Vi Bilägare evaluated eight different tyre models in the popular SUV size of 235/60 R18. The test, featured in issue number 12, utilized a Volvo XC60 AWD as the primary vehicle to assess performance on ice, snow, and both wet and dry asphalt. The lineup included five premium brands—Continental, Goodyear, Michelin, Nokian, and Pirelli—alongside three more budget-focused offerings from Nexen, Goodride, and Triangle.

Test setup & methodology

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

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 100 → 5 km/h
Snow Braking: 35 → 5 km/h
Snow Traction: 5 → 35 km/h
Ice Braking: 25 → 5 km/h
Ice Traction: 5 → 25 km/h

The test highlights the significant engineering compromises required when designing tyres for heavy, powerful SUVs. The testers note that the performance gaps between the tyres were larger than they typically see with smaller passenger car tyres. A central theme is the direct trade-off between performance on ice and performance on wet asphalt, with the article stating that ice grip and wet grip are "opposites of each other". This conflict between competing characteristics is a recurring point, demonstrating that no single tyre excels in all conditions.

This variability in performance is clearly illustrated by the results. The test winner, the Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10, delivered the best grip and handling on ice and snow but simultaneously had the longest braking distance on wet roads and the lowest resistance to aquaplaning. Conversely, the Triangle IceLynk TI501 produced a startlingly polarized result. Despite being a studded tyre, its performance on ice was described as a "total lack" of grip, with braking distances more than double that of the top performers. However, the Triangle tyre recorded the shortest braking distances of the entire group on both wet and dry asphalt.

Other tyres showcased more balanced, if less specialized, performance. The second-place Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 was commended for providing a good balance between its ice and wet grip capabilities. The Continental IceContact 3, despite its name, showed a weakness on ice but was a strong and stable performer on snow and asphalt. Ultimately, the test demonstrates that for heavy SUVs, tyre choice involves a critical evaluation of performance trade-offs, with even premium manufacturers prioritizing different characteristics in their designs.

Dry

On a dry surface, the Triangle delivers the best braking performance, while the Goodyear and Michelin require the longest distance to come to a stop.

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Triangle IcelynX TI501	44.3 m	Best	0 km/h
2Continental IceContact 3	45 m	+0.70 m	16 km/h
3Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3	45.26 m	+0.96 m	19 km/h
4Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2	45.75 m	+1.45 m	23 km/h
5Goodride IceMaster Spike Z 506	45.89 m	+1.59 m	24 km/h
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV	46.11 m	+1.81 m	26 km/h
7Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV	46.99 m	+2.69 m	31 km/h
8Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV	47.21 m	+2.91 m	32 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 6.6% (2.91 m ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV would still be travelling at 32 km/h when the Triangle IcelynX TI501 had stopped.

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

Based on subjective feel, the Pirelli, Continental, and Michelin tyres performed best on dry roads, while the Triangle and Goodride felt vague and unresponsive.

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental IceContact 3	5 Points	Best
1Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV	5 Points	Best
1Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2	5 Points	Best
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV	4 Points	-1.00 Points
4Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV	4 Points	-1.00 Points
4Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3	4 Points	-1.00 Points
7Goodride IceMaster Spike Z 506	3 Points	-2.00 Points
8Triangle IcelynX TI501	2 Points	-3.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 60% (3 Points).

Wet

Demonstrating the trade-off with ice grip, the Triangle tyre provides the shortest wet braking distance by a clear margin, while the ice-focused Michelin and Nokian tyres require the most distance to stop.

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Triangle IcelynX TI501	43.25 m	Best
2Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3	46.54 m	+3.29 m
3Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2	46.97 m	+3.72 m
4Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV	47.9 m	+4.65 m
5Continental IceContact 3	48.04 m	+4.79 m
6Goodride IceMaster Spike Z 506	48.5 m	+5.25 m
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV	49.69 m	+6.44 m
8Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV	50.73 m	+7.48 m

The difference between best and worst was 17.3% (7.48 m ≈ 1.7 Car Lengths).

The Pirelli tyre was the fastest and most controllable around the wet handling circuit, whereas the Triangle was the slowest due to severe understeer.

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2	63.31 s	Best
2Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3	63.46 s	+0.15 s
3Continental IceContact 3	63.71 s	+0.40 s
4Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV	63.96 s	+0.65 s
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV	64.09 s	+0.78 s
6Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV	64.78 s	+1.47 s
7Triangle IcelynX TI501	64.79 s	+1.48 s
7Goodride IceMaster Spike Z 506	64.79 s	+1.48 s

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

The Pirelli and Nexen tyres offer the best resistance to aquaplaning, while the test-winning Nokian is the most susceptible to losing grip in deep standing water

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2	71.5 km/h	Best
2Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3	70.5 km/h	-1.00 km/h
3Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV	69.4 km/h	-2.10 km/h
4Triangle IcelynX TI501	68.8 km/h	-2.70 km/h
5Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV	68.6 km/h	-2.90 km/h
6Continental IceContact 3	68.1 km/h	-3.40 km/h
7Goodride IceMaster Spike Z 506	67.8 km/h	-3.70 km/h
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV	66 km/h	-5.50 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 7.7% (5.5 Km/H).

Snow

The braking distances on snow show only marginal differences between the tested tyres, with the Nexen requiring a slightly longer distance to stop.

Snow Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental IceContact 3	11.13 m	Best	0 km/h
2Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2	11.19 m	+0.06 m	10 km/h
3Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV	11.23 m	+0.10 m	12 km/h
4Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV	11.24 m	+0.11 m	13 km/h
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV	11.35 m	+0.22 m	18 km/h
6Triangle IcelynX TI501	11.36 m	+0.23 m	18 km/h
7Goodride IceMaster Spike Z 506	11.38 m	+0.25 m	19 km/h
8Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3	11.82 m	+0.69 m	31 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 6.2% (0.69 m). From 130 km/h, the Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3 would still be travelling at 31 km/h when the Continental IceContact 3 had stopped.

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

On snow, the acceleration grip is much more evenly matched between the tyres, with only the Nexen showing a noticeable disadvantage.

Snow Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental IceContact 3	1.77 s	Best
2Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV	1.78 s	+0.01 s
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV	1.79 s	+0.02 s
3Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2	1.79 s	+0.02 s
5Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV	1.8 s	+0.03 s
6Goodride IceMaster Spike Z 506	1.83 s	+0.06 s
7Triangle IcelynX TI501	1.85 s	+0.08 s
8Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3	1.9 s	+0.13 s

The difference between best and worst was 7.3% (0.13 s).

Nokian was the fastest on the snow handling course with excellent control, while Goodride and Triangle were the slowest and least predictable.

Snow Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV	68.4 s	Best
2Continental IceContact 3	68.6 s	+0.20 s
3Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2	69.1 s	+0.70 s
4Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV	69.6 s	+1.20 s
5Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV	70.2 s	+1.80 s
6Triangle IcelynX TI501	71.9 s	+3.50 s
7Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3	72.2 s	+3.80 s
8Goodride IceMaster Spike Z 506	72.3 s	+3.90 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.7% (3.9 s).

Ice

Nokian delivers the shortest braking distance on ice, with Goodyear and Michelin also impressing, whereas the Triangle's stopping distance is more than double that of the leader.

Ice Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV	11.49 m	Best	0 km/h
2Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV	12.38 m	+0.89 m	35 km/h
3Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV	14.19 m	+2.70 m	57 km/h
4Continental IceContact 3	15.93 m	+4.44 m	69 km/h
5Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3	16.75 m	+5.26 m	73 km/h
6Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2	17.76 m	+6.27 m	77 km/h
7Goodride IceMaster Spike Z 506	17.8 m	+6.31 m	77 km/h
8Triangle IcelynX TI501	25.48 m	+13.99 m	96 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 121.8% (13.99 m ≈ 3.1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Triangle IcelynX TI501 would still be travelling at 96 km/h when the Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV had stopped.

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

Nokian provides the best acceleration on ice, followed by Goodyear and Michelin, while Triangle struggles significantly with almost non-existent grip.

Ice Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV	2.72 s	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV	2.83 s	+0.11 s
3Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV	2.95 s	+0.23 s
4Continental IceContact 3	3.26 s	+0.54 s
5Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2	3.45 s	+0.73 s
6Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3	3.47 s	+0.75 s
7Goodride IceMaster Spike Z 506	3.73 s	+1.01 s
8Triangle IcelynX TI501	5.19 s	+2.47 s

The difference between best and worst was 90.8% (2.47 s).

The Nokian tyre was the quickest and most controllable around the ice handling track, while the Triangle was the slowest by a considerable margin.

Ice Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV	84 s	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV	85.9 s	+1.90 s
3Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV	86.5 s	+2.50 s
4Continental IceContact 3	86.9 s	+2.90 s
5Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3	91.7 s	+7.70 s
6Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2	93.2 s	+9.20 s
7Goodride IceMaster Spike Z 506	94 s	+10.00 s
8Triangle IcelynX TI501	96.6 s	+12.60 s

The difference between best and worst was 15% (12.6 s).

Comfort

In subjective noise evaluation, the Triangle and Michelin were the quietest and most pleasant-sounding tyres, while the Nexen produced the most intrusive cabin noise, similar to a bad wheel bearing

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Triangle IcelynX TI501	72.6 dB	Best
2Continental IceContact 3	73.6 dB	+1.00 dB
3Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV	73.9 dB	+1.30 dB
3Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV	73.9 dB	+1.30 dB
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV	74.5 dB	+1.90 dB
6Goodride IceMaster Spike Z 506	74.7 dB	+2.10 dB
7Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2	74.8 dB	+2.20 dB
8Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3	75.5 dB	+2.90 dB

The difference between best and worst was 4% (2.9 dB).

Value

The Continental tyre proved to be the most fuel-efficient with the lowest rolling resistance, while the Triangle was the least efficient.

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Continental IceContact 3	6.3 l/100km	Best	£0
2Michelin X Ice North 4 SUV	6.45 l/100km	+0.15 l/100km	£41
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV	6.5 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
3Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2	6.5 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
3Goodride IceMaster Spike Z 506	6.5 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
3Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3	6.5 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
7Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV	6.6 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	£83
8Triangle IcelynX TI501	6.7 l/100km	+0.40 l/100km	£110

The difference between best and worst was 6.3% (0.4 l/100km). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Triangle IcelynX TI501 uses about 76 L (£110) more fuel than the Continental IceContact 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

Vi Bilagare Test Winner Testvinnare

The Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 SUV demonstrates why Finnish expertise in winter conditions remains unmatched, delivering the test's best overall performance with exceptional ice grip capabilities. This tyre excels particularly in winter handling scenarios, offering quick steering response and allowing drivers to change direction confidently without losing control on both ice and hard-packed snow. The grip balance is well-calibrated and the tyre maintains excellent control even under pressure. However, the superior winter performance comes with trade-offs on wet surfaces, where it exhibits longer braking distances and earlier aquaplaning compared to competitors. On dry asphalt, the steering feel is somewhat non-linear, though the behavior during emergency maneuvers remains reassuringly predictable.

Dry93.3%

Wet92.8%

Snow99%

Ice100%

Comfort97.5%

Fuel Consumption96.9%

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	46.11 m	+1.81 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	49.69 m	+6.44 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	64.09 s	+0.78 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 8	66 km/h	-5.50 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	11.35 m	+0.22 m
Snow TractionLower is better	3^rd / 8	1.79 s	+0.02 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	68.4 s	Best in this discipline
Ice BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	11.49 m	Best in this discipline
Ice TractionLower is better	1^st / 8	2.72 s	Best in this discipline
Ice HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	84 s	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 8	74.5 dB	+1.90 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	3^rd / 8	6.5 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km

Origin: Finland
Weight: 15.9 kgs
Tread: 9.4 mm
Price: 2945.00

The Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 SUV comes closest to challenging Nokian in winter conditions, offering impressive grip in both longitudinal acceleration and braking scenarios on ice. While the tyre matches Nokian's performance in straight-line winter driving, it falls short in cornering precision, displaying delayed steering response and an inconsistent grip balance that can shift unpredictably between understeer and oversteer. On wet roads, Goodyear performs admirably with strong aquaplaning resistance and short braking distances, though it lacks the precise steering feel found on dry asphalt. The tyre also shows slightly higher rolling resistance compared to some competitors, affecting fuel economy.

Dry91.9%

Wet94.9%

Snow98.3%

Ice95.5%

Comfort98.2%

Fuel Consumption95.5%

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	46.99 m	+2.69 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	47.9 m	+4.65 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	63.96 s	+0.65 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 8	69.4 km/h	-2.10 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	11.23 m	+0.10 m
Snow TractionLower is better	5^th / 8	1.8 s	+0.03 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	70.2 s	+1.80 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	12.38 m	+0.89 m
Ice TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	2.83 s	+0.11 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	85.9 s	+1.90 s
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 8	73.9 dB	+1.30 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	7^th / 8	6.6 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km

Origin: Germany
Weight: 15.0 kgs
Tread: 9.8 mm
Price: 2594.00

The Continental IceContact 3 may not lead in pure ice performance, but it compensates with exceptional road manners and predictable behavior that builds driver confidence. This tyre excels at communicating grip limits to the driver, providing early warning when approaching the adhesion threshold, combined with calm, controlled behavior under pressure featuring mild understeer that's easy to manage. Continental performs significantly better on snow than ice, and truly shines on asphalt with outstanding straight-line stability and confident handling during emergency maneuvers. The tyre also achieves the best rolling resistance in the test, contributing to improved fuel economy, though ice grip remains its relative weakness.

Dry98.7%

Wet94.7%

Snow99.9%

Ice84%

Comfort98.6%

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	2^nd / 8	45 m	+0.70 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	5 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	48.04 m	+4.79 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	63.71 s	+0.40 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 8	68.1 km/h	-3.40 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	11.13 m	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionLower is better	1^st / 8	1.77 s	Best in this discipline
Snow HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	68.6 s	+0.20 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	15.93 m	+4.44 m
Ice TractionLower is better	4^th / 8	3.26 s	+0.54 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	86.9 s	+2.90 s
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 8	73.6 dB	+1.00 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 8	6.3 l/100km	Best in this discipline

Origin: Poland
Weight: 15.7 kgs
Tread: 8.3 mm
Price: 2933.00

The Michelin X-Ice North 4 SUV has long been a favorite for combining strong ice and snow braking performance with refined on-road characteristics, maintaining its reputation in this larger SUV dimension. While braking capabilities on winter surfaces remain impressive, the tyre shows some limitations during more aggressive cornering, particularly struggling with larger steering inputs. On asphalt, the tyre exhibits pronounced understeer under pressure, which contributes to a calm and safe character in emergency situations without risk of sudden breakaway. The major weakness lies in wet weather performance, where grip is notably compromised with poor cornering ability and the longest stopping distances in the test, though it compensates with low road noise and good rolling resistance.

Dry94.9%

Wet91.9%

Snow98.9%

Ice90%

Comfort98.2%

Fuel Consumption97.7%

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	47.21 m	+2.91 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	5 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	50.73 m	+7.48 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	64.78 s	+1.47 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 8	68.6 km/h	-2.90 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	11.24 m	+0.11 m
Snow TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	1.78 s	+0.01 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	69.6 s	+1.20 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	14.19 m	+2.70 m
Ice TractionLower is better	3^rd / 8	2.95 s	+0.23 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	86.5 s	+2.50 s
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 8	73.9 dB	+1.30 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 8	6.45 l/100km	+0.15 l/100km

Origin: Germany
Weight: 15.3 kgs
Tread: 8.4 mm
Price: 2722.00

The Pirelli Scorpion IceZero 2, despite its SUV-specific naming, closely resembles the manufacturer's standard IceZero2 in both tread design and performance characteristics. Ice grip doesn't match the premium competitors' standards, and the tyre displays an oversteer-biased balance on snow and ice where the rear end tends to step out first, though this behavior is never surprising or uncontrollable. Where Pirelli truly excels is on asphalt surfaces, offering the best steering feel and responsiveness of any tyre in the test, with exceptional ability to navigate quickly around obstacles in emergency situations. The tyre also leads in aquaplaning resistance and achieves the highest cornering speeds on wet surfaces, though road noise levels are among the higher in the group.

Dry97.4%

Wet96.4%

Snow99.1%

Ice77.8%

Comfort97.1%

Fuel Consumption96.9%

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	45.75 m	+1.45 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	5 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	46.97 m	+3.72 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	63.31 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 8	71.5 km/h	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	11.19 m	+0.06 m
Snow TractionLower is better	3^rd / 8	1.79 s	+0.02 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	69.1 s	+0.70 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	17.76 m	+6.27 m
Ice TractionLower is better	5^th / 8	3.45 s	+0.73 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	93.2 s	+9.20 s
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 8	74.8 dB	+2.20 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	3^rd / 8	6.5 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km

Origin: Romania
Weight: 15.5 kgs
Tread: 8.7 mm
Price: 2479.00

The Nexen WinGuard WinSpike 3 features the hardest rubber compound in the test, resulting in significant grip challenges on winter surfaces, particularly struggling with snow adhesion compared to other test participants. The grip balance is heavily understeer-biased, with the front wheels consistently losing grip first in a sudden, unpredictable manner that provides little warning to the driver. Safety levels improve considerably on asphalt where aquaplaning resistance is good and both braking distances and cornering behavior maintain high standards, especially on wet surfaces. However, the tyre's major drawback is an unacceptably high noise level that becomes intrusive, making it the loudest option in the test.

Dry94.8%

Wet96.6%

Snow94%

Ice79.4%

Comfort96.2%

Fuel Consumption96.9%

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	45.26 m	+0.96 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	46.54 m	+3.29 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	63.46 s	+0.15 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 8	70.5 km/h	-1.00 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	11.82 m	+0.69 m
Snow TractionLower is better	8^th / 8	1.9 s	+0.13 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	72.2 s	+3.80 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	16.75 m	+5.26 m
Ice TractionLower is better	6^th / 8	3.47 s	+0.75 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	91.7 s	+7.70 s
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 8	75.5 dB	+2.90 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	3^rd / 8	6.5 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km

Origin: South Korea
Weight: 14.9 kgs
Tread: 8.6 mm
Price: 2140.00

The Triangle IceLynx TI501 presents a puzzling contradiction, being a studded tyre with virtually non-existent ice grip that performs worse than even worn friction tyres on slippery surfaces. Ice braking distances are more than double those of the best performers, making it genuinely dangerous on winter roads, while snow performance is only marginally better with the tyre struggling to maintain grip in corners despite adequate straight-line traction. Surprisingly, the tyre redeems itself on asphalt with the shortest braking distances in the test, particularly excelling on wet surfaces, though it suffers from severe understeer and reluctance to change direction quickly. The one saving grace is exceptionally low road noise with a smooth, homogeneous sound character free from disturbing resonances or frequencies.

Dry89.8%

Wet98.6%

Snow96.2%

Ice61.3%

Comfort100%

Fuel Consumption94%

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	44.3 m	Best in this discipline
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	43.25 m	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	64.79 s	+1.48 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 8	68.8 km/h	-2.70 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	11.36 m	+0.23 m
Snow TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	1.85 s	+0.08 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	71.9 s	+3.50 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	25.48 m	+13.99 m
Ice TractionLower is better	8^th / 8	5.19 s	+2.47 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	96.6 s	+12.60 s
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 8	72.6 dB	Best in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 8	6.7 l/100km	+0.40 l/100km

Origin: China
Weight: 16.4 kgs
Tread: 9.1 mm
Price: 1499.00

The Goodride IceMaster Spike Z-506, despite marketing claims of Finnish development, struggles to live up to its Nordic associations with consistently poor performance across most test categories. The tyre's relatively stiff construction and hard rubber compound work adequately on asphalt surfaces where it achieves middle-of-the-pack ratings at best, but winter performance is severely compromised with low grip levels and a tendency toward sudden breakaway when adhesion is lost. The tyre consistently ranks among the worst performers regardless of test conditions, offering little in the way of redeeming qualities beyond short asphalt braking distances and reasonable wet grip, ultimately earning last place in the overall standings due to its comprehensive mediocrity.

Dry90.3%

Wet93.6%

Snow96.3%

Ice75.5%

Comfort97.2%

Fuel Consumption96.9%

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	45.89 m	+1.59 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	48.5 m	+5.25 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	64.79 s	+1.48 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 8	67.8 km/h	-3.70 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	11.38 m	+0.25 m
Snow TractionLower is better	6^th / 8	1.83 s	+0.06 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	72.3 s	+3.90 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	17.8 m	+6.31 m
Ice TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	3.73 s	+1.01 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	94 s	+10.00 s
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 8	74.7 dB	+2.10 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	3^rd / 8	6.5 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km

Origin: China
Weight: 16.7 kgs
Tread: 8.9 mm
Price: 1675.00

Discussion

2 comments

Pedro Neves Oct 12, 2025 archived

What´s this test's really tyre size: 235/60 R18 or 205/55 R16? It must be the first one but we can see on every tyre´s score ranking and on the "test publication" header the size 205/55 R16.
Anyway, too bad they didn´t pick up a winter tyre and/or a winter nordic compound tyre for reference.

#10358
1. TyreReviews Pedro Neves Oct 12, 2025 archived
  
  You're right, they were the 18" size, sorry.
  I have a studded tyre in my nordic studless test next week as reference.
  
  #10359

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