Segment
2. Nokian WR A4 Upper-middle
Comparison: Nokian WR A4 vs. GoodYear UltraGrip Performance+
Table of contents:
In this comparison, we are comparing a tyre from a manufacturer from Finland (Nokian) against a tyre from a manufacturer from USA (GoodYear). Generally, GoodYear winter tyres are slightly better rated (85%) than Nokian (61%). The first tyre test of Nokian WR A4 was done in 2017, compared to 2019 when was the GoodYear UltraGrip Performance+ first tested. Important for this comparison is also the Autobild 2020 245/45 R18 test, where both the WR A4 and the UltraGrip Performance+ were tested. See more mutual tests below. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 94% of Nokian WR A4 dimensions has B wet grip rating. Most (83%) of the GoodYear UltraGrip Performance+ also have B wet ratings.
| # | Nokian WR A4
| GoodYear UltraGrip Performance+
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R16 - R21 | R15 - R22 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
2. Nokian WR A4 17.
Average position in tests
2. Nokian WR A4 9.83
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. GoodYear UltraGrip Performance+ Very good2. Nokian WR A4 Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. GoodYear UltraGrip Performance+ Recommended2. Nokian WR A4 Still recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet handling
2. Nokian WR A4 64%
Aquaplaning - longitudal
2. Nokian WR A4 60%
Wet braking
2. Nokian WR A4 56%
Wet circle cornering
2. Nokian WR A4 65%
Aquaplaning - cross
2. Nokian WR A4 58%
Wet braking according to EU label
Snow
(Overall rating)Snow cornering
2. Nokian WR A4 68%
Snow handling
2. Nokian WR A4 73%
Snow traction
2. Nokian WR A4 79%
Snow braking
2. Nokian WR A4 77%
Costs
(Overall rating)Rolling resistance
1. Nokian WR A4 88%
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
1. Nokian WR A4 80%
Comfort
2. Nokian WR A4 67%
Outside noise accoring to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
2. Nokian WR A4 77%
Dry handling
2. Nokian WR A4 75%
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2+ | 1- | 2+ | 1- | |||
| Nokian WR A4 Rating: Satisfactory | 2- | 2 | 2- | 2 | |||
| GoodYear UltraGrip Performance+ Rating: Exemplary | 2 | 2+ | 1- | 2 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 30,3 | 24,3 | |||||
| Nokian WR A4 | 34,6 | 25,5 | |||||
| GoodYear UltraGrip Performance+ | 34,4 | 24,8 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1- | 2 | 1- | ||||
| Nokian WR A4 Rating: Not recommended | 4+ | 2- | 2 | ||||
| GoodYear UltraGrip Performance+ Rating: Exemplary | 1- | 2 | 1- | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
