Absolute Best Winter Tire For The 80

[SUMOTOY]

Scott, thanks again, I'm not arguing with any of your observations but I want to focus on one single part of that post where you were claiming that the Blizzaks are better than chains. That seems really super optimistic to me. I mean better than chains on ice? My experience with the wifey's Blizzaks on an all wheel drive vehicle is that they are better than the Revos on ice but no where near as good as chains on ice. Are you really saying that the Blizzaks are better than chains on ice or am I reading you wrong? This is incredibly important for me to get right and on the one hand I'm prepared to pull the trigger on the Blizzaks or Nokian Hakkapellita SUV Studded or even the SUV Non-Studded (they come in both configurations apparently) or whatever will work best ... but ... on the other hand I'm hearing that the same Blizzaks I have had some extensive experience in are gonna plow me through the snow till I'm high centered and get better grip on ice than my Revos & RUDs combination. Granted a set of DMZ3's on a RAV are gonna perform very differently than that tire on a 80 series but again is this overly optimistic or can I count on the type of performance you are describing, again, it is too important to get wrong in my case so please factor that in. But if this is an accurate assessment I think that I'm gettin Blizzaks by week's end. Again, not arguing; just sort of suspiciously intrigued! Thanks again everyone!

Studded snows are advantageous in sheer ice, so are chains. The problem with both is that if the roads are slick, but not 'accumulated ice', they will actually reduce traction. If I was on a frozen lake, I'd want studs. If I was climbing a snow covered offroad hill at 10mph, I'd take chains

The point being that "winter driving" has a very broad definition. What I believe is the most dangerous part of winter driving, is a slick road, not necessarily a snow or acuumlated ice covered road. Blowing snow and hot tires causes black ice, which may or may not be deep enough to allow chains to have bite, or studs to dig. In snow, even an all season will have good traction up to a point. On sheer ice, the probability that everyone is slowing/slowed down is already good.

You can certainly claim better traction in *accumulated* snow, and *accumulated* ice with studs or chains, but I look at Blizzacks and say I'd compromise a bit there in an effort to maximize the winter road driving performance/control in a broader and more common definition.

TC, it's back to the definition of winter driving. With lockers on an 80, you could put all seasons on your truck and be better than another vehicle with chains and snows with studs. As a proralliest, I find black ice, ice on an overpass, blowing drifting snow, and standing water to be the most dangerous conditions to predict and maintain vehicle control. So, that's where I spend my winter tire dollars, for me and my family.

Studded tires are certainly an option, chains seem a bit extreme to me, but you really haven't defined your winter driving enough for me to comment on those. But in a big lumbering 80 with a wide stance, lockers and solid axles, Blizzacks are hardly second prize, given a winter road tire comparo.

HTH and my .02

Scott J

 

[SUMOTOY]

LOL... ain't that the truth! But I'm trying to get the beet compromise for my road consditions and after many hours of research I'm more confused than ever!!!

But seriously, I'd rather have a skinnier and taller tire than the present trend which goes towars (IMO excessively) wide...
Like a 255/85R16 in passenger type/softness with tons of sipes and extra deep tread... But no one seems to making such a tire!

So I guess I have no choice but to get a 265/75R16 then? To be honest, I find 255 already too wide! Weren't these trucks originally designed for 215 and 225 tire widths? Are the new 265s comparable? I'd think they'd be more fuel hungry and would have a lesser grip on snow and ice...

My experience is that the 275/70 tire Mr. T put on the 8in rim is good for the 80. Start climbing sidewall dimensions, you get more sidewall rollover, and in winter tires, sidewalls are generally softer to keep the tread planted = traction. IME2, it's the weight and the diameter that will dictate your 80 gas mileage more than 'rolling resistance'. Certainly if you are going with a skinny tire, I'd get a skinny wheel to match. On a 5000lb aero-brick truck, the thought of 1/2in (265) or even a full inch (250/85 16)in of tread width being a factor in gas mileage seems pretty optimistic, if even measurable.

Cheers

Scott J

 

[brwnj60]

FWIW I just heard that Costco has an unbeatable deal on steel wheels right now

 

[83bj60]

My experience is that the 275/70 tire Mr. T put on the 8in rim is good for the 80. Start climbing sidewall dimensions, you get more sidewall rollover, and in winter tires, sidewalls are generally softer to keep the tread planted = traction. IME2, it's the weight and the diameter that will dictate your 80 gas mileage more than 'rolling resistance'. Certainly if you are going with a skinny tire, I'd get a skinny wheel to match. On a 5000lb aero-brick truck, the thought of 1/2in (265) or even a full inch (250/85 16)in of tread width being a factor in gas mileage seems pretty optimistic, if even measurable.

Cheers

Scott J

OK. IIUC, you are saying that a wider tire and lower profile tire will not necessarily be worse as it will better keep a flat contact patch on the road. Right? That is, under cornering conditions...

Last year I used my old 235/75R15 Hakkas (28.9 inches when new) and they were very nice in snow. Much nicer than I expected and defintely better than on my old 60. I had excellent cornering control. But I do agree that on 'slick roads', IE, roads that appear clean but have a very light coat of slush on them, they were indeed slippery. The trouble was that my fuel consumption went up substantially. I noticed the savings right after I put my big old 285/75R16 back in spring. And these tires are HUGE and HEAVY compared to the small 235s!

As a side note, being narrow tires, I did get stuck in a 2 foot high accumulation on an unplowed driveway last winter: it would dig so well I ended up floating the truck on its belly...

Sooo... It all comes down to what you drive through. Wider and lower profile will maintain a better patch while cornering on the road, which is nice provided the rubber is soft ans grips well at this lower ground pressure. Or thinner will have greater pressure on the road and presumably grip it better, except perhaps when cornering, provided the rubber formulation of the tread is not so hard as to reduce effective grip...

How is someone supposed to make a smart decision when these variables are not published by the tire manufacturers?

Hmmm... Maybe I should buy THREE sets (Blizzak, Nokian Hakka and Michelin X-Ice), try each type and stick to the one I like best Any tire dealer out there that has a money back guarantee on tires?

 

[turbocruiser]

Having had a set of Blizzaks (245-75-16 DMZ3) and a set of the studded Haks (235-85-16 LT's) on the same vehicle during the same winter I think "super optimistic" is more along the lines of wildly optimistic, there is a reason that I got rid of the Blizzaks with under 5k on them for the Hak's. Claiming that the Blizzak's are better on ice than chains or a new style studded winter tyre sounds like gross aggrandizement to me.

See, that more closely mirrors my exerience with the Blizzaks ... they are good on ice but not SOOO good so as to outshine chains (or possibly so as to outshine studs) ... and they are good in snow but not SOOO good so as to outshine Revos alone, let alone Revos with RUD's ... and this is why I'm working to prompt Scott to be totally objective cause this could be a bad ending if I pick the wrong combination of things. I'd like to dwell a little more on the Hakkapelitta's with studs can anyone with real world experience talk to these tires please? Jason, maybe as much more material as you can stand to write for us but I really would like your opinions on the Haks - where they shine, where they don't shine, etc. Thanks so much fellas.

 

[KliersLC]

TC, it's back to the definition of winter driving. With lockers on an 80, you could put all seasons on your truck and be better than another vehicle with chains and snows with studs.
HTH and my .02

Scott J

Hmm....

An unlocked nissan pickup with stock sized studded tires drove a circle around me on a steep incline without spinning a tire. I was fully locked up with siped ATs.

6-8" of snow over about a foot of solid ice......

 

[83bj60]

See, that more closely mirrors my exerience with the Blizzaks ... they are good on ice but not SOOO good so as to outshine chains (or possibly so as to outshine studs) ... and they are good in snow but not SOOO good so as to outshine Revos alone, let alone Revos with RUD's ... and this is why I'm working to prompt Scott to be totally objective cause this could be a bad ending if I pick the wrong combination of things. I'd like to dwell a little more on the Hakkapelitta's with studs can anyone with real world experience talk to these tires please? Jason, maybe as much more material as you can stand to write for us but I really would like your opinions on the Haks - where they shine, where they don't shine, etc. Thanks so much fellas.

Well I've run studded Hakapellittas for two sets in a row. One thing is certain, they wear well.

My first set was the 235/75R15 Haka 10LT, they lasted me almost 50,000 km of winter driving (they could have been used longer with the studs removed). In reality, they are great the first year, pretty good the second, not bad the third. You could use them a fourth winter but I don't recommend them for the fifth winter even if there is still a decent amount of tread left. For some reason, the rubber seemed to get harder in time.

In terms of consistency, the rubber was, well, rubbery, but definitely not as grippy as the new winter tires designed for cars and SUVs. But those were LTs, so I am quite certain the formulation was designed for weight carrying capacity, so, it mustb have been designed to be harder.

In the snow, they performed beautifully. On crisp packed snow, they were good. On ice, they were OK, as long as it wasn't slick. There, they were pretty much useless. The rubber was NOT sticky like that of the dedicated ice tires we have nowadays.

After I wore those out, I liked then enough to get another set. This time I selected the SUVs, because they had many more sipes and many more stud holes (112 per tire!). This tire is directonal and works really well getting through to the road surface below. It generally performed noticeably better than the LT version, but I had one develop and out-of round which In thougfht was due to a tire defect so I did not continue using it the third winter winter, wearing out my AT instead (which were acceptable anyway). The next year I tried them on the HDJ81 anyway (that wobble was simply due to a lost weight) and WOW!!!! What a pleasant surprise... On that truck, they performed beautifully all winter. Excellent control in snow, on packed snow, in slush, on hard ice. I've also noticed that on that truck, they seem to grip the road better on slick ice, giving a much more controled stop, not simply a toboggan slide like the old LTs used to be.

But this is all very subjective, of course, The old LTs did last me 4 winters of good to decent driving, the SUVs were still great on the third winter. Can I factually compare slick ice on the old LTs and the newer SUVs in the same conditions? Of course I can't...

The reason why I'm so interested in getting something in 235 size is that I saw how well the 81 did with them. And although I do a lot of mileage (just passed 30,000km and I haven't had the truck for a full year yet), they wear very well. The only conditions where they don't do so good are the conditions where the Blizzaks supposedly excell: wet icy intersections...

Sooo, if you are expecting a lot of city driving, I would say go for the Blizzaks. I am condsidering it. But I do mostly highway and bad country roads covered with packed snow 4 to 5 months out of the year and in those conditions, the hakas work very well. As long as they are fairly narrow and 'designed fo SUVs'...

As for the Blizzak, many friends I have don't want anything else. I've seen how great they are. I just don't know how well they would wear compared to the Hakkas and dislike the idea or replacing them every two years, considering it's inevitably an expense on the order of $750...

The Michelin X-ice certainly look nice, but with a tread depth of 12/32, I am wondering if they are not 'designed to wear quickly do that people will buy them more often'. In the same size, Hakas have much deeper tread. Why the big difference, why so stingy on the rubber?

So I'm still ptretty much back on square one. Haka SUVs work well in the countryside and can be studded, but can be slippery on slick, wet ice. Blizzaks work well in slick conditions but don't last. X-ices seem to be very well designed but don't come in tall and thin, and their tread is IMO too shallow...

 

[turbocruiser]

Well I've run studded Hakapellittas for two sets in a row. One thing is certain, they wear well.

My first set was the 235/75R15 Haka 10LT, they lasted me almost 50,000 km of winter driving (they could have been used longer with the studs removed). In reality, they are great the first year, pretty good the second, not bad the third. You could use them a fourth winter but I don't recommend them for the fifth winter even if there is still a decent amount of tread left. For some reason, the rubber seemed to get harder in time.

In terms of consistency, the rubber was, well, rubbery, but definitely not as grippy as the new winter tires designed for cars and SUVs. But those were LTs, so I am quite certain the formulation was designed for weight carrying capacity, so, it mustb have been designed to be harder.

In the snow, they performed beautifully. On crisp packed snow, they were good. On ice, they were OK, as long as it wasn't slick. There, they were pretty much useless. The rubber was NOT sticky like that of the dedicated ice tires we have nowadays.

After I wore those out, I liked then enough to get another set. This time I selected the SUVs, because they had many more sipes and many more stud holes (112 per tire!). This tire is directonal and works really well getting through to the road surface below. It generally performed noticeably better than the LT version, but I had one develop and out-of round which In thougfht was due to a tire defect so I did not continue using it the third winter winter, wearing out my AT instead (which were acceptable anyway). The next year I tried them on the HDJ81 anyway (that wobble was simply due to a lost weight) and WOW!!!! What a pleasant surprise... On that truck, they performed beautifully all winter. Excellent control in snow, on packed snow, in slush, on hard ice. I've also noticed that on that truck, they seem to grip the road better on slick ice, giving a much more controled stop, not simply a toboggan slide like the old LTs used to be.

But this is all very subjective, of course, The old LTs did last me 4 winters of good to decent driving, the SUVs were still great on the third winter. Can I factually compare slick ice on the old LTs and the newer SUVs in the same conditions? Of course I can't...

The reason why I'm so interested in getting something in 235 size is that I saw how well the 81 did with them. And although I do a lot of mileage (just passed 30,000km and I haven't had the truck for a full year yet), they wear very well. The only conditions where they don't do so good are the conditions where the Blizzaks supposedly excell: wet icy intersections...

Sooo, if you are expecting a lot of city driving, I would say go for the Blizzaks. I am condsidering it. But I do mostly highway and bad country roads covered with packed snow 4 to 5 months out of the year and in those conditions, the hakas work very well. As long as they are fairly narrow and 'designed fo SUVs'...

As for the Blizzak, many friends I have don't want anything else. I've seen how great they are. I just don't know how well they would wear compared to the Hakkas and dislike the idea or replacing them every two years, considering it's inevitably an expense on the order of $750...

The Michelin X-ice certainly look nice, but with a tread depth of 12/32, I am wondering if they are not 'designed to wear quickly do that people will buy them more often'. In the same size, Hakas have much deeper tread. Why the big difference, why so stingy on the rubber?

So I'm still ptretty much back on square one. Haka SUVs work well in the countryside and can be studded, but can be slippery on slick, wet ice. Blizzaks work well in slick conditions but don't last. X-ices seem to be very well designed but don't come in tall and thin, and their tread is IMO too shallow...

Wow, very well written post, thanks for that.

 

[83bj60]

Well let's hope this discussion is kept alive... I can't find a 'winter tire 101' (or is that 323 ) page anywhere, wher actual measurements and test results are posted...

I guess it's time for me to dig up some more stuff up on Google (hmmm.... Am I the only one to think it's not as good as it used to be?)

 

[jasonmt]

The Tyres: 235/85/16 Nokian Hakkapeliitta LT + studs, 245/75/16 Bridgestone Blizzak DM-Z3 both mounted on stock alloys.

The Vehicle: 3/4 Ton GMC D-Max, 4x4, CC, Standard Box.

The Roads: North of Edmonton ranging to Northern BC and the southern Yukon and NWT on everything from 4 lane highways to a single lane controlled access ice road.

The Blizzaks came with the truck when I bought it used from a snowbird with under 3000km on them so I was planning on using them until they were dead. The first thing I noticed and also the most disconcerting was after changing to the Hak's was the Blizzaks were quite a bit "sloppier" compared to the Hak's when it came to lateral stability in any condition.

The Blizzaks had a noticeably softer rubber compound and in fresh snow I would call it a wash between them but in every other condition the Hak's performed better. In slush the Blizzaks would reach the squirrelly, almost hydroplaning state much sooner than the Hak's.

The most apparent difference was in the ice performance, especially on the early and late season days were you went through a freeze/thaw cycle and on the trips pulling a 6000# enclosed trailer. The Hak's IMO had a much more controllable transition when gaining/loosing traction and starting off from a stop often did not require dropping it into 4x4 whereas the Blizzaks 9 times out of 10 would require 4x4 to get going.

The Blizzaks also seemed to "freeze up" worse on really cold days (-40C)

 

[MARLIN375]

Well let's hope this discussion is kept alive... I can't find a 'winter tire 101' (or is that 323 ) page anywhere, wher actual measurements and test results are posted...

I guess it's time for me to dig up some more stuff up on Google (hmmm.... Am I the only one to think it's not as good as it used to be?)

Do your own research, mount up a set of studded Hakks and try them............I guarantee that you will not be dissapointed. Any other soft compound tire that is even close, would only be close for the first season. And would prolly only be worth mounting up for two seasons and you will be looking for another set (or like myself in the past, trying to run the tread-off like a good scotsman) and paying the price with poor traction. I ran the same set of studded winter sipes on my wifes Suzuki for 5 yrs and sold them with the car, they still performed great. Obviously your LC is going to be considerably harder on tires, but I have noticed that studs prolong treadwear, and if you use them November to April like we do here I would say you could get 4 yrs out of them (for me that would be 20-30k miles) with very little drop in performance.

 

[83bj60]

Very interesting, jason... But how does the 3/4 ton GMC compare to an 80 series Landcruiser in terms of weight distribution? I would asume that except for running a trailer, the two vehicles would be fairly close in terms of weight, or am I misinformed?

 

[jasonmt]

Loaded up with gear in the winter and a full load of diesel in the slip tank (600#'s) I was running about 7800#'s (4500#/3300# F/R) so about 2k? over a 80.

 

[83bj60]

Do your own research, mount up a set of studded Hakks and try them............I guarantee that you will not be dissapointed. Any other soft compound tire that is even close, would only be close for the first season. And would prolly only be worth mounting up for two seasons and you will be looking for another set (or like myself in the past, trying to run the tread-off like a good scotsman) and paying the price with poor traction. I ran the same set of studded winter sipes on my wifes Suzuki for 5 yrs and sold them with the car, they still performed great. Obviously your LC is going to be considerably harder on tires, but I have noticed that studs prolong treadwear, and if you use them November to April like we do here I would say you could get 4 yrs out of them (for me that would be 20-30k miles) with very little drop in performance.

Indeed, I was happy with them for two sets, except on wet ice. Also, like I stated previously, I liked the 235/75R15 SUV much better than the 10LT version of the same tire in the exact same size. The touble is, for the diameter I like, I am not sure that I will get the same formulation (in a 235/85R16) as I got with the old 235/75R15 SUVs, which I passed on to my ex to keep the kids safe in her Blazer (perfect size for that vehicle)...

Reading some of the many reviews that come up googling "Best winter tires for SUVs", I found that the Canadian sites keep saying the Hakkas are of uneven quality (I've had one out of my 4 LTs get out of round) and are too expensive for their value (possible). In any case, what I found was that the LTs were made in the US, whereas the SUVs were made in Finland... Anyway, that's what it was on the batch I got... Maybe THAT is another variable we have to be looking for, WHO IS REALLY MAKING THE MAJOR BRANDS!

Anyway, the top three brands that keep coming up are the Birdgestones DM Z2/Z3, the Toyos G02 and the Michelins Latitute X-Ice... in particular, I found this page summarizes things faily well: http://www.apa.ca/template.asp?DocID=97... Hakkas are still fairly unknown here in NA...

So to sum it up, I actually like the Hakkas, I just want to be able to get the SAME (studded SUV) tire I had some on the old 60 but in 235/85R16 size... The question remains, is the LT235/85R16 built the same way as the SUV 235/75R15? If it is stiffer and the rubber harder, I won't like it... And I'd rather avoid getting a wider tire to get that formulation...

Maybe I should simply submit my criteria to the manufacturers to find out if they have something already manufactured that corresponds to them!!!

 

[83bj60]

Loaded up with gear in the winter and a full load of diesel in the slip tank (600#'s) I was running about 7800#'s (4500#/3300# F/R) so about 2k? over a 80.

That is a BIG difference! About 40% heavier! Therefore it is quite understandable that the Blizzacks fared so poorly on that truck, especially since they were not tough, narrow profile tires either!!!

Like I said previously, on the lighter 60, the 235/75R15 SUVs were good, but on the heavier 80, they were definitely better... Sooo, if you used these LTs on a much lighter vehicle, they would undoubtedly be harsher and possibly much less gripper... Like it was my experience with the 235/75R15LTs I had on the old 60...

 

[96r50]

These look pretty good for a snow tire. If you can fit 38" tires on 12-14" wide wheels
Hilux Invincible

 

[turbocruiser]

These look pretty good for a snow tire. If you can fit 38" tires on 12-14" wide wheels
Hilux Invincible

Wow those look totally cool, however, I'm not so sure how they would work on slick street ice.

 

[MARLIN375]

I would say that if you could get those babys in a 315 mounted up on your stock rims, with some studs you have just found the "Absolute best winter tire for the 80" (interesting how the stud blocks vary on those)

 

[turbocruiser]

Fellas, thanks again for all the advice. I've sorta come to the conclusion, I think, to stay wit the Revos (along with RUD's when needed). Some reasons for this ...

1. I cannot get Nokians in my size except for something that they call Vativa which is actually an AT tire that is not studdable. This means any Nokian I get will not be workable with my chains.

2. I cannot get Blizzaks in my size ... same as above.

3. I actually had a Bridgestone rep tell me that he likes the Nokians (or even Cooper M&S Studables) better (based on when things totally get slippery all around here they are the top performer!!!)

4. Conversely, I actually had a Nokian rep tell me that he likes the Bridgestones better (based on the fact that most of our winter driving is dry roads while we wait for the next slickery storm)!!! Neither person #3 nor person #4 sold the other thing so it was not a matter of an "in-stock-suggestion."

5. If I were to go with anything other than the Blizzaks, I would also have to purchase wheels as Bridgestone, understandably, won't do the free snow swaps for life on another type of tire. This would then necessitate five rims and five tires which multiplies the cost considerably.

6. If I were to go with the Blizzaks, I would have the free snow swaps for life but would still have to probably purchase 5 of them ( no big deal ) and still would not be able to use the chains (possible BIG deal). I also am having more and more of a problem purchasing a tire that is only 50% winter tread.

So, based on all those thoughts (and alot more) I guess I'm going to stay with the Revos. I think they're terrific in everything except ice and there they are at least admirable. In our neck of the woods the reality is even though the chains are always with me, I would rarely use them unless there was tremendous accumulations like higher than the bumper, BUT, it is then that those things become "life or death" devices, literally. I guess if I'm leaning any which way it is still towards the Blizzaks because Scott says they are so capable in conquering super deep snow. This whole thing would be MUCH easier if either the Bridgestones or the Nokians were available in a size that works with the chains. Then again, I don't know if perhaps I'm putting too much weight on the chains; I'm sure I could take the time and the trouble to simply shovel out if I did stop with the Blizzaks on but then again, why should I when I can simply slap the chains on and chug on?

This is fascinating and frustrating at the same time, it is indeed a LARGE subject but I appreciate all the awesome advice that all of you have given so far. I would not say I"m 100% on staying with the Revos but based on the above it is pretty close to that. After sharing my scattered thoughts with you all, does that generate any additional suggestions? Thanks Again. PS. Does anyone here run with those Cooper's are they any good with studs in them? Thanks.

 

[83bj60]

Fellas, thanks again for all the advice. I've sorta come to the conclusion, I think, to stay wit the Revos (along with RUD's when needed). Some reasons for this ...

1. I cannot get Nokians in my size except for something that they call Vativa which is actually an AT tire that is not studdable. This means any Nokian I get will not be workable with my chains.

2. I cannot get Blizzaks in my size ... same as above.

3. I actually had a Bridgestone rep tell me that he likes the Nokians (or even Cooper M&S Studables) better (based on when things totally get slippery all around here they are the top performer!!!)

4. Conversely, I actually had a Nokian rep tell me that he likes the Bridgestones better (based on the fact that most of our winter driving is dry roads while we wait for the next slickery storm)!!! Neither person #3 nor person #4 sold the other thing so it was not a matter of an "in-stock-suggestion."

5. If I were to go with anything other than the Blizzaks, I would also have to purchase wheels as Bridgestone, understandably, won't do the free snow swaps for life on another type of tire. This would then necessitate five rims and five tires which multiplies the cost considerably.

6. If I were to go with the Blizzaks, I would have the free snow swaps for life but would still have to probably purchase 5 of them ( no big deal ) and still would not be able to use the chains (possible BIG deal). I also am having more and more of a problem purchasing a tire that is only 50% winter tread.

So, based on all those thoughts (and alot more) I guess I'm going to stay with the Revos. I think they're terrific in everything except ice and there they are at least admirable. In our neck of the woods the reality is even though the chains are always with me, I would rarely use them unless there was tremendous accumulations like higher than the bumper, BUT, it is then that those things become "life or death" devices, literally. I guess if I'm leaning any which way it is still towards the Blizzaks because Scott says they are so capable in conquering super deep snow. This whole thing would be MUCH easier if either the Bridgestones or the Nokians were available in a size that works with the chains. Then again, I don't know if perhaps I'm putting too much weight on the chains; I'm sure I could take the time and the trouble to simply shovel out if I did stop with the Blizzaks on but then again, why should I when I can simply slap the chains on and chug on?

This is fascinating and frustrating at the same time, it is indeed a LARGE subject but I appreciate all the awesome advice that all of you have given so far. I would not say I"m 100% on staying with the Revos but based on the above it is pretty close to that. After sharing my scattered thoughts with you all, does that generate any additional suggestions? Thanks Again. PS. Does anyone here run with those Cooper's are they any good with studs in them? Thanks.

Turbo, I'm pretty much in the same situation as you. Plus I have to deal with pricing that is almost (in certain cases even MORE !) than double the price in the States.

This is where the search for the 'perfect winter tire' is boiling down to for me at this time, and why I still have not decided at this time:

1- Conflicting reports from users: I have talked to many folks around here and have come up with conflicting reports. In other words, the Blizzaks are NOT said to be great in full snow and slush compared to other winter tires with larger lugs. They are however superior in wet ice and hars snow.

2 - Differences between types in the same tire: The Nokians are indeed my first choice but there are no tires in the size and type I want (Hakka SUVs), only LTs. There were for the older BJ60, though. I have written to their tech support and have yet to get an answer as to why I should trust a wider and smaller diameter tire, and whether the rubber formulation on the LT is harder than on the SUV version.

3 - The physical: I have physically 'touched and kneaded' the surface of several tires, comparing LT and regular passengier tire versions, and it would seem, from this empirical method, that the difference between an LT235/85R16 and a 265/70R16 is mostly the softness of the carcass (very stiff in LT, pliable in P), but that there doesn't seem to be a perceptible difference in rubber consistency between the two tires of the same type but differenet application. So there is hope there... One would just have to deal with the fact that LT types have much less siping (less grip on ice) but a bit larger blocks (more snow grip) than P types.

4 - Marketing: due to marketing, brands and the realities of manufacturing, unknown brands may be just as effective as big names as they are probbaly made in the same factories from similar formulations. For example, the WalMart Nexxen brand. Those winter tires have a pliable rubber surface, lots of smartly designed siping and would seem just as good as the Michelins X-Ice, for example. Yet again, there is no tire in the size I need, just as with the X-Ice...

5 - Limited choice and higher prices: most problems we face with our vehicles is the limited choice in our sizes, and pricing that is not competitive, for equal longevity, with that of more common pasenger size tires. Basically, light truck and SUV owners are caught by the balls.

So you see, this is just as dififcult for me just as it is for you. Hope this helps more than it confuses anyone going through this decision making process!!!