Winter Tire for GTI VR6
Wei Soo
: I recently bought a 1995 GTI VR6 and it's now time for winter tires... What
: brand of tire would be best ? Original size is 205-50R-15, should I or can I use
: smaller tires like 195-55R-15 or even 185-55R-15 ? Main concern is
: traction in deep snow, so cornering is not that important...till summer.
Go with the 185's. With a wide tire, the car will tend to climb over the
snow instead of digging through it, and getting to the asphalt below.
I use 185/60R14's on my '91 GTI, and they work great.
Meng
--
\ -------------------------------------------------------------------
\(*)|\ W. Meng Soo | s...@bnr.ca
\ --_\o Bell Northern Research Ltd. | '91 GTI 16V
\(*)! Ottawa, Canada | "Hakuna Matata"
\ -------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud Hayes
s...@bmers120.bnr.ca (Wei Soo) wrote:
>Sylvain Boyer (sylv...@fonorola.net) wrote:
>: I recently bought a 1995 GTI VR6 and it's now time for winter tires...
What
>: brand of tire would be best ? Original size is 205-50R-15, should I or
can I use
>: smaller tires like 195-55R-15 or even 185-55R-15 ? Main concern is
>: traction in deep snow, so cornering is not that important...till summer.
>
>Go with the 185's. With a wide tire, the car will tend to climb over the
>snow instead of digging through it, and getting to the asphalt below.
>
>I use 185/60R14's on my '91 GTI, and they work great.
>
>Meng
I agree with the sizing recommendation above, but would like to add a brand
recommendation. Nokia Hakkapelitta 10's, which are made in Finland. They
were rated number 2 in a joint Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian car magazines
snow tire test. Number 1 was a brand new design from Gislaved (sp?) from
Sweden, which I don't know if it's available in the US and Canada.
My friends and I have run these for several years now with and without
studs. Great tires, much better than the old Gislaved Frost tires. Last
year I ran without studs. The only difference that I really noticed was on
bare ice that was melting. Studs really help in this situation. But I do a
lot of bare pavement driving and not having studs made the handling and
noise level much better on bare road. Another thing I really like is the
uni-directional tread which is very good at shedding water and slush.
These tires are available at Greer Enterprises in WI at 414-545-2296. I
talked to a fellow named Pat. He was very helpful. The order and shipment
to Portland went smooth as silk. A local tire chain, Les Schwab, caries 4
sizes of Nokia's to fill in some odd sizes (165r15) that there normal line
(Toyo I believe) doesn't come in. So you might check your
BTW Nokia also makes great computer monitors and cell phones. I do Tech
support and have gotten calls from Nokia's employees in Florida who are
amazed when I tell them their company makes great snow tires as well.
Best regards,
Bud Hayes 69 beetle, 71 beetle, 79 Scirocco, 87 4000 quatro
Paul Roberts
couple of weeks ago. Someone mentioned that Nokia came second in this test.
That is not right, didn't you think about _last_ years test perhaps?
Also, you weren't sure if the Gislaved (test winners) could be purchased in
the US? A person who read my previous posting of the test just mailed me to
say that he now had bought the Gislaved Nord Frost II tires for his car. So
they are obtainable, at least at some places.
Anyway, here is the complete note as I posted it some weeks ago:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people may be waiting for it, for others it's just as surprising as
the first snowfall. What am I talking about? The 95-96 seasons test of
snowtires. As last year, I'm bringing you a resyme of the huge tire test
set to scene by the auto magazines "Tekniikan Maillma" from Finland, "Auto
Motor & Sport" from Sweden and "Motor" from Norway.
This is a test of studded snowtires, and I realise that they aren't allowed
in certain countries and US states. Most likely though, I will (like last
year) also post a test of non-studded snowtires, keep an eye open for it.
185/65R14 tires are used, on Volkswagen Vento's (I believe you call them
Jetta's in the USA). Unfortunately Good Years new studded snowtires weren't
available at the start of this test, so they aren't included. However, in
the test last year, Good Year came in 5th, only average.
Points are awarded for various criteria. The test winner isn't necessarily
best for YOU. It all depends on what sort of driving you do, and on what
conditions. I can also mention that a Swedish study shows that studded
snowtires reduce accidents on winter conditions by 20-25% in relation to
non-studded snowtires.
Over to the test itself. I'll start at the top, with each tire for itself
at first. At the end of the test, you can read all the hard facts for all
the tires. As well as the data, they are ranked with a * system for overall
impressions/performance. The more *'s the better :) I've not bothered to
convert km/h into mph myself (lets face it, 90% of you reading this will
be Americans). Just get out your calculator and multiply the km/h figure
with 0,62137.
GISLAVED NORD FROST 2 - * * * * *
stud protrusion: 1,2 mm
thread depth: 9,5 mm
production country: Sweden
speed grading: Q (max. 160 km/h)
Gislaved Nord Frost 2 wins the test with quite a margin to its competitors.
It's simply great on all kinds of winter driving. The road handling is
brilliant. It responds quickly to steering, and a slight tendency to
oversteering makes it easy to control on a slippery surface. It is
directionally stable on ditchy roads. The only drawback is the noise which
arises between 40 and 60 km/h. Still, the best recommendation for the
winter 95/96.
CONTINENTAL VIKING STOP 4000 - * * * * *
stud protrusion: 1,2 mm
thread depth: 9,7 mm
production country: Sweden
speed grading: Q
Viking is now produced in Sweden by Gislaved (note: I suppose production of
these tires for overseas markets may vary). This tire is also a very good
snowtire, but not quite up to Nord Frost 2's class. Viking's advantage is
the even scoring in all the disciplines.
MICHELIN XM+S 260 - * * *
stud protrusion: 1,2 mm
thread depth: 9,4 mm
production country: England
speed grading: Q
Michelin have been concentrating on non-studded snowtires the past years.
That may be a reason why this tire isn't right up at the top. A joined third
place in this company isn't bad though. The traction on ice is quite good,
and on snow the road handling is excellent. The noise-level from tire and
studs is too high though. The steering response isn't the best either, but
the tire doesn't 'let go' unexpectedly.
NOKIA HAKKAPELIITTA 10 - * * *
stud protrusion: 1,2 mm
thread depth: 10,3 mm
production country: Finland
speed grading: T (max. 190 km/t)
Nokia have in all the years had good snowtires, and the joined third place
here is good too. However, the age is starting to show. Several of the
competitors have 'overtaken'. The tire doesn't give you any surprises.
It's especially good on wet ice, but it's beginning to drag behind a bit on
other surfaces, for instance braking on snow.
BRIDGESTONE WT-14 - * *
stud protrusion: 1,2 mm
thread depth: 9,5 mm
production country: Japan
speed grading: Q
Bridgestone have obviously been working harder on non-studded snowtires than
this studded one. The studs seem to work alright though, cause the traction
on ice is quite good, as is the braking. In can let go suddenly in sideways
directions though, and is rather noisy in town surrounding speed-limits.
PIRELLI WINTER S - * *
stud protrusion: 1,2 mm
thread depth: 10,2 mm
production country: England
speed grading: Q
Pirelli do most likely make better summer tires than snowtires. The relatively
bad result here is caused by the tire not breaking average in any of the
disciplines. However, it's not at rock bottom in more than one either.
The traction on ice is average, but the road handling can lead to surprises
and the driver must be aware of sudden sideways movements on ditchy roads.
KUMHO POWER GRIP VI - *
stud protrusion: 1,2 mm
thread depth: 8,6 mm
production country: South-Korea
speed grading: Q
A cheaply priced Korean tire which shows how hard it is to make tires for
rough nordic conditions. Traction on ice is ok, but otherwise the road
handling on most conditions is bad with for instance sudden loss of grip.
Directionally stability on ditchy roads is also bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The traction in the test is measured by acceleration on the various surfaces
from 5-30 km/h. The braking is done from 18-4 km/h (on rough ice it's from
30-5 km/h). The round circuit tests are timed on a circle (50 m diameter)
with rough ice. The noise grades are given by the test drivers through
driving on varying surfaces, without knowing (naturally) what tires their
car is fitted with. The directional stability is measured by driving on
side-roads which has been prepared by a road-scraper.
If you are really interested, I also have the exact seconds spent, the exact
braking distance etc. on some of the disciplines. Mail me!
Gisl. Viking Mich. Nokia Bridge. Pirel. Kumho
TRACTION ON ICE
braking wet ice 10 10 10 10 10 9 8
braking rough ice 10 9 9 8 8 8 7
traction wet ice 10 9 7 9 10 8 8
traction rough ice 10 9 8 7 7 6 6
side traction ice 9 9 8 8 9 7 8
round circuit 10 9 8 9 7 8 6
TRACTION ON SNOW
br. locked wheels 8 9 7 7 7 6 6
braking ABS 9 8 7 7 6 8 6
traction 10 10 9 8 8 8 7
round circuit 10 9 9 8 6 6 4
ROAD HANDLING
on ice 10 9 8 9 6 7 5
on snow 9 9 10 8 7 7 6
directional stab. 9 7 7 8 6 5 5
noise 5 6 4 6 4 6 5
GRADE: 9,4 8,9 8,2 8,2 7,4 7,2 6,3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you're happy with the test. One property that is left out here is the
price of the tires. However, they only vary slightly (by about $10 for the
top five). Not a reason to chose one infront of the other I would say.
I hope you all have a nice winter. Remember to know your limitations as a
driver, and slow down rather than trust your 'footwear' 100%
Paul.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Roberts \ \/ / 81 vanagon
University of Trondheim, Norway \/\/ 69 squareback
email: pa...@nvg.unit.no - A snowboard is for life,
http://www.nvg.unit.no/~paul/ not just for x-mas -
SELAMI
Automobile Magazine confirmed this in their winter test (October issue) -
it was the best acceleration, best braking, best handling tire. As for
size, most seem to recommend one size smaller - if 205-50-15 is stock, use
195/55-15 if possible.
Bud Hayes
>I felt like re-posting the test of studded snowtires which I posted here a
>couple of weeks ago. Someone mentioned that Nokia came second in this test.
>That is not right, didn't you think about _last_ years test perhaps?
You are absolutly correct. I don't get to keep up with the news all the time
and the news server had already thrown this years test away. Thanks for your
efforts.
>Also, you weren't sure if the Gislaved (test winners) could be purchased in
>the US? A person who read my previous posting of the test just mailed me to
>say that he now had bought the Gislaved Nord Frost II tires for his car. So
>they are obtainable, at least at some places.
One thing I did not like about the last Frost design hydro-planing once they
had some wear on them (1/2 tread). Where I live, I drive in rain and slush
on my way to where I ski. Hopefully this has been improved on the Frost II.
It's also nice to know that the tires keep getting better. I'll have to track
down a source for the Frost II's.
Have a nice and safe winter.
Bud Hayes
Tom Haapanen
jenn...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com () writes:
> I would be afraid to run a 185/55 on the Passat, even though a 185 would
> cut thru snow better. Even a 195/55 has a shorter sidewall v the summer
> 215/50. Pirelli makes winter 210's in 195/55-15, and they work well.
> Excellent rain tires, much better than the Eagle GA in the wet.
Excellent choice. I was torn between the Winter 210 and the Michelin
XM+S 330H, but in the end the Michelin's lower priced swayed me. That
one is a great winter tire, too.
The 195/55 is the right size to go for, though I don't think the 185/55
would cause any significant problems (other than a 1.9% speedo error).
> Don't know how the stock alloys would have faired.
They would have bent. I bent one in the spring, but fortunately I got
the city to pay for most of the cost of a new one.
--
[ /tom haapanen -- to...@metrics.com -- software metrics inc -- waterloo, ont ]
[ "hey, it's a unix system! i know how to use this! -- lex, jurassic park ]
Tom Haapanen
McSt...@msn.com (Eric Stewart) writes:
> Recommendations? I have driven on both Pirelli's Winter 190 and
> Winter 210, as well as Goodyear's Eagle GW. They represent the
> cutting edge of high performance-oriented, pure winter tires. They
> possess stiff side walls, multi-siped tread blocks and unidirectional
> rotation. They are both available in the size you need, which, by
> the way, is 195/55R15. 185/55R15 will introduce a 4-5% speedometer
> error as they are slightly smaller in overall diameter as compared to
> your OEM 205/50R15.
Some corrections:
OEM size of of 195/50R15 (snow tire 195/50R15):
Golf GTI 16V 2.0L, Jetta GTX/GLI 2.0L, Corrado G60
OEM size of of 205/50R15 (snow tire 185/55R15):
Corrado VR6, Golf VR6, Jetta VR6, Passat 16V, Passat G60
OEM size of of 215/50R15 (snow tire 195/55R15):
Passat VR6
The speedo error going from the correct 195/55R15 to 185/55R15 is
about 1.9%, not 4-5%.
--
[ /tom haapanen -- to...@metrics.com -- software metrics inc -- waterloo, ont ]
[ "a learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant one." -- moliere ]
Eric L. Stewart
>> I would be afraid to run a 185/55 on the Passat, even though a 185 would
>> cut thru snow better. Even a 195/55 has a shorter sidewall v the summer
>> 215/50. Pirelli makes winter 210's in 195/55-15, and they work well.
>> Excellent rain tires, much better than the Eagle GA in the wet.
>
> Excellent choice. I was torn between the Winter 210 and the Michelin
> XM+S 330H, but in the end the Michelin's lower priced swayed me. That
> one is a great winter tire, too.
>
> The 195/55 is the right size to go for, though I don't think the 185/55
> would cause any significant problems (other than a 1.9% speedo error).
>
>> Don't know how the stock alloys would have faired.
>
> They would have bent. I bent one in the spring, but fortunately I got
> the city to pay for most of the cost of a new one.
>
> --
> [ /tom haapanen -- to...@metrics.com -- software metrics inc -- waterloo, ont ]
> [ "hey, it's a unix system! i know how to use this! -- lex, jurassic park ]
Please, if you're going to disagree with me, get your facts straight...
Some simple math: First, the speedometer error is a simple ratio of the
difference in *overall diameter* of the tire, since the circumference of
the tire (ie: the distance it travels in one revolution) is given by the
equation:
Circumference = pi X D (diameter)
Thus, a 4 per cent difference in circumference as compared to OEM fitment
would result in a 4 per cent speedometer error, etc...
Case in point, a 185/55R15 tire has a sidewall height of
185 x .55 = 101.75 mm
A 215/50R15 tire has a sidwall height of
215 x .50 = 107.5 mm
This yields a difference of 107.5-101.75 [mm] = 5.75mm
Expressed as a percentage of the OEM sidewall height (107.5 mm):
5.75/107.5 *100 = 5.35%
ie: 5.35% is the speedometer error introduced.
Even the 195/55 tire is not exactly equivalent to original fitment as its
sidewall height of (195*.55)=107.25 is an insignificant (math excluded)
.2% speedometer error.
Please don't quote me a single manufacturer's tire size table, as tire
widths, overall diameters etc. vary from one to another, even with the
same (ostensibly) specification.
--
Eric L. Stewart
ax...@Freenet.Carleton.CA / Eric.S...@Extvnier01.X400.GC.CA
The preceding opinions are not necessarily (but might be, if you like
them) those of the author.
Eric Stewart
I've had a set of Hakkappellittas (NR10's) on each of an MX-3
Precidia and a VW Passat and really liked them, but....they get a bit
squirmy on dry, or nearly dry tarmac. No question they are very good
in snow (we do get lots here in Ottawa), however I have found that a
better all-around tire is one that has fewer compromises and has
better stability in a wide range of conditions.
Recommendations? I have driven on both Pirelli's Winter 190 and
Winter 210, as well as Goodyear's Eagle GW. They represent the
cutting edge of high performance-oriented, pure winter tires. They
possess stiff side walls, multi-siped tread blocks and unidirectional
rotation. They are both available in the size you need, which, by
the way, is 195/55R15. 185/55R15 will introduce a 4-5% speedometer
error as they are slightly smaller in overall diameter as compared to
your OEM 205/50R15.
If you're stuck (no pun intended) on Nokia tires, a better compromise
for you is their H-rated NRW. This is an excellent high-performance
winter tire which I think would suit your car. I had a set of these
on a Toyota Camry V6 sport (5 speed) and they were superb.
If you want to e-mail me back (directly) I can be reached at:
este...@magi.com
ax...@freenet.carleton.ca
Good luck!
Eric L. Stewart
> In article <DHHot...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
> Eric L. Stewart <ax...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>Please, if you're going to disagree with me, get your facts straight...
>>
>>Some simple math: First, the speedometer error is a simple ratio of the
>>difference in *overall diameter* of the tire, since the circumference of
>>the tire (ie: the distance it travels in one revolution) is given by the
>>equation:
>>
>> Circumference = pi X D (diameter)
>>
>>Thus, a 4 per cent difference in circumference as compared to OEM fitment
>>would result in a 4 per cent speedometer error, etc...
>>
>>Case in point, a 185/55R15 tire has a sidewall height of
>>
>> 185 x .55 = 101.75 mm
>>
>>A 215/50R15 tire has a sidwall height of
>>
>> 215 x .50 = 107.5 mm
>>
>>This yields a difference of 107.5-101.75 [mm] = 5.75mm
>>
>>Expressed as a percentage of the OEM sidewall height (107.5 mm):
>>
>> 5.75/107.5 *100 = 5.35%
>>
>>ie: 5.35% is the speedometer error introduced.
>>
>
> sidewalls + the wheel diameter. THe speedo error is about 2%.
I stand corrected. Looks like I'll have to step off my soap box....
I think you'll agree that the speedometer error can be calculated as a
simple ratio of the relative circumferences of the two tires.
d=diameter of rim alone (a constant in this case)
D=diameter of rim & tire combination
S = sidewall height
pi=3.1415...
R=radius of tire.
Thus
The circumference = pi x D = pi X (d + (2 x S))
let S1=sidewall height of tire "1"
let S2=sidewall height of tire "2"
then the ratio of circumferences would become:
pi x (d + (2 x S1))
-------------------
pi x (d + (2 x S2))
-----> d + 2 x S1
----------
d + 2 x S2
d = 15" (approx. 375 mm) S1 = 185 x .55 = 101.75
S2 = 215 x .50 = 107.5
thus, the ratio of circumferences becomes:
375 + 2 x (101.75)
------------- = 578.5/590 = 98%
375 + 2 x (107.50)
ie: the speedometer error is approximately (100 - 98) = 2%
I would eat crow, but I'm worried that the feathers might get stuck in my
thoat.
david.w...@marcam.com
>
I've just purchased a set of Pirelli 210's 195/55 15 for my 94 Passat GLX.
They were recommended by a co-worker with the same for his Passat. I had
Pirelli 190's on a previous car and they were great. I wanted to get Blizzaks
but I heard a lot of stories about short tread life.
Hope this helps.
Eric L. Stewart
>> Tom Haapanen (to...@metrics.com) writes:
>>> The speedo error going from the correct 195/55R15 to 185/55R15 is
>>> about 1.9%, not 4-5%.
>
>> Please, if you're going to disagree with me, get your facts straight...
>
>
>> Some simple math: First, the speedometer error is a simple ratio of the
>> difference in *overall diameter* of the tire, since the circumference of
>> the tire (ie: the distance it travels in one revolution) is given by the
>> equation:
>> Circumference = pi X D (diameter)
>> Thus, a 4 per cent difference in circumference as compared to OEM fitment
>> would result in a 4 per cent speedometer error, etc...
>
>> Case in point, a 185/55R15 tire has a sidewall height of
>> 185 x .55 = 101.75 mm
>> A 215/50R15 tire has a sidwall height of
>> 215 x .50 = 107.5 mm
>> This yields a difference of 107.5-101.75 [mm] = 5.75mm
>
> tire as well?
>
>> Expressed as a percentage of the OEM sidewall height (107.5 mm):
>> 5.75/107.5 *100 = 5.35%
>> ie: 5.35% is the speedometer error introduced.
>
> the sidewall height difference above:
> 5.75 / (107.5 + 190.5) = 1.93%
> Hey, isn't that just what I said before?
>
> Think about it. And think again before accusing me of screwing up my math.
>
>> Even the 195/55 tire is not exactly equivalent to original fitment as its
>> sidewall height of (195*.55)=107.25 is an insignificant (math excluded)
>> .2% speedometer error.
>
> speedometer error is actually 0.084% -- less than you'd get from over-
> or underinflating your tires.> [ "it ain't what it used to be, but it'll do" -- the wild bunch ]
Listen you sanctimonious crud. News must travel awfully slowly to your
new server as their was an intermediate posting which you have obviously
missed where I apologized for my math error.
I'm waiting....
Jeff Goss
E> Listen you sanctimonious crud. News must travel awfully slowly to your
E> new server as their was an intermediate posting which you have obviously
E> missed where I apologized for my math error.
E> I'm waiting....
For what? So he has a slow news reader, so what. You were the one to
jump up and down over the math to start with, and it was a rather
obvious oversight. Had I commented on it last night (as I was about
to), it may have appeared on people's readers after your apology.
FWIW, http://www.di.com/Talon/Fun/TireSize.html has a tire size
options calculator for just these occasions (if you have WWW access).
Plunking in 215/50 15", it gives a wide range of options for various
size wheels (of course, it can't know what the wheel size/width
limitations are for your particular vehicle). For 15" in a 55 series,
it claims you need a tire that's 195.455 mm wide.
Interestingly enough, it looks like 165/65 and 155/70 would also work,
but you probably would not want to put a Passat on such narrow rubber.
There is another calculator at http://mr2.com/FORMS/tire.html, but it
seems to be directed at upgrading to a larger wheel, and the numbers
did not seem to generate anything meaningful when I tried them there.
I apologize profusely in advance if someone else has already posted
something in the meantime which makes this post redundant. How dare I
try to work within the limitations of the Internet medium.
E> --
E> Eric L. Stewart
Jeff Goss
--
Thanks.
Jeff Goss
Mark Sirota
> Tom Haapanen (to...@metrics.com) writes:
>> McSt...@msn.com (Eric Stewart) writes:
>>> 195/55R15. 185/55R15 will introduce a 4-5% speedometer error as they are
>>> slightly smaller in overall diameter as compared to your OEM 205/50R15.
>>
>> OEM size of of 195/50R15 (snow tire 195/50R15):
>> Golf GTI 16V 2.0L, Jetta GTX/GLI 2.0L, Corrado G60
>> OEM size of of 205/50R15 (snow tire 185/55R15):
>> Corrado VR6, Golf VR6, Jetta VR6, Passat 16V, Passat G60
>> OEM size of of 215/50R15 (snow tire 195/55R15):
>> Passat VR6
>>
>> about 1.9%, not 4-5%.
>>
>> would cause any significant problems (other than a 1.9% speedo error).
>>
>
Okay, everyone, simmer down. I agree with both of you, to a degree.
Tom is right about the percentage error. Eric is comparing the difference
in sidewall height, not the difference in diameter or circumference (which
are the same, since one is a direct function of the other). The percentage
looks higher when comparing just sidewall height, because you don't have
the diameter of the wheel and the sidewall on the other side to dilute it.
However, I think that the right size snow tire for a 205/50-15 is 195/55-15,
not 185/55-15. That's because for snow tires, you want more diameter so
that it can cut through snow better and so that you improve your gearing
(reduce torque to the road), and so that they'll cool better (any spot on
the tread touches the road less often), and so that you get more ground
clearance, etc. However, a narrower tire will cut through the snow better
than a wider one, but unless you're in deep, loose snow often I'd think
the taller tire is a bigger win than the narrower one.
So for my Jetta GLX, OEM size of 205/50-15, I'll use a 195/55-15 snow tire.
--
Mark Sirota, System and Network Manager
Greenwich Associates, Greenwich Connecticut
ma...@greenwich.com, (203) 625-5060
Rockford
>The Blizzak also has very poor handling compared to the Pirelli.
I've driven 2 previous winters with Blizzaks and I've been very satisfied
with them. My previous car was Golf III 1600. Since I changed my car
to Golf GTI, I am not able to use Blizzaks anymore. Damned.
Last week i purchased GoodYear GW+ (not quite sure) and found them
poor. The Blizzaks are the real winter-tyres, but I like the handling
with GoodYears. OK. The Blizzaks were 175 65 - 14 and GY's are
195 50 - 15
Jari Rankela