow for a given vehicle. There are obviously many variables including depth and texture of snow, depth and design of the tire tread, snow shedding capability of the tread, diameter of wheel (affecting the area of contact), width of the tread, tire pressure, vehicle weight, limited slip capability of the transmission, speed of the car, and no doubt other factors. There is no reason to assume that the original OEM tire width of 225 mm of the XC is exactly the optimum width for the variables as they apply to the XC traction in deep snow. It is therefore not possible to claim that going to a narrower tire or maintaining the original width will be superior than the 235 mm width for this specific car without tests in engineering controlled conditions.

I am afraid that ChuckK is finding some of the opinions on the Nokians overly defensive. At the risk of bothering him more, I do find his reliance on the Jetta tests, with respect, not authoratative. What works well for one car with weight, tire profile, tire pressure, contact area, suspension design etc. may not apply equally well for another car and the characterisitics of the Jetta vs. the XC are rather different. There also seems to be an assumption that the All Weather tire simply exaggerates the winter performance at the expense of the summer performance. This may be generally true for the All Season Tire but the Nokian tire in question seems to be unique so far in formulating a structure which provides high speed summer performance and superior winter performance. No one is saying that a true summer tire (if it is high quality) will not have the potential for better summer performance. But the Nokian seems to retain the summer performance of a high quality A/S tire while improving on winter performance sufficient to have a winter driving classification. If it were just an easy tradeoff, other manufacturers would have replicated the performance. Apparently none have.

I am sorry if this makes me a fanatic for ChuckK- but my experience is not academic or hearsay from reports but the result of my third set of tires before settling on the best on the XC. I don't care what would be the best tire on a Jetta.

Did I read correctly above that Volvo puts on the best tires to exaggerate the performance. Now, that could certainly be disputed but I will let that pass.

There, I've had my say and that's it for this thread!

[tenmiler]

nokian wr's in breckenridge colorado = no sliding around like the pirellies. 235/60 r17

worth every extra penny hands down. i use the pirellis as my summer tire, but the nokians rock on dry weather too.

lastly, i avoid large stacks of cardboard boxes.

[airprakken]

I find the STR's on the new XC to be much better than expected given all of the comments here. Only 1000 miles so far, however.

I have Nokian WR's on my 06 WRX 215/45V17. I bought them primarily for the rain performance with plans for occasional snow (when driving in the mountains). I have taken them quite a lot off pavement into gravel, dirt/mud, with occasional snow. They "feel" looser (more wiggle / squirm) than the OEM tires (Bridgesone Potenza RE92) on dry pavement but are a huge amount better on anything else. I plan to get a pair of 15" wheels for gravel/rallyx and probably will put Nokians on those too.

Here are my key points about Nokians:

#1 - Try higher pressure. Nokians need to be run at high pressure because the sidewalls are not stiff. I run 40F/38R on the WRX and plan (based upon other recommendations) to try as high as 45. At 36 they were much worse.

#2 - They are highly predictable. I can take corners on very wet pavement with Nokians as fast as the RE92's on the dry. They are the most predictable tires I have ever experienced. As they start to slide, the feeling of control is complete. As one might suspect, this is under conditions well beyond what an XC70 could ever hope for.

So, my current thought is that the published reviews of Nokians are limited to superficial "feel" and without trying higher pressure. I plan to move to them before next winter and I believe they will not limit the XC70. If I had not taken the Nokians off pavement already on the WRX, that would have been my biggest concern.