2024 Nordic Friction Winter Tyre Test

Vi Bilägare has completed their latest winter tyre test, evaluating seven dedicated Nordic friction tyres and one all-season tyre in size 225/45 R17. The reigning champion, Continental VikingContact 7, has been replaced by the VikingContact 8, which is tested against competitors from Goodyear, Michelin, Nokian, and Hankook. The test also included two budget tyres, Radar and Greenmax.

Test Size: 225/45 R17
Tyres Tested: 8 tyres
Test Categories:
6 categories (13 tests)
Similar Tests

Test Category Best Performer Worst Performer Difference
Dry (2 tests)
Dry Braking Michelin CrossClimate 2: 25.85 M Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15: 32.72 M6.9 M (21.0%)
Subj. Dry Handling Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3: 5 Points Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15: 1 Points4.0 Points (400.0%)
Wet (3 tests)
Wet Braking Michelin CrossClimate 2: 27.49 M Radar Dimax Ice: 42.66 M15.2 M (35.6%)
Wet Handling Michelin CrossClimate 2: 38.4 s Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15: 44.3 s5.9 s (13.3%)
Straight Aqua Michelin CrossClimate 2: 86 Km/H Radar Dimax Ice: 58.2 Km/H27.8 Km/H (47.8%)
Snow (3 tests)
Snow Braking Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3: 12.43 M Michelin CrossClimate 2: 13.28 M0.9 M (6.4%)
Snow Traction Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3: 4.04 s Radar Dimax Ice: 4.46 s0.4 s (9.4%)
Snow Handling Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3: 79.6 s Michelin CrossClimate 2: 84.7 s5.1 s (6.0%)
Ice (3 tests)
Ice Braking Michelin X Ice Snow: 10.69 M Michelin CrossClimate 2: 18.39 M7.7 M (41.9%)
Ice Traction Michelin X Ice Snow: 7.53 s Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15: 13 s5.5 s (42.1%)
Ice Handling Continental VikingContact 8: 64.6 s Michelin CrossClimate 2: 72.8 s8.2 s (11.3%)
Comfort (1 tests)
Noise Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3: 71.5 dB Michelin CrossClimate 2: 72.9 dB1.4 dB (1.9%)
Value (1 tests)
Fuel Consumption Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3: 5.25 l/100km Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15: 5.6 l/100km0.4 l/100km (6.2%)

The inclusion of the Michelin CrossClimate 2 in this winter tyre test provides an interesting insight into the capabilities of modern all-season tyres in winter conditions. While the tyre demonstrated exceptional performance in wet conditions, significantly outperforming all winter tyres in wet braking and handling, its winter limitations were clear. On ice, the CrossClimate 2 showed very poor grip levels with braking distances nearly twice that of the best winter tyres. Snow performance, while better than ice, still fell well behind dedicated winter options.

The tyre's mixed performance led to an interesting result - despite its poor winter characteristics, strong wet and dry performance helped it outperform the budget winter tyres overall. However, the test highlights that while all-season tyres might work for drivers in milder regions who rarely encounter severe winter conditions, they're not a suitable replacement for Nordic winter tyres in areas where ice and snow are common. The CrossClimate 2 also showed the highest noise levels in the test, reflecting its stiffer, more summer-oriented construction.

Even with it's all season design goal, thanks to the huge lead it had in the dry and wet it got enough points to outscore two of the nordic winter tyres overall.

Dry

The Michelin CrossClimate 2 dominated this test with a stopping distance of 25.85m, significantly outperforming all winter tyres. The Greenmax LL Winter Ice I-15 performed worst, needing an additional 6.87m (26.6% longer) to stop.

The testers didn't provide laptimes for dry handling, instead publishing subjective scores out of five.

Wet

The CrossClimate 2 again led by a substantial margin, stopping in 27.49m. The Radar Dimax Ice performed worst, requiring 42.66m - a concerning 15.17m (55% longer) additional stopping distance.

The CrossClimate 2 continued its wet weather dominance with the fastest lap time of 38.4 seconds. The Greenmax LL Winter Ice I-15 was slowest, taking 44.3 seconds - 5.9 seconds (15.4%) slower.

The CrossClimate 2 showed exceptional aquaplaning resistance, maintaining grip until 86 km/h. The Radar Dimax Ice lost grip earliest at just 58.2 km/h, showing significantly worse water displacement.

Snow

The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 led with 12.43m stopping distance. The CrossClimate 2 struggled, requiring 13.28m - the longest distance of all tested tyres.

The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 demonstrated best acceleration with 4.04 seconds. The Radar Dimax Ice was slowest at 4.46 seconds, while the CrossClimate 2 performed mid-pack.

The Goodyear excelled with a lap time of 79.6 seconds. The CrossClimate 2 was significantly slower at 84.7 seconds - the worst performer.

Ice

The Michelin X-Ice Snow led with 10.69m. The CrossClimate 2 performed very poorly, requiring 18.39m - nearly twice the distance.

The Michelin X-Ice Snow was fastest with 7.53 seconds. The CrossClimate 2 tied with Greenmax for worst performance at 13 seconds - 72% slower than the best.

The Continental VikingContact 8 was quickest with 64.6 seconds. The CrossClimate 2 was slowest at 72.8 seconds - 12.7% behind the leader.

Comfort

The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 was quietest at 71.5 dB. The CrossClimate 2 was loudest at 72.9 dB, reflecting its stiffer construction.

Value

The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 was most efficient at 5.25 L/100km. The Greenmax was worst at 5.6 L/100km, while the CrossClimate 2 tied with the Michelin X-Ice Snow at 5.45 L/100km.

Results

1st: Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3

Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3
  • 225/45 R17 94T
  • Weight: 9.5kgs
  • Tread: 7.5mm
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Price: 2183.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking5th32.1 M25.85 M+6.25 M80.53%
Subj. Dry Handling1st5 Points100%
Wet Braking2nd37.55 M27.49 M+10.06 M73.21%
Wet Handling2nd40.6 s38.4 s+2.2 s94.58%
Straight Aqua2nd68.5 Km/H86 Km/H-17.5 Km/H79.65%
Snow Braking1st12.43 M100%
Snow Traction1st4.04 s100%
Snow Handling1st79.6 s100%
Ice Braking4th12.75 M10.69 M+2.06 M83.84%
Ice Traction4th8.99 s7.53 s+1.46 s83.76%
Ice Handling3rd66.4 s64.6 s+1.8 s97.29%
Noise1st71.5 dB100%
Fuel Consumption1st5.25 l/100km100%
The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 claimed victory with impressive overall performance. It showed class-leading wet road handling and aquaplaning resistance while maintaining high levels of snow grip. Despite prioritizing tarmac performance, it still delivered strong winter capabilities, though its ice performance fell slightly behind the best. Combined with low rolling resistance and good noise levels, it proved to be the best choice for drivers who spend more time on clear roads but still need reliable winter performance.

Read Reviews

2nd: Continental VikingContact 8

Continental VikingContact 8
  • 225/45 R17 94T
  • Weight: 9.9kgs
  • Tread: 7.9mm
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Price: 2549.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking2nd31.2 M25.85 M+5.35 M82.85%
Subj. Dry Handling3rd4 Points5 Points-1 Points80%
Wet Braking4th40.1 M27.49 M+12.61 M68.55%
Wet Handling3rd41.2 s38.4 s+2.8 s93.2%
Straight Aqua6th59.8 Km/H86 Km/H-26.2 Km/H69.53%
Snow Braking4th12.72 M12.43 M+0.29 M97.72%
Snow Traction2nd4.19 s4.04 s+0.15 s96.42%
Snow Handling2nd79.7 s79.6 s+0.1 s99.87%
Ice Braking3rd11.97 M10.69 M+1.28 M89.31%
Ice Traction3rd8.44 s7.53 s+0.91 s89.22%
Ice Handling1st64.6 s100%
Noise4th71.8 dB71.5 dB+0.3 dB99.58%
Fuel Consumption2nd5.3 l/100km5.25 l/100km+0.05 l/100km99.06%
The Continental VikingContact 8, newly released with EV certification, secured second place. This updated model improved upon its predecessor's already strong reputation with better stability on tarmac, likely designed with heavier electric vehicles in mind. While ice grip remained good, particularly in terms of handling at the limit, it wasn't quite class-leading. Its main weakness was poor resistance to aquaplaning, but strong performance across other areas and excellent noise levels kept it near the top.

Read Reviews

3rd: Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5

Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
  • 225/45 R17 94T
  • Weight: 9.6kgs
  • Tread: 8.2mm
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Price: 2332.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking3rd31.35 M25.85 M+5.5 M82.46%
Subj. Dry Handling6th3 Points5 Points-2 Points60%
Wet Braking6th41.92 M27.49 M+14.43 M65.58%
Wet Handling4th41.7 s38.4 s+3.3 s92.09%
Straight Aqua6th59.8 Km/H86 Km/H-26.2 Km/H69.53%
Snow Braking2nd12.46 M12.43 M+0.03 M99.76%
Snow Traction3rd4.2 s4.04 s+0.16 s96.19%
Snow Handling2nd79.7 s79.6 s+0.1 s99.87%
Ice Braking2nd11.37 M10.69 M+0.68 M94.02%
Ice Traction2nd8.01 s7.53 s+0.48 s94.01%
Ice Handling2nd65 s64.6 s+0.4 s99.38%
Noise5th71.9 dB71.5 dB+0.4 dB99.44%
Fuel Consumption2nd5.3 l/100km5.25 l/100km+0.05 l/100km99.06%
The Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 took third place, dominating the winter conditions alongside Continental. It excelled in both ice and snow performance, offering the best cornering grip and proving particularly enjoyable to drive in winter conditions. However, its clear focus on winter performance led to compromises elsewhere - it struggled with aquaplaning resistance and showed only average performance on dry and wet tarmac, with slightly inconsistent steering feel.

Read Reviews

4th: Michelin X Ice Snow

Michelin X Ice Snow
  • 225/45 R17 94H
  • Weight: 10kgs
  • Tread: 8mm
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Price: 2573.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking4th31.57 M25.85 M+5.72 M81.88%
Subj. Dry Handling3rd4 Points5 Points-1 Points80%
Wet Braking3rd39.1 M27.49 M+11.61 M70.31%
Wet Handling4th41.7 s38.4 s+3.3 s92.09%
Straight Aqua3rd64.7 Km/H86 Km/H-21.3 Km/H75.23%
Snow Braking3rd12.5 M12.43 M+0.07 M99.44%
Snow Traction6th4.23 s4.04 s+0.19 s95.51%
Snow Handling4th81 s79.6 s+1.4 s98.27%
Ice Braking1st10.69 M100%
Ice Traction1st7.53 s100%
Ice Handling5th67.8 s64.6 s+3.2 s95.28%
Noise7th72.1 dB71.5 dB+0.6 dB99.17%
Fuel Consumption5th5.45 l/100km5.25 l/100km+0.2 l/100km96.33%
The Michelin X-Ice Snow finished fourth, standing out with excellent braking performance across all conditions despite being one of the harder tyres in the test and the only Nordic winter tyre rated above 200 km/h. However, it showed lower cornering grip than its competitors in both winter and summer conditions, with a tendency to break away more suddenly in corners. It offered good straight-line stability and linear steering feel on tarmac but responded more sluggishly under pressure.

Read Reviews

5th: Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616

Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616
  • 225/45 R17 94T
  • Weight: 9.6kgs
  • Tread: 8.3mm
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Price: 1717.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking6th32.37 M25.85 M+6.52 M79.86%
Subj. Dry Handling3rd4 Points5 Points-1 Points80%
Wet Braking5th40.36 M27.49 M+12.87 M68.11%
Wet Handling6th42.5 s38.4 s+4.1 s90.35%
Straight Aqua5th62.4 Km/H86 Km/H-23.6 Km/H72.56%
Snow Braking5th12.73 M12.43 M+0.3 M97.64%
Snow Traction3rd4.2 s4.04 s+0.16 s96.19%
Snow Handling5th81.5 s79.6 s+1.9 s97.67%
Ice Braking6th15.68 M10.69 M+4.99 M68.18%
Ice Traction5th11 s7.53 s+3.47 s68.45%
Ice Handling6th69.3 s64.6 s+4.7 s93.22%
Noise2nd71.7 dB71.5 dB+0.2 dB99.72%
Fuel Consumption4th5.4 l/100km5.25 l/100km+0.15 l/100km97.22%
The Hankook Winter i*cept IZ2 W616, launched in 2016, showed its age with a fifth-place finish. While offering good straight-line stability on tarmac and low noise levels, it struggled to balance winter and tarmac performance. Ice grip was notably behind premium competitors in both braking and cornering, and while dry road steering feel was good, overall grip levels couldn't match the best performers.

Read Reviews

6th: Michelin CrossClimate 2

Michelin CrossClimate 2
  • 225/45 R17 94V
  • Weight: 8.9kgs
  • Tread: 6.3mm
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Price: 1567.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking1st25.85 M100%
Subj. Dry Handling1st5 Points100%
Wet Braking1st27.49 M100%
Wet Handling1st38.4 s100%
Straight Aqua1st86 Km/H100%
Snow Braking8th13.28 M12.43 M+0.85 M93.6%
Snow Traction5th4.21 s4.04 s+0.17 s95.96%
Snow Handling8th84.7 s79.6 s+5.1 s93.98%
Ice Braking8th18.39 M10.69 M+7.7 M58.13%
Ice Traction7th13 s7.53 s+5.47 s57.92%
Ice Handling8th72.8 s64.6 s+8.2 s88.74%
Noise8th72.9 dB71.5 dB+1.4 dB98.08%
Fuel Consumption5th5.45 l/100km5.25 l/100km+0.2 l/100km96.33%
The Michelin CrossClimate 2 all-season tyre demonstrated its split personality in the test. It dominated wet road performance and showed excellent dry road behavior, but struggled severely on ice and showed compromised snow performance. While it outperformed budget winter tyres overall, its winter limitations make it suitable only for drivers who can avoid driving in icy conditions.

Read Reviews    Buy from £110.96

7th: Radar Dimax Ice

Radar Dimax Ice
  • 225/45 R17 94T
  • Weight: 9.9kgs
  • Tread: 8mm
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Price: 1129.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking7th32.61 M25.85 M+6.76 M79.27%
Subj. Dry Handling7th1 Points5 Points-4 Points20%
Wet Braking8th42.66 M27.49 M+15.17 M64.44%
Wet Handling7th43.9 s38.4 s+5.5 s87.47%
Straight Aqua8th58.2 Km/H86 Km/H-27.8 Km/H67.67%
Snow Braking6th12.8 M12.43 M+0.37 M97.11%
Snow Traction8th4.46 s4.04 s+0.42 s90.58%
Snow Handling6th81.8 s79.6 s+2.2 s97.31%
Ice Braking5th15.56 M10.69 M+4.87 M68.7%
Ice Traction5th11 s7.53 s+3.47 s68.45%
Ice Handling4th67 s64.6 s+2.4 s96.42%
Noise6th72 dB71.5 dB+0.5 dB99.31%
Fuel Consumption7th5.55 l/100km5.25 l/100km+0.3 l/100km94.59%
The Radar Dimax Ice performed poorly overall, though showed reasonable ice grip thanks to its soft compound. However, it failed in most other areas with extended braking distances on both wet and dry surfaces, early aquaplaning, high noise levels, and unpredictable handling under pressure. Despite its low price point, its limited capabilities make it poor value.

Read Reviews

8th: Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15

Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15
  • 225/45 R17 94T
  • Weight: 9.8kgs
  • Tread: 8.9mm
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Price: 1047.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking8th32.72 M25.85 M+6.87 M79%
Subj. Dry Handling7th1 Points5 Points-4 Points20%
Wet Braking7th42.48 M27.49 M+14.99 M64.71%
Wet Handling8th44.3 s38.4 s+5.9 s86.68%
Straight Aqua4th63.3 Km/H86 Km/H-22.7 Km/H73.6%
Snow Braking7th12.98 M12.43 M+0.55 M95.76%
Snow Traction7th4.3 s4.04 s+0.26 s93.95%
Snow Handling7th83 s79.6 s+3.4 s95.9%
Ice Braking7th18.38 M10.69 M+7.69 M58.16%
Ice Traction7th13 s7.53 s+5.47 s57.92%
Ice Handling7th69.7 s64.6 s+5.1 s92.68%
Noise2nd71.7 dB71.5 dB+0.2 dB99.72%
Fuel Consumption8th5.6 l/100km5.25 l/100km+0.35 l/100km93.75%
The Greenmax Winter Ice I-15 finished last, showing almost no redeeming qualities beyond low noise levels and decent aquaplaning resistance. Its relatively hard compound delivered ice grip barely better than the all-season tyre, and it showed dangerous handling characteristics with sudden breakaway on both snow and ice. Extended braking distances, poor handling on dry roads, and high rolling resistance confirmed its position at the bottom of the test.

Read Reviews

comments powered by Disqus