WR traction on an XC

[gibbons]

That other current Subaru thread got me thinking about how our XC performs on slick inclines with WRs, so I dredged up this photo from last year. My son and I were out goofing off in the XC one day, and went to a local trailhead parking lot which has this incline in the corner. Fun, huh.

The first attempt, I rolled into the incline with a little inertia and the car went up so easily I had to slam on the brakes before I hit the trees at the end. Yeah, the WRs brake well too :) But that isn't a real test, so I backed down and started at the bottom from a dead stop. It went right up. So I pulled part way up, stopped, and rolled on the power. Yes, the tires spun, but they dragged the car up the incline. You can see where they were spinning and polished the snow. Again, my progress was halted only by the trees.

Sooo... lessons learned. 1. I have never seen a paved road that steep, so I think I can probably go anywhere I need (want) to go. 2. WRs are probably pretty good snow tires. 3. PIctures are deceiving, that is actually very steep! 4. The Haldex AWD system on my car works a heck of a lot better than the XC in the Subaru commerical!

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3759/img0713ql6.jpg

[p1800s]

Gibbons, I am considering replacing the Scorps that have 35K on them with WR's. Climbing is one thing, how are they on the road. You must get more snow than that in Utah??? The Scorps have been OK for the past two years here in New England. Last year we did not get much snow, almost none. The car definately understeers on slick roads which is why I am considering using the WR's.

In another post you mention using a different size than 215/65/16. The tires in your picture do not look like a different size??

Thanks

[gibbons]

p1800s, yes we usually get more snow. In one storm, I packed the lower radiator opening driving around. As the tire story goes, my wife threatened me to not even think about getting a second set of snow tires for this car, as our vehicles usually have two sets. Then she got stuck in a storm with the stock Scorps, and being used to Nokians, called and exclaimed, "These tires (scorps) suck!" That was her impression.

The tires on the car in the picture were the 235/60's, the visual difference is very subtle. Although a tire is designated as a particular size by the manufacturer, I have found that Nokians are on the narrower side. For example, the mounted body width (as I recall) for the Scorpion 215/65 was 9.0", but the WR 215/65 was only 8.7". The 235/60 WR was around 9.4", and in my opinion, .2" wider on each side of the tire centerline isn't very dramatic. But given all that, if the 235/60 WR is proportionally narrower like the 215/65, I can only recommend going wider with that particular tire.

[kschatwin]

Another WR question. I recently purchased an 03 XC70 that came with Nokian WRs (235/60/16). Two of the four were cupped pretty badly from being run out of balance. Here in Tulsa, Oklahoma we rarely get much snow and due to lack of WR availability, I had a set of Michelins installed (MXV4+ 235/60/16).

The decrease in rolling resistance with the Michelins was significantly noticeable. I no longer have to give the car as much throttle to get rolling or during parking lot maneuvers, etc. I can also coast much farther coming off exit ramps. Both brands were run at identical tire pressures. It's too early to tell if fuel economy has improved.

Have other users of WRs experienced increases in rolling resistance? I really prefer the more aggressive look of the WRs over the MXV4s, but under the circumstances, I would be hesitant to go with the WRs again if I didn't really need the snow traction.

[cbob]

Have other users of WRs experienced increases in rolling resistance?.

No doubt you'll be getting at lot of protests from Gibbons about his 'tests' of rolling resistance but you'll also be aware that his over the top hype of the Nokians does not leave him much choice. ;)
Hope Nokian is giving him a big kickback. [happy] [happy]

I did notice an increase in rolling resistance from the Scorpions. There are a couple of hills in particular where the difference was enough that I no longer had to brake to keep myself under my set speed limit. This has not changed in the 20k km or so that I've been using the WRs. can't report any particular changes in gas economy however. My vehicle use has changed quite radically over the past 20k km and I've gone from about 10.3l/100km down to about 9l/100km. Any small changes due to tires are buried in there somewhere.

I've been happy with the snow and ice traction, although we did not have any deep snow to plow through last winter. As good as the Scorpions as far as I've been able to judge. The much vaunted quietness and smoothness lasted about 5k km but to be fair, these are still much quieter than the Scorpions. [thumbup]

Dry pavement performance is not nearly as good wearing the WRs as with the Scorpions. Increased oversteer and a tendency to feel mushy on corners no matter how many pressure settings I tried. I've learned to back off but it's certainly taken some of the fun of cornering away from my drives.

Overall, the Nokians are good tires. The only real problem I've encountered had to do with the claimed narrow width that makes them almost identical to the Scorpians.
Naw.
You can SEE that they are wider. So wide in fact that I was getting a loud screaming sound from the front end whenever I executed a slooow speed full lock turn -like every time I had to park. Folks would grimace and point and tell me my brake pads were down to bare metal :eek:
The dealer could not find any problem but did suggest that something must be touching because the tires were 'non-standard' size. Lucky there was a smart tech who took a screwdriver and pushed the backing plate in a bit to give more clearance for those wider tires. Problem solved. Now the tires are even quieter. :D

Commander Bob
Went for the hype, stayed for the quiet.

[gibbons]

cbob, what "backing" plate were the tires hitting? Mine haven't touched a thing under in the fenderwell. I didn't say they weren't wider, just that they weren't a tremendous amount wider. I think the tiny extra width looks nice.

Perceptions are interesting. I had those MXV4 Energy Plus tires on my Infiniti and hated them. They were really expensive ($155each for 15"), horrible in snow, and didn't last very long. I guess that's why they make so many different tires, cuz everybody likes something different. I personally think the WRs are superior in snow traction to the Scorps. To each their own.

I was disappointed thaqt my WRs only went about 40K miles, and the gaurantee was 50K. So they gave me 20% off a new set of tires. I picked the Nokian i3 for summer, and I am not totally impressed. Even though they are an ultra modern looking summer tire tread, I think they are noisier than the WRs, but oh well. There, I slammed Nokian and proved that I am not paid by them.

[Jack]

I put 235/60-16 all season Yokohama Avid's on my XC70 for my summer tire (all season tires match up well with Colorado's "summer" since it can snow around here any month of the year ;) ) The tread and sidewalls are a bit wider, but lock to lock there is no noticeable noise or rubbing.

[hewinutah]

Jack, I put the same tires on 3k ago and like them in the Utah summer, can't wait to see how they do in the winter

[BillAileo]

cbob,

Is it possible that the noise you referenced was a portion of the backing plate behind the rotors touching a suspension component in extreme turns rather than some plate touching the tires? I had this happen with the standard scorpion STRs and the cure was the same. bending the plate back into proper position.

Bill

[cbob]

cbob,
Is it possible that the noise you referenced was a portion of the backing plate behind the rotors touching a suspension component in extreme turns rather than some plate touching the tires? I had this happen with the standard scorpion STRs and the cure was the same. bending the plate back into proper position.
Bill

Of course.
But the problem only appeared when I replaced the Scorpions with the WRs.

I'm one of those old techies who likes to do his own evaluations. I like to ask questions and get feedback from other users of technology but in the end I go with my own experience. I chose the Volvo based on my own evaluation and the very positive feedback from this very forum. Lots of good stuff here. Also a lot of speculation and questionable assertions -but hey, that's what a forum is for. [thumbup]
With everyone jumping on the Nokian bandwagon, I was convinced to at least try them for myself. They are nice quiet tires. Quiet in a large part because of the soft sidewalls and you pay in reduced dry pavement performance.
OK. I'm not driving a Porche.
So far, they seem to work as well as the OEM tires in snow. No real chance for a good test. We'll go with other's experiences for now.
If they are really going to last only 40k miles, I'll be buying other tires next time around.

[BillAileo]

Cbob,

Sorry, I forgot to mention one detail about my noise problem: it too only arose after tire replacement, in retrospect it appeared the installer had accidently bent the backing plate while working on the car.

Bill

[Jorge-789995]

Again, what backing plate are we talking about here? In 'back" of what? the tire? the hub?

[BillAileo]

Jorge,

It's the thin metal shield between the rotor and hub. The Volvo name for the part is "protecting plate."

Bill

[coastal]

After two sets of Scorpion ST's, I'm now a member of the Nokian WR clan!

Since we've got an 01 I decided to stick to the mfr suggested 215/65/16 size... So far so good, they drive great!

Thanks to Gibbons and everyone else for the constant reminders... They are indeed a great tire!

[littlewaywelt]

After two sets of Scorpion ST's, I'm now a member of the Nokian WR clan!

Since we've got an 01 I decided to stick to the mfr suggested 215/65/16 size... So far so good, they drive great!

Thanks to Gibbons and everyone else for the constant reminders... They are indeed a great tire!

as are we...although the tires haven't been installed yet. We too opted for the oem size of 215 65 16 in the WR SUV
My hopes are high as I really liked the ST which we had three sets on on our 01. I always hated the STR, which we found to not perform well in the snow or rain.

[budrichard]

Having my first set of ST's replaced at 57K on my 03XC as I write. Great off road tire and the equal of Gislaved NordFrost 2 on snow. My wife's 99XC will have the Gislaved's replaced by STR's as she does not go off road. Tried to locate NordFrost 5's but no luck.
Am driving a V70 loaner with STR's and they are little quieter but only subjectively.
BTW for the ST fans, they are discontinued and you had better find a set now. Had to have my dealer scrounge for the four I am having put on. -Dick

[skibo]

The tires on the car in the picture were the 235/60's, the visual difference is very subtle. Although a tire is designated as a particular size by the manufacturer, I have found that Nokians are on the narrower side. For example, the mounted body width (as I recall) for the Scorpion 215/65 was 9.0", but the WR 215/65 was only 8.7". The 235/60 WR was around 9.4", and in my opinion, .2" wider on each side of the tire centerline isn't very dramatic. But given all that, if the 235/60 WR is proportionally narrower like the 215/65, I can only recommend going wider with that particular tire.


Gibbons -

I'm studying the dimensions for the Nokian WR and WR-suv (both attached) - and I wonder why you didn't go with the passenger WR in the 225/60-R16 size. It seems like in diameter it is a closer match to the 215/65-R16 (SUV) tire, and is 0.3" wider than the 215. Maybe you were going for even more width to counter the tendancy you've noted of the Nokians to run narrow.

mln

[gibbons]

I was going for diameter match. The 215/65 is 27.0, the 225/60 is 26.6, and the 235/60 is 27.1. The 235/60 gives an error of 0.37% high over the stock tire. They would read 60.2 at an actual 60mph. The speedo isn't that accurate. The 225 error is minimal also, though.

[cbob]

The 235/60 gives an error of 0.37% high over the stock tire. They would read 60.2 at an actual 60mph. The speedo isn't that accurate. The 225 error is minimal also, though.

Yeah, 'practically' unmeasurable.
(As in it's hardlt practical to attemp a measure :D )
I noticed a change of about 0.1 km in my normal run home, and while it calculates out to a 0.2% difference, I can probably get that by differences in wide/sharp corners or a different route through the parking lot. Certainly a good match, size-wise for the ST.

[littlewaywelt]

We had the WR SUVs in the stock size put on a little more than a week ago and after about 800 miles I'm really impressed. Excellent in the twisty/turnies, quiet on the highway, very good in the rain. They inspire a lot of confidence and seem to hold much better than the STRs. I can't wait to get them in the snow.

[bouvier]

We've had our 235 WR's on for about 500 miles now, mostly highway, and like the results. Much quieter that the STR's and more road "feel". I was wondering what PSI others were running them at?

Bouvier

[levpri]

Wow! Just got a quote for WR-s from Direct Tire in Boston area. Tire price is $170.90, total with installation would be almost $800!!

[doublecheese]

I got my WR SUV's last week. I'm pretty happy with them so far on asphalt roads and also on the rainy road. They are very quite and smooth compared to my Michelin Syncrone's

However unfortunately we did not have any snow here in Istanbul yet and it looks like we will not have any snow here at least until the beginning of January.

Maybe I drive to mountains at the weekend to test my new tires :) :)

P.S. I paid about US$ 200 per tire including installation......

[cbob]

With everyone jumping on the Nokian bandwagon, I was convinced to at least try them for myself. They are nice quiet tires. Quiet in a large part because of the soft sidewalls and you pay in reduced dry pavement performance.
OK. I'm not driving a Porche.
So far, they seem to work as well as the OEM tires in snow. No real chance for a good test. We'll go with other's experiences for now.
If they are really going to last only 40k miles, I'll be buying other tires next time around.

OK.
It's been a rough winter and I think it's time to bump this thread for an update.
One of the reasons I went with the Nokian WR hype was the reported quietness of the tire. My original STs were starting to whine in a really annoying way at speed as they wore down. I believe that I've already reported that the initial smoothness of the WR only lasted a couple of months, then the rough spots that had disappeared in parts of my normal drive had returned. The tires were still pretty quiet.

Now, about 25 k km later, the WRs are no longer so quiet. In fact, a Mountie friend who has been a regular rider in the XC over the years I've had it commented "you put winter tires on" when we drove out on the highway the other day. He was surprised that these were the same "quiet" tires that had replaced the original STs.
Performance, though reduced compared to the STs is still good for the way I drive. No complaints at all.
Good wet traction.
The tires worked well in all the snow we had this season.

Overall a good tire but like the original ST, getting very noisy as they wear.

[doublecheese]

I did about max 2000 miles with my Nokian WR suv's .
( I don't drive the XC around that much)

I'm perfectly happy with their snow handling, as long as I drive slow, I don't even feel like I'm driving on snow. It sticks to the snow quite well. If I drive fast on snow and make some turns fast and there are some slips naturally.

My WR's are still quite though :) as I only made about 2K miles so far since last November.

So far a happy user. Now the summer is on the way, I still doubt if I should take them off and replace them with my Michelin Syncrone's ??