snow vs. winter tires

pcgrantham · Post by **pcgrantham** » Aug 29th, '06, 07:46

Whats the difference? I recently traded in my Subaru and got a corolla for gas saving reasons. I'm a little apprehensive about driving up to K in the snow and was wondering which would be better for my car. My other option is just get a used 4WD vehicle.

Any feedback?

Thanks

KnuckleDragger · Post by **KnuckleDragger** » Aug 29th, '06, 08:18

If a used 4WD is a realistic option I would go with that. Last season I was stoked when I awoke to 6" of fresh snow. Then got really pissed off when I realized that they hadn't plowed the parking lot yet, and the roads that had been plowed were not sanded. My little rear wheel drive sedan didn't fare well.

BoozeTan · Post by **BoozeTan** » Aug 29th, '06, 08:24

I, as well as several others on here swear by Nokian Hakkapolitas or Hakka 2's for short...super aggressive snow tire with or with out studs. I have them on my Jetta and have never been stuck in a storm.

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Aug 29th, '06, 08:30

If you are going 2 wheel drive, put the 4 snow tires on. Lots of good ones out there, but don't skimp if you plan on driving in snow country. Throw a bit of extra weight in the trunk to maintain rear stability for front wheel drive.

The type of tire has been discussed quite a bit over the years in here. the Nokian 2 seems to be the preferred hands down. Blizzak (sp) is also a popular one. Note that both probably have limited miles due to the soft material which provides the best traction. I run 4 Cooper Snows on my vans and have had good success.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Aug 29th, '06, 08:48

MOTHER FUKER!!!!!!
I had to look up all sorts of technical crap for a question I was writing in and firefox fuking crashed!!!

about 15 minutes down the tubes.
i hate firefox.

CAPBOY · Post by **CAPBOY** » Aug 29th, '06, 08:50

Steve wrote:MOTHER FUKER!!!!!!
I had to look up all sorts of technical crap for a question I was writing in and firefox fuking crashed!!!

about 15 minutes down the tubes.
i hate firefox.

you should type in word then copy and paste in firefox. Corrects grammar and spelling (only kidding).

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Aug 29th, '06, 09:01

ok here was my question.
my car came with 235/65R 16 tires.

Nokian doesn't make tires in that size.

Nokian has 1 model that comes in 235/70R 16.
And 2 models that come in 235/60R 16.

What do I gain and lose my increasing or decreasing the aspect ratio?

BoozeTan · Post by **BoozeTan** » Aug 29th, '06, 09:32

I actually always run narrower tires with the snows....kind of like pizza cutters....
I forget though which number represents the actual width of the tread...one number is width and one is sidewall percentage I think...the 16 being the rim size...Im guessing that the 200 number is the actual width of the tire and the 65 or 70 are the sidewall numbers.

Cityskier · Post by **Cityskier** » Aug 29th, '06, 09:42

Steve wrote:ok here was my question.
my car came with 235/65R 16 tires.

Nokian doesn't make tires in that size.

Nokian has 1 model that comes in 235/70R 16.
And 2 models that come in 235/60R 16.

What do I gain and lose my increasing or decreasing the aspect ratio?

It took you 15 minutes to write that??

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Aug 29th, '06, 10:14

Cityskier wrote:
Steve wrote:ok here was my question.
my car came with 235/65R 16 tires.

Nokian doesn't make tires in that size.

Nokian has 1 model that comes in 235/70R 16.
And 2 models that come in 235/60R 16.

What do I gain and lose my increasing or decreasing the aspect ratio?
It took you 15 minutes to write that??

no the original post had a lot more detail.

pcgrantham · Post by **pcgrantham** » Aug 29th, '06, 10:19

BoozeTan wrote:I actually always run narrower tires with the snows....kind of like pizza cutters....
I forget though which number represents the actual width of the tread...one number is width and one is sidewall percentage I think...the 16 being the rim size...Im guessing that the 200 number is the actual width of the tire and the 65 or 70 are the sidewall numbers.

I think it's the opposite.

pcgrantham · Post by **pcgrantham** » Aug 29th, '06, 10:21

So with snow tires, I've never had any experience with them. I'm assuming you can run them from lets say Nov 15th thru mid April on any kind of surface? Do they just wear out faster? What's a good price for them?

Thanks

AlpineZone · Post by **AlpineZone** » Aug 29th, '06, 10:28

Steve wrote:ok here was my question.
my car came with 235/65R 16 tires.

Nokian doesn't make tires in that size.

Nokian has 1 model that comes in 235/70R 16.
And 2 models that come in 235/60R 16.

What do I gain and lose my increasing or decreasing the aspect ratio?

The 235 is the width of the tire, i.e. 235 mm. The 65 refers to the "height" of the tire as a percentage of width, i.e. 65% of 235 mm or 152.75 mm as measured from the rim to the edge of the tire. I've heard narrower is better in snow. Be careful with going taller; if you go too big the tire can rub when turning, but the difference between a 235/70 and a 235/65 is only 8 mm or so so you should be fine.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Aug 29th, '06, 10:29

pcgrantham wrote:
BoozeTan wrote:I actually always run narrower tires with the snows....kind of like pizza cutters....
I forget though which number represents the actual width of the tread...one number is width and one is sidewall percentage I think...the 16 being the rim size...Im guessing that the 200 number is the actual width of the tire and the 65 or 70 are the sidewall numbers.

I think it's the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_code

235=width of tire in mm
65= ratio of depth of tire to width (aspect ratio)
r=radial
16=diameter of rim

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Aug 29th, '06, 10:54

AlpineZone wrote:8 mm or so so you should be fine.

Yeah, that was a concern of mine..
I'm getting mixed reactions about whether the 60 or the 70 would be better in the snow.. assuming the 70 will fit in the wheelwell.

the stock tire's speed and weight ratings were 104T
that translates to 1984lbs and 118mph

Of the two auto tires that come in 235/60:
RSI=104R (1984lbs,105mph) $155 each not studdable
hakkapeliitta 2=100T (1764lbs, 118mph) $196/$216 studded

Of the SUV tire that comes in 235/70:
hakkapeliitta SUV=105T (2039lbs,118mph) $134/$154 studded
(prices are from tiresbyweb.com)

I suppose I can rule out the hakka 2 - the 1764lb max rating might screw me. On the other hand, the lower speed rating of the RSI (118 to 105) doesn't concern me one bit. So I have three choices.

a 235/60 RSI at $155
a 235/70 HakkaSUV studded $154
and a 235/70 HakkaSUV non-studded $134

I'd like to go studded this time, since I have a larger car, will be spending more time in VT, and sliding on ice is no fun.
Then again, if I find that the 235/60 non studded is safer than the 235/70 studded, I'll probably go that route.

saving the $20 ($80) on the non-studded is tempting, too.. but not that tempting.