Both these tires are built for a reliable performance during all weathers. Their tread patterns are designed to provide traction irrespective of dry or wet pavement. Both tires carry 3PMSF rating indicating their reliable traction qualities in winter conditions.
Celsius shows a compact tread with superior on-road biting ability. Hence, it offers a stronger grip on dry tracks. Plus, features like snow claws and slush grooves enable it to crawl over soft snow without any difficulty.
WR G4 has a rugged pattern but specifies good traction qualities on paved surfaces. Its proficiency against hydroplaning gives it an edge over the competitor. That is why this tire is very suitable for rainy conditions.
Compared to Celsius, Nokia WR G4 provides relatively firm grip on a wet road, offers higher handling efficiency, prevents hydroplaning more effectively and showcases lower fuel average but its dry grip is comparatively minimized and rolling noise is higher as well.
Table of Contents
Quick Comparison table
| WR G4 | Celsius CUV | |
| Tire type | All-season tire | All-season Touring tire |
| Usage | Sports vehicles, crossovers | CUVs, SUVs |
| Rated for Severe snow usage (3PMSF) | Yes | Yes |
| Tested size | 235/55R17 | 225/65R17 SL |
| Tread depth | 11/32’’ | 11.1/32’’ |
| Section width | 9.70 | 9.6 |
| Tire weight | 25.30 Ibs | 31 Ibs |
| Load index | 99 | 103 |
| Speed rating | V | V |
Tread Comparison
Celsius CUV characterizes a compact tread pattern with three rows in the central portion. Blocks of two ribs are relatively large-sized, exhibit an angular shape and create a zigzag longitudinal between them while the third row has small squared blocks with narrow lateral voids. As a result, its contact patch is comparatively larger. It shows a variable siping pattern in which sipe density is higher on the inner side of the tread but lower on the outer side. Sipes are multi-directional and have varying shapes; some of the sipes are zigzagged and others are rectilinear. However, its shoulder blocks are smaller and have straight horizontal grooves among them.
WR G4 presents an aggressive outlook in comparison. It also has three central ribs but blocks of each rib characterize a different shape. Marginal straightline rib is formed by box-shaped blocks. While blocks of other two ribs have varying shapes and sizes. Two longitudinal grooves are linear while other two are irregular. At its inner side, it carries blade lateral grooves and its shoulder blocks are relatively elongated. Plus, its siping pattern is denser and longitudinal rib carries centripede sipes for proficient wiping. Tread depth of both tires is nearly identical.
Tire Performance Comparison
| WR G4 | Celsius CUV | |
| Hydroplaning resistance | High | Moderate |
| Rolling resistance | Moderate | Moderate- high |
| Off roading ability | Moderate- high | Moderate |
| Durability | Moderate-high | High |
Road Grip Comparison
Both tires show a comparable performance on dry paved surface but WRG4 gets a lower score for its dry grip as its tread blocks are relatively smaller. Plus, it has fewer biting edges than the competitor. Resultantly, its blocks grip on the dry road relatively less firmly. When moving on a wet or iced pathway, its grip becomes superior than the competitor. Its broad, blade grooves and open sipes are credited for this efficiency. However, in snowy areas, its grip is again minimized due to fewer biting edges to hold on the snow. Also, it takes a longer time for snow to evacuate completely from its zigzag longitudinal grooves.
In contrast, Celsius presents a better grip on dry pavement due to a relatively expanded contact patch. Its large blocks with an increased biting ability hold on the road more firmly than the competitor. It presents satisfactory grip on a wet road or ice as deep, broad grooves and multidirectional sipes wipe off the water but still, its ability ranks below as its straight-line grooves are not as efficient for water removal as blade grooves of the competitor. However, it shows improved grip while rolling on snow-covered paths because snow is easily channeled in the backward direction through its straight-line slush grooves. Plus, its block edges are designed to act as snow claws for stronger biting ability on soft snow.
| WR G4 | Celsius CUV | |
| Dry Grip | Moderate | High |
| Wet/ Ice Grip | High | Moderate |
| Snow Grip | Moderate | High |
Handling Comparison
WR G4 wins from the competitor for cornering stability on dry pavement because it has relatively elongated shoulder blocks. Thus, its larger shoulders show an enhanced ability to maintain traction while taking turns. Its steering performance is also better than the competitor while taking turns on a wet or icy road. This performance is credited to its larger size and extensive siping on its shoulders. On soft snow, it ranks below for handling as its lateral channels provide decreased snow evacuation which results in reduced cornering traction.
Toyo Celsius manages the steering function well but it is relatively less responsive than the competitor due to its relatively smaller shoulder blocks. The same story goes for wet and ice handling where its multidirectional sipes and deep grooves improve the performance to some extent yet their competency is decreased due to lesser density. However, its deep lateral grooves with snow-clawed shoulder blocks result in better cornering performance on snow.
| WR G4 | Celsius CUV | |
| Dry Handling | High | Moderate |
| Wet/ Ice Handling | High | Moderate-High |
| Snow Handling | Moderate- high | High |
Comparison of Aquaplaning Resistance
WR G4 takes the win for its ability to prevent aquaplaning. Its blade grooves are designed according to Coanda technology, thus, standing water is smoothly channeled within the curved grooves and is completely evacuated from the tread. Resultantly, it can maintain a consistent grip without skidding.
Celsius provides reliable safety from hydroplaning yet its efficiency is minor than the competitor. Because its voids are relatively narrow, allowing a lesser water holding capacity.
Comparison of Rolling Resistivity
Nokian WR has the advantage of low rolling resistance due to its relatively open pattern. Its decreased contact patch gives rise to minor friction as the vehicle moves on the rigid pavement. Hence, less fuel is utilized to account for the hysteresis (energy loss) produced, making it more fuel-efficient than its competitor.
Celsius faces higher rolling friction in comparison due to its bulky tread over the road. Though large-sized blocks offer enhanced grip, they also make the rolling process more energy-consuming. Hence, the fuel average is raised and you need to spend more on fuel.
Comparison of Comfort and Noise
Though Celsius offers an enhanced dry grip, its handling performance and wet grip are relatively lower, making driving experience relatively less comfortable. Nevertheless, its noise level is comparatively lower. Because its narrow grooves allow a minimal sound resonation, leading to quieter rolling.
On the other hand, WR G4 offers superior steer management and increased safety while travelling on a wet road. Thus, it ranks higher for on-road driving comfort. But it makes loud noise as sound waves can easily circulate and resonate among its curved and connected grooves.
| WR G4 | Celsius CUV | |
| Noise Level | Moderate-high | Moderate |
| Driving comfort | High | Moderate |
Durability and treadwear
Celsius is more durable than its competitor due to its wear-resilient polymer. Its tread is constructed from Toyo strengthened all-season compound which makes it chip and scratch resistant. Also, multi-wave siping design keeps its tread functional for a long time even after the tread is partially worn out. It ranks at a higher position on UTQG treadwear scale. Also, it has a mileage warranty for tread life up to 60,000 miles.
WR G4 also lasts for a good time but its longevity is lesser in comparison. Its tread is molded from a Dual Performance compound which includes silica and performance resins for optimized traction on both dry and wet paths. But this polymer is relatively less robust than the competitor. That is why it has a lower UTQG rating. It does not have any warranty for expected mileage or tread life.
| WR G4 | Celsius CUV | |
| UTQG | 500 A A | 520 A B |
| Treadwear mileage warranty | None | 65,000 miles |
Quick Summary
Both tires are built for all-season usage.
Toyo Celsius CUV
- Shows enhanced grip on the dry paths.
- Makes less rolling noise.
- Has economic advantage of longer tread life.
Nokian WR G4
- Presents relatively optimized grip on wet pavement.
- Offers better safety from slip offs over the water standing on the road.
- Provides benefit of lower fuel consumption.
- Provides better steer response on dry and wet tracks.
