Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2 SUV vs Bridgestone Blizzak WS80 for dedicated winter tire?

D

davefr

:
ss
I just scored an extra set of Mazda CX-5 17" rims for dedicated winter tire use. Now I'm starting the gradual search for the best dedicated winter tire for this vehicle. It seems like Blizzak WS80's and Hokian Hakka R2's are the leading contenders. Anyone have any insight into which one does best on an AWD CX-5. Or is there an even better alternative?

The biggest complaint I've read about Blizzaks is that their winter performance drops off real fast once the outer 50% of the tread compound wears down.

Conditions:
- Lots of rain
- Ice, frost
- Some wet heavy snow but I have no intention of venturing out in heavy snow but sometimes we get surprised and need to make it home.

TIA
 
I got Michelin x ice 3 winter tires. what you read about the blizzaks is generally true. Though with the WS80 Bridgestone addressed some of this issue. The Nokians are great winter tires but I ended up skipping them pretty quickly due to cost. I was looking at another $250 over the Michelins and could not find a compelling reason to do so.

I'm not sure there is a single best winter tire. You should identify what is most important to you and go with that. For example, Blizzaks tend to do very well in deep snow but lose points in dry winter roads.
 
Last edited:
+1 to what inlinev said. The Michelin X-Ice Xi3 will more than satisfy the road conditions that you mentioned. From what I've researched, the Nokian tires would be better for deep snow and also sacrifice some stability under dry/wet conditions more than the X-ice.
 
All the tires mentioned have their strong points and weaknesses. I think most winter tires experience a drop off in performance when tread gets around 50-60%. You're losing more then half of the tread depth and it's the tread depth that allows the tire to "bite" and get traction in the deep snow. I've had Hakka's on my P5 and liked them quite a bit. It was a fun car to drive but the winter tires sure didn't handle like the summer tires. But then again, it's winter and I'm not driving as aggressively in the snow as I am the dry summer days. I would say the X-Ice3, the WS80 and The Hakka's are all pretty neck and neck when it comes to performance in the winter on a car like the CX-5. Meaning, what ever you choose, you can't go wrong. I would get what your gut tells you or your wallet allows. I'll be looking for winter tires here soon and will looking at all three tires. It kind of depends on which one I can get for the best price in the size that I need for my rims.
 
I have the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2 on 17 rims on my CX-5. I love them. I also have Hakkapeliitta on my wife's car and my daughter puts them on her Mazda6.

I can't say enough good about them. I have recommended them to a lot of people (I have been using them for years.) Everyone has been pleased.

If you don't like driving in snow you need Hakkapeliittas If you love driving in snow you probably already have Hakkapeliittas
 
optical_man said:
+1 to what inlinev said. The Michelin X-Ice Xi3 will more than satisfy the road conditions that you mentioned. From what I've researched, the Nokian tires would be better for deep snow and also sacrifice some stability under dry/wet conditions more than the X-ice.
Click to expand...

According to Michelin the Xi3 is not available in a 225/65-17. Is there a substitute size for the CX-5 Touring w/17' rims?
 
I run the Nokian Hakka R2's and very happy with the performance. Excellent grip on ice. On a typical snow/ice road, you must accelerate hard to get wheel spin, and not that easy to get the ABS to kick in, that's how well they grip. When it's safe to do so, I fooled around alot with them to find the limits. As for snow, last year after a good snow dump I wanted to see where these tires would take me. Found an area where I knew there were no land mines. With the front end pushing snow, under carriage dragging, had no problem driving around the field, and that's with a FWD. And bonus, when the roads are dry, they still handle and ride fairly quiet.
In the last couple years, winter tires have really changed and there is good competition out there. Not going to say which one is better than the other, just that these Nokians performed excellent.
And yes, typically they cost more than the other brands and are only available though select vendors.
 
I just priced out some of these tires.

Blizzak WS80's are right around $500 out the door (Costco)

Michelin X-Ice are around $630 (Costco)

Nokian Hakka R2's are a whopping $760

The Tire Rack surveys suggest Blizzak WS80's are better then X-Ice. I can't find any comparison of the Nokians to Blizzaks. Are they that much better to justify the price? I'm strongly leaning towards the Blizzaks.
 
I'm leaning toward the Blizzak DM-V1s as they're a great price on Tire Rack right now. Apparently they're doing a close out sale as the DM-V2s roll in. Can anyone compare these over the Blizzak WS80s and/or Nokians?
 
davefr said:
I just priced out some of these tires.

Blizzak WS80's are right around $500 out the door (Costco)

Michelin X-Ice are around $630 (Costco)

Nokian Hakka R2's are a whopping $760

The Tire Rack surveys suggest Blizzak WS80's are better then X-Ice. I can't find any comparison of the Nokians to Blizzaks. Are they that much better to justify the price? I'm strongly leaning towards the Blizzaks.
Click to expand...

For that price I'd go with the Blizzaks. I don't think you can go wrong with them. The WS80 is a fairly new tire, so i wouldn't weigh the reviews too heavily.
 
davefr said:
I just scored an extra set of Mazda CX-5 17" rims for dedicated winter tire use. Now I'm starting the gradual search for the best dedicated winter tire for this vehicle. It seems like Blizzak WS80's and Hokian Hakka R2's are the leading contenders. Anyone have any insight into which one does best on an AWD CX-5. Or is there an even better alternative?
Click to expand...

"Better" is so subjective it's not even funny. But I would encourage you not to make the same mistake I made for many years (until I bought my first set of winter tires for my AWD CX-5). In hindsight it was an obvious mistake but one that somehow I couldn't recognize I was making all those years. What was that mistake?

I actually thought I should make my winter buying decision based upon which tire had the most traction on the slippery stuff. I reasoned I was buying dedicated winter tires to handle the slippery stuff and nothing else mattered. I wanted the baddest ass snow and ice traction I could find, bare, wet traction and handling be damned. Tire life? Who cares, I would discard them when they got to half-tread (which often happened shockingly fast). And their snow/ice performance would often degrade quite a bit before they reached half-tread. What I failed to consider was that ANY decent full-on winter tire was going to get me where I was going with a good margin of safety. I didn't realize that the winter tire with the worst snow and ice traction was going to be so far ahead of the best all season radial that they can't even be compared in the same sentence.

Never mind that they felt squirmy on bare/wet pavement. Never mind that they had less margin of safety on bare/wet pavement. Who cares if they made a racket at speeds as low as 40 mph or cost a lot of money and wore out far too soon. I thought none of that mattered because I had the baddest ass snow and ice traction I could find. But it did bother me that a lot of people were driving very slowly because all they had were all-season radials. And I never did enter a winter rally race to take advantage of all that snow/ice traction.

Shortly after I bought my AWD CX-5 I ordered some lighter wheels with a set of Goodyear IceGrip WRT in the OEM 17" size. I knew they didn't have the type of heavily populated, small open block and heavily siped tread pattern that I had found to work so well previously but they were well siped and looked strangely sporty. I figured they would probably be less squirmy on the bare and wet and, while I've never been one to let tire prices influence my purchase decision, I can say the ~$109/tire made it easy to take a chance on them. And I'm very glad I did. I don't think I will ever go back to the squirmy style winter treads again. These things rock, especially on bare and wet pavement. And they don't give up much in the slippery stuff either - you know- the stuff that everyone else is going 30 mph on anyways. But if I have an icy, curvy open road ahead of me, I can still rip it up without slipping and sliding around. Plus, they give more warning before they let go. I feel like they are easier to drive on the edge of traction than I'm accustomed to, more predictable, less all or nothing. I think it's because they are less squirmy and therefor they give more steering feedback, even on the ice. This is probably why I find them so easy to drive consistently near the limit. Granted, their ultimate traction on both snow and ice is subjectively maybe 10-15% less than I'm accustomed to getting with the squirmy style winter tires but I don't miss that little bit at all considering they are 25% better everywhere else and they absolutely rock in the rain.

With only about 12,000 miles on them, time will tell how much longevity they have and how their grip holds up past half life but, based on what I see, I'm optimistic.

Conditions:
- Lots of rain
- Ice, frost
- Some wet heavy snow but I have no intention of venturing out in heavy snow but sometimes we get surprised and need to make it home.

TIA
Click to expand...


Yep, sounds perfect for Mt. Hood conditions. And I assume at least an occasional trip into the big city of Portland? These work good in the city.
 
Last edited:
MikeM. said:
"Better" is so subjective it's not even funny. But I would encourage you not to make the same mistake I made for many years (until I bought my first set of winter tires for my AWD CX-5). In hindsight it was an obvious mistake but one that somehow I couldn't recognize I was making all those years. What was that mistake?

I actually thought I should make my winter buying decision based upon which tire had the most traction on the slippery stuff. I reasoned I was buying dedicated winter tires to handle the slippery stuff and nothing else mattered. I wanted the baddest ass snow and ice traction I could find, bare, wet traction and handling be damned. Tire life? Who cares, I would discard them when they got to half-tread (which often happened shockingly fast). And their snow/ice performance would often degrade quite a bit before they reached half-tread. What I failed to consider was that ANY decent full-on winter tire was going to get me where I was going with a good margin of safety. I didn't realize that the winter tire with the worst snow and ice traction was going to be so far ahead of the best all season radial that they can't even be compared in the same sentence.

Never mind that they felt squirmy on bare/wet pavement. Never mind that they had less margin of safety on bare/wet pavement. Who cares if they made a racket at speeds as low as 40 mph or cost a lot of money and wore out far too soon. I thought none of that mattered because I had the baddest ass snow and ice traction I could find. But it did bother me that a lot of people were driving very slowly because all they had were all-season radials. And I never did enter a winter rally race to take advantage of all that snow/ice traction.

Shortly after I bought my AWD CX-5 I ordered some lighter wheels with a set of Goodyear IceGrip WRT in the OEM 17" size. I knew they didn't have the type of heavily populated, small open block and heavily siped tread pattern that I had found to work so well previously but they were well siped and looked strangely sporty. I figured they would probably be less squirmy on the bare and wet and, while I've never been one to let tire prices influence my purchase decision, I can say the ~$109/tire made it easy to take a chance on them. And I'm very glad I did. I don't think I will ever go back to the squirmy style winter treads again. These things rock, especially on bare and wet pavement. And they don't give up much in the slippery stuff either - you know- the stuff that everyone else is going 30 mph on anyways. But if I have an icy, curvy open road ahead of me, I can still rip it up without slipping and sliding around. Plus, they give more warning before they let go. I feel like they are easier to drive on the edge of traction than I'm accustomed to, more predictable, less all or nothing. I think it's because they are less squirmy and therefor they give more steering feedback, even on the ice. This is probably why I find them so easy to drive consistently near the limit. Granted, their ultimate traction on both snow and ice is subjectively maybe 10-15% less than I'm accustomed to getting with the squirmy style winter tires but I don't miss that little bit at all considering they are 25% better everywhere else and they absolutely rock in the rain.

With only about 12,000 miles on them, time will tell how much longevity they have and how their grip holds up past half life but, based on what I see, I'm optimistic.




Yep, sounds perfect for Mt. Hood conditions. And I assume at least an occasional trip into the big city of Portland? These work good in the city.
Click to expand...

What winter tires did you use before the GY Icegrips?

What size did you go with? I see they don't offer them in 225/65-17. Did you drop down to the 215's?

Thanks for the insight! Even in the winter, roads can be just fine and you make a good point about sacrificing handling.
 
davefr said:
What winter tires did you use before the GY Icegrips?
Click to expand...

I had some Michelin Primacy Alpin's and before that I think it was the original x-ice (or ice-x) and I don't remember the specific models before those two but there were some Finnish ones I think. But going back that far, well, a whole different product than stuff made today. Even the x-ice have gone through at least three major models since I used them.

What size did you go with?
Click to expand...

The 225/65/17's (OEM as stated in previous post)

I see they don't offer them in 225/65-17.
Click to expand...

The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice WRT certainly is available in 225/65/17. Many places are sold out after last winter and Tire Rack doesn't carry that size (but they act like it doesn't exist). I was a big tire rack fan but, now that they have developed a name and a loyal following it looks like they are cutting corners and only stocking the most profitable sizes and I'm no longer a fan even if they do have a very polished tire/wheel website. I believe the ones I bought 2 1/2 years ago (at Tire Rack) were termed "passenger/mini-van", not CUV. Their load rating is quite a bit above the Geolanders. They get along with the CX-5 extremely well and are wearing perfectly evenly even though I push the tight switchbacks very hard and also push hard on corners in the 45-50 mph range (prefer to scrub speed with faster corner entry than slow down and drive around them more normally). This year snow levels were very high so lot's of the switchbacks were bare/wet or bare/dry.

Thanks for the insight! Even in the winter, roads can be just fine and you make a good point about sacrificing handling.
Click to expand...

Even when the roads are treacherous the UGI WRT's do great. Do make sure they say "WRT" though because I believe there is a non-WRT model that may not please. And take the reviews with a huge grain of salt (even the so called "professional" reviews and tests). They are all over the place, not sure why but I suspect it has to do with the same model tire being constructed differently and/or behaving differently depending upon fitment and/or test conditions. Previously, I would read every review and try to divine useful information but now I realize it's useless information (unless the reviewer is reviewing the same fitment and actually knows what they're talking about and has used the various tires being compared in a range of conditions). My limitation is that I can only directly compare tires of different generations. But I can say that I can't imagine anyone would not like the set of performance characteristics this tire brings to the CX-5. Plus, there is just something inherently "wrong" about putting a squirmy tire on a sharp handling car like the CX-5.

Stopping distance and g-force tests do nothing for me because every snow and every ice condition is unique and they never seem to test more than one type of ice condition. And God help me if I see one more test conducted on an indoor hockey rink! I can't remember the last time I drove on ice that even had a resemblance to hockey rink ice (which is frozen from below while ice, at least where I live, is generally melted from ground heat and frozen from the atmosphere). Ice formed under atmospheric conditions and on real roads comes in so many vastly different characteristics, it's literally impossible to divine meaningful information from one "scientific" test, even when conducted outdoors.
 
We've had Nokian Haks and Nordsman, General Altimax Arctic, Hankook (all studded), Michelin X-Ice, Brigestone Blizzaks (non studded). Time has improved all of them. We live out of town on the westside of Oregon, temperate region. When it snows it takes a week for the plows to make it out here, by then the roads are getting back in shape. So we drive on powder, packed powder, slush, pure ice .

Of the litter the best overall, dry, wet, snow, packed snow, ice were the Nokian Haks and Nordsman. They don't have the sloppy drive of new Blizzaks, or X-Ice on dry or wet pavement. While the wet braking is not as good, the extra few feet needed is quickly intergrated in driving response. Next, believe it or not is the General Altimax Arctic. The tread design is older Nokian, the fishtail. Great tire, just a great affordable tire. These ride on a '96 2WD Nissan HB Pickup with about 250lbs of weight in the bed. Always made it to work and always made it home. Hankooks sucked.

Michelin and Brigstones are great for a few seasons, the rubber compound changes half way through and grip on slippery stuff is noticably diminished. They are, uh, gooshy for a season or two though relative to the others. I don't think that should eliminate either from consideration. We ran them through summer and fall when on it's last legs, just to get the value from them then looked for winter tires to change out.
 
The Michelin x ice 3 does not have a dual compound like the WS80, basically turning the WS into all season tires after 50% thread life. But no doubt at 50% thread life performance will be compromised. I generally don't keep tires past 4/32 thread depth.
 
old-school said:
We've had Nokian Haks and Nordsman, General Altimax Arctic, Hankook (all studded), Michelin X-Ice, Brigestone Blizzaks (non studded).
Click to expand...


Of the litter the best overall, dry, wet, snow, packed snow, ice were the Nokian Haks and Nordsman. They don't have the sloppy drive of new Blizzaks, or X-Ice on dry or wet pavement.
Click to expand...

Uhhhhh.....would that be the Nokian Hakkapeliitta 7 or Hakapeliitta 8 or Hakkapeliitta R2 or maybe you had the Hakkapeliitta C Van? What sizes were these in? I've noticed the same model tire can have radically different performance in different sizes on different vehicles. Whatever tire you're talking about, I guess the Nordsman are equally good when compared to the unknown Hakkeliitta.

But are you comparing unknown tire 1 with the Nordsman 4 or the Nordsman 5? I doubt it was the Nordsman WR. From your comments I can glean that these two unspecified tires are about equal to each other in "overall" performance but they don't have the sloppy drive (squirm) of the X-ice. But would that be the original X-ice or the Xi2 or perhaps you're comparing it to the Xi3? You do know the newer Xi3 is reportedly much less sloppy than the soft side-walled X-ice Xi2, right? Of course some might prefer the softer sidewall depending upon what the aspect ratio was of their required fitment. I've noticed lighter cars sometimes seem to prefer a softer sidewall. Or maybe you are comparing the two tires (but which two?) on two different vehicles that have tires with different aspect ratios?

And when you mention that Blizzaks have a sloppier "drive" (tread squirm?) when new than either of the first two unknown tires, are you speaking of the Blizzak WS50 or the LM 25? Or was it the Blizzak WS 80? Or perhaps it was the Blizzak dm-V1? Did you know there is also a Blizzak WS 60 and WS 70? Or perhaps you're only saying only the Blizzak LM 32 has a sloppy drive when the tread is new? I wonder what the aspect ratio was and how heavy the car was that this unknown tire was on? At least we know it said "Blizzak" on the sidewall.

Michelin and Brigstones are great for a few seasons, the rubber compound changes half way through and grip on slippery stuff is noticably diminished. They are, uh, gooshy for a season or two though relative to the others. I don't think that should eliminate either from consideration. We ran them through summer and fall when on it's last legs, just to get the value from them then looked for winter tires to change out.
Click to expand...

When you say "Michelin and Bridgestones" I assume you mean the Blizzak and X-ice? I hope so because that narrows it down to no fewer than 9 different winter tires with a number of different rubber compounds, tread patterns and tread depths and sidewall characteristics. And lets not even get into the ways these tires perform and feel differently depending upon sizing, aspect-ratio and vehicle characteristics.
 
Last edited:
optical_man said:
+1 to what inlinev said. The Michelin X-Ice Xi3 will more than satisfy the road conditions that you mentioned. From what I've researched, the Nokian tires would be better for deep snow and also sacrifice some stability under dry/wet conditions more than the X-ice.
Click to expand...

For what its worth I had Xi3's on my Honda accord and loved how they actually felt like a tighter handling tire. It felt sporty. Since it felt that way on a accord I'm curious how it drives on the CX5. Some of the actual winter performance I didn't care for as I felt that it should have done a better job in the snow but that's just my opinion.(this was when I lived in Green Bay,WI not Dallas)/
 
Just got an email from Discount tire direct and they are running a promotion for $100 prepaid visa, card with purchase of 4 tires and an extra $60 prepaid card if you use their credit card service. I looked and they have the Hakka's R2 SUV's in a 225-65R17 for $127 per tire with free shipping. That $100 prepaid card could then be used to pay for install. Not a bad price if you ask me. I may be getting these pretty soon, I liked the Hakka 7's on my protege5
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kdaug
Winter Tire Upgrade...Blizzak WS80 or DM-V2?????
Replies
19
Views
25K
madar
M
T
First set of Winters. Need advice! Thanks :) so torn!
Replies
19
Views
4K
Ride92
R
D
Will '16 OEM Touring rims (17") fit a '19 Signature, Want to re-use my winter tires
Replies
3
Views
2K
brillo54
brillo54

Latest posts

Back