tirewheelguide
Head-to-head Updated

General Grabber Arctic LT vs Hankook Winter i cept evo2 SUV — Compared

Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews (comfort 40/60). Based on 0 + 1 road tests and 7 + 1 owner reviews. How we score

Too close to call: Grabber Arctic LT 69, Winter i cept evo2 SUV 70.

Check price on Amazon · Grabber Arctic LT Check price on Amazon · Winter i cept evo2 SUV
Add your size for an exact match
/R

Both Amazon links then search this exact size.

TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.

Hankook Winter i cept evo2 SUV
Tire BHankook

Winter i cept evo2 SUV

Winter

± 8Provisional

Tests 71 · 1 test Owners 68 · 1 review

Best test result: #1 of 11 in 2019 AMS Winter SUV Tyre Test (noise)

Category by category

Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.

  1. 68

    Dry

    Winter i cept evo2 SUV +1
    69
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTWinter i cept evo2 SUV
    Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests≈ 68 (est.)69
    Reviews found online6969

    Grabber Arctic LT: 60% × 68.3 (est.) + 40% × 68.8 = 68

    Winter i cept evo2 SUV: 60% × 68.6 + 40% × 68.7 = 69

    No road tests of dry for Grabber Arctic LT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.41).

  2. 74

    Wet

    Grabber Arctic LT +4
    70
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTWinter i cept evo2 SUV
    Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests≈ 73 (est.)71
    Reviews found online7569

    Grabber Arctic LT: 60% × 73.3 (est.) + 40% × 75.4 = 74

    Winter i cept evo2 SUV: 60% × 70.5 + 40% × 68.7 = 70

    No road tests of wet for Grabber Arctic LT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).

  3. 70

    Snow

    Winter i cept evo2 SUV +3
    73
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTWinter i cept evo2 SUV
    Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests≈ 70 (est.)74
    Reviews found online7071

    Grabber Arctic LT: 60% × 70.2 (est.) + 40% × 69.6 = 70

    Winter i cept evo2 SUV: 60% × 73.7 + 40% × 71 = 73

    No road tests of snow for Grabber Arctic LT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.32).

  4. 67

    Comfort

    Level
    67
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTWinter i cept evo2 SUV
    Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests≈ 68 (est.)72
    Reviews found online6664

    Grabber Arctic LT: 40% × 68.1 (est.) + 60% × 66.1 = 67

    Winter i cept evo2 SUV: 40% × 72.1 + 60% × 64.2 = 67

    No road tests of comfort for Grabber Arctic LT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).

  5. 66

    Noise

    Winter i cept evo2 SUV +3
    69
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTWinter i cept evo2 SUV
    Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests≈ 66 (est.)71
    Reviews found online64≈ 66 (est.)

    Grabber Arctic LT: 60% × 66.4 (est.) + 40% × 64.2 = 66

    Winter i cept evo2 SUV: 60% × 70.6 + 40% × 66.4 (est.) = 69

    No road tests of noise for Grabber Arctic LT. The test half is the tested tires’ average (66): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.

    No owner ratings of noise for Winter i cept evo2 SUV. The owner half is the owners’ average (66): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests, so the tests say nothing about how owners would rate it.

  6. 65

    Treadwear

    Winter i cept evo2 SUV +2
    67
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTWinter i cept evo2 SUV
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 65 (est.)≈ 67 (est.)
    Reviews found online6467

    Grabber Arctic LT: 60% × 65.4 (est.) + 40% × 63.5 = 65

    Winter i cept evo2 SUV: 60% × 66.6 (est.) + 40% × 66.8 = 67

    No road tests of treadwear for Grabber Arctic LT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).

    No road tests of treadwear for Winter i cept evo2 SUV. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).

  7. –

    Handling (owners)

    No comparison
    67
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTWinter i cept evo2 SUV
    Reviews found online–67
  8. –

    Efficiency

    No comparison
    61
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTWinter i cept evo2 SUV
    Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests–61
Scores at a glance
CategoryGeneral Grabber Arctic LTHankook Winter i cept evo2 SUV
Relative Score 69 70
Dry 68 69
Wet 74 70
Snow 70 73
Comfort 67 67
Noise 66 69
Treadwear 65 67
Handling (owners) – 67
Efficiency – 61

Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.

Weight the categories that matter to you

Wet grip starts at “Important”. Treadwear starts at “Neutral” here: road tests measured it for at most one of the two tires, so it rests on owner reviews. Move the sliders and the scores update instantly.

Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost

Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.

Not important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost

Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.

Recomputed
Headline score
± 8

Grabber Arctic LT

± 8

Winter i cept evo2 SUV

Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.

Pros, cons & observations

Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.

Tire A Grabber Arctic LT

Pros

  • Strong traction on packed snow, ice and freshly fallen unplowed snow, including on steep driveways
  • Marked improvement over previous all-season, all-terrain and 'no season' tires in slippery conditions
  • Improved braking and stopping in slippery conditions

Cons

  • One reviewer would like a more aggressive tread pattern
  • Tight fit when mounting on stock Ford wheels, though no leaks were reported in cold weather
  • Cost is not criticized directly, but one reviewer notes the Michelin Latitude X-Ice was 'quite expensive', implying the General is the more budget-oriented choice
All owner themes in the Grabber Arctic LT review

Tire B Winter i cept evo2 SUV

Not enough owner reviews yet to extract themes.

Specs side by side

Attribute A · General Grabber Arctic LT B · Hankook Winter i cept evo2 SUV
CategoryWinterWinter
Vehicle typeSUV and 4x4SUV and 4x4
Sizes available644
Rim diameters16″ – 18″15″ – 23″
Tread depth16/32″—
SidewallBlackwall—
Max pressure80 psi—
Sizes in common00

Which one should you actually buy?

General Grabber Arctic LT

Hankook Winter i cept evo2 SUV

Too close to call: General Grabber Arctic LT and Hankook Winter i cept evo2 SUV are within 2 points overall. General Grabber Arctic LT is stronger on wet. Hankook Winter i cept evo2 SUV is stronger on snow and noise. General Grabber Arctic LT rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 7 reviews), so read this result as provisional. Hankook Winter i cept evo2 SUV rests on little evidence so far (1 test, 1 review), so read this result as provisional.

Pick tire A Your priority is wet-weather safety

General Grabber Arctic LT scores 74 vs 70 on wet.

Pick tire B You drive through snowy winters

Hankook Winter i cept evo2 SUV scores 73 vs 70 on snow.

Pick tire B You want a quieter cabin

Hankook Winter i cept evo2 SUV scores 69 vs 66 on noise.

Tire A · General Grabber Arctic LT
Check price on Amazon
Tire B · Hankook Winter i cept evo2 SUV
Check price on Amazon

TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.

Grabber Arctic LT or Winter i cept evo2 SUV?

Which is better in the wet, Grabber Arctic LT or Winter i cept evo2 SUV?

General Grabber Arctic LT, 74 vs 70 on our wet score.

Which grips better on dry roads, Grabber Arctic LT or Winter i cept evo2 SUV?

Neither, by our numbers: 68 vs 69 on the dry score, within 3 points.

Which is better in snow, Grabber Arctic LT or Winter i cept evo2 SUV?

Hankook Winter i cept evo2 SUV, 73 vs 70 on our snow score.

Which is quieter, Grabber Arctic LT or Winter i cept evo2 SUV?

Hankook Winter i cept evo2 SUV, 69 vs 66 on our noise score.

Which is more comfortable, Grabber Arctic LT or Winter i cept evo2 SUV?

Neither, by our numbers: 67 vs 67 on the comfort score, within 3 points.

Which lasts longer, Grabber Arctic LT or Winter i cept evo2 SUV?

Neither, by our numbers: 65 vs 67 on the treadwear score, within 3 points.

How do we compare tires?

Every category score blends two independent signals. 60% comes from professional tire tests (braking distances, lap times, noise measurements), each result compared with every other tire in the same test and newer tests counting more. 40% comes from owner reviews found online, adjusted for how generously each site rates. Both use one scale: the average tested tire gets 70, the best 100. When a tire has only one of the two, the missing half is estimated from the other and the score stays closer to average; with no road test and fewer than five owner reviews it gets no score yet.

Handling is the exception: road tests measure it inside the dry and wet scores, so its own row comes from owner ratings only and starts as less important.

Community buzz from Reddit and forums is shown for context only — it never changes the score. Full methodology