I can't tell you much about pricing on the Nokians. Years ago, Hakkas used to be cheap. Today, they're not...I think I paid about $150 or $160 per tire for a 215/55 16 last year. I do buy from the expensive local shop because they provide lifetime balancing/mounting/etc, so it ends up being less expensive over the life of the tire (even with dedicated snow wheels).
Lee Levi wrote: > > I know what you mean about the tread on the Blizzaks. That's > "kind-of" a trade-off. You only get the top 55% of the tread > with the good snow compound. (though the new ones have > "standard snow tire" tread for the bottom 45%, instead of > all-season like the old ones) However, the other factor is > that once they're down to less than half, there's not really > much tread there to be very good in the snow anyway. So once > you hit that point you just use them in the summer as all-seasons... > > Out of curiousity, how DO the Nokians compare price-wise? I got some > 185/75-14 Blizzak WS-50's for $64 each on a special at the Tirerack. > > Levi > > On Friday 14 October 2005 10:12 am, Lee Levitt wrote: > > Levi, > > > > I'm moving from an Audi quattro to a '93 300 turbodiesel, > so I've got > > a similar adjustment to make :) > > > > I'm sticking with the Nokians...they've been wonderful tires, and I > > see no reason to change. The Blizzaks, btw, will change > > characteristics as they wear...the first layer of tread > will give very > > good traction...the next layer will act as a typical all > season tire. > > > > I'm running the Nokian Rsi, and you're right, narrower is better... > > > > You can find these online from a number of sources. They're > not cheap > > tires, but the difference is far less than my $500 deductible. > > > > Lee > >
