Yesterday I took my 2000 Saturn SL2 in for inspection and two tires. Turned out it needed new front brake pads, and I decided to get the rotors too while I was spending all my Christmas money. Anyway, in re tires: I got the car in April 2003 with 31K miles on it and what I'm pretty sure were the original tires. They were OK, but not great; a bit noisy at times. I decided to cross my fingers and try to make it through last winter with them, and for the most part they did fine. When I got the car inspected in May, (expired in April, then expired again in November to match the registration; PA is weird), the rear tires did not pass inspection because of dry rot. The front ones were OK, but down to about 6/32 or 7/32 tread at best. I knew they would also have to be replaced for this winter. Anyway, I replaced the rear tires with a set of 2 Hankook Mileage Plus all-seasons. Put them on the front, moved the older tires to the back. No problems all summer and fall. Decided this week to get snow tires for the front and run the Hankook Mileage Plus pair on the rear. Figured I'd try Blizzaks; heard nothing but good things about them apart from the noise issue, and if you drive a Saturn on roads around here you can't be too picky about noise.... The guy at the tire shop yesterday told me he could only sell Blizzaks in sets of 4. Said it was not his idea; it came from the company: 4 tires or nothing. At first I thought he was kidding, then figured he was trying to pressure me into buying 4 tires instead of 2. Nope. Turned out he was dead serious and was quite happy to sell me two snow tires for the front---just not Blizzaks. Weird. Has anyone else been through this? The issue seems to be liability, in case someone who knows even less about cars than I buys brand new Blizzaks and runs them along with a couple of crappy bald all-seasons. in that case, the car could swing around in a panic stop, if the Blizzak end stops and the crappy-tire-end doesn't. At least that's what the tire shop manager said. So, since 4 Blizzaks was out of my price range and I saw no reason not to run the excellent all-seasons that were only a few months old, I wound up buying two Hankook 404 winter tires for the front, and moved the Hankook all-seasons---still in good shape, with less than 10K miles on them---to the rear. That should get me through the winter. It's fairly bad here at times in the foothills of the Poconos in northeatern PA, but seldom impassable. Anyways, I'm curious about the Blizzak "4 tires or forget it" policy. Is this true all over? Also, anyone on here who's an expert in winter driving: what do you think of running 2 new Hankook snow tires up front and 2 nearly new Hankook all-seasons in the rear; would I have been better off just sticking to 4 all-seasons, as long as the tread was OK? TIA. Regards, Eric M
Eric, With today's FWD cars, it is generally considered SAFER to run 4 identical tires. This is because it is felt that snows only in the front create too much traction when braking and cornering when compared to the back tires, giving cars a tendency to swap ends on slippery roads. 4 all-season tires would offer more balanced braking and cornering. However, front-only snows will typically give you better traction for acceleration. I don't know what Blizzak's official policy is, but I am sure they would sell you only one tire if you only needed one because of a blowout or something, so it can't be a hard & fast rule. My theory is the only contact between your car and anything that matters is your tires. I get uncomfortable when my summer tires are below 1/2 tread life because they just don't work as well in rain, let alone snow, plus they seem to be more likely to go flat for whatever reason. I run 4 Nokians in the winter and marvel at their traction. Todays soft compounds in modern snow tires are really worth the money.
Not sure about the "Official Tire Policy" but I purchased Bridgestone Blizzaks the second year we purchased our 99 Saturn since I found that the Firestone All season F40 were crappy in the snow in the Northeast. You should be aware that the great ability of the Blizzaks end after around 12,000 miles I think you can read about it at http://www.tirerack.com where I purchased mine. Then they are like the all seasons you run all year through. One year ago I decided to purchase the Pirelli P400 Touring tire and they went through the winter with great results. So much that when I spoke to my friend at the auto shop he said they are a very nice tire. On the expensive side but I found them well worth it. When I bought the Blizzaks I purchased all 4 for around $300 my friend mounted and balanced them for free, they were exceptional in use. The price of the tires should never really matter since your life is riding on those tires. Elector
I can not tell you about the Blizzaks only being sold in "packs" of 4 only. (Did you try www.tirerack.com?) But I can say that in my opinion and experience it is better to have the same type of tire on all 4 corners of a car. Even when I had an old rear wheel drive car I had much better handling in the snow when I had "snow" tires on all corners. Nothing like turning the wheel and the car going straight because the front tires can not get a grip. I have a 2000 SL1 with 36,000 miles on it and it still has the factory rubber. I never drove it in the snow (I also have a S10 Blazer, at the slightest hint of snow I drive that.) so I have no experience with it in the snow. Paul
Hi Dana, Thanks for the advice. As usual, in the end it comes down to money. I already spent more than I had planned when I found out the car needed brakes to pass inspection. The brakes, the two new snow tires, the inspection and labor came to more than $450. Plus as noted I had just purchased the Hankook all-seasons---touted as top-of-the-line---in May; that set me back more than $150. If I had a lot more money, I would make sure to always run four winter tires from Thanksgiving to Easter, and also run nothing but the best all-seasons with at least 12/32 tread the rest of the time. Then again, if I had a lot more money, I would not be driving a used Saturn S-series vehicle. That's not a slam, BTW; even though I've put money into it, I still think my Saturn was a good investment and about the best car I could get for the money, at least from a dealer. Double my salary and I'd likely look elsewhere, though. How much do you pay for four Nokias? Regards, Eric M
Living in upper ny state and being a skiier I've used snows on my cars for over 25 years. I once subscribed to the idea that 2 snows were ok on front drive cars until I looped it one day. It was on a curve and the front had plenty of grip, the rear end just came out. That was about 15 yrs. ago and since then I've used snows all around. You can definitly tell the rear end is more stable during turning and braking, so if you do a lot of snow driving it's worth it. I currently have cars with Dunlop Graspics and Winterforce. The Dunlops definitly have the edge in dry road holding and tire wear. Both are great on snow, but next time I'll fork out the extr $9 a tire for the Dunlops. I've had Michelins (Artic Alpine) and Pirellis (210)over the years and have been happy with those.
A few years ago, driving along a mountan highway in my 2 wheel drive Subaru Legacy (I now drive a Saturn LW -- a lot better car), I hit a patch of ice on the road, and gently (I'm an experienced winter driver) applied the brakes. Fast than you can blink an eye, the car switched ends and I was driving backwards down the highway at about 80 k, with virtually no control. Luckily, we hit a shallow ditch, with very little snow, the car changed ends again, and I was able to restart the car (which had stalled) and drive out of the ditch. Many places along that road have interesting curves and drop offs -- I was very lucky. My tires? Studded snow tires front, all season rear. I immediately replaced the rear tires with studded ones, and the car was remarkably more stable. On my Saturn, I run 4 Michelin Alpin tires -- which the tire dealer (Canadian Tire) would NOT install unless I put on 4. After my adventure with the studded fronts, I know why. As for the Alpins, they are great -- using a rubber compound that is soft yet full depth. A lot of other tires have a softer rubber on the outer portion of their treads, which becomes harder (and less sticky) as the tires wear. I was told that Blizzaks are made this way. Dave Fairfield
I have heard/read/been told many times that regardless of FWD or RWD, the better tires should always be on the back. When braking this will give much reduced likelihood of the rear passing the front in slippery conditions, and will also when cornering have better rear traction to hopefully keep the rear from breaking out before the front. Many people like to go for the better traction in the front on a FWD (to keep from getting stuck?). Is it not far better to have the front wheel spinning/stuck trying to get started, than to have the rear of the car pass the front in a corner or in a braking situation!
Everyone here is pretty much dead on. I've used 4 Blizzaks on my old Acura Integra and they saved me once on some black ice here in Washington. I went around a corner after making a stop and didn't know or feel any lost of control. The car directly behind me spun out completely at the same spot in the road. I now have an AWD VUE and considering getting those or similar tires again...
I put a set of Dunlop Graspics on my son's 96 SL2. I haven't driven it in yet but he seems to like them. Ken
