Tire Review - Nokian Vatiiva

[jacal]

Tyre: Nokian Vatiiva, 265/70/r17
Vehicle: 2003 v6 LTD.

http://www.nokiantires.com/newsite/tiresub.cfm?cid=2&sid=14
Price: approx $195 Cdn/ea.
100K km tread warranty,
free flats,road hazard, balancing,rotation.

My recent purchase of a used '03 4Runner came with 2 front dunlops (oem) and 2 brand new, rear Revos. They were stock sized at 265/65/r17.

I decided to 'up size' my tires for that little extra ground clearance, and to match all the tires. I replaced all 4 main tires with vatiivas, and the spare with a cheap used 'wrangler' of the same size.

Dry condition/Driving impression: 1 factor to consider is that an upsized tire will not drive quite the same as the smaller tire. That said, I have found that the ride is slightly worse overall in city conditions. Specifically, going through the same tight corner at the same speed, the new tires "squirm" a bit just past the apex of the turn. In addition, we have terrible roads in this city. I find that the new tires are just a bit harsher, but not by much.

Wet performance: by no means did I 'push' the envelope, but as far as I could tell, the nokians perform very well, but not noticably worse or better then with the Revos. According to a relative who has a lifetime of experience in the tire business, he thinks the Vatiiva will be excellent in wet conditions (he thinks the same of the revo).

Mud: by this I mean just a slick top layer on hardpack. Both tires were acceptable, but the test was limited.

Snow conditions: The revos seemed good in the snow (in 2wd mode). However, there is a clear advantage for the Vatiiva. Testing in the same snow covered parking lot, I felt I could get further before getting stuck.

Ice: the Vatiivas seem to have a clear ice advantage as well. They perform better then the Revo (in my limited trials). They absolutely embarass the Michelin LTX ATs I had on a previous vehicle.

Speaking of the LTX AT - this was a solid tire that I ran for approx 100K km on my 99 Ranger. The tires hardly wore down. They are great for highway, but not so great for ice/wet. They work well in deeper snow/mud, I think it is because of all the tires mentioned the LTX had the greatest "shoulders" around the edges. They also handily beat the original firestones I had (prior to the recall). The LTX also really excelled for gravel road handling...I hope the Vatiivas do as well.

As the snow is disapearing fast, I was sure to get somewhat "stuck" this weekend in 4x4. Basically, as soon as the snow was too deep and solid, the truck started to high center. Sadly, that didn't take much! It also didn't impress my pregant wife who was riding shotgun. I can say that the Ranger would have cut through much deeper snow. I look forward to lifting the runner.

Conclusion: the new vatiiva seems to have performance where I consider it most important: wet/ice/snow. Those are my most important factors because I feel the most danger can come from those conditions. (highway speed, hit black ice, or risk of hydroplanning).

At this point I hope they perform on gravel roads, and can accomplish what I need from them in the off road. I wished they handled as "tight" as the previous setup, but that is city-only and I can overlook it. The increased harshness is not welcome, but liveable.

This review was still pretty scattered - if you have any other questions or comments, let me know.

J

 

[jacal]

The tire:

 

[jacal]

the tread:

 

[jacal]

snow pattern:

 

[jacal]

on the truck:

 

[Baba Booey]

Just out of curiosity, if your main concern is snow/ice/wet performance, why did you choose the Nokian Vatiiva over the Nokian WR, which is a four-season tire that is severe service rated (snowflake/mountain symbol)?

 

[jacal]

Great observation. In fact, my wifes Jetta runs the WR all around. They really do perform amazingly well, and don't need to be removed for summer.

I selected the Vatiiva over the WR for an strong edge in off-road performance. Although it is a small % of my total driving, it is important. The vatiivas should handle it significantly better, and are considered a much "tougher" tire. That is to say better load/speed ratings, much better rock/cut protection, and generally stronger sidewalls.

I wish it were more visible, but the tires actually have a good "shoulder" when you see them in person.

I also ruled out:
-Nitto Terra grappler (not normally available here, if I brought them in I would get no warranty)

-Revos (too expensive, better product is available for much less, they were $250-265 Cdn ea.)

-BFG ATs KO (great off-road, but marginal on-road performance, with PLENTY of friends/aquaintances to give me feedback, also tend to throw up allot of stones on gravel, rough ride due to high ply sides)

-Yokohama Geolander 2 (great overall, just nudged out by the vatiiva for ice/snow performance - brother in law ran these for a while and thought they were absolutely incredible, he also ran the BFG and gave the yokos a clear nod, he lives in the country, regularly goes off road, does allot of highway and gravel and tows farm implements)


J

 

[jacal]

Update: Mud!

Did a short mud test. We have a strange "gumbo" style of mud here. I tested the tires through some good muck, which sits ontop of a hard base (so you don't sink to the axel).

The tires were acceptable. They clear well enough, and I could make good forward progress. At times I went laterally instead of straight, which was bad given the large ditch that I was near.

I tried to clean up right after, but 5 days later I'm still leaving piles of mud wherever I park.

Bottom line: the vatiivas were passable, but nothing great.



J

 

[Koz]

Looks like a copy of the REVO tread pattern!

Koz

 

[adriant]

Tires Selection

I have an 2005 4 runner and have been looking for tires as well. I was just quoted on the Vatiiva's as well. The explanation I got was that the Vatiiva is a 5 ply tire versus the 4 ply on the WR tire, making for a tougher truck tire versus more of a street tire in the WR. I have the WR tires on my Jeep and they are the best I have driven on so far for tough winter conditions (better than even studded snow tires).

I did not want to select them again though as we are purchasing a larger travel trailer and I wanted a heavier sidewall tire to reduce tire roll and give less side to side motion which could translate into trailer sway.

Does anyone have any experience with towing and offer their tire selection advice in the size 265/65 17"?

Adrian

 

[leftyrb]

Jacal wrote:

Did a short mud test. We have a strange "gumbo" style of mud here. I tested the tires through some good muck, which sits ontop of a hard base (so you don't sink to the axel).

+++++++++++++++++++

How well I remember the Winnipeg/Red River gumbo. I got some in my boot treads about 15 years ago, and it is still there

 

[Falls]

Looks like a copy of the REVO tread pattern!

Koz

Agreed , they look pretty close to me .

 

[Summit]

Still find these a superior choice to the Revos?

 

[rook]

How are the tires holding up?

 

[jacal]

How are the tires holding up?

Great question. After approx 60,000km I sold them with approx 50-60% depth left for half of what I paid. Good value for me.

Reviewing tires is really really hard. This is all seat of my pants:

-despite promises, they did not perform the same each year as they did when new. Most notable was winter performance, esp ice getting worse and worse traction.
-they never had enough bite off-road for me.
-they never gave me the feeling that they were "tough". I had to replace one due to a puncture, and had to repair others.
-they were good at highway speed, pretty quiet, ok mpg.
-not a mud ready tire. Avoid mud with these.
-as per initial impressions, they do not handle especially well, but are acceptable. Initially I thought it was just upsizing, now I think just design/construction.

-the final straw was their inability to handle a layer of ice covered by a layer of slush. This occurs sometimes depending on season getting in/out to the cottage. They just sucked for that and I started looking.

I switched to duratracs. Now where I had to chain up the Vats I am still unchained on the DTs. But that is really really bad conditions.

Would I do these again? definately not. Would I consider Nokian's? maybe as I had good experience with WRs, and their pure winter tires seem to work well on friends vehicles (that said I went with blizzaks for my van but anyway). Generally excellent service via one specific Kal tire (who has exclusive rights to sell these in my area) and consistently horrid experience at thier other location.

Further to this my cousin purchased Vats for his 2wd gm 1500 just after I did. He won't re-purchase Vats either.

Summary: okay tire, on-road biased, got worse with age, mediocre performance, quiet, there are better choices.


JG

 

[Tempsho]

I am running 265/70R17 Nokian Vatiiva's on my 2004 4Runner Sport. I am from Winnipeg as well. For around $200 per tire, they are awesome! They are a great tire that you can run all year round. Even though it's not an official winter tire, the siping is rediculous on them, and they perform very well on snow and ice.

One thing to mention is that the rubber is quite soft. If you drive down a lot of gravel roads, they will wear quick. On the Nokian web site, it mentions they have a 96,000 km tread warranty. I have about 30,000 km's on my set and they is almost no siping left on the lugs. I am going to goto Kal-Tire next week and see if they will warranty them. If you stick to mainly paved roads and gravel occasionally, I'm sure they will last a long time.