The Almighty Michelin CrossClimate 2 is starting to disappoint me after 20,000 miles.

[snwbrdr]

CC2 test. Look for Snow Braking.


Seems really good. Maybe im wrong.

If only I had the money to buy new tires every winter, to ensure that my experience matches tire reviews when they are new tires.

Since the point of the thread was... concern that winter traction may go down hill since the siping patterns have already changed.

They are a good plowed snow/ice tire. It's the heavy/wet snow that the long tread blocks on the CC2 struggles with.

 

[Ken_R]

If only I had the money to buy new tires every winter, to ensure that my experience matches tire reviews when they are new tires.

Since the point of the thread was... concern that winter traction may go down hill since the siping patterns have already changed.

They are a good plowed snow/ice tire. It's the heavy/wet snow that the long tread blocks on the CC2 struggles with.

I have a set of Blizzak DM-V2's and they do amazingly great in those conditions. Even after 3 seasons.

 

[snwbrdr]

I have a set of Blizzak DM-V2's and they do amazingly great in those conditions. Even after 3 seasons.

Wait until the Multicell tube compound wears out, then traction will be a lot different.

 

[James]

Anyone had the Michelin LTX?
Wondering how much worse in winter it is than the CC2.

 

[Snowfan]

Anyone had the Michelin LTX?
Wondering how much worse in winter it is than the CC2.

LTX excellent on 17 Outback, 11 Lexus FWD and 124 Benz 4Matic E class. A little more street than snow but did great. Put Wildpeak AT3W on Crossie for more snow fun.

 

[tball]

Anyone had the Michelin LTX?
Wondering how much worse in winter it is than the CC2.

Lots of experience with the LTX, also. It's a great tire, but not a great winter tire. Probably better than most all-season tires, but it's still an all-season tire.

Brand new, they are actually really good in winter conditions, but after the first season, I noticed a big drop in the winter performance. Same deal on my wife's old MDX and current GX. I'd consider running them for one winter, then swapping them for true winter tires after that. Or, get the CC2.

 

[Ken_R]

stumbled upon this video:

 

[johnnyvw]

One thing that is not taken in account is any hardening of the rubber from actually driving year round to get down to 2.2 mm tread depth. I would bet their tires that are ground by machine and then only driven 4000k miles would outperform tire actually worn down that much by driving.
But, good comparison nonetheless....

 

[tball]

So, it doesn't have full depth sipes that some people claim the CC2 have from their "expert analysis" like Justin Bieber, the engineer, from Engineering Explained youtube video (which was merely him regurgitating Michelin marketing notes).

The shoulder sipes have become partial. The center tread "stepped" sipes are gone... it's looking more like the original CrossClimate/CrossClimate+

Performance in the dry has already dropped off, since I can get traction control kicking in accelerating from a stop to merge onto the highway. If I'm taking a curved on-ramp hard, stability control is intervening.

I seriously hope winter traction doesn't take a dump... but I do have cable chains, just in case.

That last video does a nice job of answering your questions in the OP.

As the CC2 wears, dry performance should improve like with all tires. CC2 snow performance is remarkable for the tire class, even when worn.

 

[snwbrdr]

That last video does a nice job of answering your questions in the OP.

As the CC2 wears, dry performance should improve like with all tires. CC2 snow performance is remarkable for the tire class, even when worn.

Not really.... the CC2's are a disappointing tire when it comes to fresh heavy snow, like Sierra cement.... and it's going to get worse. I've always said, that they are great after the plows come. And all of the tests on Youtube confirm it.

And Michelin also claims my tires are defective based on the siping after 20k miles..

 

[tball]

Not really.... the CC2's are a disappointing tire when it comes to fresh heavy snow, like Sierra cement....

Disappointing compared to what? You can't really tell unless you test it against other tires in the same class in the same conditions.

All the independent reviews of CC2 show fantastic snow performance for the tire class. But you can't expect it to perform as well as a winter tire because the CC2 is not a winter tire.

 

[snwbrdr]

Disappointing compared to what? You can't really tell unless you test it against other tires in the same class in the same conditions.

All the independent reviews of CC2 show fantastic snow performance for the tire class. But you can't expect it to perform as well as a winter tire because the CC2 is not a winter tire.

The independent reviews show it's great on plowed snow surfaces, but I don't always drive after the plows come through.

I have driven Nokian WR G3, WR G4 SUV and now the CC2's, so I have something to reference to, as well as full dedicated winter tires, from Firestone Winterforce to Nokian Hakkapeliitta RSI's and some "performance snow" tires also. The Nokian WR's are a lot better in deep, heavy snow than the CC2's, even when the WR G3's were on a FWD car.... the CC'2 are the worst tire I have driven through deep, heavy snow... it's not a tire I want to be driving through a blizzard.

And I don't always wait until after the plows go by to drive to the mountain... since I'll be missing prime powder conditions.

 

[blue]

Right now out of the 3 family cars we have Michelin crossclimate 2, Michelin pilot PA4, Bridgestone WS-90. The CC2 is ok at best in the snow, but definitely better than the stock all season. PA4 is good enough and doesn’t seems to have significant degradation with wear. The WS-90 was amazing when brand new but degrades significantly with wear, and right now I think it is worse than PA4 despite fewer miles driven. The longest lasting and best performing winter tire I had was the Michelin X-ice xi3. I’m curious about their new X-ice snow. I’ll never again get a Bridgestone due to their rapid degradation of performance with wear. It’s almost like the outer layer of Bridgestone had a different compound.

 

[snwbrdr]

Right now out of the 3 family cars we have Michelin crossclimate 2, Michelin pilot PA4, Bridgestone WS-90. The CC2 is ok at best in the snow, but definitely better than the stock all season. PA4 is good enough and doesn’t seems to have significant degradation with wear. The WS-90 was amazing when brand new but degrades significantly with wear, and right now I think it is worse than PA4 despite fewer miles driven. The longest lasting and best performing winter tire I had was the Michelin X-ice xi3. I’m curious about their new X-ice snow. I’ll never again get a Bridgestone due to their rapid degradation of performance with wear. It’s almost like the outer layer of Bridgestone had a different compound.

That's because the outer layer of the Bridgestone Blizzak WS/DM series ARE a different compound. It has their "Multicell" compound on the first 55% of the tread blocks, which gives its initial performance in the snow and ice, which is quite porous. After, it's a standard high-silica winter compound

 

[tball]

I have driven Nokian WR G3, WR G4 SUV and now the CC2's, so I have something to reference to, as well as full dedicated winter tires, from Firestone Winterforce to Nokian Hakkapeliitta RSI's and some "performance snow" tires also. The Nokian WR's are a lot better in deep, heavy snow than the CC2's, even when the WR G3's were on a FWD car.... the CC'2 are the worst tire I have driven through deep, heavy snow... it's not a tire I want to be driving through a blizzard.

That's great experience with other tires. Thanks for sharing. I don't think Nokian vs. CC2 is a fair fight in the snow. They are Nokians, so those WR's are more snow-focused, while the CC2 is an all-around tire that is also pretty good in the snow.

Tyre Reviews didn't test the Nokians, but here's CR's testing:

 

[snwbrdr]

That's great experience with other tires. Thanks for sharing. I don't think Nokian vs. CC2 is a fair fight in the snow. They are Nokians, so those WR's are more snow-focused, while the CC2 is an all-around tire that is also pretty good in the snow.

Tyre Reviews didn't test the Nokians, but here's CR's testing:

View attachment 184994

They are all all-weather tires, so they are all lumped into the same conversation, just like Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady, Firestone Weathergrip, General Altimax 365AW, etc.

And CR's snow testing is similar to Tyre Reviews, on plowed snow surfaces, which is easier to control than driving through fresh snow.

 

[tball]

They are all all-weather tires, so they are all lumped into the same conversation.

Yes, but the Nokians don't perform as well in the dry or wet as the CC2, where the Nokians perform more like a winter tire, and the CC2 is much better all around. Different trade-offs. The Nokians seem like the closest you can get to a winter tire you can leave on all year if you are OK with the dry and wet performance cost.

 

[snwbrdr]

Yes, but the Nokians don't perform as well in the dry or wet as the CC2, where the Nokians perform more like a winter tire, and the CC2 is much better all around. Different trade-offs. The Nokians seem like the closest you can get to a winter tire you can leave on all year if you are OK with the dry and wet performance cost.

Choosing and buying tires are based on compromise. There is no 1 tire that can do everything at a high level. the CC2 has its compromises, despite what the internet says, and so does every other tire out there.

Which tire do I choose to drive in a blizzard to chase powder? It's not the CC2.

 

[raytseng]

Well the whole point of this class of all weather tires is for the Bay area weekend warrior who is driving 375 miles on dry/wet pavement with maybe 25 miles on snow during maybe 4 lucky weekends when it actually snows. So in total maybe 100miles out of 10000 a year on snow or 1percent.

For the weekend warrior,if it's blizzard conditions where the cc2 isn't good enough; you stay home since you won't make it up anyway. Because 95percent of the OTHER vehicles on the road have worse tires than the cc2. So they are all spun out and in ditches, and caltrans is holding 50 and 80 to clean up the mess or you're in a snake following the plow anyway and not getting to your lodging till 4am.

Plus, you also have your chains that you're supposed to carry anyway for those extreme circumstance.

it is a little like having 1 ski quiver with only a powder skis vs allmtn skis. if a true powder day is so rare, it makes more sense to optimize more for the most frequent scenario, but still prepare for the rare one.

 

[François Pugh]

Well the whole point of this class of all weather tires is for the Bay area weekend warrior who is driving 375 miles on dry/wet pavement with maybe 25 miles on snow during maybe 4 lucky weekends when it actually snows. So in total maybe 100miles out of 10000 a year on snow or 1percent.

For the weekend warrior,if it's blizzard conditions where the cc2 isn't good enough; you stay home since you won't make it up anyway. Because 95percent of the OTHER vehicles on the road have worse tires than the cc2. So they are all spun out and in ditches, and caltrans is holding 50 and 80 to clean up the mess or you're in a snake following the plow anyway and not getting to your lodging till 4am.

Plus, you also have your chains that you're supposed to carry anyway for those extreme circumstance.

it is a little like having 1 ski quiver with only a powder skis vs allmtn skis. if a true powder day is so rare, it makes more sense to optimize more for the most frequent scenario, but still prepare for the rare one.

Yes. Were I that driver, I would get the CC2 and put chains on for the times I needed them.
P.S. If you think you shouldn't bother putting chains on to get down the mountain, 'cause you got up without them and you got out of the parking lot without them, think again!