All Weather vs All Terrain tires in snow: Nokian WR G4 SUV vs Nokian Outpost nAT –>When it comes to navigating snowy roads, the choice of tires is critical for safety and performance. Enter the realm of All-Weather and All-Terrain tires, each boasting the coveted 3-Peak Mountain Snowflake certification, a testament to their capabilities in severe snowy conditions. All-Weather tires, designed as a jack-of-all-trades, promise year-round reliability without the need for seasonal changeovers. On the other side, All-Terrain tires offer a rugged, aggressive pattern suited for drivers who venture off the beaten path, yet they claim adaptability that includes winter readiness.
Despite the apparent similarities and the overlap in size availability that might suggest interchangeability, one might wonder: Is there a tangible difference in their performance on snow-covered roads? This question is not just a matter of branding but could be the deciding factor for drivers seeking the optimal choice for their winter driving needs. Let’s delve into the characteristics that define each tire segment and uncover whether the differences are merely cosmetic or if they translate to a distinct edge in the snowy terrains they encounter.
Table of Contents
All Weather vs All Terrain: Nokian WR G4 SUV vs Nokian Outpost nAT
Results below were taken from Tyre Review’s Nokian Snow Test with a total of 4 tires tested. The graph below shows the comparison between Nokian WR G4 SUV vs Nokian Outpost nAT based on the relevant performance category. Being the front runner, Nokian WR G4 SUV was set as a reference hence at the 100% mark.
The tire size of interest is a 265/65 R17 which is a common tire size for pickup trucks like Toyota Hillux and Volkswagen Tiguan and Nissan Frontier. The testing vehicle is a Toyota Hillux.
Snow Performance Analysis:
The comparison between the Nokian WR G4 SUV and the Nokian Outpost nAT tires in snowy conditions reveals some nuanced differences in performance.
For Snow Braking, measured from 40 to 5 km/h, the WR G4 SUV takes 20.14 meters to come to a stop, while the Outpost nAT takes slightly longer at 20.72 meters. This suggests that the WR G4 SUV has a marginal advantage in deceleration on snow, which could be crucial in avoiding collisions.
When it comes to Snow Traction, which is the measure of time it takes to accelerate from 5 to 35 km/h, the WR G4 SUV again shows superior performance with 5.8 seconds compared to the 6.96 seconds of the Outpost nAT. A quicker acceleration time implies better grip and immediate responsiveness when starting to move on snow.
Lastly, in the Snow Handling category, which is assessed by lap time, the two tires perform almost identically. The WR G4 SUV completes a lap in 98.3 seconds, whereas the Outpost nAT is just fractionally slower at 98.65 seconds. This indicates that both tires have comparable handling characteristics in snowy conditions.
In conclusion, the Nokian WR G4 SUV tire demonstrates marginally better snow performance in braking and traction. However, when it comes to handling, both tires are virtually on par. For drivers, the choice may come down to prioritizing these slight differences or considering other factors such as price, durability, and performance in conditions other than snow.
Outpost nAT :
- -3% in snow braking
- -17% in snow traction
- ~0% in snow handling (lap time)
Price
The Nokian WR G4 SUV is priced at $214, while the Nokian Outpost nAT comes in at $250 for the size 265/65 R17. This makes the Outpost nAT approximately 14% more expensive than the WR G4 SUV.
Tire size: 265/65 R17
- Outpost nAT : $ 250
Difference: +14% more expensive for Outpost nAT
Conclusion from a Tire Expert’s Perspective:
As a tire expert, I can confirm that despite both the Nokian WR G4 SUV and the Nokian Outpost nAT tires holding the 3-Peak Mountain Snowflake certification, there are differences in their snow performance. For example, the WR G4 SUV has a slight edge in snow braking and traction, stopping a bit shorter and accelerating faster than the Outpost nAT. However, when it comes to handling on snow-covered tracks, they are nearly identical. Given the price difference, with the Outpost nAT being 14% more expensive, consumers should weigh these performance contrasts against their specific needs and budget. In the end, the choice hinges on whether the price premium of the Outpost nAT is justified by its advantages in contexts other than snow.
Dr Edwin Pang