Nokian WR 235/60-16 update

[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.