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 The reigning champion, Continental VikingContact 7, has been replaced by the VikingContact 8, which is tested against competitors from Goodyear, Michelin, Nokian, and Hankook.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 setup & methodology

The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 80 → 5 km/h · 15–17 °C
Subj. Dry Handling: 11–14 °C
Wet Braking: 80 → 5 km/h · 13–15 °C
Wet Handling: 8–10 °C
Straight Aqua: 6–7 °C
Snow Braking: 35 → 5 km/h · -9–-6 °C
Snow Traction: 5 → 35 km/h · -9–-6 °C
Snow Handling: -7–-6 °C
Ice Braking: 25 → 5 km/h · -6–-5 °C
Ice Traction: 5 → 25 km/h · -6–-5 °C
Ice Handling: -11–-9 °C

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.

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	25.85 m	Best	0 km/h
2Continental VikingContact 8	31.2 m	+5.35 m	54 km/h
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	31.35 m	+5.50 m	54 km/h
4Michelin X Ice Snow	31.57 m	+5.72 m	55 km/h
5Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	32.1 m	+6.25 m	57 km/h
6Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	32.37 m	+6.52 m	58 km/h
7Radar Dimax Ice	32.61 m	+6.76 m	59 km/h
8Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	32.72 m	+6.87 m	60 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 26.6% (6.87 m ≈ 1.5 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15 would still be travelling at 60 km/h when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	5 Points	Best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	5 Points	Best
3Michelin X Ice Snow	4 Points	-1.00 Points
3Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	4 Points	-1.00 Points
3Continental VikingContact 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	3 Points	-2.00 Points
7Radar Dimax Ice	1 Points	-4.00 Points
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	1 Points	-4.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 80% (4 Points).

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.

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	27.49 m	Best	0 km/h
2Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	37.55 m	+10.06 m	67 km/h
3Michelin X Ice Snow	39.1 m	+11.61 m	71 km/h
4Continental VikingContact 8	40.1 m	+12.61 m	73 km/h
5Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	40.36 m	+12.87 m	73 km/h
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	41.92 m	+14.43 m	76 km/h
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	42.48 m	+14.99 m	77 km/h
8Radar Dimax Ice	42.66 m	+15.17 m	78 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 55.2% (15.17 m ≈ 3.4 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Radar Dimax Ice would still be travelling at 78 km/h when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

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.

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	38.4 s	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	40.6 s	+2.20 s
3Continental VikingContact 8	41.2 s	+2.80 s
4Michelin X Ice Snow	41.7 s	+3.30 s
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	41.7 s	+3.30 s
6Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	42.5 s	+4.10 s
7Radar Dimax Ice	43.9 s	+5.50 s
8Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	44.3 s	+5.90 s

The difference between best and worst was 15.4% (5.9 s).

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.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	86 km/h	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	68.5 km/h	-17.50 km/h
3Michelin X Ice Snow	64.7 km/h	-21.30 km/h
4Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	63.3 km/h	-22.70 km/h
5Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	62.4 km/h	-23.60 km/h
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	59.8 km/h	-26.20 km/h
6Continental VikingContact 8	59.8 km/h	-26.20 km/h
8Radar Dimax Ice	58.2 km/h	-27.80 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 32.3% (27.8 Km/H).

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.

Snow Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	12.43 m	Best	0 km/h
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	12.46 m	+0.03 m	6 km/h
3Michelin X Ice Snow	12.5 m	+0.07 m	10 km/h
4Continental VikingContact 8	12.72 m	+0.29 m	20 km/h
5Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	12.73 m	+0.30 m	20 km/h
6Radar Dimax Ice	12.8 m	+0.37 m	22 km/h
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	12.98 m	+0.55 m	27 km/h
8Michelin CrossClimate 2	13.28 m	+0.85 m	33 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 6.8% (0.85 m). From 130 km/h, the Michelin CrossClimate 2 would still be travelling at 33 km/h when the Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

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.

Snow Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	4.04 s	Best
2Continental VikingContact 8	4.19 s	+0.15 s
3Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	4.2 s	+0.16 s
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	4.2 s	+0.16 s
5Michelin CrossClimate 2	4.21 s	+0.17 s
6Michelin X Ice Snow	4.23 s	+0.19 s
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	4.3 s	+0.26 s
8Radar Dimax Ice	4.46 s	+0.42 s

The difference between best and worst was 10.4% (0.42 s).

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

Snow Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	79.6 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	79.7 s	+0.10 s
2Continental VikingContact 8	79.7 s	+0.10 s
4Michelin X Ice Snow	81 s	+1.40 s
5Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	81.5 s	+1.90 s
6Radar Dimax Ice	81.8 s	+2.20 s
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	83 s	+3.40 s
8Michelin CrossClimate 2	84.7 s	+5.10 s

The difference between best and worst was 6.4% (5.1 s).

Ice

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

Ice Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin X Ice Snow	10.69 m	Best	0 km/h
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	11.37 m	+0.68 m	32 km/h
3Continental VikingContact 8	11.97 m	+1.28 m	43 km/h
4Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	12.75 m	+2.06 m	52 km/h
5Radar Dimax Ice	15.56 m	+4.87 m	73 km/h
6Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	15.68 m	+4.99 m	73 km/h
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	18.38 m	+7.69 m	84 km/h
8Michelin CrossClimate 2	18.39 m	+7.70 m	84 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 72% (7.7 m ≈ 1.7 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Michelin CrossClimate 2 would still be travelling at 84 km/h when the Michelin X Ice Snow had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

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.

Ice Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin X Ice Snow	7.53 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	8.01 s	+0.48 s
3Continental VikingContact 8	8.44 s	+0.91 s
4Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	8.99 s	+1.46 s
5Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	11 s	+3.47 s
5Radar Dimax Ice	11 s	+3.47 s
7Michelin CrossClimate 2	13 s	+5.47 s
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	13 s	+5.47 s

The difference between best and worst was 72.6% (5.47 s).

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

Ice Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental VikingContact 8	64.6 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	65 s	+0.40 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	66.4 s	+1.80 s
4Radar Dimax Ice	67 s	+2.40 s
5Michelin X Ice Snow	67.8 s	+3.20 s
6Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	69.3 s	+4.70 s
7Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	69.7 s	+5.10 s
8Michelin CrossClimate 2	72.8 s	+8.20 s

The difference between best and worst was 12.7% (8.2 s).

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.

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	71.5 dB	Best
2Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	71.7 dB	+0.20 dB
2Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	71.7 dB	+0.20 dB
4Continental VikingContact 8	71.8 dB	+0.30 dB
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	71.9 dB	+0.40 dB
6Radar Dimax Ice	72 dB	+0.50 dB
7Michelin X Ice Snow	72.1 dB	+0.60 dB
8Michelin CrossClimate 2	72.9 dB	+1.40 dB

All the tyres in the Noise test finished less than 3% apart.

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.

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	5.25 l/100km	Best	£0
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	5.3 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km	£14
2Continental VikingContact 8	5.3 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km	£14
4Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	5.4 l/100km	+0.15 l/100km	£41
5Michelin X Ice Snow	5.45 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
5Michelin CrossClimate 2	5.45 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
7Radar Dimax Ice	5.55 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	£83
8Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15	5.6 l/100km	+0.35 l/100km	£96

The difference between best and worst was 6.7% (0.35 l/100km). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15 uses about 66 L (£96) more fuel than the Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.

Petrol/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

19,000 km

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

£1.45/L

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

Estimates based on typical driving conditions. Rolling resistance accounts for approximately 20% of IC vehicle fuel consumption and 25% of EV energy consumption. Actual savings vary based on driving style, vehicle weight, road conditions, and tyre age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.

Results

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.

Dry83.8%

Wet83.3%

Snow100%

Ice88.3%

Comfort100%

Fuel Consumption100%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	32.1 m	+6.25 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	5 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	37.55 m	+10.06 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	40.6 s	+2.20 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 8	68.5 km/h	-17.50 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	12.43 m	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionLower is better	1^st / 8	4.04 s	Best in this discipline
Snow HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	79.6 s	Best in this discipline
Ice BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	12.75 m	+2.06 m
Ice TractionLower is better	4^th / 8	8.99 s	+1.46 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	66.4 s	+1.80 s
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 8	71.5 dB	Best in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 8	5.25 l/100km	Best in this discipline

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.5 kgs
Tread: 7.5 mm
Price: 2183.00

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.

Dry82.4%

Wet79.5%

Snow98%

Ice92.8%

Comfort99.6%

Fuel Consumption99.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	31.2 m	+5.35 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	40.1 m	+12.61 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	41.2 s	+2.80 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 8	59.8 km/h	-26.20 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	12.72 m	+0.29 m
Snow TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	4.19 s	+0.15 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	79.7 s	+0.10 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	11.97 m	+1.28 m
Ice TractionLower is better	3^rd / 8	8.44 s	+0.91 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	64.6 s	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 8	71.8 dB	+0.30 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 8	5.3 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.9 kgs
Tread: 7.9 mm
Price: 2549.00

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.

Dry78.6%

Wet77.7%

Snow98.5%

Ice95.8%

Comfort99.4%

Fuel Consumption99.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	31.35 m	+5.50 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	41.92 m	+14.43 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	41.7 s	+3.30 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 8	59.8 km/h	-26.20 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	12.46 m	+0.03 m
Snow TractionLower is better	3^rd / 8	4.2 s	+0.16 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	79.7 s	+0.10 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	11.37 m	+0.68 m
Ice TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	8.01 s	+0.48 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	65 s	+0.40 s
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 8	71.9 dB	+0.40 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 8	5.3 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.6 kgs
Tread: 8.2 mm
Price: 2332.00

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.

Dry81.6%

Wet80.4%

Snow97.7%

Ice98.4%

Comfort99.2%

Fuel Consumption96.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	31.57 m	+5.72 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	39.1 m	+11.61 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	41.7 s	+3.30 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 8	64.7 km/h	-21.30 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	12.5 m	+0.07 m
Snow TractionLower is better	6^th / 8	4.23 s	+0.19 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	81 s	+1.40 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	10.69 m	Best in this discipline
Ice TractionLower is better	1^st / 8	7.53 s	Best in this discipline
Ice HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	67.8 s	+3.20 s
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 8	72.1 dB	+0.60 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 8	5.45 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 10 kgs
Tread: 8 mm
Price: 2573.00

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.

Dry79.9%

Wet78.4%

Snow97.1%

Ice76.5%

Comfort99.7%

Fuel Consumption97.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	32.37 m	+6.52 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	40.36 m	+12.87 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	42.5 s	+4.10 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 8	62.4 km/h	-23.60 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	12.73 m	+0.30 m
Snow TractionLower is better	3^rd / 8	4.2 s	+0.16 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	81.5 s	+1.90 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	15.68 m	+4.99 m
Ice TractionLower is better	5^th / 8	11 s	+3.47 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	69.3 s	+4.70 s
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 8	71.7 dB	+0.20 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	4^th / 8	5.4 l/100km	+0.15 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.6 kgs
Tread: 8.3 mm
Price: 1717.00

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.

Dry100%

Wet100%

Snow94.6%

Ice68.2%

Comfort98.1%

Fuel Consumption96.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	25.85 m	Best in this discipline
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	5 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	27.49 m	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	38.4 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 8	86 km/h	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	13.28 m	+0.85 m
Snow TractionLower is better	5^th / 8	4.21 s	+0.17 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	84.7 s	+5.10 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	18.39 m	+7.70 m
Ice TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	13 s	+5.47 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	72.8 s	+8.20 s
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 8	72.9 dB	+1.40 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 8	5.45 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.9 kgs
Tread: 6.3 mm
Price: 1567.00

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.

Dry69.2%

Wet74.9%

Snow94.9%

Ice77.8%

Comfort99.3%

Fuel Consumption94.6%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	32.61 m	+6.76 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	1 Points	-4.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	42.66 m	+15.17 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	43.9 s	+5.50 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 8	58.2 km/h	-27.80 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	12.8 m	+0.37 m
Snow TractionLower is better	8^th / 8	4.46 s	+0.42 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	81.8 s	+2.20 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	15.56 m	+4.87 m
Ice TractionLower is better	5^th / 8	11 s	+3.47 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	67 s	+2.40 s
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 8	72 dB	+0.50 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	7^th / 8	5.55 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.9 kgs
Tread: 8 mm
Price: 1129.00

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.

Dry69%

Wet75.4%

Snow95.2%

Ice69.5%

Comfort99.7%

Fuel Consumption93.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	32.72 m	+6.87 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	1 Points	-4.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	42.48 m	+14.99 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	44.3 s	+5.90 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 8	63.3 km/h	-22.70 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	12.98 m	+0.55 m
Snow TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	4.3 s	+0.26 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	83 s	+3.40 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	18.38 m	+7.69 m
Ice TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	13 s	+5.47 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	69.7 s	+5.10 s
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 8	71.7 dB	+0.20 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 8	5.6 l/100km	+0.35 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.8 kgs
Tread: 8.9 mm
Price: 1047.00

Tyre	Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	Continental VikingContact 8	Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	Michelin X Ice Snow	Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616	Michelin CrossClimate 2	Radar Dimax Ice	Greenmax LL Winter Ice I 15
Position	1^st	2^nd	3^rd	4^th	5^th	6^th	7^th	8^th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	83.8%	82.4%	78.6%	81.6%	79.9%	100%	69.2%	69%
Wet	83.3%	79.5%	77.7%	80.4%	78.4%	100%	74.9%	75.4%
Snow	100%	98%	98.5%	97.7%	97.1%	94.6%	94.9%	95.2%
Ice	88.3%	92.8%	95.8%	98.4%	76.5%	68.2%	77.8%	69.5%
Comfort	100%	99.6%	99.4%	99.2%	99.7%	98.1%	99.3%	99.7%
Fuel Consumption	100%	99.1%	99.1%	96.3%	97.2%	96.3%	94.6%	93.8%
Keep researching	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results

Menu

Tyre shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry

Wet

Snow

Ice

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test