Been a fair bit of discussion about the need (or not) for snow tires in winter. Marketplace is airing a show on the subject this week, so I thought for those of you who do not frequent The Lounge, I'd share the times and linky for it here.

"Wednesdays at 7:30pm on CBC Television.
Repeats Saturday at 3:30pm and 7:30pm ET on
CBC Newsworld, and noon Sundays on CBC TV."

Looks like they provide full video of at least some previous shows, and they provide a writeup after the show airs.

http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/

 

Do you mean winter tires? Or actually refering to snow tires.

Canada is a big country and depending on where you live you may only need winter tires (if that).

 

There's a difference? You may need to explain that one to me...

All it says on the site so far is "Getting a grip on winter driving"

 

Read about it here...

http://www.wheels.ca/article/167045

 

Still doesn't explain the difference, only refers to it. Are you/they talking about studded tires as 'snow' tires??

 

Deeper treads is the main difference. The compund is also slighty refined between the two.

 

Tnx for the headsup, Wayne.....I'll be sure and catch that show.....and followup...

Like you, I'm not sure the difference btw "winter tires" and "snow tires" unless, like you say, it's maybe the addition of studs or chains where allowed...

C.

 

I think the difference between winter and snow tires would be like difference between the LM-22 and WS60. The LM 22 is better for dry pavement and doesn't sacrifice performance as much as "snow tires". The WS 60 have different depth of threads to allow more snow traction and will outperform the LM-22 in snow; but will wear out and drive horrible on the highway.

I think tirerack differentiates by stating "performance winter tires" and "snow tires".

 

There is no such thing as a difference between winter tires or snow tires. There are winter tires designed more for snow and others designed more for ice.

 

I have Michelin Pilot Alpin 2 - no great shakes on snow, pretty good on ice and close to the A/S OEM tires on dry on warmer days. These doughnuts carry the severe service "mountain/snowflake" symbol but I wouldn't really call them snow tires - they'd be less useful on a RWD car, fine on AWD though.

AD

 

Good review. There is definitely variations in traction/performance between brands and models of snows. I've read on here and experienced some big differences in the way snows have performed myself.

 

I remember being told that snow tires simply refers to the older design and technology. Winter tire is the correct and current term as the tires no longer are limited in design and compound, ie. they are engineered to provide improved traction on snow, ice, and frozen pavement, unlike the old technology snow tire which was pretty bad on ice (unless studded) as well as noisy and marginal on bare, frozen roads.

Modern winter tires are designed to enhance certain performance/wear/noise characteristics and effectiveness varies between different brands, and even between tires from the same manufacturer. Bridgestone Blizzaks come in probably more flavours than any other winter tires with this in mind.

The closest to the classic snow tire would probably be the 'studdable' winter tire as the primary compromise designed into the tire is ice traction, though these still give much more traction on ice than the tires of old.

 

^^ Good explanation, Gord, I'll buy that. That said, I'll probably just continue to call 'em "snows". Old habits, etc...

 

brings back memories of my first experiences driving rwd in the winter. my parents had just bought a '91 marquis, and it came with allseasons and 2 michelin snow tires, i kid you not when i say we spent most of that winter sideways. on ice i could grab the rear-end and swing it across the road, (and did, only way to get un stuck), with out the tires spinning.

got ultragrips the next winter and never had a problem in snow or on ice.

given the way that roads are plowed here, i would take the hit in highway manners for deep snow and slush traction.

 

+1 on the explanation. It's the detailed version of what I was saying.