Nokian WR 235/60-16 update

[gibbons]

Yeah, the WRs have the snowflake in a mountain sihlouette designation, they are great snow/ice tires. But I have been wondering (nervous) about what they would do when the temperatures warmed up. Would they turn into gumbies?

We hit 85f today, and they were absolutely fine. In fact, I can't tell any difference in their handling and personality from when it was 20f. The tire sidewalls only heated up to 111f (after sustained running at 70 mph, 32 psi)) but there was no squealing on turns, mushy response, nothing detectable in normal driving. Maybe in a G-pad test something might show up, but for normal spirited driving, they are still great. I would say that their performance capabilities exceed that of the suspension dynamics of these high center-of-gravity wagons. That's a personal opinion, YMMV.

Remember, these are 235/60's, not XC specification size 215/65's. I had the 215 WRs which were "SUV" designation, and thought they were too rough riding. I love these 235 tires: smooth, quiet, excellent traction in all conditions, and really cool looking. How amazing. Heck, I would buy these tires even if they never saw snow.

My next report will come at 100f, probably in July. I highly doubt that their characteristics will fall off a cliff in the next 15 degrees, but we will see.

[TrueBlue]

Thanks Gibbons,

This kind of research is so useful to other members - and of interest for those who probably won't have need (no snow) for "extreme " boots.

Keep 'em coming!

[Big Al]

Gibbons:  Thanks for the update.  I'm still steaming along on the worn out Scorpians and going deaf in my left ear with all the road noise.  Hoping to get a few more miles out of them and then will try the Nokian 235's later this year before the snow flies again.
All the best, Big Al. http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/thumbs-up.gif

[gibbons]

Big Al, when you do get them, you will say, "man, I shoulda just chucked the Scorps earlier!"  http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[reeder]

I recently (3 weeks ago) had the Nokian 235s put on our '01 and they are oustanding. What a difference! We've had a lot of rain recently in the Detroit area. The feel on dry and wet pavement is great.

Funny note: The tech who put the tires on wanted to know why I was putting snow tires on in May.

The road noise is gone but now my wife noticed a clunking noise from the front end. I have driven the car and noticed it also! It is annoying now that the tire noise is gone.

Is there a forum discussing control arms, sway bars? covered under warranty?

I don't want to muddy this forum. i look forward to the updates from Gibbons.

[Raynald]

Welcome to the site reeder!  http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif  http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/thumbs-up.gif

About sway bars and/or stabilizer bars, simply search the site using these words. You'll find plenty!

[wiz]

These tires are 20mm wider than the width on the standard Scorpions. Do they rub at full lock on the front wheels?

[gibbons]

Wiz, Nokians are typically narrow for their stated width. So, in practical application, measured with the giant caliper I bought just to check it out for myself, I found that the 235/60 WRs measure 9.4" at the widest part of the body, and the 215/65 Scorpion STRs measure 9.0". So, the 235 WR is actually only .2" (5mm) wider on each side. In fact, 215/65 WRs I tried were only 8.7" wide, they looked funny on the 7" rims.

The weather is up to 90 degrees now, and I still have noticed no heat induced personality change in these tires that are the best snow/ice tires I have used. I have Hakka Q's for our Subaru, and Hakka LTs for our truck. They turn to jelly at about 50 degrees. When the Hakka's and Potenza's (winter/summer sets) wear out on the Subaru, I will run WRs year round on it.

[wiz]

Very interesting, gibbons. Thanks for the highly informative feedback. One or two other members purchased the original Nokian WR that had a light truck or SUV designation, and they reported that the ride quality was a bit on the rough side.

Looks like this passenger version is the tire to get!

[1Lieutenant]

I have been using the WRs for the past two seasons with excellent results. MUCH better cornering hot or cold. MUCH less tire noise and rumble than from the standard Scorpions. Wear has been minimal in 22K miles (about 1/3). Winter traction is excellent. That about sums it up. BTW I rotate the tires at 7.5K.

Steve

[gibbons]

It was 90 degrees today, and I drove the XC up Utah's Logan Canyon, speed limit 35 mph (indicative of the twisty turns). The body roll on the XC gave me the willies before I heard any complaints from the tires. No squeal, no drift, no mushiness. And when winter comes, the WR 235's could do the same thing up the canyon on ice! Well, almost :)

What else can I say? Except for my wife has curbed the 235/60's a couple of times. With the extra tire body width, the wheels never touched the curb. The WR 215/65 sidewalls (remember, I have had both on this car) were about flush with the lip of the wheel. The wheels would have been toast by now with the 215's.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. I rotated them at 3500 miles to get a good look at the what was going on. I had been running 32 PSI, and noticed a tiny bit of wear on the center of the tread. I have dropped them to 30 PSI and didn't notice any handling differences.

For an XC, I can not think of a reason to not use these tires (in 235 size). And again, no, I have no affiliation with Nokian.

[wiz]

Interesting about the wear. Jason (Hiro's XC) had the earlier version of the WRs on his XC, and he said that you needed to rotate at 5K miles because of wear issues. I think he used to run those tires pretty hard.

I run my OEM Scorpion STs at 33psi and the tires look great with very little wear. I'm at 16.5K miles on my car.

[tgrumaj]

I have read with envy the conversation going on about the 16" Nokian WRs as replacement tires. I am within 10K of replacing the Continental ContiTouring tires on my 1999XC. I'd like to attempt this "upgrade" and would appreciate advice on doing this with the 99 15" rim. The std size for my XC is 205/65/R15 and Nokian does make that size. But to "mimic" what gibbons did would I need to move to a 225/60/R15? Difference is about .8 in width. Has anyone done this with the 98-2000 XC using Nokians? Any issues or problems?

[gibbons]

Wiz- That tiny bit of wear was measured with a digital micrometer. The Nokian guy said I probably wouldn't get 60K out of them. I was surprised and I told him I would be happy with 30K. He said probably more like 50K. That's like 4 years of driving for me, and the cost per year for tires isn't much compared to the cost of the vehicle. I will probably chuck them way before the wear-bar indicators, and go with a new fresh set for the deepest tread depth. If I got 40K with decent tread depth, that would be more than any other tire I have owned. I could go through a set of rear tires on my Chevelle in a few minutes :)

tgrumag- Just make sure you get the "passenger" version indicated by a "P" before the size designation. After having had the SUV version, I can't recommend them because of their stout ride.

[wiz]

... stout ride - I like that one! :D

50K sounds good to me. You presumably had the Scorpion STRs as OEM on your car, I have the earlier STs on mine. So far only 16.5K miles on the car and I'm not wild about the tires but I will keep them for a while.

You must have really hated the OEM tires to change them so soon. What was the biggest factor?

[gibbons]

Wiz- I am used to Hakka Qs and Hakka LTs on slick roads. I pretty much demand the best traction I can buy. My wife told me that I couldn't put Nokians on the XC because of how much we had just spent on it. But then one day she took it on slick roads. She called me from the car and said, "these tires suck!" That was the green light for Nokians. Sort of. I couldn't afford another set of Volvo wheels, and learned about the WRs. So I tried them risk free with the Nokian 30 satisfaction guarantee. Wahoo! I excercised the guarantee to go to the 235s from the 215s.

The 235 WRs are simply superior to the STRs on slick roads. They are smoother and quieter. Not that it matters to everyone, but the tread looks really cool, too.

Elsewhere in the forum I have posted my observations of their traction and characteristics compared to the Hakka Qs on our Subaru. Ya know, I think the WRs are better traction. But that's just my opinion. If I'm happy, hey, I'm happy, too :)

Anyone tired of me raving about WRs yet? Tell me when to shut up.

[Raynald]

(...) If I'm happy, hey, I'm happy, too :)
Anyone tired of me raving about WRs yet? Tell me when to shut up.Hey, I'm sure nobody would complain for earing good news! Be my guest and go on! :cool:
Today wasn't my day. So I found your positive comments.. well.. most uplifing!

[wiz]

gibbons - the STs have a pretty good grip - I don't have a problem with that aspect, but they are horribly noisy, and appear to be getting worse. I think I've read reports on this forum that they do get noisier as they get older.

The other thing is that they provide what one forum member described as a "billowy" ride. Quickly changing lanes at speed on a highway is an interesting experience... :eek:

[John@CdnRockies]

Well the fun has started and I haven't even taken delivery yet. I asked to swap-out (at my cost) the stock tires with Nokian's as per Gibbon's messages.

Volvo's response: "Those tires are too wide sir, they will scrape the wheel wells and we would have to get them from another supplier".
Me - "Perhaps, but I've read on bulletin boards that this is not the case and they are more appropriate".
Volvo - "We have checked with our service department and they strongly recommend you NOT do this as they are 20 mm wider. However, we have these Guslaf's with steel rims for only $1,200 ..."
Me - "Sigh, forget it".

So much for my first encounter with Volvo.

[wiz]

They are trying to flog you a set of Gislaved winters on steel rims. They probably think the WR is a winter tire. :rolleyes:

If you get no joy from the dealership, you could make an arrangement with a wheel shop in your area to drive over at car pick-up from the dealer and get the tires swapped there. You pre-order the Nokians from the 'net so they have them, they get "new" Pirellis in trade and reimburse you + $$$ for the install/balancing. It might work... :)

[gibbons]

John, I don't know if you remember any of my last posts, I am the guy who won't use aftermarket wheels because the offset is off a couple of millimeters from the factory wheel specifications. I am that picky about my equipment. But in this case, the width is equally added to the centerline of the wheel, so the net effect on the suspension and turning radii is zero.

I like to check everything out, that's why I bought the caliper to measure tire widths. All the data I list is pretty darn accurate. Part of my check out was checking clearances with the 235s. Don't try this at home, but with the engine running in park, and the emergency brake on, I rolled close along side the front wheels on both sides on my creeper. I had my son crank the steering wheel full lock both directions (you get more angle with the power steering pump energized by the engine), and felt around the inside of the wheel wells. Actually, the closest clearances are out at the tread radius, not at the mid sidewall where the tire is widest. The tightest fit is full cranked, trailing edge of the tire, against the inner fender panel. I can still put my hand between tire and the panel. That is, palm on tire, back of hand towards panel. What's that, an 1.25" or so? Quick, where's my caliper.... And that's with the steering wheel turned against the stops, something I never do while driving. There is tons of clearance everywhere on the rear wheels.

Remember, I only tried this with 235/60-16 WRs. I don't know how another tire would work. Being a snow tire nut, I have had a few. I had some Gislaved Frost years ago. And some Continental Contacts (when Contact meant snow tire). Nothing compares to these new generation tires.

[John@CdnRockies]

Gibbons, I trust you a lot more than the Volvo dealer. I was interested in doing the trade as one of my original concerns in testing vehicles (think I posted it back in Jan 04) was excessive tire noise on the XC70.

I tried Wiz's suggestion to find a take-back tire store but without luck. One interesting note: Kal-O-Tire sells 4 Nokian's installed for C$850 while the dealer was charging C$1,100 - a 25% difference. I think that about says it all!

Looks like I am stuck with a dealer with some very sharp customer service practices. I will take the STR's and then move to Nokian's at the first avalable opportunity - most certainly for this winter. In the meantime, I will keep a wary eye for other untoward experiences with these folks.

[wiz]

With respect to the tire width, another member has recently fitted a set of 235/60-16R Falkens to his car. Given gibbons' comment a few posts ago that the Nokians run a wee bit narrow, I think you are on safe ground on the width issue... :)

[hrd_rok]

Many interesting comments here on Nokians as ST/R replacments

more tires... more money...

12 months and 35k and my st's are done, I was going to try and push them through the summer, but it is doubtful.... i don't think they can handle the heat.

for those extolling the virtues of Nokian WR (are these the A-W-P designation?),

if you were buying a 3 season (mostly dry + hot summers +30c) tire for the xc, would you still buy the nokian WR's?

If not, any other preferred choices.

I've got a set of snows (scorpian ice) on winter rims, so the snowflake designation is not all that critical as these tires will be coming off for the NOV15 - APR15 period.

I know that volvo wil try to flog the STR's if my tires are still on @ next service


fyi found a review at
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/hl/nokian.htm

[XC70Viking]

Hi.

I also have STR's for summer and another set for winter (Nokian Hakka Q). My replacement for the STR's will be Nokian NRV. They beat the STR's in a test I read on most category's, except offroad capabilities. Since I drive 99% on normal roads I don't really mind, since NRV's is more silent:cool:

For the record tires tested was:

Nokian NRV 8.9p
Pirelli Scorpion STR 8.2p
Continental 4x4 Contact 7.9p
Goodyear Wrangler 7.8p
Michelin 4x4 Synchrone 7.8p
BF Goodrich Macadam 7.6p
The points behind each brand is average points out of 10 maximum achieved in each test done. Test was done with people from carmagazine in Finland, Sweden and Norway.

Just my thought's on replacement for the STR's.

[emil]

I had NRVs for one summer season. They were fine except that they were prone to lateral drift on sloped roads. As are Dunlop sp sport 9000 235/55/17 which I put on this spring. Handling is MUCH better with Dunlops though the car became much less stable on tracked roads. Fuel consumption went through the roof as you might have guessed. Because of these two reasons (and because I got myself a subaru impreza turbo for spirited driving :-) ) I am now contemplating moving down in width to 225/55/17 - either to Michelin Diamaris or Continental 4x4 sport contact (the latter won a test by AutoBild). Would be keen to hear if anyone else used these tires on XC.

[Prepo]

Having extolled the virtue of Michelin Pilot Sport 225-60-16 tires on this forum, I now have to eat humble pie. After 16 months and 25000 km, the tread has developed a heel/toe wear pattern (saw tooth) which Michelin recognise is not caused by a faulty suspension (unlike so-called cupping). The result is a very noisy set of tires and I am going to replace them. Although the original size (Scorpions) of 215-60-16 was not available in this tire and even with the same overall tire diameter, Michelin have denied full warranty for the "oversize" tire - a cautionary fact for those using wider tires (even with a compenasting aspect ratio to get the same diameter).

This brings me to this thread because I like the sound of the Nokian WR (passenger) 235-60-16 tires as posted above ( I don't want the SUV version that comes in the original stock size, unlike the passenger tire). I suspect that if I go for the same Michelins as before, the problem may well happen again. So right now my choice seems to be narrowing to Michelin HydroEdge or the Nokian WR. I replaced my original Scorpions becasue of the noise and imprecise steering. After the developing noise problem on the Pilot Sport A/S I am rather sensitized to noise. I would really appreciate any comparative guidance on the two tires, recognising that not only do I want excellent all round all seasons performance but low noise and low steering wander on dry pavement for my 2001 XC. I am still in shock over the Michelin problem and look forward to your usual support.

[wiz]

Wow, I remember when you put those tires on, Prepo. This is really bad news - the Pilot Sport A/S is supposed to be a very good tire. :(

Was it Michelin who denied the warranty for "oversize" reasons or the tire shop? And if you go to a 235-60/16 tire, even one made by another manufacturer, who is to say that a similar decision might be made if the tires turn out to be faulty?

[Prepo]

The tire dealer and area rep were very supportive. The decision was made by "customer relations" at Michelin. To their credit, they have offered me partial compensation but well below the prorated replacement cost. Of concern is not only the tire warranty with "oversize" tires but also the car warranty (I have extended warranty to be concerned about). I can get the original tire size in the HydroEdge but not the Nokian WR passenger. So what do we do . . . ? Sigh.

[gibbons]

I hate it when someone tries to wiggle out of responsibility. I have had bad luck with Michelin. Not that their tires are bad, I just got a bad one in a set that gave me fits on my I30 until *I* figured it out for them.

As far as getting "bigger" or "oversize" tires, as I mentioned, they are about .1" taller, .05" on the radius. That is insignificant, the radius will change much more than that as the tire wears. If you check tire charts, you will find that the reference wheel width for a 215/65-16 is 6.5". That means that a 6.5" rim will hold the tire beads at the optimum width to give the sidewall its best profile and the tire its best overall properties. BUT, the reference width for a 235/60-16 is 7", the width of XC wheels (!). Technically, based on the wheel size, the 235 is the right size tire. Let's see them argue that.

I spent way to much time researching all this trivia before I jumped to the 235's, but in retrospect, it was well worth it.

[Prepo]

Thanks for the encouragment. I also did much research on sizing before getting the Michelins and so I know and concur with you on all the arguments. Unfortunately, logical arguments seem to be ineffective once a manufacturer finds a loophole because of any deviation from the original stock size, no matter what the technical facts indicate. I had the same problem when I wanted to upgrade to 17" wheels; athough my proposed tire diameter would remain as stock, Volvo refused to condone it with the threat of withdrawn warranty on the transmission. As a professional engineer, I am getting tired of having to argue the obvious to deaf ears about my XC - not only about the wheels but about the useless European hitch and draw bar which I foolishly had fitted as original equipment before the North American square hitch became available as a Volvo option.

Consequently, I am attracted by your experience with the Nokian 235/60-16 WR passenger tires (I am assuming that you do find them quiet and responsive on dry pavement), keeping in reserve using the original stock size Michelin HydroEdge, but also wondering about the significance of downgrading in speed rating with both of these tires.

[pico de luuks]

When I got my XC, I initially wanted to change the tires (S/T's) with the Michelins Pilot Sports A/S. I'm glad I didn't. Prepo, I am surprised and dissapointed those Michelins didn't hold up better. Guess I will not spent that much money on tires that only last 25k.

On the other hand: I only have 13K on my XC (and therefore no rational reason to change my tires yet), but despite the low milage and regular rotation, the S/T's already show some saw tooth wear. :confused:

I'd like to stick with tires that have the recommended speed rating, but the choices are limited...

Pico :cool:

[Raynald]

(...) So right now my choice seems to be narrowing to Michelin HydroEdge or the Nokian WR....I just put 5000 km on a set of Michelin HydroEdge. So far, so good. Compared to the Pirelli's, noise level is very low, handling and cornering is great, performance in rain is as advertized. I don't really see any difference due to the speed rating. However, if you need an all year round tire, Althought I haven't try them, I wouldn't bet on HydroEdge's winter capabilities. They look to me more like summer tires.

[Prepo]

Thanks, Raynald, for your experience. It is a pity that I couldn't try out both the Nokians and the HydroEdges for a direct personal comparison. So the HydroEdge will be erring towards summer performance with marginally acceptable winter performance while the Nokians wil reputably be great in the winter with compromised summer performance, according to published reviews, as would be expected. I can't use a combination of summer and winter tires because I drive to the hot south at times in the winter but with the possibility of snow and ice en route! So one set of tires has to suffice.

Gibbons, can I bother you to tell me just how good the summer performance is on your Nokians? Can you perceptibly hear tire noise, does it vary depending on speed, how is the steering (the review I read said that steering was like a boat and overtaking a little dicey)? I really appreciate the help of all of you.

[gibbons]

I read the review by that guy in Winnipeg who put them on his Jetta, before I bought mine, but it didn't scare me. Since he is a tire expert, he has probably has some experience with high end, high performance tires. And maybe he can feel the differences. Way back when, I used to buy bigger sway bars, different struts, tires, etc for my cars, so I am a sensitive about performance. I think the XC's suspension, geometries, and kinetic properties are the weak link in this combo, not the tires. But the combo is still plenty, plenty pleasing for the type of driving we do with our XC. It's as crisp as our I30 was with Conti Contact CH95's.

I bought a set of 16" wheels and 55 series Bridgestone Potenza tires taken off of a new WRX. Yeah, good tires. I have them on the Subaru wagon. The XC with WRs handles better than the Sube with the Potenzas. The Sube with Hakka's is waaaay less precise than the XC with WRs.

When I say the WRs are smoother, I mean that they make the road feel smoother, not that they make the car feel like a rolling water bed. Expansion joints and pot holes just don't "thump" like other tires. And as far as quiet, I hear the wind noise from the mirrors and roof rails more than I do the tires. How do they make a tire that gnarly looking ride so quiet? By the way, it's counter intuitive, but the 235's are noticeably quieter than the 215's. I rent different cars all the time on business, and I haven't driven anything that feels as nice as the XC/WR combo.

I guess the only thing I could say that I don't love about them is their ultra low rolling resistance. Say what? Well, they roll so easy that they are a little sensitive to road crown. But I am used to it now. The up side is the increased fuel economy. When I put the 235's on, my mileage improved so much that I would be embarrassed to post it. Everyone would say I am crazy.

The Nokian guys are pretty confident. Heck, buy a set in the heat of the summer, and if you don't like them, cash them in within 30 days. Do a search on "WR" and you will find my impressions of driving them on slick roads. These tires are simply amazing to me.

OK, I will shut up now.

[Prepo]

I'm glad that you didn't shut up before voicing your enthusiasm. I really appreciate your opinion. I will look into the Nokian 30 day exchange deal and see whether my tire dealer can handle that locally. then its' going to be a final choice between what seem like very good tires.

With regard to the geometry of the XC, I still believe that it is useful to maximize on what is there! The Michelin Pilot Sport A/S (until their recent problems) really did greatly improve the handling and steering of the wretched Scorpions - I hope to maintain this and your input is reassuring. Thanks again.

[kersti]

Does anyone know if you can buy Nokians in Southern California? I would also like to switch to them when my Scorpions wear out, I am at 32K miles now, so probably in the next few months.

[Prepo]

Gibbons, while still making the decision on which tire to use, I am a little puzzled about the speed rating of the Nokian WR passener tire. Its designation of 235/60 R16 which I see in the manufacturer's list indicates to me an R speed rating. Yet, another source suggest that it can be obtained with T, H and V ratings while yet another source talks about the tires having an H rating. I am sure that you know the answer to this . . I seem to be missing something obvious, perhaps. Also, do you have the exact diameter of your tires - by calculation and actually?

[pico de luuks]

Prepo,
if you follow this link to the nokiantires website (http://www.nokiantires.com/newsite/tires_popup.cfm?id=6) you'll see that in the load rating column it also specifies the speed rating. It's H for the 235/60 R16 size.

Hope that helps (Gibbons didn't mean to steal your thunder, but you'll probably have your head down at this time ;) )

[pico]

[gibbons]

The 235's are 100H, the 215 SUVs are 98H. The load index is higher on the 235's, which would lead one to assume that they would be stiffer riding. But that isn't the case, the 235's are definitely smoother. I think a bit of it has to do with sidewall profiles on the 7" rim. Oh, yeah, definitely an H rating. But that's OK with me, the highest sustained speed mine will see is 75 or so.

Also, the sidewall marking on my 235's is 420AA. Pretty good.

The specification diameters are 27.1" (235) vs 27.0" (215). When I switched from the Scorpions to the first set of 215/65 WRs, I threw a "cloth tape" around them to compare the circumferences between brands. I don't remember exactly what I measured (vs theoretical), but it was accurate enough that I don't recall it as being an issue. I checked the speedo with a GPS with the 235's and they look right on the money. Well, as on the money as I can tell with the rediculous resolution on the speedometer. I am not impressed with presumptuous 160 mph speedos for USA driving.

Oh, yeah, I am in Utah but I ordered my 215's out of Ohio. The 235 replacements shipped out of Oregon. Nobody carried them locally. Some Hakka Qs, but no WRs.

[Prepo]

Thanks, Pico DL. I must be getting sleepy because I had missed the load and speed rating. Thanks for correcting me. Also, the specified diameter is 27.1" which won't come as any surprize to Gibbons who had all this worked out and referred to in an earlier post as +0.1" over stock.

I can't believe how helpful everyone still is on this forum even though enough years have passed for crankyness to set in.

[Prepo]

At the risk of you all dying with boredom, here is an update about the tire decision. I was able to drive an XC with HydroEdge tires, as nicely provided by my dealer. Performance on the dry pavement was just fine, as expected. I was surprized that the noise level, while not loud by any means, was a little higher than I had expected and well discernable above wind noise. As I said in a previous post, I am rather sensitized to tire noise! Now, having experienced these tires, the Nokians much loved by Gibbons do seem appealling because not only will they have much superior winter performance and, if I accept Gibbons' reassurance, they will probably not be much noisier, if any, than the HydoEdge tires. Also the Hydro Edge has a lower speed rating (T) than the sportier H rating of the Nokian WR AWP2. So, without denigrating the HydroEdge, the decision is tending towards the Nokians. The forum inputs have been a great help.

[Raynald]

Prepo, not because I want to add to your "tire quest", but I've noticed that if the Michelin HydroEdge are underinflated, they are in fact noiser than they should. I run them at recommended pressure (front 35psi/rear 38psi) and they are quieter now than when they were installed at 30/32 psi.

Case closed! :) ;)

[d2gxc]

gibbons et al:

Sorry to bring this up to the top again, but you've all been so helpful, I'm hoping I can get you to weigh in on this again.

We had the original ST's on our 2001 XC, but (as reported in another thread), replaced them at about 30K miles with the STR's after one of them blew out on the freeway. The STR's are definately a much quieter tire, but although the ride has been fine, they have not worn as well. We now need to replace them after a mere 15k miles. I am not entirely sure why they have done so badly, but the local dealer has confirmed this is not much out of line with what other customers in So. Cal have been getting.

I think we're ready to go back to something a little beefier (especially if it's quiet), and based on gibbons' enthusiam, I'm seriously considering the 235/60-16 Nokians, but I still have a few questions, I'm hoping to get members anwers to:

1. How do you think these tires would perform (and wear) off-pavement - no serious off-roading, just dirt and red-rock roads?
2. Forgive the dumb question, but does the snowflake symbol mean you would never have to use chains? We go to the High Sierras occasionally and so far, they take one look at the XC and wave us on, but there might be occasions they might demand them. Would there be room to fit them over the wider tire?
3. Does anyone know if Volvo has a solid position about whether these wider tires would invalidate the drive train or AWD warranties, or is it just individual dealers speaking? It's not really clear reading the User manual, and although the difference in diameters is trivial for normal use, it would increase the disparity of the stupid spare tire, if you used it and it caused a problem.
4. Note to Kersti et al: I haven't found any Nokian dealers in So Cal, but I've found outlets on the web for about $142 a tire including shipping, and most places will install and balance tires you bring in for about $15 a tire. Does $630 sound about right for a set of these installed?
5. Finally, does this still look like a reasonable year-round tire, even for those of us that don't have excessive winters (but still like to play in the snow occasionally!).

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts...

[Outrageous]

According to the Nokian North American website (see: http://www.nokiantires.com/newsite/tires.cfm ), the soon-to-be released "passenger" version of the WR's in 215/65R16 size will have a load rating of only 95. This compares to a load rating of 98 for the "SUV" version in this size. Perhaps this indicates a construction difference in the two versions of the tire and helps explain "gibbon's" softer ride with the "passenger" variety in 235/60R16, despite the higher load rating of 100.

[gibbons]

d2gxc, I will take a stab at your questions-
1. Their advertized uniqueness is their ability on slick roads, not "off road". In other words, I don't think they are for running the Baja 500. However, I've been dirt roading and they are fine. But guess that would depend on rockiness and steepness, and how much slipping could occur. The design feature that makes them stick so well on slick surfaces are the many "sipes", those little grooves that give the tire a bunch more biting edges than just a big dumb tread lug. I would suspect that spinning those sipes on sharp rocks wouldn't be that good for them.
2. In a nutshell, the snowflake means that they are darn good. I think you could search on tire markings and get the requirements to have a flake. I personally think that if I couldn't get somewhere in an XC with these WR tires, I probably wouldn't need to go that bad. Getting killed enroute isn't that productive. I tried to find the combo's limits (on steep Utah roads), and couldn't. It went no matter how steep or how slick. I think that chains on 235's might be pushing the clearances.
3. I think there is more circumference difference between the same size in different brands than there is between the calculated difference between a 215/65 and 235/60. When I bought the Subaru wheel/tire combo of the WRX, the calculated circumference came out an uncomfortable amount larger. However, as measured, they were smaller. Just like the 215 WR is narrower than the 215 STR. I personally wouldn't worry about it.
4. $142 shipped sounds right for 235's.
5. Are we talking SoCal Bakersfield or SoCal SanDiego :) We are in mid summer desert heat in Utah and I can't tell any bad heat effects with WRs. On the other hand, our Nokian Hakka Qs get really soft and sloppy when the spring temperatures get up to 60 degrees. Yeah, I do notice.

[Prepo]

Largely thanks to Gibbons' enthusiatic recommendation, I have had the Nokian 235/60/16 WR passenger tires installed. So far, I can endorse all the features mentioned by Gibbons (including, incidentally, the improved highway gas mileage: 8.1 l/100 km = 29.0 mi/US gal = 34.9 mi/imperial gal). Another unexpected bonus, for me, is the natural tendency for the tires to track well despite camber. The noise is indeed low with no drone or chatter. So far, so good, with highish speed dry highway, torrential rain on winding seconday roads, gravelled roads but, mercifully, no snow/ice yet. I find it hard to believe that a tire which promises to be a great snow tire has such summer performance.

But I was very enthusiatic on this board about the Michelin A/S Sport tires (albeit with naturally only modest winter capability) until the heel/toe wear and resultant road noise set in, and so I had better not get carried away and invite a second jinx!

A request to Gibbons: knowing that you have a a caring eye for technical detail and that you don't hammer your car and tires, and knowing that the Nokian tires have a numbered tread wear indicator, would you remember to post the mileage achieved when the first indicator becomes evident - as an advanced idea of the tire life?

[luverofpeanuts]

I'm very interested in this topic. I have about 20k miles on my Scorpion STR's and have not found anything really appealing about them. They seem slicker than than should be, and a bit noisy. I'm already down to about 6/32's on them; I'm guessing I will replace them in the fall before the snow comes. Oddly enough, my Expedition seems to handle cornering and such as well as my XC70.

If I remember the posts/threads I've read on the Nokians, am I right in assuming that the Nokian 235-60R16's can be mounted on the stock rims? (I have '03 XC70). Also, I see there is a slight increase in circumferance; how much does this affect the accuracy of the speedometer?

I didn't see a local dealer listed for Nokians in my area. I used Tire Rack to buy a single Scorpion when one of mine was punctured and was unrepairable at about 4500 miles. They don't seem to carry Nokians. (btw, switching out the one tire seems to have not had any ill effects in the last 15k miles).

Thanks for his topic ;-) I'm excited to try the Nokians, if they end up being my choice.

[Prepo]

The tires ARE mounted on the stock rims.

The diameter is nominally 0.1" above your Scorpions which means, if mathematically significant, that the speedo will read a negligible 0.4% lower (which is on the right side but not enough to compensate for the fact that my speedometer read about 5% high as measured with the original stock tires at their original unworn diameter - reads even lower as the tires wear!).

I think that you will find independent tire dealers who can get you Nokian tires.
If you go to the Nokian website there is a list of dealers for the country selected, as I recall.

Returning to tire diameter and Gibbons' comment about mathematical versus actual diameter: my previous Michelin replacement tire was 225/60/16 and had the same actual 27.1 diameter as the 235/60/16 Nokian. I imagine that Gibbons will concur. It seems that the manufacturers quote to the nearest 5 mm standard dimension in listing their tires.

Hope that helps.

[d2gxc]

gibbons: Thanks for your answers.

Re 1 and 2: It sounds like the tires will be fine for the type of roads we go on and I while I agree that chains look like they'd be a tight fit, I guess I'm willing to chance we won't be going anywhere they'd be required.
On 3: I confess I had actually tracked down ye olde on-line tire dimension abacus and it had confirmed exactly what you said about the actual difference in sizes. I was just curious if anyone had had an official reaction from Volvo about warranties.
Re 5: Definately Coastal. We live at the beach and don't go too far inland that often (especially in summer).

Prepo: It's nice to hear your comments about stock rims on a 2001 XC, since that what we have. I'm also pleased to hear about the improved gas mileage and the lack of camber drift - the STR's always felt prone to that.