Segment
1. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Premium2. Nokian WR Snowproof P Upper-middle
Comparison: Nokian WR Snowproof P vs. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005
Table of contents:
In this comparison, we are comparing a tyre from a manufacturer from Finland (Nokian) against a tyre from a manufacturer from Japan (Bridgestone). Generally, Bridgestone winter tyres are slightly better rated (75%) than Nokian (52%). In this particular case, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 has a better rating of 87% compared to 44% of the Nokian WR Snowproof P. The first tyre test of Nokian WR Snowproof P was done in 2021, compared to 2019 when was the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 first tested. Important for this comparison is also the Autobild 2022 215/55 R17 test, where both the WR Snowproof P and the Blizzak LM-005 were tested. See more mutual tests below. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 100% of Nokian WR Snowproof P has B wet grip rating, whereas 100% of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 has A rating.
| # | Nokian WR Snowproof P
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R17 - R21 | R14 - R22 | |
| 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
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Very good2. Nokian WR Snowproof P Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Nokian WR Snowproof P Satisfactory2. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Conditionally recommended
Snow
(Overall rating)Snow braking
Snow cornering
Snow handling
Snow traction
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking
Wet handling
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet circle cornering
Aquaplaning - cross
Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry handling
Dry braking
Costs
(Overall rating)Rolling resistance
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Comfort
(Overall rating)Comfort
Exterior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
1. Nokian WR Snowproof P 70 dB
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,8 | 25,4 | |||||
| Nokian WR Snowproof P | 36 | 26,2 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | 32,8 | 26,3 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Rating | Wet | Dry | Snow | Running costs | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | příkladné | 2+ | 2+ | 2+ | 2+ | ||
| Nokian WR Snowproof P Rating: Satisfactory | uspokojivé | 3+ | 2 | 2- | 2 | ||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Good | dobré | 1- | 2+ | 2 | 3+ | ||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Rating | Wet | Dry | Snow | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | vítěz testu | 147 | 143 | 147 | |||
| Nokian WR Snowproof P Rating: Recommended for economical driving | doporučené pro úspornou jízdu | 84 | 143 | 129 | |||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Highly recommended | velmi doporučeno | 145 | 136 | 122 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Rating | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Noise | Wear |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | dobré | 1,6 | 1,9 | 1,5 | 2,1 | 2,7 | 1,5 |
| Nokian WR Snowproof P Rating: Satisfactory | uspokojivé | 3,3 | 2,2 | 2,7 | 2,1 | 2,8 | 2,5 |
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Satisfactory | uspokojivé | 1,6 | 1,9 | 2,8 | 2,4 | 3,3 | 3,0 |
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Points total | Winter | Wet | Dry | Rolling resistance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1102 | 301,21 | 501,21 | 202,4 | 109,6 | ||
| Nokian WR Snowproof P | 1064 | 283,16 | 469,56 | 201,5 | 109,6 | ||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | 1097 | 300,69 | 497,39 | 196,8 | 102,4 | ||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | ||||||
| Nokian WR Snowproof P | 1 | ||||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | 1 | ||||||
| Show test details | |||||||
