Topic: Winters for 50% Vancouver + 50% Whistler/Kootenays - Mazda 3 GT

[grambo]

Hi,

First post here, seems like a great forum. I did a search and found some information but most was tailored to folks who do the majority of their driving in the city.

I've just bought a used 2005 Mazda 3 GT Sport hatchback and want winter tires. Before I ask about specific tires, I have a quick size question. The stock wheels are 17inch with 205/50R17 all seasons. Looking on 1010tires and Tirerack, it seems that 205/55R16 is an option for this car, and I would prefer to downsize to save money if possible, and I also understand the larger profile means better winter performance or longer tire life. I assume this is fine since the website suggest that size? I will be buying steelies to mount the winters on.

Onto the tires... My driving includes:

1) Daily commute (5 days a week) from downtown Vancouver to south Burnaby (33km round trip) - typically dry or raining with temp above freezing to 9c or so.

2) Day/weekend trips to Whistler, roughly 25 days a season (250km round trip) - could be dry entire way, snow for half, freezing rain changing to snow, variable freezing level, compact snow/ice, anything possible. I'm an avid skier so I'm often going up in the worst weather conditions as it means the best powder.

3) One or two trips to the Kootenays/interior B.C. or Banff area per winter (1600km round trip) - same as Whistler but colder and often more snow on the secondary highways, compact snow etc.

So over 6 months (Nov 1 - Apr 30) I'll probably do about 4,500km commuting to work on dry/wet pavement above freezing, and somewhere between 6500km and 8500km to Whistler and the interior of BC which will involve loose/packed snow and ice and temps from zero to -20c. My split is thus around 50/50 dry vs. actual winter conditions, kilometer wise.

With this in mind, what would folks recommend for a tire? I've been looking at 1010tires and will also get some local quotes from shops. I thought about using Tirerack and driving down to Blaine, WA, but 1010 comes out to the same/cheaper and that way I don't have to deal with the border. I'm looking to spend $140-$170 per tire before tax, as my total budget is $900ish including steelies and shipping from 1010. 205/55R16 from 1010:

Blizzak WS70 $170
Continental ExtremeWinterContact $160
Dunlop Graspic DS3 $144
General Altimax Arctic $140
Hankook Icebear W300 $140 (heard bad things about these)
Hankook W409 iPike $146
various Kumho's
Michelin X-Ice Xi2
Nokian Hakka R's $199 - but sold out in this size
Pirelli - bunch of options but I know nothing about them
Toyo Observe G2S $174

My previous car was a 1998 Camry that I drove for 5 years around the Calgary/Banff area and also in Prince George (bad roads and lots of snow/ice) which had some Arctic Claw studded winters that actually performed really well, never got stuck with them.

Thanks for any opinions.

[HeliDriver]

First of all, welcome! Now, here's my 2 cents...

I would stick with 17" rims: you won't be saving much money by going down to 16", and with all the highway driving you plan on doing, and the squishier sidewalls of the winter tires, you may as well keep the 50-series tire profile to preserve as much bare-pavement handling as you can. Longevity and winter performance should be equal between your choices.

I assume you've already seen this: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=135 ?

That test helped me narrow down my choice when I was shopping for my GTI last winter. I'm willing to trade a bit of ultimate winter performance for improved dry-road handling, so I went with the Contis. So far I've been happy with them, and the last winter was a long and snowy one here in the Rockies.

Some other random thoughts:

The Icebears are more of a performance winter, and are also getting long in the tooth. They might be an okay choice for a Vancouver winter, but I wouldn't count on them to take me to the mountains regularly.

My experience with some other Hankook winter tires on an SUV was terrible. IMO (which admittedly isn't based on much), Hankook and Kumho just aren't in the same league as the other (European and Japanese) brands when it comes to winter tires. I'd stick with the major players and cross those off your list.

[johngenx]

X Ice seem to offer a great compromise of dry ride/handling and snow and ice traction. Given that some places you frequent can have really bad driving conditions, I'd probably go with something that can handle it. WS70 or X Ice are safe choices with the WS a bit better on ice/snow and the X Ice a bit better on dry roads.

[davidy]

I have the Arctic Claw TXI studded on my 4x2 truck....decent winter performance at an entry level price.

I think that the General Altimax Arctic should be on your shortlist. I have them studded on my 4x4 truck....excellent bang for the buck IMO. You probably don't need them studded....they are somewhat noisy. They are Q-rated.

If the rims can clear the brake calipers, I would go with the 16 inch steel rims. 55 aspect ratio isn't that much different from your stock 50's....the 55's would have a slightly softer ride...however, handling won't be as crisp as the 50's. 205/55-16 are 0.8% smaller than stock (max allowed rule of thumb is 3%...okay).

Another is the Hankook I*Pike W409 T-rated....expect a stiffer ride than the Q-rated Generals. Very similar tread pattern to the Generals. This year, I have read that the I*Pikes have a new grippier rubber compound.

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/winter-tire-reviews-rankings-recommendations-compilation-cr-apa-etc-1089871/

While the Continental ExtremeWinterContact is highly rated, it doesn't perform as good as the General Altimax Arctics in wet braking and hydroplaning....wet braking and hydroplaning is a high priority for those living in the west coast. Also, I have read poor reviews on the Michelin XIce Xi2 regarding it's poor performance in wet, slushy snow like those encountered in Vancouver and the Pacific Northwest. Xi2's wet performance is lacking too.

So out of the those listed, I would choose either the General Altimax Arctic or the Hankook I*Pike W409.....probably leaning towards the W409 since you are planning to do a lot of highway driving. The only real knock on the Generals that I have found is that they can be a bit squishy....even when unstudded, they are reported to be somewhat noisy.

I would avoid the Blizzak WS70 due to suspected short treadwear....they are very highly rated, but it uses a very soft compound. There have been reports of Blizzak owners being unhappy with the treadwear resulting in switching to another brand. WS70 is pretty new however.

Dave

[johngenx]

...There have been reports of Blizzak owners being unhappy with the treadwear resulting in switching to another brand. WS70 is pretty new however.

I have heard this over and over again, and yet all the Blizzaks I've had over the years have lasted the same 3 winters as every other brand I've had.  We put more miles on in the winter, so they get used a lot!

[davidy]

...There have been reports of Blizzak owners being unhappy with the treadwear resulting in switching to another brand. WS70 is pretty new however.

I have heard this over and over again, and yet all the Blizzaks I've had over the years have lasted the same 3 winters as every other brand I've had.  We put more miles on in the winter, so they get used a lot!

Too bad that CR doesn't include treadwear in their ratings. It would be nice to see it settled once and for all.

If you look at all the wet braking/traction ratings by CR....Xi2, Blizzak WS60, Blizzak DM-V1 all didn't go well in this category. The Xi2 didn't do well in hydroplaning either. This is a big factor to consider when buying winter tires in Vancouver or the wet coast....not so much in the BC interior or Alberta.

Dave

[johngenx]

I bet not many people rotate them.  I do.  Regardless of FWD/RWD/AWD, really extended life.  Proper inflation too.

[HeliDriver]

I bet not many people rotate them.  I do.  Regardless of FWD/RWD/AWD, really extended life.  Proper inflation too.

When I put the Contis back on last week, I found the fronts had worn 1/32 and the rears 2/32. That was over 10,000 kms last winter. Doing the math, if I rotate them regularly, all four should be evenly worn out (5/32 remaining) at the end of the fourth winter. If not, two tires will be worn out by the third winter.

We only put 5,000 kms on the SUV's new Blizzaks last winter, but I'm curious to measure how much tread has worn away.

[johngenx]

We log at least 15K a winter on the Blizzaks, so I can't complain about three winters on a set.  That's on both WS-50's and WS-60's.  'Rolla is riding on a new set of WS-70's this winter.  Hard to believe we've had the car coming on four years...

[Angry Chicken]

The OP PM'd me and I wrote this in my response.  Thought I'd share:

Still have a Mazda3.  I liked the old one so much that I bought another, this time a 2011.  I read through the post you made with all the replies and have to say I agree with the advice of staying with your stock tire size.  With modern winter tires there's no big reason to accept the tradeoffs inherent in going to a taller side wall and smaller rim coupled with the softer characteristics of a winter tire.

As for tire choices, I just bought a set of Continental ExtremeWinterContacts, size 205/50-17 (OE size) for my 3.  I haven't driven on them yet, but all reports/tests, etc., seem to indicate that they will be a good choice.  The Hakkapeliitta RSis that I had on my rims easily lasted the four seasons that I wanted them to, with about 5/32 tread left over after about 50,000 km.  Not bad.

I wrote a mini review of my experiences with the Hakkas here:

http://www.autos.ca/forum/index.php/topic,56705.0.html
The newer "R" should be at least as good.

There's also a discussion about low profile winter tires here:
http://www.autos.ca/forum/index.php/topic,60907.0.html

[grambo]

Thanks everyone so much for the detailed responses. I'll reply one at a time so as to avoid another megapost.

First of all, welcome! Now, here's my 2 cents...

I would stick with 17" rims: you won't be saving much money by going down to 16", and with all the highway driving you plan on doing, and the squishier sidewalls of the winter tires, you may as well keep the 50-series tire profile to preserve as much bare-pavement handling as you can. Longevity and winter performance should be equal between your choices.

I assume you've already seen this: <edited out can't post links> ?

That test helped me narrow down my choice when I was shopping for my GTI last winter. I'm willing to trade a bit of ultimate winter performance for improved dry-road handling, so I went with the Contis. So far I've been happy with them, and the last winter was a long and snowy one here in the Rockies.

Some other random thoughts:

The Icebears are more of a performance winter, and are also getting long in the tooth. They might be an okay choice for a Vancouver winter, but I wouldn't count on them to take me to the mountains regularly.

My experience with some other Hankook winter tires on an SUV was terrible. IMO (which admittedly isn't based on much), Hankook and Kumho just aren't in the same league as the other (European and Japanese) brands when it comes to winter tires. I'd stick with the major players and cross those off your list.

After looking over the data at Tirerack, I'm liking the sound of the Contis and the X-Ice in terms of having acceptable dry and wet performance.

What size Contis did you end up with on your GTI? And where abouts in Alberta do you drive in the winter? I ask because the one thing I'm a bit worried about with sticking with 17" 50's is performance in deep snow. For example, some days at Mt. Baker in WA you might have a foot+ of snow fall during the day so the parking lot/top of the highway might not be plowed yet and I wouldn't want to get stuck. Then again, is there a huge difference going 17"/50 to 16"/55 on the same tire (say the Conti Contact).

I realize I'm basically asking for the impossible wanting good dry performance handling, wet braking/hydroplaning, ice, packed and powder performance . I'm definitely willing to compromise on the dry performance, with the hope of having a setup that I will not be likely to get stuck in deeper snow with. Wet performance is definitely a high priority.

[grambo]

X Ice seem to offer a great compromise of dry ride/handling and snow and ice traction. Given that some places you frequent can have really bad driving conditions, I'd probably go with something that can handle it. WS70 or X Ice are safe choices with the WS a bit better on ice/snow and the X Ice a bit better on dry roads.

X-Ice sound like a good option, but I need to do more research on their wet braking and hydroplaning performance. I've read comments about both the X-Ice and the Blizzak's wearing prematurely, but these were just one-off comments on 1010tires or Tirerack reviews so who knows how accurate they are. Based on comments on this forum it seems some are getting excellent mileage out of both. I have read really positive comments about both these tires on a skiing forum from folks using them to access the mountains often.

[grambo]

I have the Arctic Claw TXI studded on my 4x2 truck....decent winter performance at an entry level price.

I think that the General Altimax Arctic should be on your shortlist. I have them studded on my 4x4 truck....excellent bang for the buck IMO. You probably don't need them studded....they are somewhat noisy. They are Q-rated.

If the rims can clear the brake calipers, I would go with the 16 inch steel rims. 55 aspect ratio isn't that much different from your stock 50's....the 55's would have a slightly softer ride...however, handling won't be as crisp as the 50's. 205/55-16 are 0.8% smaller than stock (max allowed rule of thumb is 3%...okay).

Another is the Hankook I*Pike W409 T-rated....expect a stiffer ride than the Q-rated Generals. Very similar tread pattern to the Generals. This year, I have read that the I*Pikes have a new grippier rubber compound.

<clipped url>

While the Continental ExtremeWinterContact is highly rated, it doesn't perform as good as the General Altimax Arctics in wet braking and hydroplaning....wet braking and hydroplaning is a high priority for those living in the west coast. Also, I have read poor reviews on the Michelin XIce Xi2 regarding it's poor performance in wet, slushy snow like those encountered in Vancouver and the Pacific Northwest. Xi2's wet performance is lacking too.

So out of the those listed, I would choose either the General Altimax Arctic or the Hankook I*Pike W409.....probably leaning towards the W409 since you are planning to do a lot of highway driving. The only real knock on the Generals that I have found is that they can be a bit squishy....even when unstudded, they are reported to be somewhat noisy.

I would avoid the Blizzak WS70 due to suspected short treadwear....they are very highly rated, but it uses a very soft compound. There have been reports of Blizzak owners being unhappy with the treadwear resulting in switching to another brand. WS70 is pretty new however.

Dave

Thanks Dave, lots of great info in this post.

I had the Mazda in for new brake pads yesterday and was chatting with the mechanic about winters. He said to be careful about downsizing to 16's as it could cause problems fitting with the calipers and also potential ABS issues. I looked in the manual last night and it just says to contact Mazda about running anything other than the size of wheel/tire your model came with (in this case 205/50R17). My mechanic was going to call his tire expert and look into it for me. 1010tires and Tirerack both give 205/55R16 as an option for a 2005 Mazda 3 GT Sport, and there are tons of reports of people running 16's on the hatchback around the web, but of course I want to be sure.

I'm absolutely concerned about hydroplaning and wet performance, frequently during the November-January months one will encounter large puddles on Hwy-99 to Whistler. Since it is dark most of the drive up/back in these months, and often driving rain until you pass Squamish when it turns to wet snow. Good to know the Altimax and 409 iPike's offer good performance there.

Both the Altimax Arctic and 409's are $160-165 on 1010tires in the 205/50R17 size which is a pretty good value proposition as well. I'll definitely be going studless with the amount of dry pavement I'll be doing, my studded Arctic Claws last year were annoying to have in Vancouver, but essential up in Prince George prior to that.

[grambo]

The OP PM'd me and I wrote this in my response.  Thought I'd share:

Still have a Mazda3.  I liked the old one so much that I bought another, this time a 2011.  I read through the post you made with all the replies and have to say I agree with the advice of staying with your stock tire size.  With modern winter tires there's no big reason to accept the tradeoffs inherent in going to a taller side wall and smaller rim coupled with the softer characteristics of a winter tire.

As for tire choices, I just bought a set of Continental ExtremeWinterContacts, size 205/50-17 (OE size) for my 3.  I haven't driven on them yet, but all reports/tests, etc., seem to indicate that they will be a good choice.  The Hakkapeliitta RSis that I had on my rims easily lasted the four seasons that I wanted them to, with about 5/32 tread left over after about 50,000 km.  Not bad.

I wrote a mini review of my experiences with the Hakkas here:

clip
The newer "R" should be at least as good.

There's also a discussion about low profile winter tires here:
clip

Thanks for the response and PM AD!

From reading your thread about low profile tires, it seems some cite concerns about lack of protection to the wheels in winter months as an issue (I'll be running black steelies regardless of if I go 16 or 17, so I'm not concerned about cosmetic damage, only actual wheel/tire damage). It sounds like one potential problem is traction in deep snow, did you ever experience problems in your Mazda 3 in say a foot of loose snow with the 50's? Then again, it's not a huge difference from 50/17 to 55/16 keeping a 205 width.

I've heard great things about the Contis, but I'm a bit concerned about their wet performance which is an issue for me (see my posts above this one). Everyone on a ski forum I frequent raves about the Nokian Hakka 5's and R's, they are more expensive than I am looking to pay for, but I will keep them in mind, just need to research their wet performance.

I'm not overly concerned about having maximum dry pavement performance in the winter. I certainly appreciate it, but my #1 concerns are safety and handling in adverse conditions (snow, ice and rain). I'm willing to compromise on dry handling a bit for that. My daily commute to work is along a 60-70km/h urban street, so highway will be limited to Hwy-99 to Whistler and Hwy-1 to interior BC where I will encounter winter conditions.

[tortoise]

I've read comments about both the X-Ice and the Blizzak's wearing prematurely, but these were just one-off comments on 1010tires or Tirerack reviews so who knows how accurate they are.

When reading comments go with the average, not the one user who's car needed an alignment and never rotated their tires.

We managed 5 winters out of a set of X-Ice and we put on 30,000 km per year,  so 15,000 km per winter.   They're good tires that drove very nicely. FWIW, I downsized from 16's to 15's and didn't notice much of a handling degradation. 

Lastly, if you're worried about performance in a foot+ of snow I'd suggest AWD.   Any FWD car may get stuck with that much snow, it'll just be easier to push out with snow tires.

[davidy]

These two links show the breakdowns of the CR reports on passenger winter tires in 2009 and SUV/truck winter tires in 2011....with ratings on wet braking, snow traction, ice traction, hydroplaning, etc (Note: Hankook Winter I*Pike = W409 in the CR report):

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/ct-general-altimax-arctic-winder-tires-30-off-935577/

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/consumer-reports-rates-truck-suv-winter-tires-1088780/

Too bad that the Nokians are only available and way overpriced from Kal Tire here in Western Canada...unless you go down to the US.

Interesting to see that the Yokohama Geolander I/T G072 (truck/SUV version of the Ice Guard IG20???) does well in wet braking and hydroplaning, but not as well in ice braking.

As you have said, it's impossible to find a winter tire that is a star in all categories.

Good luck.

Dave

[HeliDriver]

I went with 215/50R17 on the GTI: Stock is 225/45R17. 205/50R17 would have been a closer match, but a bit smaller than stock, rather than a bit larger like I have now. I figured the tiny extra bit of ground clearance wouldn't hurt, and 215 is plenty narrow enough anyway.

Most of my winter driving is around Banff/Canmore, up to the ski hills and the highway to Calgary. Last winter was well above average for snow here, but still nothing like the huge dumps you see in BC.

But, in my experience, ground clearance is the biggest factor in determining deep snow performance, not tires. Of the dozen or so brands and models of winter tires I've tried, none have had any issues with pulling or pushing the car through snow up to the point that the undercarriage gets stuck.

It's the ice and packed snow traction where most of the differences are, in my experience. Of course, I've never tried an overly ice-biased tire with a closed tread pattern like the original X-ice or those Hankook W-300s.


I can't say much about the Contis' wet performance. They seem perfectly fine to me, but that's in Alberta rain, not Vancouver rain. 

[safristi]

Hydroplaning in Winter!!!.............whateffer............buy from the TOP LINE rated tyres...and 80% of the performance is YOUR limitations brother......drive within your limits and the weathers LIMITS.....that last one will get ya sooner rather than later......................bon chance.....that's Ontarian fer "Last chance to place yer bets ................." get off the pot and purchase or there will only be slicks left SOOON....

[HeliDriver]

One other thought about wheel size: it's one thing to have clearance between the rim and brake caliper, and another to have plenty of clearance.

When I downsized 1" on my last car (a Civic), I was forever getting stones and road gravel wedged between the rim and caliper. Usually it just made an annoying racket, but at least once I had to jack up the car and pull the wheel off to get the stone out: it was wedged in so tight the wheel wouldn't even turn.

[roundupready]

The problem with Nokian is, when you compare list to list, they aren't that much more expensive than other premium brands.

Kal Tire: 185/60/15,

• Hakka R             $157.17 
• Yokohama IG20   $155.21

But you can't get much discount/rebate from Nokian, so they are more expensive comparing to how aggressively the other brands are discounting/rebating.