Short tire review : Continental Extreme Winter Contact

[aquadorhj]

I've had these for about 3~ weeks now on my Jetta.  sized 195.65.15 on winter steelies.
I got these from a vendor whose name I won't mention but rhymes with Hire Heck... 

Prior to this, I had Bridgestone Blizzak WS50 on my Honda Fit.

Other winter tire i've experienced recently is Bridgestone Blizzak LM-25 on my buddy's BMW.

Ride : very nice.  Not as soft as the blizzak on my Fit, but feels hefty and at the same gives me a solid feeling.  my buddy's blizzak, on the other hand, being a runflat variety is literally rock solid...  it felt like rolling on wheels made out of block of wood.

Handling : pretty good.  given the tread depth of this new tire, there's some more play in the steering than before(with all season) but it's pretty good.  BUT it tramlines quite a bit more than the all season.  whenever there's a rut from trucks or significant crowning on the road, it tries to follow it against my wish.

Noise:  on dry clean road, it's actually quieter than my all season on 16" rims.  I liked it very much.

In the Powder:  Very Very good.  never got stuck once. Tracks almost straight and true on powered snow, and it's as confidence inspiring as the blizzak.

On the Ice  : Not as good as the blizzak.    Stopping is very very good, and the grip level on ice is significantly higher than my all season. (obviously), but the back end kicks out ever so often on iced road compared to blizzak-ed Honda.  and at stop lights, my front spins almost everytime, triggering the TC to come on even when I'm really careful with the clutch.

In the Slush : again, not as good as blizzak.  On highway, with light flurries and wet road due to salt, it wasn't as sure footed as the blizzak on my buddies bimmer.   me and my buddy made a trip to revelstoke ski hill on his car, going ~90 km/h the whole way and I felt confident because there was hardly any unseemly movement from tires.  and his VSC never came on until we entered unplowed/unsalted town centre.   the next day in almost exactly same condition, my car would slowly very slightly slide the back end if I approached 90km/h and didn't give me as much confidence.

Overall, I am satisfied with the performance of the tires.   I knew when I bought it, that it wasn't gonna be as good as the blizzaks.  I was on a budget and there's NO WAY i wasn't buying winter tires anyway.  and for almost the same money you would spend at CT or walmart on no-name winter tires(it would have cost me ~$700 for CT winter tire or walmart ones on steelies) I got name brand ones. 

If I had gone with Toyo Observe or Michelin X-Ice, not to mention the blizzak, it would have cost me more than a grand for sure.

[HeliDriver]

Thanks for the review.

I'll be looking at winter tires for my new car next winter, and the ExtremeWinterContacts are definitely on my list.

I'm guessing you've already seen the test at TireRack? http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=122 . The results were close, but the Contis actually beat both the WS60s and X-Ice Xi2s.

[aquadorhj]

I'll be looking at winter tires for my new car next winter, and the ExtremeWinterContacts are definitely on my list.

I'm guessing you've already seen the test at TireRack? http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=122 . The results were close, but the Contis actually beat both the WS60s and X-Ice Xi2s.

Thanks SiRCivic.   I actually have not seen the test result on TireRack. 

I kinda wanted to let the thread die, as I thought I had conveyed what I wanted to. but there's a quick update.

On my review, I said it's not as good as Blizzak on slush or ice.   It's Definitely confirmed now.

On an on ramp to highway 2, going about ~50 ~55km/h,  my back end stepped out big time, today.
weather condition:  -16, last few days snowed, sunny today, so it's all ice on road.

If it wasn't for the ESP , I would have spun for sure.

I'm not sure if this is to do with the weight of the car..   the Fit never even had a close call unless i was driving like a lunatic in winter with Blizzaks on.

the Conti's are definitely good with snow and cold not so much with ice.

[ktm525]

Thanks for the update. A ggod comparision would be to the new Blizzack LM-60?
 

[HeliDriver]

Thanks for the update. A ggod comparision would be to the new Blizzack LM-60?
 

I don't know. Continental does put it in the Studless Winter category (like the WS-60 and X-Ice), but I have also seen it on the net listed in the Performance Winter category (like the LM-60).

Maybe it's because of the T speed rating (which does kind of split the difference between the two). That's partly what has me interested in the tire. Sounds like it might be a better compromise between dry and winter performance.

[ktm525]

Thanks for the update. A ggod comparision would be to the new Blizzack LM-60?
 

I don't know. Continental does put it in the Studless Winter category (like the WS-60 and X-Ice), but I have also seen it on the net listed in the Performance Winter category (like the LM-60).

Maybe it's because of the T speed rating (which does kind of split the difference between the two). That's partly what has me interested in the tire. Sounds like it might be a better compromise between dry and winter performance.

That is exactly what I am thinking. After running V rated winters on the Volvo for the past 4 seasons I am ready for some better winter grip with my next set. I don't want to go all the way to some squishy Q's though. I am also looking at the Gislaveds Nord Frost 5s..

[HeliDriver]

I just stumbled across this: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=125 .

It's a test of three Studless Ice & Snow tires (including the WS-60 and ExtremeWinterContact), but with the Performance Winter LM-60 thrown in for comparison. Interesting results - more or less what we were thinking.

[ktm525]

I just stumbled across this: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=125 .

It's a test of three Studless Ice & Snow tires (including the WS-60 and ExtremeWinterContact), but with the Performance Winter LM-60 thrown in for comparison. Interesting results - more or less what we were thinking.

Great find. They even tested the exact size I will run on my car. The load ratings are what seals the deal for me, the Volvo "requires" 97. The Contis are 94 (more than enough) while the rest are 91's.