Ok, I am opening myself up to ridicule by purchasing these tires, but I couldn't afford another set of Blizzaks at this point in time and I was offered a smashing deal on these, $200 OTD at Discount Tire for 195/60R14s on an 88 Accord LX, w/free steelies, gotta love friends in management. Anyways, the WS-50s I had on the car were shot, and I needed a new set of snow tires because we have been getting a little bit more of the white stuff lately. My initial impression of the tires was quite poor, not only did they have the same sort of slow response as the WS-50, but they didn't grip snow and ice worth poop. Well, I was a bit of an idiot to jump to that conclusion so quickly because after about 1000mi the tires really came around, which makes sense now that I think about it, they just needed to wear off the mold release compound. After about 6500 miles on them I would say that they offer about 95% of the performance of the WS-50 at 50% of the price (for me, maybe more like 75% for normal MSRP purchases). Their outright grip on dry pavement is similar to the WS-50 if not slightly better, their ice traction only trails the WS-50 slightly, and their snow and slush traction is only slightly lower. Finally, the treadwear is amazing, they have only worn about 1/32" after 6500mi. I would wholeheartedly recommend these tires to anyone who is on a tight budget, to me they seem to be in the same vein as the Kumho Ecsta SPT, you can get a better tire, but not for the money.

Jon

EDIT: The WS-50s were in 185/70R13 so I know it isn't an apples to apples comparison, but it is as good as I could do.

 

In all fairness, any time you're replacing a set of tires that is very worn with very shallow tread depth, with new tires with full tread depth, the new ones are going to have a huge advantage in snow, ice, and rain - not because they are better tires, but because the tread depth is so much deeper. It's really not a fair comparison.

I'm not saying that the IG10 aren't any good, only that the difference in tread depth is going to make them seem much better than they would if they were compared against a NEW set of WS-50.

Four winter tires plus steelies for $200 is an awesome deal!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
In all fairness, any time you're replacing a set of tires that is very worn with very shallow tread depth, with new tires with full tread depth, the new ones are going to have a huge advantage in snow, ice, and rain - not because they are better tires, but because the tread depth is so much deeper. It's really not a fair comparison.

I'm not saying that the IG10 aren't any good, only that the difference in tread depth is going to make them seem much better than they would if they were compared against a NEW set of WS-50.

Four winter tires plus steelies for $200 is an awesome deal!
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Oh, I understand that, and as far as I can remember they are almost as good as the WS-50s when I got them a couple of years ago (minus the long break in time for the IG10). The WS-50s were down to 4/32 and well past their first tread compound, at that point they were performing no better than a set of good all-seasons and not even in the same ballpark as the new tires. That said the other tires had been on the car for a couple of years so my memory of them when they were new is not as good as it could be so I agree it isn't apples to apples. All in all, I was just very suprised at how well they work considering how cheap they are and the fact that they don't have near the reputation of the WS-50 (which I still feel is the best winter tire, I am waiting to see how the Revo stands up over time).

Jon