Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 vs Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v: The Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 and Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v are two titans clashing in the fiercely competitive studless snow tire market. Each tire represents the pinnacle of winter driving technology from their respective manufacturers, promising unparalleled performance in snow and icy conditions. The Blizzak DM-V2, a legend in the winter tire segment, boasts Bridgestone’s innovative tread design and compound, engineered for exceptional grip and control in the harshest winter conditions.
On the other side, the Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v counters with its own advanced features, including a specialized tread pattern and rubber compound designed for superior traction and durability in icy environments. This battle between the Blizzak DM-V2 and iceGUARD iG51v is more than just a competition; it’s a showcase of cutting-edge technology and engineering prowess, each tire vying to set the benchmark in the studless snow tire category. As consumers look on, the question looms: which will emerge as the ultimate winter warrior?
Table of Contents
Results: Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 vs Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v
Results below were taken from Tire Rack’s Testing Studless Ice & Snow Winter Tires for Crossovers and SUVs test. A total of 3 tires were tested on Tire Rack’s proving ground. The graph below shows the comparison between Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 vs Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v based on the relevant performance category. The Blizzak DM-V2 was set as a reference hence at the 100% mark.
As both tires are categorized as snow tire with the elusive 3 peak mountain logo, Tire Rack has done the snow & ice in its testing portfolio. The tire size of interest is a 255/55R18 which is a common tire size for Hyundai Santa Fe. You can check out our latest tire size table for more information. The testing vehicle for this tire test is a 2016 Porsche Cayenne V6.
Ice
When comparing the ice performance of the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 and Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v tires, distinct differences emerge. In terms of ice braking, measured from 12 to 0 mph, the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 demonstrates superior performance with a stopping distance of 29.30 feet, significantly outperforming the Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v, which has a stopping distance of 40.70 feet. This notable difference of 11.40 feet highlights the Blizzak DM-V2’s enhanced capability in ice braking.
In the realm of ice acceleration, the performance gap continues. The test, which involves a rolling start to 60 feet, reveals that the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 achieves this in 3.03 seconds, faster than the Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v’s time of 3.53 seconds. This difference of 0.50 seconds underlines the Blizzak DM-V2’s superior acceleration on ice, offering a more responsive and controlled experience in icy conditions.
Overall, the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 showcases a clear advantage in both ice braking and acceleration over the Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v.
iceGUARD iG51v :
- -28% in ice braking
- -14% in ice acceleration
Snow
In the snow performance comparison between the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 and Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v, we see notable distinctions in their capabilities. Starting with snow braking, from 25 to 0 mph, the Blizzak DM-V2 stops at 52.80 feet, slightly outperforming the iceGUARD iG51v, which takes 54.40 feet. This difference of 1.60 feet indicates a marginal but important edge for the Blizzak DM-V2 in snow braking efficiency.
When it comes to snow acceleration, from 0 to 12 mph, the Blizzak DM-V2 again leads with a distance of 32.90 feet, compared to the iceGUARD iG51v’s 34.60 feet. This 1.70 feet difference further underscores the Blizzak DM-V2’s superior performance in gaining traction and accelerating on snow.
For subjective snow handling, rated out of 10, the Blizzak DM-V2 scores a commendable 7.00, notably higher than the iceGUARD iG51v’s score of 5.92. This gap reflects the driver’s more favorable perception of the Blizzak DM-V2’s handling characteristics in snowy conditions.
Finally, in snow handling measured by lap time, the Blizzak DM-V2 completes a course in 79.87 seconds, faster than the iceGUARD iG51v’s time of 81.21 seconds. This difference of 1.34 seconds is indicative of the Blizzak DM-V2’s better overall performance in snow handling.
Overall, across various snow performance metrics, the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 consistently demonstrates a slight but significant advantage over the Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v.
iceGUARD iG51v :
- -2.9% in snow braking
- -4.9% in snow acceleration
- -5.4% in snow handling (subj)
- -1.7% in snow handling(lap time)
Wet
In the aspect of wet performance, specifically focusing on wet braking, the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 and the Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v show a clear difference. When measuring the stopping distance from 50 to 0 mph, the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 demonstrates a shorter stopping distance of 140.90 feet. In comparison, the Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v records a stopping distance of 157.50 feet. This significant difference of 16.60 feet highlights the Blizzak DM-V2’s superior braking performance in wet conditions, offering enhanced safety and control.
iceGUARD iG51v :
- -10.5% in wet braking
Dry
In terms of dry performance, particularly focusing on dry braking, the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 and the Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v present a close competition. The dry braking test, which measures the stopping distance from 50 to 0 mph, shows the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 with a stopping distance of 98.40 feet. The Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v, on the other hand, stops slightly shorter at 96.70 feet. This marginal difference of 1.70 feet indicates a slightly better performance by the iceGUARD iG51v in dry braking conditions, offering a marginally more efficient stopping capability.
iceGUARD iG51v :
- +1.8% in dry braking
Noise/Comfort/Ride Quality
In the evaluation of Noise, Vibration, and Harshness (NVH) performance, a measure of overall noise, comfort, and ride quality, the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 and Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v display noticeable differences. The Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 scores a 6.69, indicating a higher level of comfort and less perceived noise and vibration. In contrast, the Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v scores slightly lower at 6.20. This difference of 0.49 points suggests that the Blizzak DM-V2 offers a more comfortable and quieter ride, enhancing the overall driving experience compared to the iceGUARD iG51v.
iceGUARD iG51v :
- -2.5% in average of Noise, Comfort & Ride Quality
Price
When comparing the prices of the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 and Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v tires for the size 275/65R18, there’s a noticeable difference in cost. The Blizzak DM-V2 is priced at $238, while the iceGUARD iG51v is slightly more expensive, costing $251. This price difference represents a 5% higher cost for the iceGUARD iG51v compared to the Blizzak DM-V2. The higher price of the iceGUARD iG51v indicates a premium over the Blizzak DM-V2, which might be a consideration for consumers balancing performance with budget.
Tire size: 275/65R18
- Blizzak DM-V2 : $238
- iceGUARD iG51v : $251
Difference: +5% more expensive for iceGUARD iG51v.
Summary
As a tire expert, after thoroughly comparing the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 and Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v across various performance metrics, it is clear to me that the Blizzak DM-V2 emerges as the winner. The Blizzak DM-V2 consistently demonstrates outstanding performance, particularly in winter conditions. Whether it’s ice braking, snow acceleration, or handling, the DM-V2 consistently outperforms the iceGUARD iG51v, showcasing a significant advantage in the crucial aspects of winter driving.
While the iceGUARD iG51v does offer competitive features and a slightly better performance in dry braking, the overall superiority of the Blizzak DM-V2 in winter conditions cannot be overlooked. This is especially true considering that both tires are priced closely, with the DM-V2 even being slightly less expensive.
In conclusion, for drivers prioritizing safety and performance in harsh winter conditions, the Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V2 stands out as the clear choice. Its superior grip, control, and handling on snow and ice provide the confidence and safety necessary for winter driving, making it a standout option in the studless winter tire segment.
Dr Edwin Pang