Segment
2. Nokian WR D4 Upper-middle
Comparison: Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO vs. Nokian WR D4
Table of contents:
In this comparison, we are comparing a tyre from a manufacturer from Japan (Bridgestone) against a tyre from a manufacturer from Finland (Nokian). Generally, Nokian winter tyres are slightly better rated (52%) than Bridgestone (46%). In this particular case, the Nokian WR D4 has a better rating of 54% compared to 52% of the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO. The first tyre test of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO was done in 2018, compared to 2015 when was the Nokian WR D4 first tested. Important for this comparison is also the AutoMotorSport 2018 205/55 R16 test, where both the Blizzak LM-001 EVO and the WR D4 were tested. See more mutual tests below. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 100% of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO dimensions has B wet grip rating. Most (97%) of the Nokian WR D4 also have B wet ratings.
| # | Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO | Nokian WR D4 | Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R15 - R17 | R13 - R20 | |
| 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 D4 14.
Average position in tests
1. Nokian WR D4 6.04
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Nokian WR D4 Highly recommended2. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Nokian WR D4 Recommended2. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO Still recommended
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
1. Nokian WR D4 83%
Dry handling
2. Nokian WR D4 78%
Wet
(Overall rating)Aquaplaning - cross
1. Nokian WR D4 78%
Wet braking
2. Nokian WR D4 65%
Aquaplaning - longitudal
2. Nokian WR D4 73%
Wet circle cornering
2. Nokian WR D4 70%
Wet handling
2. Nokian WR D4 68%
Wet braking according to EU label
Snow
(Overall rating)Snow cornering
1. Nokian WR D4 94%
Snow handling
1. Nokian WR D4 98%
Snow traction
1. Nokian WR D4 96%
Snow braking
1. Nokian WR D4 94%
Costs
(Overall rating)Mileage
2. Nokian WR D4 79%
Rolling resistance
1. Nokian WR D4 100%
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
2. Nokian WR D4 83%
Comfort
2. Nokian WR D4 71%
Outside noise accoring to EU label
2. Nokian WR D4 ? dB
Ice
(Overall rating)Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Points total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 9,1 | ||||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO Rating: Still recommended | 7,8 | ||||||
| Nokian WR D4 Rating: Recommended | 8,1 | ||||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1- | 2+ | 1 | 1 | |||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO Rating: Satisfactory | 2+ | 2- | 3+ | 2 | |||
| Nokian WR D4 Rating: Satisfactory | 3 | 2- | 1 | 2 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2,1 | 2,0 | 1,8 | 2,3 | 3,0 | 1,0 | 1,7 |
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO Rating: Satisfactory | 2,4 | 2,1 | 2,9 | 2,3 | 3,6 | 1,0 | 1,9 |
| Nokian WR D4 Rating: Satisfactory | 2,9 | 2,5 | 1,8 | 2,5 | 3,4 | 3,0 | 1,7 |
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 34,3 | 27 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO | 34,3 | 29,8 | |||||
| Nokian WR D4 | 37,3 | 27,6 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||