Topic: Winter Tire Review: General Tire Grabber Arctic LT

[Autos_Editor]

Light-truck winter tire from General Tire exceeds expectations.
Read More...

[Great_Big_Abyss]

We were told by a General Tire engineer that this “tractive force” test is relevant for braking as well, and that the results can be extrapolated to stopping distances (i.e. the vehicle with the General tires would require less distance to stop in these conditions than the trucks with the Firestone and B.F. Goodrich tires).

Seriously?  They couldn't actually arrange a test showing improved stopping distance?  You're just supposed to take the engineer's word that the Grabber tires are better at stopping than the competition?

[SaskSpecV]

I usually heap praise upon the awesome autos.ca reviews (though maybe not as much as NoTo  ), but these tire reviews of Paul's are, IMO, far below the usual lofty standards of autos.ca articles.

First of all, like G_B_A commented, no stopping distance test?  Seriously??  That is, BY FAR, the most important test for a winter tire. To be fair, that is a fault of the sponsoring company, not Paul.  But what is the point of the reveiwer, if all you read is a parroting of the company line, without any independent comment?

Secondly, this statement rankled me: "The General Grabber Arctic LT will join the Firestone Winterforce LT as the only LT winter tires on the market. It’s a Load Range E, 10-ply tire."  SERIOUSLY?  A couple of minutes of research on a tire website will demonstrate that this is patently false - there are numerous other LT winter tires on the market.  How about the Bridgestone Blizzak W965?  (LT, E-load rating, 10-ply tire).  How about the Michlein LTX Winter tires?  (LT, E-load rating).  How about the Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice WRT LT (obviously an LT tire, E load rating).  And that's just from a quick search on tirerack, I'm sure Nokian, and Canadian Tire/MotoMaster, and others offer LT winter tires as well.  It also seems rather convenient that the Sponsors managed to select what is probably the worst available LT winter tire (Firestone winterforce LT) for their comparison....

I made critical comments after Paul's last winter tire "review", but was more critical of the sponsoring company for the terrible "comparison".  But if Paul isn't going to add any meaningful insight, or do a modicum of outside reserach, I'll just skip over these articles in the future.  Send Haney out to the next tire MNFR event - I'm sure he'll grill them good! 

[Minou]

My brother has an identical '14 F150 requiring E-LT tires and he went with Toyo Open Country WLT1;
http://www.toyotires.ca/tire/pattern/open-country-wlt1

I have to agree with comments from the 2 previous posters.

[jyarkony]

Thanks for the input folks, I've revised in light of the wider availability of commercial application winter tires here in our market, and asked Paul for more info on the braking feel in the limited time he had testing these tires - these tires were an extra component for an event focusing on the WinterContact so our demands of Paul were simply a brief intro to this tire, not an in-depth, investigative expose on the commercial tire segment. We, as automotive writers, often fall into the habit of trusting the information provided by OEM and company reps when it normally bears out. these exception remind us to keep our vigilance up.

That being said, yes, we are at fault for providing inadequate, incorrect information and will correct that shortly.

Our apologies, and we will take your comments to heart for future tire coverage. 

[nlm]

We were told by a General Tire engineer that this “tractive force” test is relevant for braking as well, and that the results can be extrapolated to stopping distances (i.e. the vehicle with the General tires would require less distance to stop in these conditions than the trucks with the Firestone and B.F. Goodrich tires).

Seriously?  They couldn't actually arrange a test showing improved stopping distance?  You're just supposed to take the engineer's word that the Grabber tires are better at stopping than the competition?

It does hold water; braking also relies on traction so if it outperformed in acceleration it would out perform in braking. But agreed, it would be nice to know how much better it does in braking and yeah, I don't care about 0-40 acceleration times for winter conditions, but want to know 40-0 stopping distances.

[SaskSpecV]

Our apologies, and we will take your comments to heart for future tire coverage.

Thanks JY.  That's why autos.ca has the best auto content - it listens to the readers, it keeps improving, and underperforming material is simply not tolerated for the sake of "more content, more clicks".  (I would instruct driving.ca, auto123.com, autonet.ca, et al to start using some of autos.ca's journalistic and editorial vigour....)

And for those questioning the high standards of the autos.ca reviews, I'll post one example that struck me yesterday.  Former contributor Mike Schlee did a comparison of a 2015 CR-V vs a 2015 Forester on autoguide.com.  It's not a bad comparison by any stretch, and his observations are certainly valid (I'm not quibbling about the outcome or "winner" of the review).  But the overall quality* of Mike's reviews on autos.ca were significantly better than what was posted on autoguide.com.  (*By quality, I mean depth of review, insight, readability, usefulness to reader, etc.) 

As one example, the review commends the CR-V for being highly practical, with loads of cargo space (all true).  But in the comparison table at the end of the article, it lists that the CR-V rear seat isn't split-folding!  This is a huge practicality limitation (if the seats need to be folded down for a longer item, the vehicle can't carry more than 2 people!), yet isn't addressed at all in the main article. 

More egregiously, there are NO DRIVING IMPRESSIONS at all - just a comparison of engine specs, transmission, and MPG.  One commenter called Mike out on that, and his response?  "The two crossovers drive well enough and are easy to operate. Since this segment is less about handling and more about practicality/usability, I focused more of the articles attention in that direction."
Can't fault him for focusing on the practical side of these CUVs, given their intended purpose, but not a single word on driving characteristics?  JY, Jacob, Wing, et al would never have a comparison test without at least mentioning how the vehicle drives!  And when Mike wrote for autos.ca, he wouldn't have had a review without it either.  But I guess differenet auto websites have different priorities and quality controls - so that's why this website is the best in the business.

http://www.autoguide.com/car-comparisons/2015-honda-cr-v-vs-2015-subaru-forester

[bridgecity]

As one example, the review commends the CR-V for being highly practical, with loads of cargo space (all true).  But in the comparison table at the end of the article, it lists that the CR-V rear seat isn't split-folding! 

I'd be more concerned with the inaccuracy of the information, the seat is split folding.

[SaskSpecV]

As one example, the review commends the CR-V for being highly practical, with loads of cargo space (all true).  But in the comparison table at the end of the article, it lists that the CR-V rear seat isn't split-folding! 

I'd be more concerned with the inaccuracy of the information, the seat is split folding.

Good to know BC!  Though I think this was an American test, maybe their CR-V models don't split? (seems highly unlikely).
A non-split-folding seat would seem to be a MAJOR problem in a functional vehicle like the CR-V.  I can see why it might not be a dealbreaker for a sedan (though it would for me), but a CUV is different. 

Original point still stands though - when autos.ca has inaccurate statements like that (and they happen to us all), they are corrected ASAP.  But obviously that's not happening on other sites...

[bridgecity]

As one example, the review commends the CR-V for being highly practical, with loads of cargo space (all true).  But in the comparison table at the end of the article, it lists that the CR-V rear seat isn't split-folding! 

I'd be more concerned with the inaccuracy of the information, the seat is split folding.

Good to know BC!  Though I think this was an American test, maybe their CR-V models don't split? (seems highly unlikely).
A non-split-folding seat would seem to be a MAJOR problem in a functional vehicle like the CR-V.  I can see why it might not be a dealbreaker for a sedan (though it would for me), but a CUV is different. 

Original point still stands though - when autos.ca has inaccurate statements like that (and they happen to us all), they are corrected ASAP.  But obviously that's not happening on other sites...

Its splits, I checked the US website.  It would be a major problem.  I wouldn't buy one either if it didn't, that'd be ridiculous.  I wish it did split 40-20-40 though. 

Just like you, I appreciate that editor's come on here, accept feedback, and make the appropriate changes. Kudos.

[jyarkony]

I'm gettin' a little teary-eyed, here guys. thanks

It's all a product of living in constant fear of criticism! 

But you can also look to yourselves to credit for accuracy of the information - we don't have quite the depth of resources that major american sites and mags do, but we have one of the biggest pools of fact checkers of any automotive site - it is your contributions, exchanges, insights and corrections when we miss a step (because of time or resources or oversight) and your different perspectives that help inform each other and readers that do not participate that make this the best automotive site in Canada – okay, our writers are pretty damn good, too.

And don't be so hard on Mike, we have had a few of our own driving-impression-light reviews in the past (which were promptly called out by our forum members), and if ever there was a segment that warrants focus on practicality and considerations other than the driving experience, the booming compact SUV segment is it. I tried to point the focus away from the driving quality and characteristics in the subcompact comparison for similar reasons.

[Gurgie]

Jonathan... sounds like you need a good QA person perhaps?  Right up my alley, maybe we could work something out? 

[SaskSpecV]

And don't be so hard on Mike, we have had a few of our own driving-impression-light reviews in the past (which were promptly called out by our forum members)

That's what we're here for JY! 

My criticism is more disappointment, as autos.ca readers know Mike's high capabilities. His articles on here were awesome, but this one wasn't up to that standard. And it's not simply the lack of driving impressions (though he could simply have mentioned "there are no significant driving impressions produced by either vehicle - both are simply a conveyance...", or something to that effect). 

That being said, I don't know if Mike's writing is being hamstrung by his own editors, a different target audience, the required article format or length, etc.  What I do know is that when Mike wrote for autos.ca, I never skipped one of his articles - no matter what vehicle it was, the article was "must read".  But that's no longer the case for me with his writing on autoguide.  I'm betting he hasn't forgotten how to write a great article (maybe he has since he's away from the rest of you writers here ), so perhaps  something else is at play here?  If he ever comes back to the forums he can fill me in!