Edited: Yokohma Avid Ascend vs Continental ExtremeContact DWS vs Nokian WRG3 ??
 

Hi all, I'm new to the forum and am looking for a bit of tire advice. My girl's Honda Fit (2010) is due for some new tires. I've done the prerequisite searching and came across a bunch of helpful threads,
{
https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/2nd-...tock-size.html

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/2nd-...oem-tires.html

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/2nd-...ted-tires.html

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/fit-...5-55-16-a.html

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/2nd-...k-16-inch.html

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/2nd-...fit-sport.html
}

Thanks for that.

What I looking for though is a direct comparison between the Yokohama Avid Ascends in stock 185/55 size vs the Continental ExtremeContact DWS in 205/50. From what I've read people seem to really like the DWS.

How big of a MPG tradeoff is there going from the Yokohamas ( a low rolling resistance tire ? ) to the DWS? My biggest concern is going to be 'grip' and specifically predictable handling, especially in the wet and light snow. However I think I'm going to have a hard time convincing her if there is a big drop in MPG; MPG is the main reason she bought the car. Thoughts and recommendations?

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: I noticed Nokian makes a 205/50 version of their WRG3. Does anyone have any experience with this tire?? I'm a huge Nokian fan, their winter tires are head and shoulders above everyone else. I rallyX a set of Hakkapeliittas on my Subaru and are not too far off from cars running dedicated rally tires. I would be really interested to know how their "All-Weather" tires standup. (btw they are classified as "All-Weather" not All-Season; the WRG3 is one of only a handful of All-Seasons to carry the snow flake logo designating them All-Weather) Thanks again

I haven't noticed much difference in mpg when I swapped to dws.

You'll like the dws.

Look on tirerack.com for the two tires and see what the reviews say.

I prefer the DWS for sure, based on the reviews and comparos I've seen. They seem to have better grip all around (dry, wet, snow, ect.). But I'm not sure thats a big enough sell for her, especially if it costs noticeable MPGs. Though you say you haven't notices much a difference...so maybe. Thanks for the reply

I’ve put about 10k on my 185/55/16 Ascends (H or V rated) and I’m very happy with them. They handle water on the highway extremely well, and they’ve never let go when cornering in the rain (I use the brakes as little as possible, and so often corner hard). I reset my MPG meter after every thankful and my mileage has remained stubbornly up around 38 all summer—my previous tires, Sumitomos and Bridgestones, never yielded figures consistently this high. I can’t comment on snow performance yet, however, as I had them installed in the spring.

The Conti DWSs look to be very good tires. The only downside I’ve read about them is that they wear quickly, and so might be a bit expensive to run. Maybe someone here who’s gone through a set can chime in with how many miles they got out of them.

Great! Thank you for the first hand experience.

Can anyone comment on the Yokohama's (light) snow performance? Or even more first hand experience with heavy rain? I want to make sure the car is safe for her. She does a lot of driving on 95 between Boston and DC so I want make sure the tires can handle the crap condition of 95 in the NE corridor and that they handle rain and light snow well.

From reviews of the DWS I've read they seem to handle water and light snow very well for an All Season tire.

I have the Yokohamas and they seem to perform quite well in heavy rain; much better, at least, than the stock Bridgestones. We don't get enough snow here for me to comment on the Yokohamas in snow.

I noticed Nokian makes a 205/50 version of their WRG3. Does anyone have any experience with this tire??

I'm a huge Nokian fan, their winter tires are head and shoulders above everyone else. I rallyX a set of Hakkapeliittas on my Subaru and are not too far off from cars running dedicated rally tires. I would be really interested to know how their "All-Weather" tires standup. (btw they are classified as "All-Weather" not All-Season; the WRG3 is one of only a handful of All-Seasons to carry the snow flake logo designating them All-Weather) Thanks again

I have a set of Continental Extreme contact DWS and extremely happy with them. Best set tires on any car in years and I was a big Michelin fan. I used to switch out in winter to Michelin IceX II's winter tires,but since the DWS are on,they sit in storage. My Stock Dunlops were dam near dangerous. I replaced them at 17,000 miles in favor of the DWS recommended here on this board. My 2009 Honda Fit Sport now has 41,000 miles on the DWS and still have 6/32 of tread. I do mostly highway driving,but have been known to scare the crap out of the girlfriend on corners. She was so impressed she replaced her stock Bridgestones on her 2010 Scion XD. Both of us travel the same roads in all weather and even a non car person like my girlfriend said she feels far more confident in snow and heavy rain over her stock Bridgestones. Personally I plowed through 8" of powder snow on some decent hills and was impressed. Everyone complains about mileage drop ,and yes I had a drop too,but of only 1mpg. Stock tire pressure is 32 lbs,and I run 36-38 psi because I noticed outer edge tire wear in first 10,000 miles and feel the extra pressure evens out the wear. I check tread depth every rotation and tread wear is exactly even across the tread on recent rotation at 41,000 miles . Ride is a bit more solid at that pressure but also removes the squirm on corners you will feel at lower pressures. Another bonus is the DWS nearly removes the wind blown wander the Fit experiences when windy or a truck passes. When these wear out or my next car will have another set of the DWS.

Bumping this thread up for those still undecided with regard to the Contis versus the Yokohamas. I just received an e-mail from Tire Rack offering a $60 rebate card on the Ascends. I have yet to try mine in the snow, but otherwise I'm still very happy with them. Strikes me as a very good deal.

Interesting. That definitely swings the price even more in favor of the Yokohamas.

Thanks for the heads up!

haven't checked, but has tirerack done any comparisons between the ascends and dws especially in snow driving? might be worth a look. the DWS is incredible in the snow for all season tires.

good deal is always welcome though. :D when i bought my DWS last year, i too got some gift card promo, i think.

Not a direct comparison. However the tires are tested using the same procedure and with the same test vehicle so they are easily comparable. Here is the raw data:

Stop Dry (ft)
Yokohama AVID Ascend 91.4
Continental EC DWS 88.2

Stop Wet (ft)
Yokohama AVID Ascend 144.8
Continental EC DWS 114.6

Stop Snow (ft)
Yokohama AVID Ascend 65.3
Continental EC DWS 82.3

Stop Ice (ft)
Yokohama AVID Ascend 47.2
Continental EC DWS 47.5

G wet / G dry
Yokohama AVID Ascend 0.61 / 0.86
Continental EC DWS 0.75 / 0.89

Accel 0-12mph Snow (ft) / Accel 0-60ft Ice (sec)
Yokohama AVID Ascend 40 / 6
Continental EC DWS 50.2 / 7.36

Lap Dry (sec) / Lap Wet (sec)
Yokohama AVID Ascend 31.11 / 38.67
Continental EC DWS 30.97 / 34.49

Slalom Dry (sec) / Slalom Wet (sec)
Yokohama AVID Ascend 5.17 / 6.33
Continental EC DWS 5.22 / 5.67

It's not the snow that's a problem, the Yokos actually do well in the snow. Their performance in the rain is pretty bad though. Look only at the wet stoping distance...the difference between the Yokos and the DWS is nearly 30ft! That's a big deal imo. Note: these results come from tire racks standard testing procedures using the exact same car (2012 BMW F30 328i Sedan).

Information from here:
Yokohamas http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/...y.jsp?ttid=166
Continental http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/...y.jsp?ttid=165

You cannot go wrong with either one.

It depends on what are you looking for and of course your budget.

I purchased the Yokohama in May. They are amazing compared to the OEMs.

I live in the DMV area and I travel a lot on 95 too.

We had a rain storm last Friday. Yokohama performed great. (very stable)

However, haven't get a chance to test them on the snow yet.

thanks soulbazz.

btw, is this correct? that looks quite opposite of all the other data... was this suppose to be 62.3ft vs 82.3ft?

Stop Snow (ft)
Yokohama AVID Ascend 65.3
Continental EC DWS 82.3

looking at the test data, DWS is hands down a huge step up from the ascends. but then again, if the yok's are better than OEM that's :thumbups:

I don't think you can draw conclusions by combining these 2 tests. Even if it's the same car, the tire sizes are way different if I'm reading it right.

The test for the yokohamas uses 215/60/r16 tires
the test for the continentals uses 245/40/r16 tires

So that's why snow and wet are producing completely opposite results. With new tires, there is enough tread that hydroplaning does not become an issue, so you get similar results as dry. wider tires=better traction.
In snow, I think the tests are showing the theory to be true that skinnier tires=better traction.

Pretty much all the 215 "skinny" tires have better snow lap times than the 245 tires...except for the DWS. Maybe what you can conclude is this is the DWS in snow could perform as good as a 30mm skinnier tire. But of course, on different days you're going to get different snow, so even that is really hard to compare.
In the end though, clearly the dws is a good chunk better than the others in that group tested in snow (as seen by the final snow/ice rating)...whereas the avid is in the middle of it's group.

According to the two tests I linked, the numbers appear to be correct. Now there are 2 or 3 additional tests with the DWS and Yokos, using different test vehicles and tire sizes, so those numbers may/do change.

raytseng: That is a valid point. The two tire sizes are drastically different, despite being on the same car. Tire rack doesn't have a test using the F30 BMW wearing a more comparable size. At the very least, this shows how drastically things like stopping distances and traction are effected by choice of tire, size, and test vehicle.

I love DWS. A must for New England.

Heres how it stacks up:

Yoko's
http://www.tirerack.com/images/reviews/SurveyTabs.gif
12, 87%, 7.3, 7.0, 7.0, 8.0, 8.5, 8.2, 7.0, 5.0, 5.3, 8.4, 8.4, 9.6

DWS
http://www.tirerack.com/images/reviews/SurveyTabs.gif
2, 98%, 7.7, 8.8, 8.9, 8.2, 8.8, 8.2, 8.3, 7.5, 7.2, 8.6, 8.3, 8.3

In a nut shell the Contis are a better NE tire (wet and snow). The Yokos only trump in tread wear.

I have ran both tires. I like the Yokos. But since I ran the DWS, I never looked back. I have them in a 17 on the FIT. I even did a track day on the DWS in my WRX and they held up pretty well.

Whenever you want a comparison of tires check tirerack.com first. Not only do they sell tires they also test them Go to their tests and see about lap times wet and dry, and the owner recs, tire mileage, and see which ones you like best. And including costs.
And I thought the snowflake indicated winter service tire and thus no UTOG, a dead giveaway.
Personally, I like the Conti's.