Location: MA
Go skiing mucho (every other weekend)
Somewhat aggressive driving style (although I have toned down my on/offramp banshee style of past)

I have run the Nokian WR's in a 215/50/16 size for the past 3 winters and have been very happy with them. I just sold that setup and need tires in a 235/45/17 fitment. The winter performance when worn however, left something to be desired compared to when new. Dry (no snow) performance is something that is valuable to me because when I comes down to it, it is only snow on the road for a fraction of the time . Some blizzaks and the hardcore Nokains (Hakka 2's I think although I may be wrong) that my friend has on his B5 S4 were just not very stable and confidence inspiring in the dry (really gummy turn in and highway stability).

I definitely understand the need for snow traction and I most definitely want to be able to blow past SUVs on the way up the mountain to skiing. I have also had pretty extensive snow driving experience and have also been to 2 WDS driving schools at the O'Neil rally facility.

Thus, what I want is a tire that can make the balance between dry/cold performance and snow performance. The only thing that is holding me back from getting another Nokian WR setup is the price. In my research, the LM-25's seem to be a good match for a decent price.

Hopefully I have gotten my needs/wants across in a reasonable manner. Does anyone have any insight into this???

Sometimes you get what you pay for. How many miles did the WRs last you?

I was looking at the LM25s and the Dunlop 3Ds and went for the 3Ds because I had the M2s in the past.

driving (allroad) ranged from a 1500 mile round trip totally dry Xmas trip at high (very) speeds on the interstate with fantastic stability and road feel to weekend jaunts from Chicago into Michigan and northern Wisconsin in up to a foot of fresh snow. The M3 was nice and stable in the dry, and did a really good job in almost all snow conditions. The only complaint I had about the M3 was it's cornering ability in 2-3" of loose fresh snow... Just didn't seem as good as the Semperit snows I had bofore the M3's. If I was back living in NH and price wasn't an issue, I'd go Nokian first, M3 a very close second. But factoring in price, the M3 edges the nokian in my book.

Disclaimer- this winter went from 17" M3 to 18" Hankook IceBear to try something different. gotta say, for the $$, this is a great tire. Chicago just had close to a foot of snow and the IceBears did everything the M3 did. And a much quieter, more stable dry tire too.

Ill tell you how they feel on My B5 S4 next week after I switch to winter mode.

wanted to know if I can get comparable performance without shelling out the bucks necessary for the WR's

I will check out the M3's

The Link to the post below will show you where to get excellent prices on Nokian.

I would stick with the Nokian. Just went through the same decision process you made and decided to stay with the WR....I get almost 40k out of a set of them....

or go straight to www.gosstire.com<ul><li><a href="http://forums.audiworld.com/wheel/msgs/87681.phtml">Nokian, best prices</a></li></ul>

This is what the set is going on next winter in Bend, OR.
Thanks for doing business with me.

and what you ultimately decide....I'm curious..

I ran Nokian Hakka Q's on my S6, which is not mine any longer. My winter set-up wouldn't fit on my new Passat. I had to move up to a 235 45 17 winter set up as well.

In addition I commute every weekend to Northern VT, for skiing, no exceptions.

In my research there were several options basically dividing between the performance winter tire and the winter friction tire. The NRW was an early version of the performance winter tire, but many other tires have passed the NRW in the past few years for it's winter performance. ADAC, the German automobile association did an extensive test of these type of tires a year or so ago. They rated the wet dry and snow performance. The run-away winner was the Conti-Winter TS810. Here is the link to the summary.

http://www.adac.de/Tests/Reifentests/Winterreifen/205-55-R16-HT-2004-10/tab.asp?ComponentID=94934&amp;SourcePageID=94888

Now, the other option is the pure friction tire, more of the pure snow tire. It has less dry performance, but optimizes the snow and ice grip. In this case the tires are actually a bit more reasonable price wise. The latest from Nokian is the Hakka RSi. I was predisposed to get that tire, As I had nokian previously and they were excellent. The best I could find in in the 235 45 17 for $200 a tire. I was tempted. Then I found this reference.

http://www.consumersearch.com/www/automotive/snow-tires/reviews.html

The Scandinavian magazine rated the Michelin X-Ice the equivalent of the RSi. It turns out that the X-Ice is new in the 235-45-17. Michelin has always had the Pilot Alpin in that size, but it has always been weak in the snow tests. In any case the X-Ice is available for $127 from the Tirerack.

So my decision came down to the ContiTS810 or the Michelin X-Ice. I went for the better snow performance of the Michelin and $40 less a tire. I'm using the extra cash for an extra set of TPMS sensors. So good luck and I hope the references help.

The X-Ice is not as good as the RSi in the slippery stuff, but the X-Ice is a little bit better behaved on the dry pavement.

Any more details? When you say slippery, deep snow or packed? Did you have both on the same car?