Michelin Pilot Sport AS3+ or Continental DWS06 ?

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
What you implying is that you want maximum traction in deep snow. Going too narrow means you want good deep snow traction. Then forget Michelin and get Nokian or Bridgestone.
Going narrow and Xi3 IMO does not make any sense.

By that logic, nothing short of studded tires or chains "makes any sense."

Good call about the other options, though. Nokian isn't available on Tire Rack, but it's certainly worth considering. The Bridgestone (assuming we're talking about the WS80 here) is definitely a good option as well, though it's hard to account for the discrepancy between Tire Rack and Car & Driver about how it compares to the Xi3.

 

[NissanMaxima]

Thanks:

Edyvw: The XI3 is a winter snow and ice tire, right? I know it does not have quite the deep snow performance of the Blizzaks, but for Denver weather where we do have a ton of dry days in the winter, I think I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of deep snow performance (since I pretty much stay in town anyway) for better wearability and dry performance of the Michelins. And, doesn't it still make sense to go narrow since the XI3 is still a winter tire??

Thanks for the Car and Driver link dOOdFood; I had not seen this.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: NissanMaxima
Thanks:

Edyvw: The XI3 is a winter snow and ice tire, right? I know it does not have quite the deep snow performance of the Blizzaks, but for Denver weather where we do have a ton of dry days in the winter, I think I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of deep snow performance (since I pretty much stay in town anyway) for better wearability and dry performance of the Michelins. And, doesn't it still make sense to go narrow since the XI3 is still a winter tire??

Thanks for the Car and Driver link dOOdFood; I had not seen this.

Sure, I know what you talking about. I get your point, I live here too. BUT, in that case, get Xi3 in regular size that you already have. Why going so narrow with Xi3? I would just get Xi3 in regular size you already running.
Going narrow will compromise your dry performance much more then buying some more hard core winter tire in size you already have.
As for car and driver, that is all fine, but those are lab. conditions.
This is how winter tires stack up in CO local ski resorts: Bridgestone 8 out of 10 tires, Michelin 1 out of 10, Nokian maybe 1 out of 10 and rest are somewhere there like Nokian. But, if you are not skiing there, then just get Xi3 in whatever size you are running now on a car.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: edyvw
What you implying is that you want maximum traction in deep snow. Going too narrow means you want good deep snow traction. Then forget Michelin and get Nokian or Bridgestone.
Going narrow and Xi3 IMO does not make any sense.

By that logic, nothing short of studded tires or chains "makes any sense."

Good call about the other options, though. Nokian isn't available on Tire Rack, but it's certainly worth considering. The Bridgestone (assuming we're talking about the WS80 here) is definitely a good option as well, though it's hard to account for the discrepancy between Tire Rack and Car & Driver about how it compares to the Xi3.

No, my point is, if he wants winter tire with good performance in dry, get Xi3 in regular size. If he wants to maximize deep snow performance then he should get narrowest possible hard core winter tire. Going narrow with Xi3 will compromise dry performance much more then getting hard core winter tire in size he is already running.
I went with narrowest size on my wife's Tiguan, but I use Blizzak WS70 and will put Nokian R2 next year. If I wanted to keep dry performance in winter, I would just get Xi3 in 235/50 R18, and not WS 70 in 215/65 R16.

 

[NissanMaxima]

Thanks; so just so I understand, since the X ice 3 is also a winter tire good for snow and ice, why wouldn't it also benefit from minus sizing (like I think you say the Blizzaks would) to a smaller wheel size in order to gain choices in narrower tire widths, reduced contact area, and better bite and penetration into snow and ice? I guess I'm less concerned about compromising dry performance since they are only on for a few months. My goal with going with the dedicated snow tires for the winter season is to have better tires than all season in snow and ice, yet something that is still decent on dry pavement in Denver winters, and that is why I thought the X Ice 3 would be a great choice.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: NissanMaxima
Thanks; so just so I understand, since the X ice 3 is also a winter tire good for snow and ice, why wouldn't it also benefit from minus sizing (like I think you say the Blizzaks would) to a smaller wheel size in order to gain choices in narrower tire widths, reduced contact area, and better bite and penetration into snow and ice? I guess I'm less concerned about compromising dry performance since they are only on for a few months. My goal with going with the dedicated snow tires for the winter season is to have better tires than all season in snow and ice, yet something that is still decent on dry pavement in Denver winters, and that is why I thought the X Ice 3 would be a great choice.

Xi3 is the best choice if you want to preserve dry performance but still be able to get where you going. Xi3 will get you there.
However, my point is that then downsizing (it will help you a bit in deep snow) does not make sense if you want to preserve dry performance.
Heck, I even think that WS80 in your regular size would outdo Xi3 in deep snow that is downsized and be even better in dry.
Bottom line, get Xi3 and keep current size if you want still good dry performance. Also o ice wider tire is better.
If you want to dig yourself out from 2ft of snow, get WS80 and downsize.

 

[d00df00d]

185/65/15 is desirable regardless of tire choice. It's closer to the stock OD than 195/60/15, and would use a smaller wheel than 195/55/16.

In addition to better snow traction, a narrower tire also has better hydroplaning resistance, better limit behavior, lower rolling resistance, better steering feel, and less NVH. Yes, it sacrifices lateral grip on dry roads and sheet ice. It should be obvious that that sacrifice does not offset the gains for this application. There'll still be plenty of dry grip at the speeds you'll be driving, and you'll never be driving on sheet ice -- or you will, and you'll likely be screwed no matter what tire you choose. So, again, 185/65/15 is still a decent call regardless of tire choice.

The Michelin X-Ice Xi3, Bridgestone Blizzak WS80, and Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2 are all available in 185/65/15. Of those, the only one that definitely seems to outperform the others in winter is the Hakkapeliitta R2. Between the Xi3 and WS80, Tire Rack says the WS80 is better in snow, and C&D says the Xi3 is better. But either way, the Xi3 is still a fine choice and clearly better on non-snowy roads. The Xi3 is also an LRR tire whereas the WS80 is not, so there's a fuel economy benefit to the Xi3 on the dry roads on which OP said he'll be spending most of his time.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
185/65/15 is desirable regardless of tire choice. It's closer to the stock OD than 195/60/15, and would use a smaller wheel than 195/55/16.

In addition to better snow traction, a narrower tire also has better hydroplaning resistance, better limit behavior, lower rolling resistance, better steering feel, and less NVH. Yes, it sacrifices lateral grip on dry roads and sheet ice. It should be obvious that that sacrifice does not offset the gains for this application. There'll still be plenty of dry grip at the speeds you'll be driving, and you'll never be driving on sheet ice -- or you will, and you'll likely be screwed no matter what tire you choose. So, again, 185/65/15 is still a decent call regardless of tire choice.

The Michelin X-Ice Xi3, Bridgestone Blizzak WS80, and Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2 are all available in 185/65/15. Of those, the only one that definitely seems to outperform the others in winter is the Hakkapeliitta R2. Between the Xi3 and WS80, Tire Rack says the WS80 is better in snow, and C&D says the Xi3 is better. But either way, the Xi3 is still a fine choice and clearly better on non-snowy roads. The Xi3 is also an LRR tire whereas the WS80 is not, so there's a fuel economy benefit to the Xi3 on the dry roads on which OP said he'll be spending most of his time.

Yes, narrower choice will help in hydroplaning and slush, except that CO sees rain once every month and that is for two hours. It helps in slush, except that Xi3 are by far the worst performing tire in slush and I can guarantee you that WS80 will outperform Xi3 in slush even two sizes wider. Xi3 design is bad for deep snow and slush, period! You will gain something by downsizing, but that is ONLY if you compare Xi3 in bigger size and Xi3 in smaller size.
However, going to narrowest size and still wanting to keep dry performance is kind of counterproductive since he will loose much more by going down with Xi3 then staying in same size with WS80.
C/D and Tire rack DO NOT test tires in slush and deep snow. If you want to get some kind of idea how Xi3 performs in those conditions go and check Scandinavian and Russian tests. In slush Xi3 is always last or second to last. Denver has good cleaning of the roads. However, that leaves huge amounts of salty slush behind. Xi3 will be OK but it will never cut thru it like WS series or Nokian or Continental. But that is good if priority is dry performance and with that ice. But again, downsizing, even with Xi3, will have much more effect on performance in dry then putting hard core winter tire in size he is running now.
If he is going to downsize from 215/45 then he should downsize to 205. 185? Ford Fiesta does not run on 185! Talking about undermining not only dry performance, but ANY performance unless he will drive thru 3ft of snow.
For me I would go with 205/55 R16 (very easy to find and cheap) and difference is +1.2%
Or 195/55 R16.

 

[d00df00d]

Alright, now that I can make sense of.

To be clear, I have no problem with the WS80 in this application. And if it really is better than the Xi3 in slush as you say, that's definitely something to consider.

If it were me... I'd probably go for the Hakkapeliitta R2 in 185/65/15, even if it meant buying wheels and tires from different sources. I'm strongly inclined to run that tire next winter myself, unless something better comes up on Tire Rack before then.

Between the Xi3 and WS80, I don't know what I'd pick. I just disagree with the idea that it's a slam-dunk for the WS80.

Regarding size, it looks like all you're really doing is flatly disagreeing with what I've said. I'm alright with that.

OP is really just trying to decide among a bunch of good options here, so even if he doesn't get "the best" (whatever that means), he'll still be better off than most drivers.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Alright, now that I can make sense of.

To be clear, I have no problem with the WS80 in this application. And if it really is better than the Xi3 in slush as you say, that's definitely something to consider.

If it were me... I'd probably go for the Hakkapeliitta R2 in 185/65/15, even if it meant buying wheels and tires from different sources. I'm strongly inclined to run that tire next winter myself, unless something better comes up on Tire Rack before then.

Between the Xi3 and WS80, I don't know what I'd pick. I just disagree with the idea that it's a slam-dunk for the WS80.

Regarding size, it looks like all you're really doing is flatly disagreeing with what I've said. I'm alright with that.

OP is really just trying to decide among a bunch of good options here, so even if he doesn't get "the best" (whatever that means), he'll still be better off than most drivers.

I think going from 215 to 185 is going to seriously to impact all kind of performance, from handling to braking. Yes, he will cut thru snow like nothing, but 95% of time in Denver he actually needs to deal with dry roads. I downsized Tiguan but two sizes, from 235/18 to 215/16. 215 is still OEM size, comes on base Tig. and it is thin. It goes like a goat in the mountains (well short wheel base and AWD helps too) but if it was only city vehicle, I would go to 225/17 which is mid range size for Tiguan.
I would understand you recommendation for 185 if he lived on Wolf Creek pass here in CO where they get like 40 inches of snow over night. But Denver?
He has to deal with conditions that are far less problematic then PA. Front Range in CO is not bad at all, much better then probably whole North East.
WS 80? Like I said, Xi3 makes sense if goal is preserving dry performance. But then, again, going to 185 it does not make sense because such downsizing is going to seriously impact performance. Smart runs on wider tires, not Nissan Maxima. WS80 is not slam dunk compare to Xi3, but has clear advantage in slush and deep snow. Also, WS80 is H speed index and much better on dry then WS70 that I currently have on Tig. I run Blizzak DM-V2 on BMW and it is same generation and compound like WS80, and it is greatly improved on dry compared to prior WS and DM-V generation.
If dry is priority, I would just get 215 Xi3
If deep snow is still concern as well as slush, WS80 in 205 size.

 

[gofast182]

This is a worthy point. Keep the stock size if at all possible to retain other performance attributes. Most of the time cold and dry will be the conditions the car needs to perform in. We got 8" of snow yesterday and within 12hrs of the snow stopping the roads are clear and dry, didn't take long. Bottom line is any one of these dedicated winter tires are going to make a tremendous difference and probably allow the car to get around better than many small SUVs whose owners are relying on the AWD.

 

[d00df00d]

There is exactly one performance attribute that is better for a wider tire: peak lateral grip when driving on a smooth, clean, solid surface (i.e. cornering on a dry road or bare sheet ice).

Longitudinal grip (for acceleration and braking) may or may not be better. Going wider while keeping the same overall diameter yields a contact patch that is wider but not as long front-to-back.

Mass, hydroplaning resistance, rolling resistance, limit behavior, tramlining, feel, NVH -- in other words, pretty much all other attributes that matter -- are all worse for a wider tire.

 

[gofast182]

Sticking the the OE size the mfr. spec'd isn't "going wider" its retaining what the car was designed for. An identically sized winter tire is still going to make an unbelievable difference in the snow/ice but the fact of the matter is most of the time it will be driven in cold but dry conditions where handling and braking need to be preserved.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
There is exactly one performance attribute that is better for a wider tire: peak lateral grip when driving on a smooth, clean, solid surface (i.e. cornering on a dry road or bare sheet ice).

Longitudinal grip (for acceleration and braking) may or may not be better. Going wider while keeping the same overall diameter yields a contact patch that is wider but not as long front-to-back.

Mass, hydroplaning resistance, rolling resistance, limit behavior, tramlining, feel, NVH -- in other words, pretty much all other attributes that matter -- are all worse for a wider tire.

Which is 95% of time in Denver. This area has more then 300 sunny days a year. 45 minutes in the mountains it could be 10 degrees, in Denver it is 70.
Like someone said, he is not going wider, he is staying with OEM size. 185 is not OEM size on maxima, that is seriously undermining performance of the car.
Only thing he could gain with 185 on such a car is deep snow and slush performance. That is it. I am not sure about longevity of tire in such small size on such heavy car.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
Sticking the the OE size the mfr. spec'd isn't "going wider" its retaining what the car was designed for.

I used that phrase as a short way to say "a tire that is wider than another," for the purposes of the explanation.

Even if that wasn't obvious, you guys are recommending a wider winter tire than had been the trend in the thread, so that wording should still make sense.


Originally Posted By: gofast182
An identically sized winter tire is still going to make an unbelievable difference in the snow/ice

Agreed.

Originally Posted By: gofast182
but the fact of the matter is most of the time it will be driven in cold but dry conditions where handling and braking need to be preserved.

Again, agreed. But those are also the conditions in which any decent tire will provide an excess of grip for any situation you could reasonably expect to encounter. Given the opportunity to trade off a bit of that excess for improvements in the worst conditions, and given all the side benefits you get in the process, why not take it? We're not talking about a track car here. Besides, in winter temps, any winter tire will likely have even more dry grip than the stock all-seasons, so there's even more excess that can be traded off.

Also, "handling" (assuming you mean peak lateral grip) and braking need to be disentangled slightly. Given the same overall diameter and all else equal, a wider tire yields a wider but shorter contact patch, and a narrower tire yields a narrower but longer contact patch. This means tread width does not always affect lateral grip and braking the same; in fact, an increase in one often comes with a decrease in the other. Switching from 215 to 185 while keeping the stock overall diameter will yield a significant loss in peak lateral grip, but not so much of a loss (if any) in longitudinal grip.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: gofast182
Sticking the the OE size the mfr. spec'd isn't "going wider" its retaining what the car was designed for.

I used that phrase as a short way to say "a tire that is wider than another," for the purposes of the explanation.

Even if that wasn't obvious, you guys are recommending a wider winter tire than had been the trend in the thread, so that wording should still make sense.


Originally Posted By: gofast182
An identically sized winter tire is still going to make an unbelievable difference in the snow/ice

Agreed.

Originally Posted By: gofast182
but the fact of the matter is most of the time it will be driven in cold but dry conditions where handling and braking need to be preserved.

Again, agreed. But those are also the conditions in which any decent tire will provide an excess of grip for any situation you could reasonably expect to encounter. Given the opportunity to trade off a bit of that excess for improvements in the worst conditions, and given all the side benefits you get in the process, why not take it? We're not talking about a track car here. Besides, in winter temps, any winter tire will likely have even more dry grip than the stock all-seasons, so there's even more excess that can be traded off.

Also, "handling" (assuming you mean peak lateral grip) and braking need to be disentangled slightly. Given the same overall diameter and all else equal, a wider tire yields a wider but shorter contact patch, and a narrower tire yields a narrower but longer contact patch. This means tread width does not always affect lateral grip and braking the same; in fact, an increase in one often comes with a decrease in the other. Switching from 215 to 185 while keeping the stock overall diameter will yield a significant loss in peak lateral grip, but not so much of a loss (if any) in longitudinal grip.


I have to disagree again.
1. Any winter tire is much better below 45 degrees then any AS tire.
2. More importantly, he has to deal with conditions that are unique to the Front range and that is snow storm of one foot, next day 60 degrees, melting snow, clear roads, bunch of water, then very low temperatures due to altitude over night which turns all that water into ice.
No loss of any longitudinal grip? He is downsizing three (3) sizes! If he is increasing pressure per square inch, which is main reason for going narrow, then he has to loose longitudinal grip, otherwise there would not be gain in pressure.

 

[d00df00d]

I don't know how to make sense of those objections given what I've already said, so I don't know how to respond. Sorry.

 

[Astro14]

What do you mean by "loss of longitudinal grip"??

A skinnier tire has a longer contact patch. Different shaped patch, but for the same inflation pressure, roughly the same area. So, better patch shape for braking, worse for cornering, on that skinnier tire. It's a trade off. The skinnier tire has much better snow performance because of reduced swept area as the tire rolls through a given distance of snow. It's a good compromise for snow grip, braking grip, and acceleration grip which are all in the longitudinal direction. If that's the priority, skinnier is better. To balance that with cornering, stay with stock. But most snow tires aren't a great choice for cornering. You want good snow performance and good grip for braking and acceleration.

A guy in the front range would do very well to have actual, winter tires to cover all those conditions that you describe. I lived there for five years. I've got a truck there now.

Believe me, MORE poeple in the front range should be using winter tires...this past week proved that...

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
What do you mean by "loss of longitudinal grip"??

A skinnier tire has a longer contact patch. Different shaped patch, but for the same inflation pressure, roughly the same area. So, better patch shape for braking, worse for cornering, on that skinnier tire. It's a trade off. The skinnier tire has much better snow performance because of reduced swept area as the tire rolls through a given distance of snow. It's a good compromise for snow grip, braking grip, and acceleration grip which are all in the longitudinal direction. If that's the priority, skinnier is better. To balance that with cornering, stay with stock. But most snow tires aren't a great choice for cornering. You want good snow performance and good grip for braking and acceleration.

A guy in the front range would do very well to have actual, winter tires to cover all those conditions that you describe. I lived there for five years. I've got a truck there now.

Believe me, MORE poeple in the front range should be using winter tires...this past week proved that...

Contact area will be very similar if tires are OEM size. For example on my Tiguan, 235/50 R18 is OEM size, as well as 215/65 R16 that are winter tires I am running on it now. However, I am not sure that 185 is OEM size for Maxima. Maybe it is, but that is 30mm difference compare to size he is running now.
Point is that OPE wants to preserve dry handling too, as much as possible, so going from 215 to 185 does not make any sense. Having 215 winter tires will still do very god in snow, MUCH better then best AS tire, and better then many AWD cars on AS tires. Plus he can stop, which is most important.
As for front range, it is ridiculous. Then add to that tourists who are renting cars on POS tires and you have a mess.

 

[NissanMaxima]

Hi all:

Once again, thanks for the outpouring of great advice and information on choices for my 2015 Corolla S Plus. I have been digesting all this and collecting some additional information myself.

I looked up the brochure for my 2015 Corolla online and verified that the 2015 was equipped with various tire/wheel combinations:
195 55 15: L model with 6MT or 4AT; and LE Eco with CVT
205 55 16: LE with CVT; LE plus with CVT; LE Premium with CVT; LE Eco Plus with CVT; LE Eco Premium with CVT; S with CVT
215 45 17: S with 6MT; S Plus with CVT; S Premium with CVT

For the OEM 215 45 17 tires, the difference between my S Plus and the S with the 205 55 16 are 17" alloy wheels and rear disc brakes.

I also checked on a Toyota forum and owners there have used 16" and 15" wheels and all the way down to 185's in one case. However, after reviewing the Toyota brochure on OEM equpped tire/wheel choices, I'm now not so sure stepping down all the way to the 185 would be a good idea (as also voiced by other folks on this discussion).

Soooo, I'm thinking that all things considered, the 205 55 16 might be the perfect choice but I wanted the reaction from the forum. It will still get me down 10 mm in width to hopefully enhance snow and ice performance, yet should retain good dry performance which as Edyvw responded is important for a lot of dry days during winter here in Denver.

I'm not sure if 10 mm will make that much difference but it is the midpoint choice in OEM choices for the car. Plus it keeps me in the "S" category of the Corolla and going to the 15" choices puts me in the L and LE models which might affect performance. I don't know.

One big question I have, however, is that the 205 55 16 are speced for the regular S model without rear disc brakes, but I have the S Plus model with rear disc brakes. Will this be an issue? My local Toyota dealership didn't think so but when I called Toyota directly, of course they said I should stick with the 215 55 16 but should also consider what the dealer told me

Pending forum reaction to the 205 55 16, both the Michelin X ice 3 and Blizzak WS 80 are available in this size. The Michelin comes in a 91H and the X ice comes in a 94H. Both load ratings exceed my OEM 17" 87 load rating. However, the H speed rating on both is lower than my 17" W rating, but from what I gathered on this discussion, a lower speed rating is OK for winter tires, right? I'm sort of inclined to go with the Michelins but don't know why they emphasize "ice" in their name. They are still great snow tires, right? I like that the tire rack review indicate they do wear better but will they still be OK for an occasional trip to the mountains for snow tubing and the like? Maybe I should just stick with the Blizzaks. Ugggh!