Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 reflections

[edyvw]

I bought Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 in 255/55 R18 109T size for my X5 oil burner just before Thanksgiving. After 12K on them, I want to share my experiences.
These tires saw everything, temperatures in 70's in Las Vegas, -37 in Gunnison, CO, 3ft of snow in Colorado Springs, and regularly 1-2ft of snow in mountains. I ski religiously twice a week, so that is where such high mileage in the short time came from.
So let me start:
PROS;
- Ridiculous grip in deep and packed snow. Tire is very soft, and obviously Bridgestone updated their compound. Regardless of 425 torque on X5, even without TC and accelerator all the way down, no excessive slipping, tires just launch forward. Grip through the curves is also amazing.
- In the dry they are much better then previous Blizzak tires. There is mushy feeling (direct and heavy steering in BMW fix some of the problems soft tires create), but overall when it comes to steering feel I am positively surprised.
- Price: I paid this size $156 in Discount Tires.

CONS:
- While grip in deep and packed snow is ridiculous, ice grip is OK. Going forward is really good, but through curves it can surprise you. There is this amazing grip, but tires suddenly loose traction on ice without progressive loss of traction. It kind of goes from amazing grip to "what just happened" in the blink of an eye. Tires do not communicate any progressive loss.
- Hydroplaning. Hands down the worst winter tire when it comes to hydroplaning. I had this feeling immediately when I bought them and hit some rain in Utah driving to las Vegas, but rain was not as heavy to give me real impressions. Slush performance indicated it might be a problem, but still, in CO we have either blue sky or snow, and no rain in the winter. This Monday I was coming back from skiing and I70 was drenched due to blizzard in the mountains and higher temps once you descend. Anything over 60mph is like hitting wall! These are first tires that I have owned that had an issue over 60mph in wet. Totally disappointed here!
- Slush performance is way below average. I think reason is very busy mid section of the tire that does not have enough channels to evacuate slush (or water for that matter). Changing lanes 50-60mph (and I know not all people do this) usually require a lot of steering input. Never had this issue with previous winter tires, and I had probably more then 20 models.
- While soft compound offers amazing grip in snow, they are wearing big time. This could be also due to the fact that X5 has much better suspension then some "sports" cars, so speeds through curves are always high, and there is a lot of stress on tires. This is emphasized by the fact that Bridgestone managed to provide good feedback to steering, so they do not feel as soft as they actually are. On my X5, maximum 20K, not a mile more!

Overall opinion?
I think this would be great tire on Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander and other similar vehicles. However, on SUV's like X5, Audi Q7,5, Porsche or MB, will not work. I will have to go back to RFT's due to baby coming, and 7 seat configuration, and probably go with European tires like Michelin Latitude Alpin HP, or Good Year UG SUV (that is EU model), or Pirelli Scorpion Winter. Nokian will avoid because of their ridiculous price.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Overall opinion?
I think this would be great tire on Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander and other similar vehicles. However, on SUV's like X5, Audi Q7,5, Porsche or MB, will not work.

Thanks for the feedback. By comparison, the Hakka R2s on our Q5 don't feel particularly mushy at all, despite only being R-rated. Possibly it's due to reinforced sidewalls since they are XL-rated. No hydroplaning issues that I've noticed. Not enough miles yet to comment on wear - I'll need to measure tread depth when they get taken off in the next few weeks or so.

Snow/ice performance is fine, but I don't really have any point of reference on this vehicle, so I won't comment in detail.

One downside is that they are kind of noisy. Wife does not notice, but I do.

And the other downside is price, as you pointed out. Nokian really needs to get off their high horse and start being more price competitive if they are to grow market share, IMO. The latest bad press about Nokian supplying rigged tires for testing does not help either.

 

[rslifkin]

I'll agree with Pete's sentiments on the Hakka R2s for the most part. They do make some noise, although in the Jeep, you don't notice unless you open the windows. On a friend's Highlander, however, you can hear a serious whine. I do find them a bit mushy, but not obnoxiously so (and I doubt there's any snow tire I wouldn't find mushy). \

Wear wise, on any SUV with performance aspirations, tires don't last. I don't know of a single tire worth running that would make 20k under my Jeep. Summers usually get close, but not quite 20k. My Hakkas are pretty much done with 3 winters and around 15k miles on them.

Some rock hard all seasons or off-road tires might get past 20k, but I won't DD on them, as they don't have nearly good enough wet pavement grip, etc. (this is an issue with the snows too). I stopped DD-ing on all terrains after a little incident with throwing it sideways when I went for WOT at 50-ish on a wet road... The summers will stick at 20 on wet pavement if I slam the throttle open, as a comparison point.

 

[Rolla07]

At the end of this season marks 3 seasons with my hakka r2's. One more season with ease...2 might be stretching it. In my experience nothing is good on ice besides studded tires. Im showing 6/32's remaining.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Rolla07
Im showing 6/32's remaining.

Do you recall what the new tread depth was? I can't seem to find it on Nokian's website.


EDIT: found it. 12/32"

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: rslifkin
I'll agree with Pete's sentiments on the Hakka R2s for the most part. They do make some noise, although in the Jeep, you don't notice unless you open the windows. On a friend's Highlander, however, you can hear a serious whine. I do find them a bit mushy, but not obnoxiously so (and I doubt there's any snow tire I wouldn't find mushy). \

Wear wise, on any SUV with performance aspirations, tires don't last. I don't know of a single tire worth running that would make 20k under my Jeep. Summers usually get close, but not quite 20k. My Hakkas are pretty much done with 3 winters and around 15k miles on them.

Some rock hard all seasons or off-road tires might get past 20k, but I won't DD on them, as they don't have nearly good enough wet pavement grip, etc. (this is an issue with the snows too). I stopped DD-ing on all terrains after a little incident with throwing it sideways when I went for WOT at 50-ish on a wet road... The summers will stick at 20 on wet pavement if I slam the throttle open, as a comparison point.

Thing is with X5 is that you can really hit high speeds in the curves, and it is juts eating away tires.
If it was SUV that just had SUV performance, I think they would be fine.

 

[SubLGT]

pickuptrucks.com recently tested some tires on snow:

"….During our acceleration runs, the Bridgestone Blizzak tires were impressive, needing just 82.1 feet to get to 30 mph, but close behind were the studded Goodyear Ultra Grip WRT tires, needing just 83.9 feet. The factory Goodyear Wrangler Fortitude tires on the F-150s took 89.1 feet, while the BFG All-Terrains needed 92.3 feet. Well behind the pack were the Firestone Destination M/Ts, taking 162 feet to get to 30 mph.

Our brake testing, like our acceleration runs, was done on the same stretch of snowy open road where the surface was even and flat. The tires that stopped from 30 mph in the shortest distance were again the Bridgestone Blizzaks, halting in just 85.1 feet. Close behind were the studded Goodyear Ultra Grip WRT tires at 86 feet. The BFG tires stopped in 97.7 feet, the Goodyear Wrangler Fortitudes in 108.2 feet, and finishing in last place, again, the Firestone Destination M/Ts needed 150.8 feet to come to a halt…."

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/03/winter-tire-test-some-treads-are-better-than-others.html

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: SubLGT
pickuptrucks.com recently tested some tires on snow:

"….During our acceleration runs, the Bridgestone Blizzak tires were impressive, needing just 82.1 feet to get to 30 mph, but close behind were the studded Goodyear Ultra Grip WRT tires, needing just 83.9 feet. The factory Goodyear Wrangler Fortitude tires on the F-150s took 89.1 feet, while the BFG All-Terrains needed 92.3 feet. Well behind the pack were the Firestone Destination M/Ts, taking 162 feet to get to 30 mph.

Our brake testing, like our acceleration runs, was done on the same stretch of snowy open road where the surface was even and flat. The tires that stopped from 30 mph in the shortest distance were again the Bridgestone Blizzaks, halting in just 85.1 feet. Close behind were the studded Goodyear Ultra Grip WRT tires at 86 feet. The BFG tires stopped in 97.7 feet, the Goodyear Wrangler Fortitudes in 108.2 feet, and finishing in last place, again, the Firestone Destination M/Ts needed 150.8 feet to come to a halt…."

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/03/winter-tire-test-some-treads-are-better-than-others.html

How you compare studded and non-studed tires in acceleration or braking in snow?
It proves what I said, amazing grip in snow and packed snow. Problem is in the winter you drive on dry, wet, etc. not only in snow.

 

[edyvw]

OK guys, since we are posting reviews of tires, let me add some impressions in the second season with this tire.
They are down to 8/32 from 13/32 when new after 15K. This is obviously their last season. I was today in the mountains skiing and there was maybe 4-5 inches of snow over Loveland Pass (almost 12,000ft), salty slush etc. Again, there is this feeling that tire has issues with slush, but that is at 40-50mph over Loveland Pass on maybe 7-8% grade. In snow, regardless that they are at 8/32 is ridiculously secured.
Where is problem? Again, sometimes on icy pavement in curves tire would just fly thru. Sometimes it goes thru very commanding, and then boom! There is rear end of my BMW trying to overtake front.
Again, tire not suitable for cars like BMW, Audi, Porsche etc. if you are using full potential of your suspension. I think this tire could be 25K tire on SUV's like Highlander or Pilot, but if you are pushing good handling SUV like I do, 20K is the best case scenario.

So what next year? Definiately not buying this tire. It is good, do not get me wrong, but I think it is not appropriate for performance SUV's. I am leaning now toward Michelin latitude Xi2 based on Overkill's impressions since I know that he knows his stuff. Much better then reading reviews on Tire Rack. I expect them to be worse then DM-V2 in deep snow and slush, but considering great reputation on ice and dry and wet, and that they are more appropriate for sporty SUV's, I am considering them. Nokian is back as one of the options. Right now they are going for $210 for 255/55 R18 non-RFT. I got spare tire, so RFT's are out.
Maybe I also turn to some winter tires tuned for Euro roads like Michelin Altitude LA2, Pirelli Scorpion Winter or Ice and Snow, Conti TS830P. We will see.

 

[jimbrewer]

That the non-studded Blizzaks would stay even on ice with studded is absolutely amazing, but that jibes with my experience. I understand that they made a leap forward in technology in the early 1990s. Can't speak to the slushy vs. packed snow type issues mentioned here.

I can attest to how it does on what the weathermen call "wintery mix." While driving home from work one evening it was coming down and immediately melted on the road. Or so I thought. I was wondering why the other cars were driving so piously. I was almost home and waiting at a stop sign when I saw a car try to slow and lose control.

Not only did I have control, the Blizzaks fooled me into thinking that the sheet of ice was merely wet. (I admit I'm a pretty conservative driver anyway).

I wish they wore a little better, but I'm sold.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: jimbrewer
That the non-studded Blizzaks would stay even on ice with studded is absolutely amazing, but that jibes with my experience. I understand that they made a leap forward in technology in the early 1990s. Can't speak to the slushy vs. packed snow type issues mentioned here.

I can attest to how it does on what the weathermen call "wintery mix." While driving home from work one evening it was coming down and immediately melted on the road. Or so I thought. I was wondering why the other cars were driving so piously. I was almost home and waiting at a stop sign when I saw a car try to slow and lose control.

Not only did I have control, the Blizzaks fooled me into thinking that the sheet of ice was merely wet. (I admit I'm a pretty conservative driver anyway).

I wish they wore a little better, but I'm sold.


I probably drove on 20+ models of winter tires, and none except Hankook W300 was loosing ice grip so sudden like DM-V2. All other tires would give some "hint" that they are loosing it, they would loose it progressively.
I already said, I drive pretty aggressive in snow etc. But I did that with other tires too.
As for deep snow, packed, etc. they are flying thru. Slush performance and hydroplaning are also IMO weak spot for such aggressive tread design.