Do you want to know what tyre is best for every day, real world driving? In this test we take eleven of the very best 205/55 R16 tyres on the market, plus a well regarded budget tyre, to see exactly what tyre performs best in the dry, wet, comfort, noise and rolling resistance tests!
Testing Methodology
Test Driver
Jonathan Benson
Tyre Size
205/55 R16
Test Location
Professional Proving Ground
Test Year
2020
Tyres Tested
12
Show full testing methodologyHide methodology
Every tyre is tested using calibrated instrumented measurement and structured subjective assessment. Reference tyres are retested throughout each session to correct for changing conditions, ensuring fair, repeatable comparisons. Multiple reference sets are used where needed so that control tyre wear does not affect accuracy.
We use professional-grade testing equipment including GPS data loggers, accelerometers, and calibrated microphones. All tyres are broken in and conditioned before testing begins. For full details on our equipment, preparation process, and calibration procedures, see our complete testing methodology.
Categories Tested
Dry Braking
For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tyres are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.
Dry Handling
For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.
Subj. Dry Handling
Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated dry handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.
Wet Braking
For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tyre performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.
Wet Handling
For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.
Subj. Wet Handling
Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.
Straight Aqua
To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tyre set and average the valid results.
Subj. Comfort
To assess comfort, I drive on a wide range of road surfaces (often dedicated comfort tracks at test facilities) at speeds from 50 to 120 km/h, including smooth motorway, coarse surfaces, expansion joints, broken pavement, and sharp-edged obstacles. I evaluate primary ride quality, secondary ride quality, impact harshness, seat-transmitted vibration, and the tyre's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tyre.
Noise
For cabin noise assessment, I drive at controlled speeds, typically 50, 80, 100, and 120 km/h, on NVH test surfaces with defined texture characteristics. Calibrated microphones are positioned at ear height within the cabin. Measurements are taken using A-weighting, with one-third octave analysis where required to identify tonal features such as cavity resonance. Windows remain closed, ventilation is off, and ambient conditions are controlled so the data reflects the tyre rather than external interference.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tyre is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.
How each category is weighted in the overall score:
Dry35%
Dry Braking45%
Dry Handling45%
Subj. Dry Handling9%
Wet50%
Wet Braking37%
Wet Handling37%
Subj. Wet Handling11%
Straight Aqua16%
Comfort5%
Subj. Comfort45%
Noise45%
Tyre Weight9%
Value10%
Price33%
Rolling Resistance67%
It's the Tyre Reviews long overdue, 16" tyre test! The 16" tyres is the most popular size in the world, and is fitted to a large percentage of "daily" cars, so this test will hopefully be relevant to a large number of drivers!
In this test we have twelve of the most popular tyres on the market, including the multiple test winning Continental PremiumContact 6 and Michelin Primacy 4, going up against the new Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2, Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2, Uniroyal RainSport 5 and BFGoodrich Advantage, with the usual tyres from Falken, Nokian, Bridgestone, Maxxis, Hankook and Goodride.
All twelve tyres will be tested in dry and wet handling, dry and wet braking, aquaplaning, internal cabin noise and fuel use, and have subjective grades given to their dry and wet handling, and most importantly for this type of tyre, their comfort levels.
The overall score will be weighted as 35% dry (35% lap time, 10% subjective, 55% braking), 50% wet (35% lap time, 5% subjective, 55% braking, 5% aquaplaning), 7.5% NVH (50% internal noise, 50% comfort) and 7.5% value (80% rolling resistance, 20% price), however if you prefer qualities such as subjective dry handling over wet braking, all the data will be below to allow you to make your own purchase decision.
As always, any questions, please ask below!
Dry
You might not think the dry performance of a 16" tyre is important, but dry braking and handling show you exactly how much grip each tyre will have in an emergency situation, where you lean on the tyre more than normal.
For dry braking, the Continental had the advantage over a very close group, with the Pirelli, Falken, and Nokian joint second! Uniroyal, Hankook and Goodride all had longer than ideal dry stopping distances.
Dry Braking
Spread: 3.30 M (9.6%)|Avg: 35.18 M
Dry braking in meters (Lower is better)
Dry Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tyre
The new Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 was the fastest tyre round dry handling, with the joint second placed Continental and Maxxis both having the best subjective handling feel.
Dry Handling
Spread: 2.84 s (2.8%)|Avg: 102.15 s
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
101.17 s
Maxxis Premitra HP5
101.25 s
Continental Premium Contact 6
101.25 s
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
101.47 s
Bridgestone Turanza T005
101.67 s
Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
102.05 s
Nokian WetProof
102.24 s
Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2
102.32 s
Michelin Primacy 4
102.57 s
Uniroyal RainSport 5
102.77 s
BFGoodrich Advantage
103.07 s
Goodride RP28
104.01 s
Subj. Dry Handling
Spread: 3.00 Points (30%)|Avg: 8.47 Points
Subjective Dry Handling Score (Higher is better)
Maxxis Premitra HP5
10.00 Points
Continental Premium Contact 6
10.00 Points
Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2
9.40 Points
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
9.00 Points
Nokian WetProof
9.00 Points
Bridgestone Turanza T005
8.60 Points
Michelin Primacy 4
8.60 Points
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
8.00 Points
Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
7.50 Points
Goodride RP28
7.50 Points
Uniroyal RainSport 5
7.00 Points
BFGoodrich Advantage
7.00 Points
Wet
Wet braking had three tyres significantly ahead of the rest, with Falken, Continental And Uniroyal all having over 2 meters to the next best tyre on test. Again, Hankook and Goodride struggled with grip levels.
Wet Braking
Spread: 10.10 M (28.3%)|Avg: 39.40 M
Wet braking in meters (Lower is better)
Wet Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tyre
With a couple of deeper parts of water on track, the wet handling test favoured the tyres with higher levels of aquaplaning resistance, meaning the Continental couldn't match its excellent wet braking result.
Wet Handling
Spread: 6.90 s (9.9%)|Avg: 71.24 s
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Maxxis Premitra HP5
69.86 s
Nokian WetProof
69.95 s
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
70.04 s
Bridgestone Turanza T005
70.05 s
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
70.09 s
Uniroyal RainSport 5
70.39 s
Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2
70.88 s
Michelin Primacy 4
70.97 s
Continental Premium Contact 6
71.64 s
BFGoodrich Advantage
71.93 s
Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
72.28 s
Goodride RP28
76.76 s
Subj. Wet Handling
Spread: 5.00 Points (50%)|Avg: 8.42 Points
Subjective Wet Handling Score (Higher is better)
Maxxis Premitra HP5
10.00 Points
Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2
10.00 Points
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
9.20 Points
Nokian WetProof
8.80 Points
Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
8.60 Points
Bridgestone Turanza T005
8.60 Points
Michelin Primacy 4
8.60 Points
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
8.60 Points
BFGoodrich Advantage
8.60 Points
Continental Premium Contact 6
7.50 Points
Uniroyal RainSport 5
7.50 Points
Goodride RP28
5.00 Points
Only the budget Goodride had worse aquaplaning resistance than the two premium Continental and Goodyear tyres, with the Uniroyal RainSport 5 once again proving its unique tread pattern was the best way to clear water.
Straight Aqua
Spread: 19.54 Km/H (21.3%)|Avg: 81.61 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
Uniroyal RainSport 5
91.62 Km/H
Maxxis Premitra HP5
85.22 Km/H
Michelin Primacy 4
82.86 Km/H
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
82.61 Km/H
Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
82.53 Km/H
Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2
82.02 Km/H
Nokian WetProof
81.26 Km/H
Bridgestone Turanza T005
81.18 Km/H
BFGoodrich Advantage
80.93 Km/H
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
78.48 Km/H
Continental Premium Contact 6
78.48 Km/H
Goodride RP28
72.08 Km/H
Comfort
Comfort is an important quality for a 16" tyre, and the BFGoodrich and Michelin pair had a significant advantage over the bumps and road imperfections.
Subj. Comfort
Spread: 1.80 Points (18%)|Avg: 9.03 Points
Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)
BFGoodrich Advantage
10.00 Points
Michelin Primacy 4
9.80 Points
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
9.40 Points
Nokian WetProof
9.40 Points
Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
9.00 Points
Bridgestone Turanza T005
9.00 Points
Uniroyal RainSport 5
9.00 Points
Maxxis Premitra HP5
8.80 Points
Continental Premium Contact 6
8.80 Points
Goodride RP28
8.80 Points
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
8.20 Points
Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2
8.20 Points
We tested internal noise levels rather than external, averaging the noise from two different road surfaces at two different speeds, giving you a true picture of how loud a tyre is to the driver. Again, the BFGoodrich had a clear advantage.
Noise
Spread: 1.10 dB (1.8%)|Avg: 61.75 dB
Internal noise in dB (Lower is better)
BFGoodrich Advantage
61.20 dB
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
61.40 dB
Bridgestone Turanza T005
61.50 dB
Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2
61.50 dB
Michelin Primacy 4
61.60 dB
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
61.60 dB
Uniroyal RainSport 5
61.60 dB
Goodride RP28
61.90 dB
Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
62.10 dB
Continental Premium Contact 6
62.10 dB
Nokian WetProof
62.20 dB
Maxxis Premitra HP5
62.30 dB
Value
The Bridgestone Turanza T005 once again aced the rolling resistance test, finishing top, but the new Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 was a close second.
Rolling Resistance
Spread: 2.63 kg / t (36.6%)|Avg: 8.64 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
Bridgestone Turanza T005
7.19 kg / t
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
7.28 kg / t
Michelin Primacy 4
8.08 kg / t
BFGoodrich Advantage
8.34 kg / t
Continental Premium Contact 6
8.37 kg / t
Nokian WetProof
8.44 kg / t
Goodride RP28
8.81 kg / t
Uniroyal RainSport 5
8.85 kg / t
Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
8.98 kg / t
Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2
9.76 kg / t
Maxxis Premitra HP5
9.77 kg / t
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
9.82 kg / t
19,000 km
£1.45/L
8.0 L/100km
--
Annual Difference
--
Lifetime Savings
--
Extra Fuel/Energy
--
Extra CO2
Estimates based on typical driving conditions. Rolling resistance accounts for approximately 20% of IC vehicle fuel consumption and 25% of EV energy consumption. Actual savings vary based on driving style, vehicle weight, road conditions, and tyre age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.
At the time of test, the budget Goodride was the cheapest tyre to buy, and the Michelin the most expensive.
Price
Spread: 111.00 (71.2%)|Avg: 213.92
Price in local currency (Lower is better)
Goodride RP28
156.00
Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
187.00
Uniroyal RainSport 5
191.00
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
192.00
Nokian WetProof
201.00
Maxxis Premitra HP5
205.00
Bridgestone Turanza T005
218.00
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
224.00
BFGoodrich Advantage
236.00
Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2
238.00
Continental Premium Contact 6
252.00
Michelin Primacy 4
267.00
Sadly, we couldn't test wear, however there are plenty of other tests on Tyre Reviews, along with user reviews, showing the wear rates of most of these tyres.
Excellent dry grip with sporty handling and the shortest dry braking distances. Very short wet braking distances.
Low aquaplaning resistance, average comfort, relatively high noise levels, high price.
Once again the braking advantage of the Premium Contact 6 secures it a test win, however it was very close at the top. If you prefer driving dynamics over comfort, this is the tyre to pick.
The new EfficientGrip Performance 2 is a very well rounded tyre with excellent grip in the dry and wet, low levels of noise, high levels of comfort, very low rolling resistance and well priced.
Low aquaplaning resistance and slightly long braking distances in the dry and wet cost it victory.
An extremely well rounded tyre with no major weaknesses, other than aquaplaning. Good levels of comfort and low fuel use make this an excellent tyre for real world driving.
Excellent, balanced results in the dry, with the shortest wet braking distances on test and good aquaplaning resistance. Low noise levels and well priced.
Low subjective comfort and the highest rolling resistance on test.
A very strong performance for the Falken ZIEX ZE310, with good grip in the dry and wet.
Highest resistance to aquaplaning, very short wet braking, good comfort, well priced.
Low grip in dry handling, extended dry braking, poor subjective handling, average rolling resistance.
The new RainSport 5 remains a tyre that prioritises wet performance above all else, and is a great choice if you live in a climate with a lot of rainfall.
Excellent dry braking, low noise levels, good subjective handling in the dry and wet.
Average dry and wet handling and long wet braking, average comfort and high rolling resistance.
The new P7 C2 is a great update to the P7, with an excellent dry grip and sporty handling. If the wet performance was a little better it would have been near the very top of the test.
Good grip in dry handling, good levels of comfort, well priced.
Long dry braking, poor wet grip, high rolling resistance.
If price is important to you, this might be a good option, but the Prime 3 is soon to be replaced by a much improved version, so we recommend waiting for that.
I am looking for sporty tyres for my Mitsubishi Colt 1.3 95hp for all year long in Athens, Greece. I am going with summer tyres and 195/50/r15 size. Now i got Bridgestone turanza t005, which are decent but would like more sporty with perhaps drawbacks in fuel economy and noise. I am thinking about Michelin ps3, Yokohama advan, toyo tr1 and Uniroyal rainsports 5. Any recommendations?
Hi I would really enjoy a re visit to the 16inch tyre test for Summer tyres - a very common size I feel - personally I have 195/55/16 I keep searching again fir an updated version. I have been pleased with the Falken ZIEX 310 a great all rounder and clearly better grip and handling than the Dunlop SP Sport Blue response I also have. But time pushes on and it would be good to see how they all stack up now before my next purchase (Dunlops approaching 5 years old so will have to go) Rolling Resistance is not an issue for my Falkens - I have exceded 60mpg in my little Ibiza
Hi Jonathan I’m after new boots for my ladies car, 205,50,17 I notice there never seems to be any Avons in your tests is there any reason for this? Do you have any idea how the ZV7 compares to the competition? Many reports say very good but that gives no comparison. Interested in your thoughts.
Hi Jonathan, I find these reviews very useful and objective, so keep up the same way. Thumbs up! I was looking for a new set of tires, and thinking between Conti PremiumContact 6 and Michelin Primacy 4. I was more towards Conti, but in this review I noticed that Turanza T005 is more "overall balanced tire" so I am now between Conti and T005. I will run them in 225/45/17 size on my Civic 8 gen, so any help in getting final decision?
Does anybody know for what weight index were 205/55 R16 tested? 91V, 94V? I’m in position to buy all 4 new summer tyres. I need your expert opinion. On my VW Passat Variant 2.0TDI is written, weight front 1120kg, back a 1110kg. I can install 205/55 R16 91V or 205/55 R16 94V or 215/55 R16 97W. Does the body roll less with bigger weight index? What is the ride comfort? Is the smaller tyre quieter? Thanks and regards, Bostjan
. I need your expert opinion. On my VW Passat Variant 2.0TDI is written, weight front 1120kg, back a 1110kg. I can install 205/55 R16 91V or 205/55 R16 94V or 215/55 R16 97W. 1. Does the body roll less with bigger weight index? 2. Is the ride different on bigger wheels? 3. What is the ride comfort? 4. Is the smaller tyre quieter? 5. Which tyre would you recommend for vw passat variant? Thanks and regards, Bostjan
If your car specifies 94 load rating, no you can't install the 91.
In theory the lower load index should be slightly more comfortable and slightly less responsive (more "body roll") but sometimes the differences would be too small to notice
in my car permission booklet in states that I can use a different tyre sizes, these sizes are one of them: 205/55 R16 91V 205/55 R16 94V 215/55 R16 97W.
Right now I have a 205/55 R16 91V these on. I'm wondering, seeking for the info, if a ride would be better with 205/55 R16 94V or 215/55 R16 97W. Does anyone have this experience? Will it be that kind of a difference? And there is also a matter of costs ... 215/55 R16 97W costs around 40€ per tyre than a 205/55 R16 91V. If I look at tests for 205/55 R16 is it comparable to 205/55 R16 94V or 215/55 R16?
Could you please review the Toyo Proxes CF2 next time? I think they may be a very good option and would like to see how they stand against the competition
I'm really surprised with the results. The falken did great compared to the most rated tyres manufacturers. I have a Citroen cactus 1.2 turbo(205/55/16) and about to replace the Goodyear that came with the car, they are 4.5 years old and it shows. I was leaning toward the primacy4 or the efficientgrip but seeing the result the falken "has entered the game" What do you recommend? Looking for the best grip and quiet tyres. I live in a place where is mostly sunny throughout the year with maybe 30-40 rainy days
Thinking about buying tyres for my Mitsubishi Colt 1.3 cleartec. Because i live in Athens Greece and i like fast driving for time to time, i will go for summer tyre. I will put 195/50r15 on. Any recommendations, considering i want good fuel economy, good grip all around but especially for the wet? I was thinking about turanzas, ventus prime, efficientgrip or the falkens...
Hello, I drive a Volvo S40 T4(2002) with 200HP at 1270KG. I'm looking for new 215/45/R17 tires. I've had Pilot Sports 4 91Y, but I want to focus a lot more on comfort. I've narrowed it down to: Uniroyal Rainsport 5 87Y, BFGoodrich Advantage 91W, switch to 16". The BFGoodrich seems more designed for comfort, but the Uniroyal has a lower weight class. Any ideas?
Hi There, I currently drive a BMW 520d (F11) with Michelin PS4's all around 245/40/19. I only got around 8K miles from the rears last year with motorway/slight spirited driving. I'm in need of a replacement and wondering if something like a Primacy3 will gain me better longevity or due to such a small compound of rubber due to the diameter I'm best of just getting a cheaper performance tyre like a Asymmetric 5. Many Thanks in advance!
Hi Jonathan, I drive a mk2 focus 1.8 and having some trouble deciding on the right summer tires. I am a sporty driver but also value comfort. The car came with premium contact 2's which were too stiff for my liking so I had them replaced them with primacy 3. But these were too soft and the steering feedback really bad. I tried dunlop sport blu response which had the right amount of handling without compromising the comfort. But these are not great on the wet and the tyres spin on hard acceleration in the wet. I am looking for a simlar tyre thats more sport oriented but not too stiff, and peforms better in the wet. Can you help me find something suitable?
Thank you for the reply. My size is 205/55 R16's. That rules out the Asymmetric 5. Will try the the Pilot Sport 4 out but I fear they maybe a bit too stiff based on the reviews here. What would be next best option if we were to go one level down on the sportiness ?
I've just discovered this test and followed through on the video - you recommended the NS2R for ultimate weekend on a 195/50R15 a moment ago, if I was to go a step-down towards a more "normal" performance summer tyre would the Maxxis be your next choice on something like an MX-5? Pure handling, ignoring comfort.
I certainly enjoyed the 16" HP5's handling, it was sharp (for the tyre type.) I couldn't promise it would carry over to 15" as they usually move to a different construction but it's a good place to start.
Hello. The results of a tyre in different tests are sometimes confusing. The falken ziex here scores highly however on the "2021 Sport Auto Summer Tyre Test" for example is on the last places. It was a model I was interested for 215-50-r17-w-95 however the low comfort ratings together with some indications of not so good wet performance in some other testa makes me think again. Thank you for your work. I was trying to search for reviews on the site specific of tyres of that size only but it is not possible, right?
Explain something to me please..because your tests are driving me crazy!! Are you sure you tested with reliability and without bias? How come the Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125 comes as " Not recommended" and last in the overall ranking in 2020 when this test took place, and now in 2021 it comes FIRST in both wet and dry conditions?? What or who should we believe? Please take a look at this year's results!!! Please let me know what you have to say about this madness!! https://www.tyrereviews.com... AND MAINLY HERE!! https://www.tyrereviews.com...
Because that's how the tyre performed in my test in 2020, and the test you linked (both are the same test) is how the tyre performed in 2021. Most likely explication is the tyre had a mid-life update.
I was surprised the Hankook did badly in my test too.
sooo, quick question : Are the tests relatively the same between the normal tires and the runflat tires ? So for example if the Turanza T005 have relatively good reviews / tests , will the T005 RFT be as good as it ? ( maybe a slight discomfort - etc... )
Hi Jon, great stuff as always!!! Funny situation here. I keep reading that the Falken ZIEX ZE310 are great for their price... I am in Norway and they cost 942kr each...to put that into perspective I can get (at the same shop too) Continental PremiumContact 6 or Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 cheaper at around 750 each!! At these prices what would you go for? I will put them on an 2010 Audi A3. Safety is important but I am a fan of direct steering and a nice feel of control when driving
Cheers. I guess I cant go wront with either though I am leaning towards the conti. The only negatives I see in peoples reviews here are wear and noise and in your review aquaplaning, they are not really bad in either are they?
I found some new prices elsewhere. All three are simillar at the best prices I have found, with the Conti being about 12% more expensive than the other two. In this case would you still recommend Conti PremiumContact 6 or something else?
"The EGP2 would be a solid choice", if you target also the fuel economy and the tyres longevity (km), in both better than CPC 6. See the recent ADAC test for 205/55 R16 at the homepage, with all data: https://www.tyrereviews.com... P.S. +Their silence you will get as a bonus.
Yes, and thanks for the suggestion but there is one problem... "The Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 has average steering and can feel imprecise during dry handling" That is from the ADAC test. Economy in fuel and tire life are great, but I only use summer tires 6-7 months a year. The contis will probably get old rather than wear out, and a bit of noise is worth it for better handling and breaking.
Dear Jonathan, thank you for the review. I have a Golf GTi mk7.5 with 225/40/18 tyres currently Michelin PS4 tyres which i find very noisy on course/rough surfaces. I'm looking for quiet tyres (quiet in the cabin) - what would you recommend? Goodyear efficient grip performance 2 tyres that performed well in this test (albeit a different size but tested on a mk7 Golf), or the older original Goodyear efficient grip performance tyre? Or something else? Thank you
HI, thanks for your reply. I've checked and cannot see i can get the EGP2 for 225/40/18, would you recommend the EGP tyres for the quietest premium tyre for my size? Or something else? Thanks
There certainly should be some EGP2s, perhaps there was stock issues. The T005 is usually a low noise tyre too, however I've not tested touring tyres in 18" so worth checking to seee if there's a test on the site
I have one question because my car is always on the sun (no garage, no shades all the time, as we know that is the worst possible case for tires), can you tell us what is the best products that we can buy and apply it for protection(for tires).
Jonathan Need your help to decide on mx5 nd (g184@205 45 17); Yoko A052, ad08rs or the all new BS Potenza Sport. I do spirited Swiss mountain driving. Looking foreward to get your recom. Thanks Roland
My knowledge of the yokos is limited, and I've never driven on the new bridgestone! I would say that the new bridgestone is a road tyre and the other two more track focused so the other two will be more fun if it's mostly dry weather driving you do, plus they're proven on lighter cars. I'd probably put my money into the A052.
Thanks a lot. Regarding light car: A052 is 88W, ad08rs is available in 84W. Lets forget about the huge Price difference for the moment, both or still clearly A052?
In 225/45 R17, (basically the size you want) those Yokohamas were tested in a Mazda MX5 Cup, back in 2019: https://www.tyrereviews.com...
The A052 seems to be a very safe bet, but for dry conditions only. They tested the Yoko AD08R, not the 08RS, tough, which has (the latter) lower rolling resistance. https://www.tyrereviews.com...
Such a great and fun car to drive with top tyres on swiss mountain roads... You have no idea of how much I envy you! :-)
In my case with te same car and 205/45 R17, driving usually in wet conditions and doing spiriting mountain driving, Which would be your recommendation? Don’t forget the Michelin Pilot Super Sport that seems to be available in this size in my county (Spain)
Waiting with great interest the results of the tests of the new Potenza Sport ?
I am in the same case (MX5 ND 184). What about Michelin Súper Sport? Is the best sport road focused tyre in 205/45 R17? (Seems to be available in this size) I drive usually my car in wet conditions
In 225/45 R17, (basically the size you want) those Yokohamas were tested in a Mazda MX5 Cup, back in 2019: https://www.tyrereviews.com...
The A052 seems to be a very safe bet, but for dry conditions only. They tested the Yoko AD08R, not the new 08RS, tough, which has (the latter) lower rolling resistance. https://www.tyrereviews.com...
Probably a bit late but i'm the same NC and i'm going goodyear F1 asymetric 5 15% off at halfords currently and if you look at the stats on here they seem to just outperform the michelin pilot sport and seem to be top of the tree
Hi Jonathan could you please advise me of the best tyre for a bentley continental gtc 2007 looking for maximum comfort low noise direct steering reasonable wear resistance Thanks Jonathon regards Brian
Direct steering and max comfort are usually opposing qualities, however something like the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S combines both well and should be available depending on your wheel sizes.
If your garage didn't advise you and you don't want to buy what you already use then I would rather recommend you Conti Premium Contact 6, merging comfort and sportive driving.
Hi Jonathan, Maxxis looks like a cheap enjoyable tyre for country roads, expect eco behavior :-) I would like to ask you, if is something how to convert (approximately at least) rolling resistance from kg/t to l/100km or km/l. It could give more idea about rolling resistance. I can't imagine if 7 vs. 9 kg/t is 0.02 l/100km or 1.5 l/100km.
I agree it would be nice to be able to make that conversion easily, but sadly it's not easily to do accurately. Tyres account for around 20% of a cars rolling resistance, and there's around a 30% difference in best to worse, so there's around a 6% difference in fuel use (this is very very approx)
Very good overall test but some tyres are two years old. Two years old rubber surely affect its grip, isn't it? Perhaps you should choose Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 3 instead of the Ventus Prime 3. It's newer and I believe it could score higher. Plus, I am close to buy a set and it would be great to see how it performs among the rest :)
Interesting reading and Viewing. I have noticed test vary quite a lot depending on wheel size or Speed and load rating. This was explored when I recently bought the Falken Tyres for my car - one test said they are not so comfortable (v94) another said they were comfortable. (Mine seem to be the best of all worlds with a 195/55/16 91V.) The stiffer 94 apparently handled better, but was less comfortable. It would be interesting to explore this and do a test, maybe with 2 similar rated brands of tyre, and compare H, V & W with the different load options and I suspect they will bring some quite different results...
One issue is that is varies between brands and sizes. Some brands, in some sizes, produce exactly the same tyre for the different speed and load ratings, just print a different sidewall!
I can understand the economical thinking with this, but yet it seems very deceptive to me. There will, of course, be a safety factor designed into the tyres so that an 'H 130mph' Tyre is probably safe still at a higher speed. However the insurance companies would not buy into that!
Ok that's a weird thing to do - buy Oh well. I imagine that is not true of all tyres as its clear there are differences to be found - I have noticed it in Tyre shops where a higher speed rating and load rating tyre had a far stiffer side wall to the lower one ;)
You are totally correct, these tyres are in the minority, there's usually differences which you can easily feel with the good old fashioned sidewall squeeze :)
I don't know how it was measured - it would take a longer time to asses I would imagine - but tyres can and do feel a lot different on bumpy road surfaces and speed bumps. A while back I had more comfortable tyres on the front and there was a pronounced difference riding over rough surfaces and especially speed bums as the front absorbed it nicely and the back thumped over it harshly - now I am happy as both axles feel similar. But comfort is still a relative thing both to the car and to the driver and yet it plays its part for many of us - especially townies with bad road surfaces
Hi, I'm wondering if low score in comfort test of Pirelli and Falken tyres may be due to the fact that those tyres are rated 94, while all others are 91?
Right, you did mention it, I missed it - sorry:) Comfort and noise is quite important to me, but not enough to take the BF Goodrich which seems like a worse tyre overall than Falken. Guess I'll take my chances with 91V Falken or gamble a bit more with the new, untested Vredestein Ultrac which seems to be very well priced for a premium brand. Thanks for the test, it was really helpful and enjoyable to watch!
The reason is: Vredestein is not generally considered as one of the big 6 premium brands, also here is it classified among the Mid-Range tyres: https://www.tyrereviews.com... But they can be very good tyres, especially when new or updated models.
That's totally misleading and wrong conception..there are no premium brands! Put it simply..good tire with a good price and value..other one is overpricing Crap!
I'm looking at getting some Michelin pilot sport 4s. At the moment I'm running 225-35-19 but they look stretched and want a bit more of a comfortable ride so think 235-35-19 would be better. Will this effect the handling in any way or performance of the tyre ?
Differences in performance will be small, but more importantly check it will fit with other owners, and some insurance companies classify it as a modification so be sure to let them know.
Firestone Roadhawk was not used in this test eventhough you did mentioned before that it is a similar to Bridgestone T005. How would you compare them to the likes of Hankook and BF Goodrich if they are similarly priced though.
No worries. I have already checked all the tests. I asked cause you did recommend it alongside T005 in a previous "best of" in 2018. Keep up the good work. Cheers. https://youtu.be/QseDx-aBaK...
They were promising at launch but recent testing and especially user reviews shows they haven't stood the test of time. Something like the Maxxis HP5 would be a better midrange tyre.
Compelling and useful video, and a brilliant effort. Thank you for your hard work once again. I think this test would be complete with some cold greasy UK road testing, and less of a bias towards on the limit performance, as I think it is less relevant to an 'everyday tyre'. I think subjective handling and NVH are much more important. May be my own bias or lack of understanding, but to me aquaplaning is such a rare event that unless a tyre is disastrously bad it's ability to go 10km/h faster through a stream wouldn't be a major factor in my purchasing equation. Of course, it's still valuable data to have, and I don't underestimate how tough it can be to create a hypothetic 'average' consumer looking for an 'everyday' tyre.
I value aquaplaning less than a lot of the others for that very reason, but it's still important overall.
Cold and greasing testing would be the dream, but there's only one place I know of in the world you have a hope of getting reliable data (test world) and even then it's not accurate enough to get in testing.
In the UK must exist testing places where is cold and greasing. Either on race/rallye circuits or e.g. where the UK tyre manufacturer Cooper tests its tyres. Dtto where the UK tyre tests take place.
It's about a consistent condition over a test, which can be multiple hours. There's no where in the UK that can offer that. Just going out one morning might be fine for the first set, but by the third set the surface would have changed
What?? Consistent condition over a test LMAO Where you get that from? Guess what.. that's how people drive on daily basis in UK non consistent conditions! And definitely they are not going to drive on the Continental private track or similar facility's where you conduct your meaningless test.
I cannot unravel what would be my best next Tyre. For every tyre I think I have it - I seem to discover a critical issue - like poor braking in the wet, excessive rolling resistance or aquaplaning issues. I have a 2017 Seat Ibiza 195/55/16 Current fronts are Dunlop Sp Sport Blue response - like quietness comfort rolling resistance directional stability - but slightly tend to wheelspin in the wet. It had Conti PC 5's which were hard and harsh generally not quite as good all round as the Dunlop but good dry handling. Previous Car had Maxxis HP5 very good but noticeably poor on fuel economy. Currently considering Good Year Efficient Grip 2 - concerned about braking and aqua, Falken ZIEX 310 Eco and noise, Maxxis (again), Possibly Nokian but availability is an issue I guess my Priorities Are *Wet Braking and performance; *Dry Braking and Performance: *Aquaplaning (Equal with other two really): *Comfort and noise: *Rolling resistance - although I don't mind Rolling resistance not be class leading it is still quite important to me
Something tells me I can't tell you anything you don't already know from research :) My only comment would be that a lot of testers are starting to devalue aquaplaning as it's a rare condition on the road, so with your other requirements I'd be looking at the EGP2 or the Bridgestone Turanza T005
Thanks. While it is good to be aware and do some homework I am probably at risk of over thinking it! Either of the two you suggest should be fine I am sure, and while the Dunlops have been nice to drive, but they would probably fall behind these 2 in a direct comparison now. Incidentally I thought long and hard about the Maxxis - but having had them I can say the Economy is a big difference and the wear also is not good - not to mention how many more punctures I seemed to get with them! Could just be coincidence?? The only question now being -0 how much difference would it make with the GY EGP2 as it only comes in V87 as opposed to V91 XL I currently run..?
I'm not sure on the puncture question, people report all the time that X brand punctures a lot, when in reality a nail will go through any brand of sidewall.
I'm not sure I understand the load rating question in relation to the weather. I'm not sure there would be a significant difference between the 87 and 91 across the temperature range
Just FYI the Falken is as comfy as the Dunlop SP Blue response in 195/55/16 91V but better wet braking and traction.. happy to take my chances with rolling resistance as I have a pretty economical car anyway - I would prefer to have Handling and grip and so far the Falkens seem fine
I'd appreciate your thoughts on the below please: Will need to replace my front tyres soon and i've shopped around and pulled together my own shortlist. The car is a Alfa Guilietta Diesel (170) FWD, currently has a set of GY Eagle F1 Asy 3's all round.
It's really difficult to say what my priorities are because everything is important - dry grip/handling, wet grip/handling, economy (rolling resistance and wear), noise, comfort (probably in that order). Which would you recommend from the below (can have both tyres fitted from £140-£150) 225 45 R17's Bridgestone Turanza T005 Fulda Sport Control 2 GY Eagle F1 Asy 5 GY EfficientGrip Performance 2 Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 2 Nexen NFera Sport
I'm leaning toward either of the GY and not sure whether i'd prefer the economy of the efficientgrip vs the dynamics of the eagle f1.
Can you do a review targetted at people buy (or might buy) run-flats? I've seen the review of the Bridgestone Driveguard which compared it with non-run-flats. That was useful but I'd like to see a comparison of run-flats from different manufacturers. My BMW had Bridgestone 225/45 R17 run-flats when new and I've always replaced them with exactly the same Bridgestone run-flats. This time, I decided to go for Michelin Primacy (partly based on what I read on this site) in the run-flat version and I had to settle for Primacy 3 run-flat because they don't make a Primacy 4 run-flat in that size. My Karoq has Primacy 3 non-run-flat and I'm considering fitting it with Primacy 3 run-flat.
Would you please help answer some of the following questions:
1. Would a review of run-flats produce broadly the same rankings as the reviews of non-run-flats?
2. Is the difference between run-flat and non-run-flat versions of the same tyre largely the same across manufacturers. 3. Is there a useful rule of thumb for difference in comfort (such as 'switching from non-run-flat to run-flat gives a decrease in comfort equivalent to increasing rim size by 5%')? 4. Other than comfort, what are the other effects on performance?
Great idea. Before the answer from Jonathan will come, I guess, I would like to ask you: Why do you prefer less comfortable run-flats and how many punctures have you had? Because choosing e.g. an old generation Primacy 3 over the new and better Primacy 4 just because of run-flat versions size existence...I would personally justify only with frequent punctures, while there I would still consider how to avoid the reason of the punctures first, not only the consequence (run-flat tyres as a must).
1) Maybe similar, but not exactly the same 2) No, for example Bridgestone Driveguard tech makes their runflats closer to non-runflats 3) Not that I know of, sorry 4) Wet grip is usually reduced, noise levels higher, and rolling resistance higher, plus you can't repair them if they puncture.
I'm not sure why SEAL tyres aren't more popular.
I'm always trying to do a runflat test, but no one wants to be included lol
Thanks. 'Similar but not exactly the same' is what I'll work with for now. I was introduced to runflats by BMW and they will have reasons for fitting them on new cars but I don't know what those reasons are. Gaining runflat ability is a trade-off. Just like the debate over summer/winter/all-season tyres, it's a matter of getting objective data for each parameter for each brand to inform a trade-off. I look forward to the day when there are objective tests.
Comfort: I tolerate my current level of comfort on runflats. I don't prefer discomfort, I like comfort and would like more if it's available within my trade-offs. Whatever the level of comfort I already have, I won't exchange runflat capability for an increase in comfort.
Rolling resistence: I tolerate my fuel consumption but I'm always keen to improve. I'd really like data on rolling resistence. Am I right in thinking the measure is kilograms per tonne ('kg/t' rather than 'kg t')? If the Bridgestone runflat is 10% worse than the non-runflat it would be a shame but I'd accept it as still within the range of non-runflats. If it were 50% worse then that would be serious.
Noise: Same applies. I tolerate the current noise level but I'm keen to improve. If the noise penalty is 1 dB that would be significant. If it is 0.2 dB then less so.
Wet grip: The everyday driving review shows a range of wet braking distance around 36 m to 46 m. If runflats added 2 metres I think that would be significant. If the difference were less than 1 metre then it might be less significant than choosing a different brand.This is a parameter I take seriously.
Repair: I had totally forgotten the concept of repair. I may (must?) have had non-runflats repaired in the past but I can't recall doing so. Replacement rather than repair is a cost factor, as is initial purchase when worn. Unlike the performance parameters, the price is the one parameter I have available. I won't exchange runflat for the reduction in renewal/replacement price based on current price differences.
Frequency. I don't often have punctures so it's a fair point. However each time I've had a runflat puncture it's reminded me of why I like them and why I want to make them available to other drivers of my car. Ironically, I think there's a minimum frequency of punctures needed to ensure universal human skill and equipment capability are maintained - we're probably below that frequency.
My experience is that advice from car forums and review sites is generally negative about runflats. So it doesn't surprise me that the downsides are highlighted here. Bridgestone is trying to counter that but it's marketing hasn't helped me because they're trying to convert people and I'm already converted. BMW don't appear to justify their decision to fit runflats by default despite their customer base being car enthusiasts.
Why does the T005 section say 'low aquaplaning resistance' and the BF Goodrich says 'average aquaplaining resistance' when the T005 scored higher than the BF Goodrich?
Hi again. I wonder, is there any reason for the United States to have access to better tyres than us? I do not understand why, but they have for example a Michelin Pilot A/S 3 that apparently is better than all our all weather tyres... :( this is both annoying and sad.
I guess Jonathan could ask Michelin directly and when already then I add a 2nd question: Why they already offer their Cross Climate 2 in the USA, while in the EU they consciously postponed the launch of the sales to the Spring 2021.
I expect the answer like: We have had more spare capacity in our American factories and the US climate and road conditions are quite different than in Europe.
P.S. Continental also postponed the launch of their newest winter model TS 870 also to the year 2021, arguing with their limited factory capacities, while odd enough closing their technical award winning tyre factory in Aachen by the end of 2021...1800 jobs impacted.
Bridgestone closing their only one EU factory in the city of Bethun in France from about the 2Q 2021, 863 jobs impacted, producing mostly smaller tyre sizes...arguing with low margins, losing market share and overproduction from Asia alias China.
Regarding US tyres, I used to think they were "better" too, but the truth is the performance of tyres like the PS4 AS and the DWS range by Conti is more bias towards long mileage than grip, and our summer and all season tyres vastly out perform them. Europe has much higher wet grip demands than the US.
Regarding the CC2, I have asked people at Michelin in the UK and Europe and no one can really give an answer as why NA moved ahead first. I believe it's a slightly different version of the tyre we will get.
I just came back to Europe from a business trip to Boston where I saw a Volvo V60 with a set of 4 Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S syze 235/45 R17 (yes, seventeen, and yes the 4 S!). It's seems the Americans can have it all! Why does a european brand treat us, europeans, like this?!
Yep, if the Bridgestone tests as good as initial impressions suggests then people will migrate to that and the GY F1 (which is currently very hard to source). Which you have to think Michelin will respond to.
No is not.! For example.. Falken FK510 in overall miles better then your Michelin Pilot Sport4 and I've tried them both on same car in Real life test! Michelin is little harder tyre compound and obviously will be slightly better in warmer weather..but not to that degree that I'll jumping around them in my grand ma under pants! That's the reason in other test where you conducted it in Texas on continental track facility..there were tyres Falken FK510 Toyo Proxes Sport and other..obviously you knew that LoL
My actual tyries are Continental Premium Contact 2 205/55 R16. I plan to replace them for some new in next year. I am looking for more "sporty" tyries which can last longer in real life than e.g. 25 000km. Could you please recommend something in 205/55 R16 size? Thank you in advance!
P.S. I was wondering if Goodyear efficientgrip performance 2, but reinforced (XL) would be a good idea. What is your opinion?
Thank you for fast answer! After watching your video I chose already Premium Contact6, but then I checked users reviews, where I found complaints about fast wear. So, I again stared to read reviews with an idea to find a tyre which lasts longer and to get it reinforced version. I have read that the XL or reinforced tyres are more stiff than standard. What do you think about this aproach: to chose a tyre which is "not sporty" but in XL or reinforced version? Can regular tyre become "sporty" in XL or reinforced version?
Thank you! If XL and non-XL are sometimes the same, I will not focus on it. I will stay with PC6 then. In your last comparison: "Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 vs Asymmetric 3 vs Continental PremiumContact 6 - In depth test" you show wear data - bases on this PC6 wear out "slowly". Is this objective test you mentioned above? Could you give a source of this objecctive wear test? Thank you!
Thank you! I Have found that: https://www.tyrereviews.co.... . However, I am wondering if review of German tyre by German Automobile Magazine is really objective.
Many years ago, I was running a set of Continental Premium Contact 2s, but the tyre's wet grip dropped off drastically after about 25000Km (50% used). Do you have a similar experience?
Because of this unpleasant experience, I've fitted only Michelins since then, and Michelins don't seem to suffer from this 'drop off the cliff' issue. Are Michelins 'special', or was it just bad luck and I got a bad production batch?
Tyre technology has moved on a lot since the PC2 days :) I run the PC6 on my own car and after 10,000 miles + and 2 track events, they're still great :)
The 205/55 r 15 91 V is the most commonly used and produced tyre size with nearly 12% of the total market (however losing a bit to more common SUV sizes and due to market trends moving to 225/45 r 17 and 225/40 r 18 for mid size vehicles) therefore the big battle among different brands should happen here with companies churning new products to gain increased slices of the tyre market. I am positively surprised by Goodyear's efforts to climb the European market entering in direct competition with Michelin and Continental offering really balanced products what is sad is that a glorious brand, Dunlop is being neglected at the moment. All factors considered I would go for Goodyear for my next tyres replacement.
Enrico, Dunlop just released "Sport All Season" new tyre, I believe successor of the summer Bluresponse should follow like in the case of GY EFG2. In the past both brands have introduced their new models together.
Looking for some advice please. I am taking part in a charity drive to Norway in February next year. I am using a 2007 ex London Taxi and I am looking at good winter tyres for the trip. Does anyone have any recommendations please?
@TyreReviews my friend which tyre would you recommend for a 2012 170bhp VW Sharan with small kids? I have 3 options on the table, Hankook K125 (450€), Primacy 4 (590€) and Continental 6 (530). From your review, the Maxxis seems to be an option to consider too. Any other options you might think of?
Seems like Premium 6 doesn't come on my size, only Premium 5 (might have been what I've been quoted for). Still safer bet? Oh, I'm downsizing from 225/45R18 to 16" for better comfort.
Got the Primacy 4 installed yesterday, and big test this weekend. But noticeably better ride at stock 2.5bar, will decrease a little to 2.3 bar for better comfort.
Mind if I ask best road tyre options for a Frontera B, 245/70R16?
@TyreReviews:disqus - I know you won't like this suggestion but I know there is healthy demand for wear testing (which can then be linked to value over the lifetime of the tyre and even be adjusted for rolling resistance using analytics if you have the tech to do that!).
Can you think about a practical way of testing wear? I've seen you constructively criticise milling of tyres, which I believe would be the easiest way of doing a test with an element of control - even though it's not perfect as a methodology, I think this is what is missing from this test to make it just about perfect.
I do wish all the other publications would address this too.
I'm in talks with manufacturers to see where their latest generation road machines are in terms of good data. Hopefully there will be a solution for next year :)
@TyreReviews:disqus thank you for this comparison! It's extremely useful! I have two qustions for which I would like to have your point of view: - Why you didn't test the curve aquaplaning? I've seen that it's notmally tested in other tyre comparisons as it is strictly related to safety (I've found myself in aquaplaning conditions once during a turn and it is something that I would never reccomend to anyone!). Do you have any data in this regard? - I was surprised by the weights that you attributed to the lap time (35%) with respect to the subjective handling (10% and 5%)...considering the tyre size, would you say that the "speed" of the tyre is more important than the feeling that the driver gets?
Sadly we didn't test curved aquaplaning. I don't find the test that reliable as a lot of things can change the result, but I do plan on testing curved aquaplaning for the all season test next month.
I believe for the majority of drivers of cars with 16" tyres aren't driving on them wanting the best handling car for enjoying track sessions, but would prefer safety criteria like overall grip. The data is still there for you to make up your own mind though :) As I said in the video, if it was for me, the Maxxis would be higher but I'm not a usual driver of these types of vehicles.
@ty@TyreReviews:disqus - Could you give some indication of how rolling resistance translates to fuel economy ? I don't know if the difference between 8kgt and 7kgt is 10, 1 or 0.1mpg difference. I know this is going to be a rough figure, but interested in the real world significance. Thanks.
Naturally it's all relative, and there's a lot of variables at play, but it might help to look at it like this.
A tyre is responsible for around 20-30% of a cars fuel consumption. The difference between 8kg/t and 7kg/t is a 13.3% reduction in the tyres rolling resistance, so approximately 13.3% of 25%. This works out to be around a 3-4% improvement in fuel use.
Great job! What I'd like to see is new tires tread heigh, it can be interesting comparison. GY EG2 seems to be good change for my actual Michelin Primacy 3, which will be soon worn out. (...or Fulda SportControl 2?..:) ) Surprice for me is the high price of new BFGoodrich Advantage in UK, here in Czech rep. they are very cheap, cheaper than Hankook, Nokian, Maxxis, Falken.... I think from these 12 selected tires only Goodride are cheaper than BFG.
We don't really have much BF market share in the UK, and with it being a new tyre it might just be that the websites haven't started to drop their pricing yet!
That looks like it was a LOT of work! I was interested in purchasing the 205/55R16 Bridgestone Turanza T005 and Michelin Primacy 4. Unfortunately for me, there are several variants for each (speed ratings, extra load vs standard load, OE). Can the actual tested tires be traced to the exact tire variant?
Yes! It could be very useful to have, at least, the load and speed ratings for future reference. Since these are very recent and easily sold tyres, I think the DOT is not really an issue.
What could be interesting and useful is to include in the future the country of manufacture. There is a general web doubt or consensus that the manufacturing site can affect the tyre, because they can have different specifications depending on the factory. We have seen that discussion in the past in this website with Hankook and Pirelli.
If you look at the results from 2020 it's not scoring overly well, and this group of tyres was so close, unfortunately some tyres had to be worse than others.
Thanks a million for all the great videos, and reviews.
I'm just wondering whether you perform these tests/reviews 'blind', or you know what tyres are fitted on the car.
Instead of comparing to a budget tyre, it'd be interesting to see how far tyre technology has progressed over the years, and compare to one, or two old standards that are still available in the market like the Michelin PS3.
Another great video and test. Exactly what I was looking for since I'm shopping around for end-of-season discounts to prepare for next summer. Current Michelins are wearing out and won't be used after the winter tyre season. Btw, I really like Nokian Wetproof and that's probably what I'm going for next. As I was looking through the testing data, every tyre is performing very well and the results are really-really close, I started wondering how much does the weight of the fuel spent play role in the testing? Do you compensate for the spent fuel by refilling the car after swapping tyre sets? Just wondering. It's probably a non-issue but the idea just hit me. Also, thank you very much for all the great information you're sharing here. Doing the god's work.
It depends on the test, and how much fuel is getting used. I think I fueled every 3rd run for dry handling, which is around 10kgs fuel so not a huge difference, and we run control tyres to account for these changes
Is there any reason why the wet braking was performed at a higher initial speed? I thought normally the dry braking would be performed at the higher speed as there are usually longer braking distances in the wet.
Reason why I'm asking is I'm creating a geeky spreadsheet model of the average temperatures and rainfall days of my town, to see which tyre comes out on top to run all year round.
I don't even own a car but I religiously watch all your videos. This by far has to be your most extensive test yet, so thanks for all the great content you've been putting out over the years!
Yokohama make some great tyres, but as there's currently less interest in the brand online, and space is limited, I didn't invite them for this test. I believe they were invited for the M2 test last year, however I couldn't get the sizes. I will work with them again for sure
It's great to finally see tyre reviews performing their own comprehensive test! The comments on real world driving are especially useful too.
Which category is most representative of an emergency swerve or lange change? i.e. most safe handling, not sporty feel?
The dry/wet handling category, or subjective dry/wet handling?
Thanks again, I'm looking forward to the upcoming all season test and hopefully some more content about worn tyre performance (I've just noticed Goodyear has started to include this in their marketing of the V4S G-3).
Sadly I won't be able to test worn performance for this years all season test.
Regarding the lane change, it's not something we specifically test, but I feel that the handling tests will give you a better idea on how the tyre reacts
My car, an Alfa Romeo 159 2.0 JTDm, is on Falken ZIEX ZE310 EC for approximately 2,5 years now. Tire size is 215/50-17. I like them a lot! However, I am also very curious how the Azenis FK510 drives. Maybe next time I try that tire.
Amazing test! Twelve tyres certainly meant a lot of time, effort and money! Very interesting results as well! I absolutely agree that the subjective handling is mandatory in any tyre test as it is the real world data a driver can get on a daily basis from a tyre, and what is more fun, reassuring and rewarding. As an owner of an Audi with this tyre size I opted for a set of Michelin Pilot Sport 4, coming from some Dunlop SportBluResponse (which put a lot of smiles in my face). If money was an issue I would certainly went for Continental PC6, since the Michelins PS4 are considerably more expensive than the Contis (you could buy 5 Contis for the price of 4 Michelins ...). Even so, it was a pity the PS4 (91 W or 91 Y) wasn't considered but I suppose it wouldn't be fair to test both the Primacy 4 and the PS4 in the same test, although it would be very interesting. Maybe next time. Keep up with the good work!
I wish I could have included the PS4, it would have been really interesting, but sadly the space was tight. I was only meant to test 10 patterns, 12 was pushing it, and there were other brands like nexen and yoko I'd have loved to included but didn't have the space.
Would you please expand a little on the subjective wet handling of the PC6? (I assume that there is more going on than the well documented comparatively mediocre aquaplaning qualities of the tyre.)
There's not much above what I've said in this video, and the Asym 3 vs asym 5 vs PC6 video. At that water depth it seems to struggle on the rear in curves, an causing oversteer balance and the resulting slower laptime. It's not something I've found on the road, or on less water
I was happy to see the new Uniroyal, Goodyear and Pirelli in your review. The Pirelli, which is sure made for high mileage istead of ultimate grip, disappointed a bit. The Goodyear looks overall interesting, good grip, low rolling resistance and high probably high mileage. The Uniroyal did what I except: Awesome aquaplaning resistance, good wet handling, but unsporty feeling.
The Falken show similar properties to the FK510. It´s a good tyre, but still don´t like the soft and inaccurate steering.
Hope you will some day also include brands like Yokohama, Fulda and Vredestein instead of the million-times reviewed models from Conti, Bridgestone and Michelin :)
I was disappointed with the Pirelli, it felt like a fine tyre, it was enjoyable to drive, but the compound didn't seem to give a huge amount of grip in the wet - perhaps as you say this will be paid back with mileage.
Vred were invited but declined as they're due a product update soon, Fulda I like as a brand but didn't really have the space (I was only meant to test 10 tyres) and Yoko don't really have an interesting tyre in this segment. I will try and include them in more tests, especially the more sporty and suv tests due.
The Falken show similar properties to the FK510. It´s a good tyre, but still don´t like the soft and inaccurate steering. s You can easily spot the IDIOT or Fake reviews just based on the comment ! In Fact the Stupid Idiot Scour don't eve had this particular tyre!
Suggestion: Could you include / state the speeds the braking tests were conducted at in all tests from now on?
It seems to me that with a couple of exceptions, there really isn’t much in the dry braking performance of the tyres tested, unless this was tested at lower speeds?
That´s the reason why I like reviews with "Subjective Handling". I don´t have the time to look in corners always on my speedometer to see differences between 1 and 5 km/h, but I feel how good the tyre is at steering and feedback.
Sadly not all magazines test it or the result is hidden in the overall Handling result. Best in this discipline is the magazine "sport auto" which also write in the text how the tyres feel in handling.
Huh, the review itself or the publish of the review?
The magazines I know test winter tyres mostly january/february and publish the results in end of september or begin of october, so the newest tyres mostly not included.
Same for the summer tyres, the test is more than a half year before it´s published.
The German magazines, yes. I was planning on testing March for publication April, Auto Express and EVO usually test the month before publication and like to test in the summer, which is why they're so late in the year
Good comparison!. I am also trying to compare the results with the Teknikens 17 summer test and the TÜV test provided for Goodyear. I am focused in the Goodyears and the Michelins.
It seems that the TÜV test results regarding dry braking for the Goodyear Efficientgrip Performance 2 are contradictory with the Michelin Primacy 4 results on the tests. Usually the Michelins are very good in this aspect, as they are in this test and the Teknikens one. The Goodyear seems to balance better wet and dry braking, while the Michelin is better at dry braking. So, I am also wondering about the TÜV tread wear test of the Goodyears, if they are really superior to the Michelins.
In the video it seems that the Michelin is a well balanced tire, but the results in wet braking are usually worse than many tires, and of course worse than the Goodyears. So, it is quite a mess for me. I am trying to decide which one of those to buy. I can buy both at the same price, but I want them to last 5 years at last! Many thanks!
I answered on Youtube, but in short, if tread life is your thing, the Michelin is currently more proven so that would be where my money would go if all else is equal in your eyes :)
Thanks! I also posted here because I supposed you would prefer this platform.
My concern is about the difference in wet braking. So, I have to decide between higher mileage but worse wet braking of the Michelin against the supposed lower mileage but better wet braking of the Goodyear. At least I can purchase them all at the same orice, so one thing LEDs to take Ingo account.
I would love to see a test about de tread wear of the Goodyears Performance 2, but I think I will have to decide without that.
The TUV test shows the GY beating the Michelin in both wear and mileage, however as it was only tested at new we can't be sure how the tyres will perform at lower tread depths.
Yes. I had a look at the TÜV Test, but they measured a shorter dry braking distance than the Michelins. Just the contrary to any test including both, as this wonderful one you performed.
Maybe one of the reasons was that, in the TÜV Test, the Performances 2 were provided by Goodyear instead of buying them, as it was done with the rest of the tires.
So, the contradictive result make me wonder if the Goodyear really beat the Michelin in tread wear. And that is where I am! Thanks!
It certainly seems like the Conti has had an update between the tyres tested with TUV and the ones I tested. It's not unusual for tyres to have significant midlife updates that go unannounced, and it certainly makes explaining tyre tests and making the correct tyre buying choice super tricky at points!
The Conti in the TUV test was manufactured in the 9th week 2019, a bit old. So, supposedly now they have better wet braking and maybe reduced rolling resistance, while not changing aquaplaning behaviour.... Too good... I think it might be at the expense of increasing tread wear...
On the other hand, if I assume similar tread wear of the Performace 1 and Dunlop Bluresponse, theses last ones lasted almost 4 years in my car. Maybe the Performances 2 last 5 years in my car and the Michelins go to 8 years :-)
I am looking for sporty tyres for my Mitsubishi Colt 1.3 95hp for all year long in Athens, Greece. I am going with summer tyres and 195/50/r15 size. Now i got Bridgestone turanza t005, which are decent but would like more sporty with perhaps drawbacks in fuel economy and noise. I am thinking about Michelin ps3, Yokohama advan, toyo tr1 and Uniroyal rainsports 5. Any recommendations?
Definitely not the Uniroyals, they're quite boaty feeling. Which Yoko is in your size? The advan range is usually a little more sporty!
Advan fleva V701
Never tested it, sorry :( A lot of Clio 182 people like the PS3 though, not sure if that helps
Ok thanks for answering ?
Hi I would really enjoy a re visit to the 16inch tyre test for Summer tyres - a very common size I feel - personally I have 195/55/16 I keep searching again fir an updated version. I have been pleased with the Falken ZIEX 310 a great all rounder and clearly better grip and handling than the Dunlop SP Sport Blue response I also have.
But time pushes on and it would be good to see how they all stack up now before my next purchase (Dunlops approaching 5 years old so will have to go) Rolling Resistance is not an issue for my Falkens - I have exceded 60mpg in my little Ibiza
Hi Jonathan
I’m after new boots for my ladies car, 205,50,17 I notice there never seems to be any Avons in your tests is there any reason for this? Do you have any idea how the ZV7 compares to the competition? Many reports say very good but that gives no comparison. Interested in your thoughts.
I know the website is bad, but is it that hard to use?!
https://www.tyrereviews.com...
click "all tests"
There's 11 separate tests with the ZV7, including mine last year!
Hi Jonathan,
I find these reviews very useful and objective, so keep up the same way. Thumbs up!
I was looking for a new set of tires, and thinking between Conti PremiumContact 6 and Michelin Primacy 4. I was more towards Conti, but in this review I noticed that Turanza T005 is more "overall balanced tire" so I am now between Conti and T005. I will run them in 225/45/17 size on my Civic 8 gen, so any help in getting final decision?
Thanks!
Does anybody know for what weight index were 205/55 R16 tested?
91V, 94V?
I’m in position to buy all 4 new summer tyres. I need your expert opinion.
On my VW Passat Variant 2.0TDI is written, weight front 1120kg, back a 1110kg.
I can install 205/55 R16 91V or 205/55 R16 94V or 215/55 R16 97W.
Does the body roll less with bigger weight index?
What is the ride comfort?
Is the smaller tyre quieter?
Thanks and regards, Bostjan
The load and speed index are under each tyre picture in the results
Ejej, now I see it ...
. I need your expert opinion.
On my VW Passat Variant 2.0TDI is written, weight front 1120kg, back a 1110kg.
I can install 205/55 R16 91V or 205/55 R16 94V or 215/55 R16 97W.
1. Does the body roll less with bigger weight index?
2. Is the ride different on bigger wheels?
3. What is the ride comfort?
4. Is the smaller tyre quieter?
5. Which tyre would you recommend for vw passat variant?
Thanks and regards, Bostjan
If your car specifies 94 load rating, no you can't install the 91.
In theory the lower load index should be slightly more comfortable and slightly less responsive (more "body roll") but sometimes the differences would be too small to notice
in my car permission booklet in states that I can use a different tyre sizes, these sizes are one of them:
205/55 R16 91V
205/55 R16 94V
215/55 R16 97W.
Right now I have a 205/55 R16 91V these on.
I'm wondering, seeking for the info, if a ride would be better with 205/55 R16 94V or 215/55 R16 97W. Does anyone have this experience?
Will it be that kind of a difference?
And there is also a matter of costs ... 215/55 R16 97W costs around 40€ per tyre than a 205/55 R16 91V.
If I look at tests for 205/55 R16 is it comparable to 205/55 R16 94V or 215/55 R16?
Could you please review the Toyo Proxes CF2 next time? I think they may be a very good option and would like to see how they stand against the competition
It's been tested a few times and never done that well https://www.tyrereviews.com...
I'm really surprised with the results. The falken did great compared to the most rated tyres manufacturers.
I have a Citroen cactus 1.2 turbo(205/55/16) and about to replace the Goodyear that came with the car, they are 4.5 years old and it shows.
I was leaning toward the primacy4 or the efficientgrip but seeing the result the falken "has entered the game"
What do you recommend? Looking for the best grip and quiet tyres. I live in a place where is mostly sunny throughout the year with maybe 30-40 rainy days
All three at great options, even if the primacy 4 didn't do too well in this test, it's won many other tests. Falken is also very good value
Thinking about buying tyres for my Mitsubishi Colt 1.3 cleartec. Because i live in Athens Greece and i like fast driving for time to time, i will go for summer tyre. I will put 195/50r15 on. Any recommendations, considering i want good fuel economy, good grip all around but especially for the wet? I was thinking about turanzas, ventus prime, efficientgrip or the falkens...
All good choices! Though the Maxxis is probably the most sporty feeling!
Looks like maxxis has only van tyre (load rating 86) in my size. But has positive feedback generally.
Hello, I drive a Volvo S40 T4(2002) with 200HP at 1270KG. I'm looking for new 215/45/R17 tires. I've had Pilot Sports 4 91Y, but I want to focus a lot more on comfort. I've narrowed it down to: Uniroyal Rainsport 5 87Y, BFGoodrich Advantage 91W, switch to 16". The BFGoodrich seems more designed for comfort, but the Uniroyal has a lower weight class. Any ideas?
My only idea was part of this test. Both are super comfortable tyres, but I'd prefer the wet performance of the Uniroyal
Alrighty, Thanks a million :)
Hi There, I currently drive a BMW 520d (F11) with Michelin PS4's all around 245/40/19. I only got around 8K miles from the rears last year with motorway/slight spirited driving. I'm in need of a replacement and wondering if something like a Primacy3 will gain me better longevity or due to such a small compound of rubber due to the diameter I'm best of just getting a cheaper performance tyre like a Asymmetric 5. Many Thanks in advance!
Asymmetric 5 has been doing extremely well in wear testing, usually ahead of the PS4 so I'd give that a shot
Perfect! thanks so much for the quick reply.
Hi Jonathan, I drive a mk2 focus 1.8 and having some trouble deciding on the right summer tires. I am a sporty driver but also value comfort. The car came with premium contact 2's which were too stiff for my liking so I had them replaced them with primacy 3. But these were too soft and the steering feedback really bad. I tried dunlop sport blu response which had the right amount of handling without compromising the comfort. But these are not great on the wet and the tyres spin on hard acceleration in the wet. I am looking for a simlar tyre thats more sport oriented but not too stiff, and peforms better in the wet. Can you help me find something suitable?
If the Pilot Sport 4 or Asymmetric 5 are available in your size I'd be looking there.
Thank you for the reply. My size is 205/55 R16's. That rules out the Asymmetric 5. Will try the the Pilot Sport 4 out but I fear they maybe a bit too stiff based on the reviews here. What would be next best option if we were to go one level down on the sportiness ?
The PS4 certainly isn't stiff!
Thanks. I will give them a try. ?
I've not tested it, so only know what's on the site, sorry!
I'd probably take the Falken of that bunch!
I've just discovered this test and followed through on the video - you recommended the NS2R for ultimate weekend on a 195/50R15 a moment ago, if I was to go a step-down towards a more "normal" performance summer tyre would the Maxxis be your next choice on something like an MX-5? Pure handling, ignoring comfort.
I certainly enjoyed the 16" HP5's handling, it was sharp (for the tyre type.) I couldn't promise it would carry over to 15" as they usually move to a different construction but it's a good place to start.
Appreciate your input, thanks.
Which summer tires would you recommend for a 2015 VW Polo 1.4TSI BlueGT? Tire size is 215/40/R17.
The new Continental EcoContact 6 looks good on paper, but can't find any test of it?
The best tyres in this test would be my recommendation :)
Hello.
The results of a tyre in different tests are sometimes confusing. The falken ziex here scores highly however on the "2021 Sport Auto Summer Tyre Test" for example is on the last places. It was a model I was interested for 215-50-r17-w-95 however the low comfort ratings together with some indications of not so good wet performance in some other testa makes me think again.
Thank you for your work.
I was trying to search for reviews on the site specific of tyres of that size only but it is not possible, right?
https://www.tyrereviews.com... I'm afraid this is as close as it can get at the moment, it's not very good
Explain something to me please..because your tests are driving me crazy!! Are you sure you tested with reliability and without bias? How come the Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125 comes as " Not recommended" and last in the overall ranking in 2020 when this test took place, and now in 2021 it comes FIRST in both wet and dry conditions?? What or who should we believe? Please take a look at this year's results!!! Please let me know what you have to say about this madness!! https://www.tyrereviews.com... AND MAINLY HERE!! https://www.tyrereviews.com...
Because that's how the tyre performed in my test in 2020, and the test you linked (both are the same test) is how the tyre performed in 2021. Most likely explication is the tyre had a mid-life update.
I was surprised the Hankook did badly in my test too.
sooo, quick question : Are the tests relatively the same between the normal tires and the runflat tires ? So for example if the Turanza T005 have relatively good reviews / tests , will the T005 RFT be as good as it ? ( maybe a slight discomfort - etc... )
I don't actually know but I do believe the DriveGuard T005 is one of the better runflat tyres. Something I do need to test!
Hi Jon, great stuff as always!!!
Funny situation here. I keep reading that the Falken ZIEX ZE310 are great for their price... I am in Norway and they cost 942kr each...to put that into perspective I can get (at the same shop too) Continental PremiumContact 6 or Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 cheaper at around 750 each!!
At these prices what would you go for?
I will put them on an 2010 Audi A3. Safety is important but I am a fan of direct steering and a nice feel of control when driving
At those prices, not the Falken. If you want steering,go Conti!
Cheers. I guess I cant go wront with either though I am leaning towards the conti. The only negatives I see in peoples reviews here are wear and noise and in your review aquaplaning, they are not really bad in either are they?
Aquaplaning seems to depend on size, I'm currently testing in 18" and they've been fine.
Thats great news!
I found some new prices elsewhere. All three are simillar at the best prices I have found, with the Conti being about 12% more expensive than the other two.
In this case would you still recommend Conti PremiumContact 6 or something else?
"The EGP2 would be a solid choice", if you target also the fuel economy and the tyres longevity (km), in both better than CPC 6. See the recent ADAC test for 205/55 R16 at the homepage, with all data: https://www.tyrereviews.com... P.S. +Their silence you will get as a bonus.
Yes, and thanks for the suggestion but there is one problem...
"The Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 has average steering and can feel imprecise during dry handling" That is from the ADAC test.
Economy in fuel and tire life are great, but I only use summer tires 6-7 months a year. The contis will probably get old rather than wear out, and a bit of noise is worth it for better handling and breaking.
In general for grip; wider in dry, narrower in wet/cold/snow - ever seen a WRC car on wide tyres when the surfaces are cr4p (deep sand excepted)?
Dear Jonathan, thank you for the review. I have a Golf GTi mk7.5 with 225/40/18 tyres currently Michelin PS4 tyres which i find very noisy on course/rough surfaces. I'm looking for quiet tyres (quiet in the cabin) - what would you recommend? Goodyear efficient grip performance 2 tyres that performed well in this test (albeit a different size but tested on a mk7 Golf), or the older original Goodyear efficient grip performance tyre? Or something else?
Thank you
The EGP2 would be a solid choice :)
HI, thanks for your reply. I've checked and cannot see i can get the EGP2 for 225/40/18, would you recommend the EGP tyres for the quietest premium tyre for my size? Or something else? Thanks
There certainly should be some EGP2s, perhaps there was stock issues. The T005 is usually a low noise tyre too, however I've not tested touring tyres in 18" so worth checking to seee if there's a test on the site
Amazing help for everyone! Thanks you!
I have one question because my car is always on the sun (no garage, no shades all the time, as we know that is the worst possible case for tires), can you tell us what is the best products that we can buy and apply it for protection(for tires).
Thank you, again!
Parasol
Jonathan
Need your help to decide on mx5 nd (g184@205 45 17); Yoko A052, ad08rs or the all new BS Potenza Sport.
I do spirited Swiss mountain driving. Looking foreward to get your recom. Thanks Roland
My knowledge of the yokos is limited, and I've never driven on the new bridgestone! I would say that the new bridgestone is a road tyre and the other two more track focused so the other two will be more fun if it's mostly dry weather driving you do, plus they're proven on lighter cars. I'd probably put my money into the A052.
Thanks a lot. Regarding light car: A052 is 88W, ad08rs is available in 84W. Lets forget about the huge Price difference for the moment, both or still clearly A052?
As I've not driven on either in a test, I'm not sure, I'm sure you'll enjoy both!
In 225/45 R17, (basically the size you want) those Yokohamas were tested in a Mazda MX5 Cup, back in 2019:
https://www.tyrereviews.com...
The A052 seems to be a very safe bet, but for dry conditions only. They tested the Yoko AD08R, not the 08RS, tough, which has (the latter) lower rolling resistance.
https://www.tyrereviews.com...
Such a great and fun car to drive with top tyres on swiss mountain roads... You have no idea of how much I envy you! :-)
Just found, accidentally, a test from 2010 of the Yoko Advan Neova AD08 in a Mazda MX 5 Cup in 205/45 R17 syze:
https://www.tyrereviews.com...
In my case with te same car and 205/45 R17, driving usually in wet conditions and doing spiriting mountain driving, Which would be your recommendation? Don’t forget the Michelin Pilot Super Sport that seems to be available in this size in my county (Spain)
Waiting with great interest the results of the tests of the new Potenza Sport ?
I am in the same case (MX5 ND 184).
What about Michelin Súper Sport? Is the best sport road focused tyre in 205/45 R17? (Seems to be available in this size)
I drive usually my car in wet conditions
The Bridgestone will very likely outperform the MPSS in the wet.
In 225/45 R17, (basically the size you want) those Yokohamas were tested in a Mazda MX5 Cup, back in 2019:
https://www.tyrereviews.com...
The A052 seems to be a very safe bet, but for dry conditions only. They tested the Yoko AD08R, not the new 08RS, tough, which has (the latter) lower rolling resistance.
https://www.tyrereviews.com...
Probably a bit late but i'm the same NC and i'm going goodyear F1 asymetric 5 15% off at halfords currently and if you look at the stats on here they seem to just outperform the michelin pilot sport and seem to be top of the tree
Oh also going to go with 215/45/17
Jonathon I should mention I am in Australia hot conditions no snow Thanks again
Hi Jonathan could you please advise me of the best tyre for a bentley continental gtc 2007 looking for maximum comfort low noise direct steering reasonable wear resistance Thanks Jonathon regards Brian
Direct steering and max comfort are usually opposing qualities, however something like the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S combines both well and should be available depending on your wheel sizes.
If your garage didn't advise you and you don't want to buy what you already use then I would rather recommend you Conti Premium Contact 6, merging comfort and sportive driving.
Hi Jonathan,
Maxxis looks like a cheap enjoyable tyre for country roads, expect eco behavior :-)
I would like to ask you, if is something how to convert (approximately at least) rolling resistance from kg/t to l/100km or km/l. It could give more idea about rolling resistance. I can't imagine if 7 vs. 9 kg/t is 0.02 l/100km or 1.5 l/100km.
I agree it would be nice to be able to make that conversion easily, but sadly it's not easily to do accurately. Tyres account for around 20% of a cars rolling resistance, and there's around a 30% difference in best to worse, so there's around a 6% difference in fuel use (this is very very approx)
- There is a special category for eco tyres, with low rolling resistance and long lasting mileage within many brands.
Very good overall test but some tyres are two years old. Two years old rubber surely affect its grip, isn't it? Perhaps you should choose Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 3 instead of the Ventus Prime 3. It's newer and I believe it could score higher. Plus, I am close to buy a set and it would be great to see how it performs among the rest :)
The evo 3 is uhp so doesn't sit in this group, but there's plenty of tests on the site with it in. https://www.tyrereviews.com...
Interesting reading and Viewing. I have noticed test vary quite a lot depending on wheel size or Speed and load rating. This was explored when I recently bought the Falken Tyres for my car - one test said they are not so comfortable (v94) another said they were comfortable. (Mine seem to be the best of all worlds with a 195/55/16 91V.) The stiffer 94 apparently handled better, but was less comfortable. It would be interesting to explore this and do a test, maybe with 2 similar rated brands of tyre, and compare H, V & W with the different load options and I suspect they will bring some quite different results...
It's certainly on the list to do :)
One issue is that is varies between brands and sizes. Some brands, in some sizes, produce exactly the same tyre for the different speed and load ratings, just print a different sidewall!
I can understand the economical thinking with this, but yet it seems very deceptive to me. There will, of course, be a safety factor designed into the tyres so that an 'H 130mph' Tyre is probably safe still at a higher speed. However the insurance companies would not buy into that!
It's the other way round, all tyres will be made to the highest specification then marked as lower specifications so there's no safety implication.
Ok that's a weird thing to do - buy Oh well. I imagine that is not true of all tyres as its clear there are differences to be found - I have noticed it in Tyre shops where a higher speed rating and load rating tyre had a far stiffer side wall to the lower one ;)
You are totally correct, these tyres are in the minority, there's usually differences which you can easily feel with the good old fashioned sidewall squeeze :)
How would you exactly benchmark comfort?
There's subjective comfort scores in this test
I don't know how it was measured - it would take a longer time to asses I would imagine - but tyres can and do feel a lot different on bumpy road surfaces and speed bumps. A while back I had more comfortable tyres on the front and there was a pronounced difference riding over rough surfaces and especially speed bums as the front absorbed it nicely and the back thumped over it harshly - now I am happy as both axles feel similar. But comfort is still a relative thing both to the car and to the driver and yet it plays its part for many of us - especially townies with bad road surfaces
Exactly! So how one said not so comfortable and other they were comfortable? You've to take all this reviews with BAG OF SALT!
Hi, I'm wondering if low score in comfort test of Pirelli and Falken tyres may be due to the fact that those tyres are rated 94, while all others are 91?
I think I mention that in the video, it's certainly a potential factor
Right, you did mention it, I missed it - sorry:) Comfort and noise is quite important to me, but not enough to take the BF Goodrich which seems like a worse tyre overall than Falken. Guess I'll take my chances with 91V Falken or gamble a bit more with the new, untested Vredestein Ultrac which seems to be very well priced for a premium brand. Thanks for the test, it was really helpful and enjoyable to watch!
The Ulrac does look very promising, whatever you decide let me know how you get on :)
The reason is: Vredestein is not generally considered as one of the big 6 premium brands, also here is it classified among the Mid-Range tyres: https://www.tyrereviews.com...
But they can be very good tyres, especially when new or updated models.
as one of the big 6 premium brands
That's totally misleading and wrong conception..there are no premium brands! Put it simply..good tire with a good price and value..other one is overpricing Crap!
Exactly what I did and I'm happy. the 91V is comfy and also handles well so far
I think this is very possible, I just purchased a pair of 91V Falkens and they are as comfy as my old Dunlop Blue response.
I'm looking at getting some Michelin pilot sport 4s. At the moment I'm running 225-35-19 but they look stretched and want a bit more of a comfortable ride so think 235-35-19 would be better. Will this effect the handling in any way or performance of the tyre ?
Differences in performance will be small, but more importantly check it will fit with other owners, and some insurance companies classify it as a modification so be sure to let them know.
Firestone Roadhawk was not used in this test eventhough you did mentioned before that it is a similar to Bridgestone T005. How would you compare them to the likes of Hankook and BF Goodrich if they are similarly priced though.
Sadly I've not tested it properly, but you can check out other test results here:
https://www.tyrereviews.com...
No worries. I have already checked all the tests. I asked cause you did recommend it alongside T005 in a previous "best of" in 2018. Keep up the good work. Cheers.
https://youtu.be/QseDx-aBaK...
They were promising at launch but recent testing and especially user reviews shows they haven't stood the test of time. Something like the Maxxis HP5 would be a better midrange tyre.
Compelling and useful video, and a brilliant effort. Thank you for your hard work once again. I think this test would be complete with some cold greasy UK road testing, and less of a bias towards on the limit performance, as I think it is less relevant to an 'everyday tyre'. I think subjective handling and NVH are much more important. May be my own bias or lack of understanding, but to me aquaplaning is such a rare event that unless a tyre is disastrously bad it's ability to go 10km/h faster through a stream wouldn't be a major factor in my purchasing equation. Of course, it's still valuable data to have, and I don't underestimate how tough it can be to create a hypothetic 'average' consumer looking for an 'everyday' tyre.
I value aquaplaning less than a lot of the others for that very reason, but it's still important overall.
Cold and greasing testing would be the dream, but there's only one place I know of in the world you have a hope of getting reliable data (test world) and even then it's not accurate enough to get in testing.
In the UK must exist testing places where is cold and greasing. Either on race/rallye circuits or e.g. where the UK tyre manufacturer Cooper tests its tyres. Dtto where the UK tyre tests take place.
It's about a consistent condition over a test, which can be multiple hours. There's no where in the UK that can offer that. Just going out one morning might be fine for the first set, but by the third set the surface would have changed
What?? Consistent condition over a test LMAO Where you get that from? Guess what.. that's how people drive on daily basis in UK non consistent conditions! And definitely they are not going to drive on the Continental private track or similar facility's where you conduct your meaningless test.
I cannot unravel what would be my best next Tyre. For every tyre I think I have it - I seem to discover a critical issue - like poor braking in the wet, excessive rolling resistance or aquaplaning issues. I have a 2017 Seat Ibiza 195/55/16 Current fronts are Dunlop Sp Sport Blue response - like quietness comfort rolling resistance directional stability - but slightly tend to wheelspin in the wet. It had Conti PC 5's which were hard and harsh generally not quite as good all round as the Dunlop but good dry handling. Previous Car had Maxxis HP5 very good but noticeably poor on fuel economy. Currently considering Good Year Efficient Grip 2 - concerned about braking and aqua, Falken ZIEX 310 Eco and noise, Maxxis (again), Possibly Nokian but availability is an issue
I guess my Priorities Are *Wet Braking and performance; *Dry Braking and Performance: *Aquaplaning (Equal with other two really): *Comfort and noise: *Rolling resistance - although I don't mind Rolling resistance not be class leading it is still quite important to me
Something tells me I can't tell you anything you don't already know from research :) My only comment would be that a lot of testers are starting to devalue aquaplaning as it's a rare condition on the road, so with your other requirements I'd be looking at the EGP2 or the Bridgestone Turanza T005
Thanks. While it is good to be aware and do some homework I am probably at risk of over thinking it!
Either of the two you suggest should be fine I am sure, and while the Dunlops have been nice to drive, but they would probably fall behind these 2 in a direct comparison now. Incidentally I thought long and hard about the Maxxis - but having had them I can say the Economy is a big difference and the wear also is not good - not to mention how many more punctures I seemed to get with them! Could just be coincidence?? The only question now being -0 how much difference would it make with the GY EGP2 as it only comes in V87 as opposed to V91 XL I currently run..?
I'm not sure on the puncture question, people report all the time that X brand punctures a lot, when in reality a nail will go through any brand of sidewall.
I'm not sure I understand the load rating question in relation to the weather. I'm not sure there would be a significant difference between the 87 and 91 across the temperature range
Just FYI the Falken is as comfy as the Dunlop SP Blue response in 195/55/16 91V but better wet braking and traction.. happy to take my chances with rolling resistance as I have a pretty economical car anyway - I would prefer to have Handling and grip and so far the Falkens seem fine
a lot of testers are starting to devalue aquaplaning as it's a rare condition on the road
Yeah I would totally agree with that..if they leaving in Sahara desert LoL
Until you need it, down that wet, unlit country lane when a tyre's 'anti-aquaplaning' ability can keep you out of the ditch or worse!
I'd appreciate your thoughts on the below please:
Will need to replace my front tyres soon and i've shopped around and pulled together my own shortlist.
The car is a Alfa Guilietta Diesel (170) FWD, currently has a set of GY Eagle F1 Asy 3's all round.
It's really difficult to say what my priorities are because everything is important - dry grip/handling, wet grip/handling, economy (rolling resistance and wear), noise, comfort (probably in that order).
Which would you recommend from the below (can have both tyres fitted from £140-£150) 225 45 R17's
Bridgestone Turanza T005
Fulda Sport Control 2
GY Eagle F1 Asy 5
GY EfficientGrip Performance 2
Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 2
Nexen NFera Sport
I'm leaning toward either of the GY and not sure whether i'd prefer the economy of the efficientgrip vs the dynamics of the eagle f1.
TIA!
Given your order, I'd be picking the Asym 5 :)
Can you do a review targetted at people buy (or might buy) run-flats? I've seen the review of the Bridgestone Driveguard which compared it with non-run-flats. That was useful but I'd like to see a comparison of run-flats from different manufacturers. My BMW had Bridgestone 225/45 R17 run-flats when new and I've always replaced them with exactly the same Bridgestone run-flats. This time, I decided to go for Michelin Primacy (partly based on what I read on this site) in the run-flat version and I had to settle for Primacy 3 run-flat because they don't make a Primacy 4 run-flat in that size. My Karoq has Primacy 3 non-run-flat and I'm considering fitting it with Primacy 3 run-flat.
Would you please help answer some of the following questions:
1. Would a review of run-flats produce broadly the same rankings as the reviews of non-run-flats?
2. Is the difference between run-flat and non-run-flat versions of the same tyre largely the same across manufacturers.
3. Is there a useful rule of thumb for difference in comfort (such as 'switching from non-run-flat to run-flat gives a decrease in comfort equivalent to increasing rim size by 5%')?
4. Other than comfort, what are the other effects on performance?
Great idea. Before the answer from Jonathan will come, I guess, I would like to ask you: Why do you prefer less comfortable run-flats and how many punctures have you had? Because choosing e.g. an old generation Primacy 3 over the new and better Primacy 4 just because of run-flat versions size existence...I would personally justify only with frequent punctures, while there I would still consider how to avoid the reason of the punctures first, not only the consequence (run-flat tyres as a must).
These are educated guesses:
1) Maybe similar, but not exactly the same
2) No, for example Bridgestone Driveguard tech makes their runflats closer to non-runflats
3) Not that I know of, sorry
4) Wet grip is usually reduced, noise levels higher, and rolling resistance higher, plus you can't repair them if they puncture.
I'm not sure why SEAL tyres aren't more popular.
I'm always trying to do a runflat test, but no one wants to be included lol
Thanks. 'Similar but not exactly the same' is what I'll work with for now. I was introduced to runflats by BMW and they will have reasons for fitting them on new cars but I don't know what those reasons are. Gaining runflat ability is a trade-off. Just like the debate over summer/winter/all-season tyres, it's a matter of getting objective data for each parameter for each brand to inform a trade-off. I look forward to the day when there are objective tests.
Comfort: I tolerate my current level of comfort on runflats. I don't prefer discomfort, I like comfort and would like more if it's available within my trade-offs. Whatever the level of comfort I already have, I won't exchange runflat capability for an increase in comfort.
Rolling resistence: I tolerate my fuel consumption but I'm always keen to improve. I'd really like data on rolling resistence. Am I right in thinking the measure is kilograms per tonne ('kg/t' rather than 'kg t')? If the Bridgestone runflat is 10% worse than the non-runflat it would be a shame but I'd accept it as still within the range of non-runflats. If it were 50% worse then that would be serious.
Noise: Same applies. I tolerate the current noise level but I'm keen to improve. If the noise penalty is 1 dB that would be significant. If it is 0.2 dB then less so.
Wet grip: The everyday driving review shows a range of wet braking distance around 36 m to 46 m. If runflats added 2 metres I think that would be significant. If the difference were less than 1 metre then it might be less significant than choosing a different brand.This is a parameter I take seriously.
Repair: I had totally forgotten the concept of repair. I may (must?) have had non-runflats repaired in the past but I can't recall doing so. Replacement rather than repair is a cost factor, as is initial purchase when worn. Unlike the performance parameters, the price is the one parameter I have available. I won't exchange runflat for the reduction in renewal/replacement price based on current price differences.
Frequency. I don't often have punctures so it's a fair point. However each time I've had a runflat puncture it's reminded me of why I like them and why I want to make them available to other drivers of my car. Ironically, I think there's a minimum frequency of punctures needed to ensure universal human skill and equipment capability are maintained - we're probably below that frequency.
My experience is that advice from car forums and review sites is generally negative about runflats. So it doesn't surprise me that the downsides are highlighted here. Bridgestone is trying to counter that but it's marketing hasn't helped me because they're trying to convert people and I'm already converted. BMW don't appear to justify their decision to fit runflats by default despite their customer base being car enthusiasts.
Reasons to have Run-flat tires on your BMW: https://www.bmwblog.com/200...
Thank you very much. That prompted me to search and I found something similar on an official BMW website at: https://discover.bmw.co.uk/...
May I know the tyre pressure values that were used in the tests?
We always use the manufacture specified pressures
The Falkens in this test were manufactured in which country?
I'll have to dig out the data when i'm home in a few weeks as I've archived it off.
Why does the T005 section say 'low aquaplaning resistance' and the BF Goodrich says 'average aquaplaining resistance' when the T005 scored higher than the BF Goodrich?
Good spot, I'll update
Oops:)
Hi again. I wonder, is there any reason for the United States to have access to better tyres than us? I do not understand why, but they have for example a Michelin Pilot A/S 3 that apparently is better than all our all weather tyres... :( this is both annoying and sad.
I guess Jonathan could ask Michelin directly and when already then I add a 2nd question: Why they already offer their Cross Climate 2 in the USA, while in the EU they consciously postponed the launch of the sales to the Spring 2021.
I expect the answer like: We have had more spare capacity in our American factories and the US climate and road conditions are quite different than in Europe.
P.S. Continental also postponed the launch of their newest winter model TS 870 also to the year 2021, arguing with their limited factory capacities, while odd enough closing their technical award winning tyre factory in Aachen by the end of 2021...1800 jobs impacted.
Bridgestone closing their only one EU factory in the city of Bethun in France from about the 2Q 2021, 863 jobs impacted, producing mostly smaller tyre sizes...arguing with low margins, losing market share and overproduction from Asia alias China.
Regarding US tyres, I used to think they were "better" too, but the truth is the performance of tyres like the PS4 AS and the DWS range by Conti is more bias towards long mileage than grip, and our summer and all season tyres vastly out perform them. Europe has much higher wet grip demands than the US.
Regarding the CC2, I have asked people at Michelin in the UK and Europe and no one can really give an answer as why NA moved ahead first. I believe it's a slightly different version of the tyre we will get.
I just came back to Europe from a business trip to Boston where I saw a Volvo V60 with a set of 4 Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S syze 235/45 R17 (yes, seventeen, and yes the 4 S!). It's seems the Americans can have it all!
Why does a european brand treat us, europeans, like this?!
No comment. Which is pretty much the same response as Michelin UK when I ask why we've not got 17 and 18" 4S!
Maybe is a good start to Boycot them if that's the case? So they have a bit more response next time..!
Yep, if the Bridgestone tests as good as initial impressions suggests then people will migrate to that and the GY F1 (which is currently very hard to source). Which you have to think Michelin will respond to.
I'll be testing this in April!
Trust me, I'm here every couple of days waiting for it!! Holding off on refreshing my MPSS until I get your view
Just FYI Depending on how speedy I am on edit the video might be the very start of May
This is now definitely teasing ;-)
Give a thumbs up or down reply here as a sneak preview if the edit takes a while, allegedly the GY's might be available in 18 sizes early May.
Are the Falkens sporty or not?
Did the video not answer that? They're not the most sporty of the group
No is not.! For example.. Falken FK510 in overall miles better then your Michelin Pilot Sport4 and I've tried them both on same car in Real life test! Michelin is little harder tyre compound and obviously will be slightly better in warmer weather..but not to that degree that I'll jumping around them in my grand ma under pants! That's the reason in other test where you conducted it in Texas on continental track facility..there were tyres Falken FK510 Toyo Proxes Sport and other..obviously you knew that LoL
Yes they are! Good sporty tire!
My actual tyries are Continental Premium Contact 2 205/55 R16. I plan to replace them for some new in next year. I am looking for more "sporty" tyries which can last longer in real life than e.g. 25 000km. Could you please recommend something in 205/55 R16 size? Thank you in advance!
P.S. I was wondering if Goodyear efficientgrip performance 2, but reinforced (XL) would be a good idea. What is your opinion?
The PremiumContact 6 is a more sporty feeling tyre so if that's your priority that's where I would go.
Thank you for fast answer! After watching your video I chose already Premium Contact6, but then I checked users reviews, where I found complaints about fast wear. So, I again stared to read reviews with an idea to find a tyre which lasts longer and to get it reinforced version. I have read that the XL or reinforced tyres are more stiff than standard. What do you think about this aproach: to chose a tyre which is "not sporty" but in XL or reinforced version? Can regular tyre become "sporty" in XL or reinforced version?
It's too hard to know without testing, as sometimes the XL and non-XL versions of the tyres are exactly the same.
The early reviews of the PC6 wear wasn't great, however recent objective tests of the PC6 wear shows it to have some of the best wear in category.
Thank you! If XL and non-XL are sometimes the same, I will not focus on it. I will stay with PC6 then. In your last comparison:
"Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 vs Asymmetric 3 vs Continental PremiumContact 6 - In depth test" you show wear data - bases on this PC6 wear out "slowly". Is this objective test you mentioned above? Could you give a source of this objecctive wear test? Thank you!
It's all on this site, check out the tests the PC6 has been in, ADAC and Auto Bild test wear
Thank you! I Have found that: https://www.tyrereviews.co.... . However, I am wondering if review of German tyre by German Automobile Magazine is really objective.
They're not the only test to show good wear for the Conti, but I believe the rest of the tests are German too!
Where are the delayed UK annual summer tyres tests???
Just spot the newly published Tyre Express Winter Tyres 2020 test with 9 x 205/55 R16 inclusive the new Conti TS 870!
AE dropped their summer test a month ago too :)
Many years ago, I was running a set of Continental Premium Contact 2s, but the tyre's wet grip dropped off drastically after about 25000Km (50% used). Do you have a similar experience?
Because of this unpleasant experience, I've fitted only Michelins since then, and Michelins don't seem to suffer from this 'drop off the cliff' issue. Are Michelins 'special', or was it just bad luck and I got a bad production batch?
Tyre technology has moved on a lot since the PC2 days :) I run the PC6 on my own car and after 10,000 miles + and 2 track events, they're still great :)
Thanks Jonathan for the feedback :)
The 205/55 r 15 91 V is the most commonly used and produced tyre size with nearly 12% of the total market (however losing a bit to more common SUV sizes and due to market trends moving to 225/45 r 17 and 225/40 r 18 for mid size vehicles) therefore the big battle among different brands should happen here with companies churning new products to gain increased slices of the tyre market. I am positively surprised by Goodyear's efforts to climb the European market entering in direct competition with Michelin and Continental offering really balanced products what is sad is that a glorious brand, Dunlop is being neglected at the moment. All factors considered I would go for Goodyear for my next tyres replacement.
Enrico, Dunlop just released "Sport All Season" new tyre, I believe successor of the summer Bluresponse should follow like in the case of GY EFG2. In the past both brands have introduced their new models together.
The new Dunlop AS tyre is more like the Vector 4Seasons than the UGP
Looking for some advice please.
I am taking part in a charity drive to Norway in February next year. I am using a 2007 ex London Taxi and I am looking at good winter tyres for the trip. Does anyone have any recommendations please?
Plenty of good winter tests on the site, have a browse. I'm not sure what size but Conti and Goodyear are usually a safe bet
@TyreReviews my friend which tyre would you recommend for a 2012 170bhp VW Sharan with small kids?
I have 3 options on the table, Hankook K125 (450€), Primacy 4 (590€) and Continental 6 (530).
From your review, the Maxxis seems to be an option to consider too. Any other options you might think of?
Size 215/60R16
Thank you mate, cheers from Portugal!
All very different tyres, however if there are kids involved I would go for hte best braking tyre so that would be the Conti
Thank you very much for your much valued opinion, Conti it is. Take good care!
Let me know how you find them :)
Seems like Premium 6 doesn't come on my size, only Premium 5 (might have been what I've been quoted for). Still safer bet?
Oh, I'm downsizing from 225/45R18 to 16" for better comfort.
Thanks for your time my friend ^_^
16" will bring you a big increase in comfort! Primacy 4 would be better than PC5 though over the life of the tyre
Got the Primacy 4 installed yesterday, and big test this weekend. But noticeably better ride at stock 2.5bar, will decrease a little to 2.3 bar for better comfort.
Mind if I ask best road tyre options for a Frontera B, 245/70R16?
I totally agree price wise..but that's all. Conti not better then Maxxis
@TyreReviews:disqus - I know you won't like this suggestion but I know there is healthy demand for wear testing (which can then be linked to value over the lifetime of the tyre and even be adjusted for rolling resistance using analytics if you have the tech to do that!).
Can you think about a practical way of testing wear? I've seen you constructively criticise milling of tyres, which I believe would be the easiest way of doing a test with an element of control - even though it's not perfect as a methodology, I think this is what is missing from this test to make it just about perfect.
I do wish all the other publications would address this too.
I'm in talks with manufacturers to see where their latest generation road machines are in terms of good data. Hopefully there will be a solution for next year :)
I guess..another test another dollar!!!!:)
@TyreReviews:disqus thank you for this comparison! It's extremely useful!
I have two qustions for which I would like to have your point of view:
- Why you didn't test the curve aquaplaning? I've seen that it's notmally tested in other tyre comparisons as it is strictly related to safety (I've found myself in aquaplaning conditions once during a turn and it is something that I would never reccomend to anyone!). Do you have any data in this regard?
- I was surprised by the weights that you attributed to the lap time (35%) with respect to the subjective handling (10% and 5%)...considering the tyre size, would you say that the "speed" of the tyre is more important than the feeling that the driver gets?
Thank you in advance for your feedback!
Sadly we didn't test curved aquaplaning. I don't find the test that reliable as a lot of things can change the result, but I do plan on testing curved aquaplaning for the all season test next month.
I believe for the majority of drivers of cars with 16" tyres aren't driving on them wanting the best handling car for enjoying track sessions, but would prefer safety criteria like overall grip. The data is still there for you to make up your own mind though :) As I said in the video, if it was for me, the Maxxis would be higher but I'm not a usual driver of these types of vehicles.
@ty@TyreReviews:disqus - Could you give some indication of how rolling resistance translates to fuel economy ?
I don't know if the difference between 8kgt and 7kgt is 10, 1 or 0.1mpg difference. I know this is going to be a rough figure, but interested in the real world significance. Thanks.
Naturally it's all relative, and there's a lot of variables at play, but it might help to look at it like this.
A tyre is responsible for around 20-30% of a cars fuel consumption. The difference between 8kg/t and 7kg/t is a 13.3% reduction in the tyres rolling resistance, so approximately 13.3% of 25%. This works out to be around a 3-4% improvement in fuel use.
Thank you for explaining.
Great job!
What I'd like to see is new tires tread heigh, it can be interesting comparison. GY EG2 seems to be good change for my actual Michelin Primacy 3, which will be soon worn out. (...or Fulda SportControl 2?..:) )
Surprice for me is the high price of new BFGoodrich Advantage in UK, here in Czech rep. they are very cheap, cheaper than Hankook, Nokian, Maxxis, Falken.... I think from these 12 selected tires only Goodride are cheaper than BFG.
We don't really have much BF market share in the UK, and with it being a new tyre it might just be that the websites haven't started to drop their pricing yet!
BF goodridge??? why shoose the most horrible tyre???
That looks like it was a LOT of work!
I was interested in purchasing the 205/55R16 Bridgestone Turanza T005 and Michelin Primacy 4. Unfortunately for me, there are several variants for each (speed ratings, extra load vs standard load, OE). Can the actual tested tires be traced to the exact tire variant?
If it will help I can add the load ratings and DOTs to the site?
Yes! It could be very useful to have, at least, the load and speed ratings for future reference. Since these are very recent and easily sold tyres, I think the DOT is not really an issue.
What could be interesting and useful is to include in the future the country of manufacture. There is a general web doubt or consensus that the manufacturing site can affect the tyre, because they can have different specifications depending on the factory. We have seen that discussion in the past in this website with Hankook and Pirelli.
Great article! How do you explain such bad results for Hankook VP3, specially since that tire has been at the top of many tests in years past?
If you look at the results from 2020 it's not scoring overly well, and this group of tyres was so close, unfortunately some tyres had to be worse than others.
Thanks a million for all the great videos, and reviews.
I'm just wondering whether you perform these tests/reviews 'blind', or you know what tyres are fitted on the car.
Instead of comparing to a budget tyre, it'd be interesting to see how far tyre technology has progressed over the years, and compare to one, or two old standards that are still available in the market like the Michelin PS3.
It depends on the test, though usually we work in set numbers and I try and avoid learning the set numbers through out the testing.
New budget vs old premium - interesting idea!
Another great video and test. Exactly what I was looking for since I'm shopping around for end-of-season discounts to prepare for next summer. Current Michelins are wearing out and won't be used after the winter tyre season. Btw, I really like Nokian Wetproof and that's probably what I'm going for next.
As I was looking through the testing data, every tyre is performing very well and the results are really-really close, I started wondering how much does the weight of the fuel spent play role in the testing? Do you compensate for the spent fuel by refilling the car after swapping tyre sets?
Just wondering. It's probably a non-issue but the idea just hit me.
Also, thank you very much for all the great information you're sharing here. Doing the god's work.
It depends on the test, and how much fuel is getting used. I think I fueled every 3rd run for dry handling, which is around 10kgs fuel so not a huge difference, and we run control tyres to account for these changes
Was the initial vehicle speed of the breaking tests the same for the dry and wet runs?
80 kmh dry, 100 wet
Is there any reason why the wet braking was performed at a higher initial speed?
I thought normally the dry braking would be performed at the higher speed as there are usually longer braking distances in the wet.
Reason why I'm asking is I'm creating a geeky spreadsheet model of the average temperatures and rainfall days of my town, to see which tyre comes out on top to run all year round.
I must have been tired, you are correct, it's 100 dry and 80 wet :)
Thanks for the fast reply!
Just realised that meant to ask this question on the "Winter Tyres Tested at 0c to15c" instead of this one.
I don't even own a car but I religiously watch all your videos. This by far has to be your most extensive test yet, so thanks for all the great content you've been putting out over the years!
Thank you :) When you DO get a car you'll have the best tyres in the world lol
Congratulations on the extensive review.
Just curious, Yokohama doesn't seem to be present in any reviews these days... any particular reason ?
Yokohama make some great tyres, but as there's currently less interest in the brand online, and space is limited, I didn't invite them for this test. I believe they were invited for the M2 test last year, however I couldn't get the sizes. I will work with them again for sure
Yokohama make some great tyres, but as there's currently less interest in the brand online, and space is limited
What names are they...? As of the UK There is no Yokohama tyres I would ever recommend for UK market!
It's great to finally see tyre reviews performing their own comprehensive test! The comments on real world driving are especially useful too.
Which category is most representative of an emergency swerve or lange change? i.e. most safe handling, not sporty feel?
The dry/wet handling category, or subjective dry/wet handling?
Thanks again, I'm looking forward to the upcoming all season test and hopefully some more content about worn tyre performance (I've just noticed Goodyear has started to include this in their marketing of the V4S G-3).
Sadly I won't be able to test worn performance for this years all season test.
Regarding the lane change, it's not something we specifically test, but I feel that the handling tests will give you a better idea on how the tyre reacts
My car, an Alfa Romeo 159 2.0 JTDm, is on Falken ZIEX ZE310 EC for approximately 2,5 years now. Tire size is 215/50-17. I like them a lot! However, I am also very curious how the Azenis FK510 drives. Maybe next time I try that tire.
It should be a little more sporty!
Amazing test! Twelve tyres certainly meant a lot of time, effort and money! Very interesting results as well! I absolutely agree that the subjective handling is mandatory in any tyre test as it is the real world data a driver can get on a daily basis from a tyre, and what is more fun, reassuring and rewarding.
As an owner of an Audi with this tyre size I opted for a set of Michelin Pilot Sport 4, coming from some Dunlop SportBluResponse (which put a lot of smiles in my face). If money was an issue I would certainly went for Continental PC6, since the Michelins PS4 are considerably more expensive than the Contis (you could buy 5 Contis for the price of 4 Michelins ...). Even so, it was a pity the PS4 (91 W or 91 Y) wasn't considered but I suppose it wouldn't be fair to test both the Primacy 4 and the PS4 in the same test, although it would be very interesting. Maybe next time.
Keep up with the good work!
I wish I could have included the PS4, it would have been really interesting, but sadly the space was tight. I was only meant to test 10 patterns, 12 was pushing it, and there were other brands like nexen and yoko I'd have loved to included but didn't have the space.
Would you please expand a little on the subjective wet handling of the PC6? (I assume that there is more going on than the well documented comparatively mediocre aquaplaning qualities of the tyre.)
There's not much above what I've said in this video, and the Asym 3 vs asym 5 vs PC6 video. At that water depth it seems to struggle on the rear in curves, an causing oversteer balance and the resulting slower laptime. It's not something I've found on the road, or on less water
Thanks for this big review :)
I was happy to see the new Uniroyal, Goodyear and Pirelli in your review. The Pirelli, which is sure made for high mileage istead of ultimate grip, disappointed a bit. The Goodyear looks overall interesting, good grip, low rolling resistance and high probably high mileage. The Uniroyal did what I except: Awesome aquaplaning resistance, good wet handling, but unsporty feeling.
The Falken show similar properties to the FK510. It´s a good tyre, but still don´t like the soft and inaccurate steering.
Hope you will some day also include brands like Yokohama, Fulda and Vredestein instead of the million-times reviewed models from Conti, Bridgestone and Michelin :)
I was disappointed with the Pirelli, it felt like a fine tyre, it was enjoyable to drive, but the compound didn't seem to give a huge amount of grip in the wet - perhaps as you say this will be paid back with mileage.
Vred were invited but declined as they're due a product update soon, Fulda I like as a brand but didn't really have the space (I was only meant to test 10 tyres) and Yoko don't really have an interesting tyre in this segment. I will try and include them in more tests, especially the more sporty and suv tests due.
More sporty is nice, SUV-tyres is not my area of interest ;)
The Falken show similar properties to the FK510. It´s a good tyre, but still don´t like the soft and inaccurate steering.
s
You can easily spot the IDIOT or Fake reviews just based on the comment ! In Fact the Stupid Idiot Scour don't eve had this particular tyre!
Suggestion: Could you include / state the speeds the braking tests were conducted at in all tests from now on?
It seems to me that with a couple of exceptions, there really isn’t much in the dry braking performance of the tyres tested, unless this was tested at lower speeds?
Will do!
Dry is usually always done at 100 km/h and wet usually 80 km/h
Wow then the dry performances of most of these are really very close then if they were tested at that speed! Remarkable.
Yeah, dry is always close. The dry handling lap is over 100 seconds in that golf, and the spread less than two seconds!
That´s the reason why I like reviews with "Subjective Handling". I don´t have the time to look in corners always on my speedometer to see differences between 1 and 5 km/h, but I feel how good the tyre is at steering and feedback.
Sadly not all magazines test it or the result is hidden in the overall Handling result. Best in this discipline is the magazine "sport auto" which also write in the text how the tyres feel in handling.
I agree, I'm a big fan of the sport auto work. Auto Bild Sports cars often include some notes, and EVO in the UK certainly do!
Tyrereviews is my only source for see EVO-tests, Thank you for that :)
IIRC Evo is very late for summer tyre reviews? Didn´t see the 2020 review
We're all very late due to covid, Auto Express and Evo are due this month or next I believe
Huh, the review itself or the publish of the review?
The magazines I know test winter tyres mostly january/february and publish the results in end of september or begin of october, so the newest tyres mostly not included.
Same for the summer tyres, the test is more than a half year before it´s published.
The German magazines, yes. I was planning on testing March for publication April, Auto Express and EVO usually test the month before publication and like to test in the summer, which is why they're so late in the year
Did you get yer Brain Test recently??Judging by the comments you are in desperate to get some assistance!!!
This test you are referring to...I would embarrassed to wipe my arse off...In fact you have to pay me!!!
Good comparison!. I am also trying to compare the results with the Teknikens 17 summer test and the TÜV test provided for Goodyear. I am focused in the Goodyears and the Michelins.
It seems that the TÜV test results regarding dry braking for the Goodyear Efficientgrip Performance 2 are contradictory with the Michelin Primacy 4 results on the tests. Usually the Michelins are very good in this aspect, as they are in this test and the Teknikens one. The Goodyear seems to balance better wet and dry braking, while the Michelin is better at dry braking. So, I am also wondering about the TÜV tread wear test of the Goodyears, if they are really superior to the Michelins.
In the video it seems that the Michelin is a well balanced tire, but the results in wet braking are usually worse than many tires, and of course worse than the Goodyears. So, it is quite a mess for me. I am trying to decide which one of those to buy. I can buy both at the same price, but I want them to last 5 years at last! Many thanks!
I answered on Youtube, but in short, if tread life is your thing, the Michelin is currently more proven so that would be where my money would go if all else is equal in your eyes :)
Thanks! I also posted here because I supposed you would prefer this platform.
My concern is about the difference in wet braking. So, I have to decide between higher mileage but worse wet braking of the Michelin against the supposed lower mileage but better wet braking of the Goodyear. At least I can purchase them all at the same orice, so one thing LEDs to take Ingo account.
I would love to see a test about de tread wear of the Goodyears Performance 2, but I think I will have to decide without that.
Thanks again!
The TUV test shows the GY beating the Michelin in both wear and mileage, however as it was only tested at new we can't be sure how the tyres will perform at lower tread depths.
Yes. I had a look at the TÜV Test, but they measured a shorter dry braking distance than the Michelins. Just the contrary to any test including both, as this wonderful one you performed.
Maybe one of the reasons was that, in the TÜV Test, the Performances 2 were provided by Goodyear instead of buying them, as it was done with the rest of the tires.
So, the contradictive result make me wonder if the Goodyear really beat the Michelin in tread wear. And that is where I am!
Thanks!
I believe TUV bought all the tyres for the test, though I could be wrong
The Goodyears "were provided for the test by the client" states.
"All other tires were purchased in the normal market by TÜV SÜD" states too.
Sounds quite as a disclaimer...
Page 2:
https://www.goodyear.eu/en_...
I think I will rely more on your tests and the others you published here. Thanks!
It certainly seems like the Conti has had an update between the tyres tested with TUV and the ones I tested. It's not unusual for tyres to have significant midlife updates that go unannounced, and it certainly makes explaining tyre tests and making the correct tyre buying choice super tricky at points!
Yes, indeed, super tricky!
The Conti in the TUV test was manufactured in the 9th week 2019, a bit old. So, supposedly now they have better wet braking and maybe reduced rolling resistance, while not changing aquaplaning behaviour.... Too good... I think it might be at the expense of increasing tread wear...
On the other hand, if I assume similar tread wear of the Performace 1 and Dunlop Bluresponse, theses last ones lasted almost 4 years in my car. Maybe the Performances 2 last 5 years in my car and the Michelins go to 8 years :-)