How much better are Nokian HAKAKKKKAKAKpileetta vs Blizzak's?

The title pretty much says it all but I'll expound a little.

For my particular car (lifted vw tdi, utilizing 26-27" tall tires on 15" wheels) and using discount tire as the source since they presently have $100 off $400 or more plus stackable rebates from Bridgestone, Yokohama, Hankook.

I have found the cheapest snow tires are: Hankook Icept W320 tires, at $220 to my door after discount/rebate Bridgestone Blizzak WS80 are $286 to my door after discount/rebate Nokian Hakkapileta R2 are $420 to my door after discount no rebate

So, what say the hive? are they $200 better than Hankooks? are they $135 better than Blizzaks?

I'm pretty comfortable spending $65 more for Blizzaks over Hankooks but am balking at spending $135 for Nokians over Blizzaks.

The more budget oriented tires seem to have more compromises in their performance. For instance, in tire rack testing, there is a significant difference between ice stopping distances, wet road stopping distances and wet cornering grip with the X-Ice3/Blizzaks vs. Yoko/Dunlop

Here's a comparison test which includes Blizzaks and Nokian. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/winter-tire-test-six-top-brands-tested-compared-feature

Tire rack's test results were different, but the Nokian's weren't included.

I've had Hakkas and Blizzaks, but not on the same vehicle.

The first season of use, the Blizzaks were somewhat better, particularly on hard pack snow. Never needed to use 4wd in my little Sonoma with them.

The second and filtering seasons, though, I'd give the nod to the Hakkas as being better.

That said, would I spend more for Hakkas? Maybe. I'd flip a coin after reading current reviews. My experience with them was a long time ago, and the reason I went with Blizzaks was because the tire store gave me a sweet deal on them.

After 3 seasons, the Hakka R2s on my Jeep have degraded very little in grip despite being down to 1/2 the original tread depth (this will be their 4th and final winter). They're pretty quiet compared to a lot of other snows too.

Blizzaks perform well but tend to be a little shorter-lived than other snows. The Xi3 gets very good reviews although it might not be as good in deep snow.

I've never used either, but have quite a bit of experience with the X-Ice and Generals. The X-Ice have better traction on both snow and ice than the Generals, but don't do as well in slush. They also seem to wear longer - FYI I run snow tires year-round and drive like a wannabe WRC driver(no, not Ken Block ), so they definitely receive a punishment.

Just another viewpoint for anyone else shopping.

IIRC, Blizzaks are gumballs that rely on their tread compound for grip. Once they're a bit worn, they basically revert to being all-seasons. Nokians last forever. Also based on older experience.

In our non-studded ice racing Street Legal (SL) class the Blizzaks were generally superior.

As for general use there probably is not much difference.

After 9 winters and half worn and 10 pts. harder on the durometer scale my Blizzaks are retired. I noticed a loss of traction last winter.

I have a new set of WS-80's waiting for the cold weather.

Where are you located? If it gets and stays cold the Hakka's will be great but if you are going to see fluctuating temps above freezing and a good amount of dry pavement then you might want to look into Michelin x-ice and Conti winters as they will do better in the warmer weather.

HFmaxi wrote: Where are you located? If it gets and stays cold the Hakka's will be great but if you are going to see fluctuating temps above freezing and a good amount of dry pavement then you might want to look into Michelin x-ice and Conti winters as they will do better in the warmer weather.

Interesting thing about the Hakkas and temperature. Mine aren't bad on dry pavement even when there's a random warm day (60 - 70). The only time they kinda suck is when it's in the 30s and wet / rainy. They're not great with lots of slushy, half-melted 30 snow either. For snow and hard pack, once you get down into the single digits, they really start to stick. And they stick better and better as it gets colder, it seems.

If you don't want to spend Nokian money I'd recommend the General Altimax Arctic, it's an older Gislaved (Nokian competitor) design and performs as such.

BrokenYugo wrote: If you don't want to spend Nokian money I'd recommend the General Altimax Arctic, it's an older Gislaved (Nokian competitor) design and performs as such.

But, it has one big downside: it's studdable. If you don't plan to run studs, stay away from studdable tires. They're designed to rely on the studs for grip on ice and hardpack, so if you leave the studs out, they tend to be worse on icy stuff than a studless tire. However, studdable snows usually have more open tread patterns so they're a little better in deep snow.

As far as my location, Michigan. I generally don't consider swapping over snows until mid December ish and take them off early.

I commute 100 miles each day so the tires will see a decent amount of wear. The initial OMG grip of the blizzaks is likely what sold me on them. I've run the General on several cars with good luck, hmm may have to price those.

If the Hakka's stay at blizzak grip level for longer I'm more tempted to give them a try.

In reply to rslifkin:

It's a tradeoff, they do work ok on ice without studs and wear like they're made of iron. I run mine hard enough the sipes on the tread blocks get kinda angled on the drive tires and expect to get 6 or 7 winters out of them.

C&D Test results

The test results put the Nokians at the top (or tied) for every measure. Given thier Finnish origins, their arctic testing and their ongoing R&D that brings new models to market more frequently than the other guys leads me to believe they are the best price notwithstanding.

For a "budget" tire--I still really like (as others have noted) the Generals, which are a re-badged Gislaved Nordfrost.

In reply to FSP_ZX2:

That test also indicates the Xi3 and Wintercontact Si are worthy competitors, which agrees with everything I've heard about them. A friend had the Wintercontact Si on his E46 330i last winter and they did great (and were pretty liveable in terms of noise, mushiness, etc.).

I've had a set of Hakkas on the Volvo before and they were ah-mazing, even bought used and after a few snowy seasons. There were no conditions that scared me.

My wife's Honda Fit has made do with Blizzaks (much better than A/S tires at first, worse next season, and always loud) and now Altimax Arctics (Great snow grip, not as great on ice, wearing very slowly though).

Next set I buy are going to be Nokians again despite costing 2x the Generals. They feel very planted in all conditions and make it a joy to drive in snow.

klodkrawler05 wrote: As far as my location, Michigan. I generally don't consider swapping over snows until mid December ish and take them off early. I commute 100 miles each day so the tires will see a decent amount of wear. The initial OMG grip of the blizzaks is likely what sold me on them. I've run the General on several cars with good luck, hmm may have to price those. If the Hakka's stay at blizzak grip level for longer I'm more tempted to give them a try.

I'm going to go all wild here..

I've been commuting between Ann Arbor and Dearborn for almost 25 years. Up until 2014, my car had various snow tires on it- Pirrellis, Blizzaks, Michielins, etc. Probably had 4-5 overall sets of the 3 cars I drove.

In 2014, I leased a car that had all seasons. While not as good as the above tires, I never had a problem. Ever. This was a 2014 Fiesta that I've driven every day (sort of).

I'll keep some snow tires for my Miata, but other than that and race tires- no more extras for me. And space isn't an issue.

That's good feedback Alfa,

I'm probably overthinking this anyways as I've got cooper AT3's on the car now which seem pretty well siped and quite knobby so I'm expecting they'd get me through snow just fine.

Most of the roads I commute on aren't plowed by the time I get to work however...With the amount of snow we didn't get last year mostly used up Blizzaks were fine. I guess anything with tread will be sufficient for most of our winter if it's anything like last year.

My sentiments are similar to Alfa's.

Now that I'm in 2 FWD cars (how the berk did that happen?) we have only one set of snow tires, and we have them because our street could go a few days without being plowed. We literally needed it for all of 400 feet.

We'll probably replace those with new snow tires, but only because we might need them in an emergency, but that would be a very unlikely emergency to ever occur.

I like real snows because you're not sacrificing anything in the summer - and when you're driving them, you're not wearing your summer tires. The only cost is an extra set of wheels. Of course, I come from a place where snow tires are actually required by law these days.

Another vote for the Generals. We don't see ice here, so they're perfect for my mostly dry/occasional snow use. And then the car runs Hankook RS3s the rest of the time

I probably could get along with my new All-Seasons, The roads are kept plowed well.

But I have become used to winter tires an would feel naked.

And then there are times that I am really glad that I have them.

Like being caught in a snow/ice storm in north VT. Or heavy snow on the Northway when all the SUVs are sliding of the road on their all season tires.

iceracer wrote: In our non-studded ice racing Street Legal (SL) class the Blizzaks were generally superior. As for general use there probably is not much difference. After 9 winters and half worn and 10 pts. harder on the durometer scale my Blizzaks are retired. I noticed a loss of traction last winter. I have a new set of WS-80's waiting for the cold weather.

9 winters??? Cripes! I notice the second winter is a lot worse than the first, and I generally throw away after the second winter if I even keep them that long. This with any winter tire, not just Blizzak.

I have "heard" that Blizzaks are more awesomer than Hakkas because Hakkas are meant to be used with studs and Blizzaks are not, since Scandinavian countries allow studs and Japan doesn't.

Either way, I got no dog in this fight, I have been running Altimax Arctics or Gislaved Nordfrosts the past six-seven winters and this year I'll be trying the new Continentals. The Altimaxes absolutely sucked on my heavy front-driver even when new.

Knurled wrote: I have "heard" that Blizzaks are more awesomer than Hakkas because Hakkas are meant to be used with studs and Blizzaks are not, since Scandinavian countries allow studs and Japan doesn't.

There are studded and studless Hakkas. The Hakka 8 is studded (comes with the studs already in it), the Hakka R2 is studless (different tread pattern and compound, no studs).

Keith Tanner wrote: I like real snows because you're not sacrificing anything in the summer - and when you're driving them, you're not wearing your summer tires. The only cost is an extra set of wheels. Of course, I come from a place where snow tires are actually required by law these days. Another vote for the Generals. We don't see ice here, so they're perfect for my mostly dry/occasional snow use. And then the car runs Hankook RS3s the rest of the time

The importance of that depends on the car and the drive that is regularly done.

My drive- there's little influence to having good summer tires.

But it was better enough in a Miata to do it.

Not in a basic Fiesta.

Now if I had a Fiesta in your part of the world, I may change my mind.

In reply to rslifkin:

Cold (single digit and lower) dry snow actually has tons of grip on it's own.