Segment
1. Michelin Alpin 5 Premium2. Nokian WR SUV 3 Upper-middle
Comparison: Nokian WR SUV 3 vs. Michelin Alpin 5
Table of contents:
In this comparison, we are comparing a tyre from a manufacturer from Finland (Nokian) against a tyre from a manufacturer from France (Michelin). Generally, Michelin winter tyres are slightly better rated (80%) than Nokian (52%). In this particular case, the Michelin Alpin 5 has a better rating of 50% compared to 24% of the Nokian WR SUV 3. Important for this comparison is also the Autobild 2015 215/65 R16 test, where both the WR SUV 3 and the Alpin 5 were tested. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 80% of Nokian WR SUV 3 has C wet grip rating, whereas 100% of Michelin Alpin 5 has B rating.
| # | Nokian WR SUV 3 | Michelin Alpin 5 | Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R15 - R21 | R15 - R21 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
1. Nokian WR SUV 3 4.252. Michelin Alpin 5 5.88
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Nokian WR SUV 3 Highly recommended2. Michelin Alpin 5 Very good
Worst rating in test
1. Michelin Alpin 5 Recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Aquaplaning - cross
Wet handling
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet braking
Wet circle cornering
Wet braking according to EU label
Snow
(Overall rating)Snow traction
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
1. Nokian WR SUV 3 ? dB2. Michelin Alpin 5 ? dB
Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1- | 2 | 1- | ||||
| Nokian WR SUV 3 Rating: - | 2- | 2- | 2- | ||||
| Michelin Alpin 5 Rating: - | 2- | 2- | 2 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||