DieselRanger
Well-known member
Northern folks with yrs of experience using true winter tires and studded on HD vehicles (not sedans/cars) I would like your use experience and opinion on choosing studded vs non-studded of same model. For example Nokian offers several models in both versions. I have used the LT2 studded a couple seasons and in the narrow 245/75-17 it provides incredible tracking through the slop as well as great traction on hard pack due to the increased ground pressure from it's narrow width.
I am considering a new set and am biting on the marketing of their even better new stud tech in the LT3. Now they are also making it in an almost ideal size of 265/70-18 though it would be giving up some of the narrow benefits of the above profile. 1" on width while gaining ground clearance but honestly, the clearance is not an issue because there's so much to begin with and when the snow is deep, it's generally just too deep regardless.
As for the idea of super wide tundra type flotation, I don't think that's going to happen on my 7400 lb lr3 with it's inability to fit a huge width tire anyway. Plus, in the US you're not out on Iceland type terrain anyway.
Nokian Tyres Hakkapeliitta LT3 - Premium winter tire for light trucks / Nokian Tyres
The Nokian Tyres Hakkapeliitta LT3 winter tire offers exceptional winter grip and driving stability combined with strong structure and superb durability for demanding winter use.www.nokiantires.com
Main question here is studs vs not.
I have the luxury of using different vehicles for different outings such that a the studded vehicle wouldn't need to be used to go out around the low lands on daily basis and would be left parked for use only when traveling into the mtns and/or during storms or on a north/winter specific trip. For people who live somewhere less fluctuating that can be hard to understand. In Seattle area you can stay out of snow all winter honestly unless there's a freak lowland storm or you can drive in it every weekend or the whole time on a trip north/inland to BC, Idaho, etc.
If you want to post that you love Blizzacks or don't see the need for studs, just don't post.
I have lots of experience with Hakka's - they are THE best winter tire IMO. If you're going to be regularly driving on hardpacked icy roads or when there's black ice under fresh snow then you need studs. Only studs or chains help maintain the most control on ice (primarily stopping and turning - starting off is generally fine on non-studded winter tires in my experience), but I will say that their non-studded tires are pretty amazing as they incorporate tiny glass particles into their tread compound for "microtraction". But, on real ice, momentum will overwhelm any non-studded tire.
Here in CO I don't go studs because the sun generally bakes the snow off the local roads after a day or two even when it's in the teens or twenties F, and I live on the Front Range so the temp is very variable. When I travel to ski areas, even when it's snowing, they're good enough. If I lived somewhere like Ouray or Silverton, I'd absolutely have studs on my tires as the roads never get cleaned well and there are enough permanent shadows to keep the sun from subliming away the snow. Pic below is between Ouray and Silverton. No guardrail and 100's of feet down.
My problem is Hakka's sell out here generally by October, and then you have to wait until Jan/Feb to get them...I got stuck with Hankook I*Pike RW11 and they Suuuuuuuuck on anything but cold, dry pavement or fresh unpacked snow. Cold packed powder they're OK.
EDIT: If you go without studs, I'd actually recommend the R3 SUV unless you have to drive off-road in snow. If you're just doing road trips then the R3 will actually give you better fuel economy than an AT tire, and probably better performance in a wide variety of snow conditions. Nokian builds all their SUV tires with Kevlar armor in the sidewalls now so that's a wash. I ran R2 SUVs on my nearly 6,000lb Touareg and they were like tank treads, but I got 3-4mpg better combined than my Wrangler ATs.
Last edited: