[Jmac]

Originally Posted by underscore

I have a feeling some posts should be getting deleted from this thread but anyways.



They're absolutely horrid and should never be used by anyone who has even the slightest interest in road safety. Intentionally designing, marketing, and selling tires that are terrible at all times is pretty shady on the part of anyone who makes them.

Absolutely horrid and terrible at all times? That seems a bit of an overstatement.

I've been running Nokian WRs on one vehicle for about 5 years now and, while we rarely see anything remotely resembling extreme winter conditions on Vancouver Island, they've been fine. They're a hell of a lot better at everything than the OEM tires (Continental ContiProContact LRR), especially in the rain, which we obviously get a lot of.

The Nokian WRs are well-rated pretty much everywhere with the exceptions of extreme winter conditions (compared to dedicated winter tires), cold weather braking (compared to dedicated winter tires), and tread life (compared to all-seasons).

Are all-weather tires a good compromise? - The Globe and Mail

With that perspective, here’s what I think of the Nokian WRG3s: they surprised me by being as good as they are. In -6.5 C temperature, they drove through accumulated salty water along the sides of the streets impressively, the car tracking surely without any aquaplaning.

On the second day of our ice storm, a nearby parking lot was left empty. The no-parking signs created a slalom course, perfect for our purposes. The car consumed those turns with surprising sharpness, and recovered from hand brake-induced doughnuts with acuity.

Foot-to-the-floor braking? Not so impressive. More expensive winter tires with softer rubber would have slid less as the B200’s anti-lock braking chattered ineffectively as the WRG3’s failed to grip.

All-weather tires vs. winter tires ? what's the difference? | Toronto Star

Recently 19 different tires (nine all-seasons, seven winters, and three all-weathers) were tested for braking distance on ice. In aggregate numbers, the all-weather tires stopped 20.7 per cent shorter than the all-season group.
The dedicated winter tires as a group stopped 15.3 per cent shorter than the all-weather group.
On wet and dry freezing pavement, the all-weather tire is more stable and stops surer than a winter tire. In heavy slush both tires work well.

*The Star doesn't actually say where they pulled this data from or what tires were in the comparison group

Automobile Protection Association | 2015-2016 Winter Tire Reviews: Passenger Car, Minivan, & Compacy SUV Tires

Ranked Very Good, this fairly new tire replaced the old WRG2. It is the best of the "All-Weather" year-round tires. A possible solution for the last two years of your lease, if your original snow and summer tires have all worn out. APA members who used the old WRG2 were pleased with its winter and summer performance, and tire life was good. Performance on snow is superior to many dedicated winter tires; the four-season rubber compound is likely a compromise on ice. Good handling on cleared roads, comparable to the best winter tires. A good choice for an all-wheel-drive vehicle if you're not prepared to bother with the spring and autumn changeover. Not enough long-term information to predict its durability in extended summer driving. Expensive. Popular on the Canadian West Coast as a tire for year-round use.

Consumer Reports lists them as a best buy under both the all-season and winter tires categories.

They also carry the Mountain and Snowflake symbol, meaning they do meet the requirements of Transport Canada for winter driving in medium pack snow.

I don't think anyone would argue that dedicated sets of good winters and good summers can be replaced by all-weathers without losing some performance and safety relatively-speaking, but I would probably use the term adequate or, at worst, mediocre rather than "absolutely horrid" or "terrible." They're not $30 Wal-Mart/Canadian Tire specials.