Tests – · none yet Owners 69 · 11 reviews
Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v looks discontinued: no new owner reviews or road tests in five years and no current EU tyre label.
Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v vs Toyo Observe GSi-6 HP — 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 + 2 road tests and 11 + 14 owner reviews. How we score
Too close to call: iceGUARD iG51v and Observe GSi-6 HP are level at 71.
Add your size for an exact match
Both Amazon links then search this exact size.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Tests 69 · 2 tests Owners 73 · 14 reviews
Best test result: #5 of 20 in 2020 Nordic and Studded Winter Tyre Test (dry braking)
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
-
71
Dry
Observe GSi-6 HP +475Why this score
Source iceGUARD iG51v Observe GSi-6 HP Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests ≈ 70 (est.) 73 Reviews found online 72 77 iceGUARD iG51v: 60% × 69.7 (est.) + 40% × 71.8 = 71
Observe GSi-6 HP: 60% × 73 + 40% × 77.4 = 75
No road tests of dry for iceGUARD iG51v. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.42).
-
78
Wet
iceGUARD iG51v +375Why this score
Source iceGUARD iG51v Observe GSi-6 HP Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 2 tests ≈ 76 (est.) 71 Reviews found online 80 81 iceGUARD iG51v: 60% × 75.9 (est.) + 40% × 80 = 78
Observe GSi-6 HP: 60% × 71.2 + 40% × 81 = 75
No road tests of wet for iceGUARD iG51v. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
-
74
Snow
iceGUARD iG51v +866Why this score
Source iceGUARD iG51v Observe GSi-6 HP Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 2 tests ≈ 73 (est.) 60 Reviews found online 76 75 iceGUARD iG51v: 60% × 72.9 (est.) + 40% × 76.4 = 74
Observe GSi-6 HP: 60% × 59.7 + 40% × 75.2 = 66
No road tests of snow for iceGUARD iG51v. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.37).
-
70
Comfort
Observe GSi-6 HP +676Why this score
Source iceGUARD iG51v Observe GSi-6 HP Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests ≈ 69 (est.) 78 Reviews found online 70 75 iceGUARD iG51v: 40% × 69.2 (est.) + 60% × 69.7 = 70
Observe GSi-6 HP: 40% × 77.5 + 60% × 74.5 = 76
No road tests of comfort for iceGUARD iG51v. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.
-
63
Noise
Observe GSi-6 HP +770Why this score
Source iceGUARD iG51v Observe GSi-6 HP Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests ≈ 67 (est.) 72 Reviews found online 58 ≈ 67 (est.) iceGUARD iG51v: 60% × 66.6 (est.) + 40% × 57.8 = 63
Observe GSi-6 HP: 60% × 71.7 + 40% × 66.6 (est.) = 70
No road tests of noise for iceGUARD iG51v. The test half is the tested tires’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.
No owner ratings of noise for Observe GSi-6 HP. The owner half is the owners’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests, so the tests say nothing about how owners would rate it.
-
55
Treadwear
Observe GSi-6 HP +661Why this score
Source iceGUARD iG51v Observe GSi-6 HP Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 60 (est.) ≈ 63 (est.) Reviews found online 49 58 iceGUARD iG51v: 60% × 60 (est.) + 40% × 48.6 = 55
Observe GSi-6 HP: 60% × 63.3 (est.) + 40% × 58.2 = 61
No road tests of treadwear for iceGUARD iG51v. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.35).
No road tests of treadwear for Observe GSi-6 HP. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.35).
-
–
Handling (owners)
No comparison76Why this score
Source iceGUARD iG51v Observe GSi-6 HP Reviews found online – 76 -
–
Efficiency
No comparison66Why this score
Source iceGUARD iG51v Observe GSi-6 HP Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests – 66
Scores at a glance
| Category | Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v | Toyo Observe GSi-6 HP |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 71 | 71 |
| Dry | 71 | 75 |
| Wet | 78 | 75 |
| Snow | 74 | 66 |
| Comfort | 70 | 76 |
| Noise | 63 | 70 |
| Treadwear | 55 | 61 |
| Handling (owners) | – | 76 |
| Efficiency | – | 66 |
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.
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
iceGUARD iG51v
Observe GSi-6 HP
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 iceGUARD iG51v
Not enough owner reviews yet to extract themes.
Tire B Observe GSi-6 HP
Pros
- Exceptional traction and stability in snow and slush
- Impressive wet-weather performance and hydroplaning resistance
- Remarkably quiet ride quality for a winter tire
Cons
- Inconsistent tread life reports, with some users experiencing premature wear
- Occasional reports of structural failure or tread separation
- Slightly vague steering feel at lower speeds
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v | B · Toyo Observe GSi-6 HP |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Premium Touring Winter tire | Winter |
| Vehicle type | SUV and 4x4 | — |
| Sizes available | 2 | 39 |
| Rim diameters | 18″ | 16″ – 21″ |
| Tread depth | 13/32″ | 11 - 12/32″ |
| Sidewall | Blackwall | Black Side Wall |
| Max pressure | 51 psi | 50 - 51 psi |
Which one should you actually buy?
Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v
Toyo Observe GSi-6 HP
Too close to call: Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v and Toyo Observe GSi-6 HP are within 2 points overall. Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v is stronger on snow and wet. Toyo Observe GSi-6 HP is stronger on noise, comfort and treadwear. Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 11 reviews), so read this result as provisional.
Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v scores 74 vs 66 on snow.
Toyo Observe GSi-6 HP scores 70 vs 63 on noise.
Toyo Observe GSi-6 HP scores 76 vs 70 on comfort.
Toyo Observe GSi-6 HP scores 61 vs 55 on treadwear.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
iceGUARD iG51v or Observe GSi-6 HP?
Which is better in the wet, iceGUARD iG51v or Observe GSi-6 HP?
Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v, 78 vs 75 on our wet score.
Which grips better on dry roads, iceGUARD iG51v or Observe GSi-6 HP?
Toyo Observe GSi-6 HP, 75 vs 71 on our dry score.
Which is better in snow, iceGUARD iG51v or Observe GSi-6 HP?
Yokohama iceGUARD iG51v, 74 vs 66 on our snow score.
Which is quieter, iceGUARD iG51v or Observe GSi-6 HP?
Toyo Observe GSi-6 HP, 70 vs 63 on our noise score.
Which is more comfortable, iceGUARD iG51v or Observe GSi-6 HP?
Toyo Observe GSi-6 HP, 76 vs 70 on our comfort score.
Which lasts longer, iceGUARD iG51v or Observe GSi-6 HP?
Toyo Observe GSi-6 HP, 61 vs 55 on our treadwear score.
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