German publication AutoBild has tested eight summer tyres in the 215/55 R18 size specifically aimed at electric vehicles. The test aimed to find tyres that could achieve the difficult balance between energy efficiency (for maximum EV range) and safety performance.
AutoBild evaluated models from premium manufacturers like Continental, Goodyear and Michelin alongside offerings from mid-range brands including Falken, Firestone and Yokohama, plus budget option Goodride. Interestingly, only two tyres in the test - the Hankook iON evo and Falken e.Ziex - were specifically designed as EV tyres, while others were standard tyres that manufacturers claim are also suitable for electric vehicles.
Test Publication:
Auto Bild
215/55 R18
8 tyres
4 categories
Test Size:
215/55 R18
Tyres Tested:
8 tyres
Auto Bild is not affiliated with, and does not endorse, Tyre Reviews. This is independent editorial coverage of their published test.
Testing was conducted on a Hyundai Kona EV, with tyres put through wet and dry handling, braking, and aquaplaning tests. Additionally, the publication measured rolling resistance and conducted a roll-out test to determine real-world range impact. The results showed that in extreme cases, tyre choice could affect vehicle range by up to 70 kilometers (43 miles.)
One of the most interesting findings was that the Hankook iON evo, specifically designed for EVs, claimed the overall victory, but standard tyres from Continental and Goodyear followed extremely closely behind. This suggests that the gap between dedicated EV tyres and high-quality standard tyres is minimal when balancing safety and efficiency needs.
Goodyear's EfficientGrip 2 SUV was awarded AutoBild's "Green Tyre 2025" environmental seal due to its excellent balance of rolling resistance, longevity, and environmental characteristics.
Dry
Hankook iON evo achieved the shortest braking distance of 33.6 meters, with Continental close behind at 34.5 meters. Goodride Solmax 1 needed significantly more distance at 37.8 meters, showing the safety gap between premium and budget options.
- Hankook iON Evo
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
- Falken e.Ziex
- Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV
- Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61
- Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
- Goodride Solmax 1
Hankook topped the handling test with 92.8 km/h average speed, followed by Continental at 91.9 km/h and Goodyear at 91.1 km/h. The Goodride again finished last with 88.2 km/h, confirming its limited cornering abilities.
- Hankook iON Evo
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV
- Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
- Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61
- Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
- Falken e.Ziex
- Goodride Solmax 1
Wet
Continental took the lead in wet conditions with a 39.4-meter stopping distance, just ahead of Hankook at 39.6 meters. The gap to last-place Goodride widened to 48.7 meters, a 23% increase that could be critical in emergency situations.
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Hankook iON Evo
- Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
- Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV
- Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
- Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61
- Falken e.Ziex
- Goodride Solmax 1
Hankook led wet handling with 74.4 km/h, narrowly beating Continental's 74.1 km/h. Goodyear maintained third position while Falken e.Ziex fell to second-last despite its EV-specific design.
- Hankook iON Evo
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV
- Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
- Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61
- Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
- Falken e.Ziex
- Goodride Solmax 1
In the wet circle test, Hankook continued strong with 12.45 seconds, followed by Continental and Yokohama. Goodride again struggled with the slowest time at 13.03 seconds.
- Hankook iON Evo
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61
- Falken e.Ziex
- Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
- Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV
- Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
- Goodride Solmax 1
Firestone Roadhawk 2 resisted aquaplaning up to 80.1 km/h, significantly better than its performance in other tests. Hankook placed second at 74.8 km/h, while Yokohama lost grip earliest at 63.7 km/h.
- Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
- Hankook iON Evo
- Falken e.Ziex
- Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Goodride Solmax 1
- Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
- Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61
Firestone maintained its aquaplaning advantage in curves with 3.02 m/s² lateral acceleration. Hankook again followed in second place, while Yokohama continued to struggle with water evacuation.
- Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
- Hankook iON Evo
- Goodride Solmax 1
- Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV
- Falken e.Ziex
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
- Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61
Comfort
Yokohama produced the least external noise at 68.7 dB, a key advantage for quiet EV operation. Continental and Firestone were the loudest at over 72 dB, showing their focus on grip over comfort.
- Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61
- Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV
- Hankook iON Evo
- Goodride Solmax 1
- Falken e.Ziex
- Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
- Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
- Continental PremiumContact 7
Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV leads in subjective comfort with 8 points, highlighting its balanced approach to both efficiency and ride quality. Most premium contenders like Hankook, Continental, Michelin and Falken offer respectable comfort with 7 points. The budget Goodride Solmax 1 trails significantly with just 5 points, showing where cost-cutting affects the driving experience most noticeably.
- Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV
- Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Falken e.Ziex
- Hankook iON Evo
- Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
- Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61
- Goodride Solmax 1
Value
Goodyear showed the best durability with a projected 49,050 km lifespan. Michelin placed second at 44,920 km, while Firestone's 28,510 km was just over half of Goodyear's life expectancy.
- Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV
- Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
- Hankook iON Evo
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Falken e.Ziex
- Goodride Solmax 1
- Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61
- Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
Budget Goodride offered the best cost efficiency at €11 per 1,000 km despite performance limitations. Goodyear combined durability with competitive pricing for second place, while premium-priced Michelin ranked last at €16.4 per 1,000 km.
- Goodride Solmax 1
- Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV
- Falken e.Ziex
- Hankook iON Evo
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
- Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61
- Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
Falken e.Ziex recorded the lowest rolling resistance at 5.86 kg/t, followed by Michelin and Hankook. Continental had the highest at 7.66 kg/t, showing its priority on grip over efficiency.
Falken's efficiency translated to 410 km range, 65.6 km more than Continental's 344.4 km. Hankook balanced performance with efficiency for second place at 381.3 km, highlighting how tyre choice affects EV range.
- Falken e.Ziex
- Hankook iON Evo
- Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
- Goodride Solmax 1
- Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV
- Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61
- Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
- Continental PremiumContact 7
Results
The Hankook iON evo, specifically designed for electric vehicles, achieved first place with outstanding wet and dry performance. It delivered excellent braking distances (39.6m in wet, 33.6m in dry), strong handling characteristics, and good aquaplaning resistance. With a projected lifespan of 43,120km and moderate rolling resistance (6.81 kg/t), it provides a good balance between safety and efficiency. The tyre offered 381.3km of range in the EV test and strong cornering grip, securing an overall "exemplary" rating.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
1st |
33.6 M |
|
|
100% |
| Dry Handling |
1st |
92.8 Km/H |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
2nd |
39.6 M |
39.4 M |
+0.2 M |
99.49% |
| Wet Handling |
1st |
74.4 Km/H |
|
|
100% |
| Wet Circle |
1st |
12.45 s |
|
|
100% |
| Straight Aqua |
2nd |
74.8 Km/H |
80.1 Km/H |
-5.3 Km/H |
93.38% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
2nd |
2.97 m/sec2 |
3.02 m/sec2 |
-0.05 m/sec2 |
98.34% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
2nd |
7 Points |
8 Points |
-1 Points |
87.5% |
| Noise |
3rd |
70.2 dB |
68.7 dB |
+1.5 dB |
97.86% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
3rd |
43120 KM |
49050 KM |
-5930 KM |
87.91% |
| Value |
4th |
15.1 Price/1000 |
11 Price/1000 |
+4.1 Price/1000 |
72.85% |
| Rolling Resistance |
3rd |
6.81 kg / t |
5.86 kg / t |
+0.95 kg / t |
86.05% |
| Range |
2nd |
381.3 km |
410 km |
-28.7 km |
93% |
Continental's PremiumContact 7 delivered the shortest wet braking distance (39.4m) and strong dry performance. Despite having the highest rolling resistance in the test (7.66 kg/t) and lowest range impact (344.4km), its safety credentials remained impressive with sharp handling characteristics and a projected lifespan of 40,890km. This tyre secured second place with minimal difference from the winner, proving standard tyres can perform effectively on EVs.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
2nd |
34.5 M |
33.6 M |
+0.9 M |
97.39% |
| Dry Handling |
2nd |
91.9 Km/H |
92.8 Km/H |
-0.9 Km/H |
99.03% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
1st |
39.4 M |
|
|
100% |
| Wet Handling |
2nd |
74.1 Km/H |
74.4 Km/H |
-0.3 Km/H |
99.6% |
| Wet Circle |
2nd |
12.59 s |
12.45 s |
+0.14 s |
98.89% |
| Straight Aqua |
5th |
69.3 Km/H |
80.1 Km/H |
-10.8 Km/H |
86.52% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
6th |
2.74 m/sec2 |
3.02 m/sec2 |
-0.28 m/sec2 |
90.73% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
2nd |
7 Points |
8 Points |
-1 Points |
87.5% |
| Noise |
8th |
72.1 dB |
68.7 dB |
+3.4 dB |
95.28% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
4th |
40890 KM |
49050 KM |
-8160 KM |
83.36% |
| Value |
5th |
15.2 Price/1000 |
11 Price/1000 |
+4.2 Price/1000 |
72.37% |
| Rolling Resistance |
8th |
7.66 kg / t |
5.86 kg / t |
+1.8 kg / t |
76.5% |
| Range |
8th |
344.4 km |
410 km |
-65.6 km |
84% |
The Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV achieved third place and won the "Green Tyre" award for its environmental credentials. Its standout feature was exceptional longevity with a projected 49,050km lifespan - the highest in the test. The tyre offered balanced wet (42.2m braking) and dry performance with moderate rolling resistance (7.15 kg/t). Its range impact was 373.1km, placing it mid-field, but its overall combination of efficiency and safety secured its position as the most environmentally friendly option.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
5th |
35.9 M |
33.6 M |
+2.3 M |
93.59% |
| Dry Handling |
3rd |
91.1 Km/H |
92.8 Km/H |
-1.7 Km/H |
98.17% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
4th |
42.2 M |
39.4 M |
+2.8 M |
93.36% |
| Wet Handling |
3rd |
72.9 Km/H |
74.4 Km/H |
-1.5 Km/H |
97.98% |
| Wet Circle |
6th |
12.79 s |
12.45 s |
+0.34 s |
97.34% |
| Straight Aqua |
4th |
71.5 Km/H |
80.1 Km/H |
-8.6 Km/H |
89.26% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
4th |
2.84 m/sec2 |
3.02 m/sec2 |
-0.18 m/sec2 |
94.04% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
1st |
8 Points |
|
|
100% |
| Noise |
2nd |
69.9 dB |
68.7 dB |
+1.2 dB |
98.28% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
1st |
49050 KM |
|
|
100% |
| Value |
2nd |
12 Price/1000 |
11 Price/1000 |
+1 Price/1000 |
91.67% |
| Rolling Resistance |
4th |
7.15 kg / t |
5.86 kg / t |
+1.29 kg / t |
81.96% |
| Range |
5th |
373.1 km |
410 km |
-36.9 km |
91% |
The Michelin Primacy 4+ delivered good all-round performance with short braking distances (43.2m wet, 35.1m dry) and solid handling. It showed low rolling resistance (6.51 kg/t) and delivered 377.2km of range in the test. As the most expensive tyre (€735), it offered strong longevity (44,920km) but suffered from limited aquaplaning resistance, especially in curved conditions. While not explicitly marketed as an EV tyre, it performed well in efficiency metrics.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
3rd |
35.1 M |
33.6 M |
+1.5 M |
95.73% |
| Dry Handling |
4th |
90.8 Km/H |
92.8 Km/H |
-2 Km/H |
97.84% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
5th |
43.2 M |
39.4 M |
+3.8 M |
91.2% |
| Wet Handling |
6th |
70.6 Km/H |
74.4 Km/H |
-3.8 Km/H |
94.89% |
| Wet Circle |
7th |
12.86 s |
12.45 s |
+0.41 s |
96.81% |
| Straight Aqua |
7th |
65.8 Km/H |
80.1 Km/H |
-14.3 Km/H |
82.15% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
7th |
2.6 m/sec2 |
3.02 m/sec2 |
-0.42 m/sec2 |
86.09% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
2nd |
7 Points |
8 Points |
-1 Points |
87.5% |
| Noise |
6th |
71.2 dB |
68.7 dB |
+2.5 dB |
96.49% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
2nd |
44920 KM |
49050 KM |
-4130 KM |
91.58% |
| Value |
8th |
16.4 Price/1000 |
11 Price/1000 |
+5.4 Price/1000 |
67.07% |
| Rolling Resistance |
2nd |
6.51 kg / t |
5.86 kg / t |
+0.65 kg / t |
90.02% |
| Range |
3rd |
377.2 km |
410 km |
-32.8 km |
92% |
The Falken e.Ziex, specifically designed for EVs, stood out for having the lowest rolling resistance (5.86 kg/t) and provided the best range result (410km). It demonstrated good aquaplaning resistance but showed longer wet braking distances (45.6m) compared to top performers. With average dry handling and a moderate projected lifespan of 36,790km, it secured a "good" overall rating with clear focus on efficiency over ultimate grip.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
4th |
35.7 M |
33.6 M |
+2.1 M |
94.12% |
| Dry Handling |
7th |
90.2 Km/H |
92.8 Km/H |
-2.6 Km/H |
97.2% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
7th |
45.6 M |
39.4 M |
+6.2 M |
86.4% |
| Wet Handling |
7th |
69.3 Km/H |
74.4 Km/H |
-5.1 Km/H |
93.15% |
| Wet Circle |
4th |
12.68 s |
12.45 s |
+0.23 s |
98.19% |
| Straight Aqua |
3rd |
72.6 Km/H |
80.1 Km/H |
-7.5 Km/H |
90.64% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
4th |
2.84 m/sec2 |
3.02 m/sec2 |
-0.18 m/sec2 |
94.04% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
2nd |
7 Points |
8 Points |
-1 Points |
87.5% |
| Noise |
5th |
70.9 dB |
68.7 dB |
+2.2 dB |
96.9% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
5th |
36790 KM |
49050 KM |
-12260 KM |
75.01% |
| Value |
3rd |
14.9 Price/1000 |
11 Price/1000 |
+3.9 Price/1000 |
73.83% |
| Rolling Resistance |
1st |
5.86 kg / t |
|
|
100% |
| Range |
1st |
410 km |
|
|
100% |
The Firestone Roadhawk 2 excelled in aquaplaning resistance, achieving the best performance in both straight-line (80.1 km/h) and curved aquaplaning tests (3.02 m/s²). However, it showed limitations in wet braking (41.8m) and overall grip. With a modest projected lifespan of 28,510km (the lowest in the test) and mid-range rolling resistance (7.33 kg/t), the tyre's range impact was below average at 352.6km. Its performance earned a "satisfactory" rating.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
6th |
36.6 M |
33.6 M |
+3 M |
91.8% |
| Dry Handling |
6th |
90.4 Km/H |
92.8 Km/H |
-2.4 Km/H |
97.41% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
3rd |
41.8 M |
39.4 M |
+2.4 M |
94.26% |
| Wet Handling |
4th |
72 Km/H |
74.4 Km/H |
-2.4 Km/H |
96.77% |
| Wet Circle |
5th |
12.7 s |
12.45 s |
+0.25 s |
98.03% |
| Straight Aqua |
1st |
80.1 Km/H |
|
|
100% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
1st |
3.02 m/sec2 |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
2nd |
7 Points |
8 Points |
-1 Points |
87.5% |
| Noise |
7th |
72 dB |
68.7 dB |
+3.3 dB |
95.42% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
8th |
28510 KM |
49050 KM |
-20540 KM |
58.12% |
| Value |
6th |
15.6 Price/1000 |
11 Price/1000 |
+4.6 Price/1000 |
70.51% |
| Rolling Resistance |
6th |
7.33 kg / t |
5.86 kg / t |
+1.47 kg / t |
79.95% |
| Range |
7th |
352.6 km |
410 km |
-57.4 km |
86% |
The Yokohama BluEarth-XT recorded the quietest passing noise in the test (68.7 dB at 80 km/h), making it ideal for silent EVs. Its dry performance was reasonable, but wet weather capabilities showed weaknesses, particularly in aquaplaning resistance where it recorded the lowest values. With a projected lifespan of 30,280km and high rolling resistance (7.58 kg/t), its range impact was 373.1km. The tyre received a "satisfactory" rating for its mixed performance profile.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
6th |
36.6 M |
33.6 M |
+3 M |
91.8% |
| Dry Handling |
5th |
90.5 Km/H |
92.8 Km/H |
-2.3 Km/H |
97.52% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
6th |
44.9 M |
39.4 M |
+5.5 M |
87.75% |
| Wet Handling |
5th |
71.5 Km/H |
74.4 Km/H |
-2.9 Km/H |
96.1% |
| Wet Circle |
3rd |
12.67 s |
12.45 s |
+0.22 s |
98.26% |
| Straight Aqua |
8th |
63.7 Km/H |
80.1 Km/H |
-16.4 Km/H |
79.53% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
8th |
2.58 m/sec2 |
3.02 m/sec2 |
-0.44 m/sec2 |
85.43% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
7th |
6 Points |
8 Points |
-2 Points |
75% |
| Noise |
1st |
68.7 dB |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
7th |
30280 KM |
49050 KM |
-18770 KM |
61.73% |
| Value |
7th |
15.7 Price/1000 |
11 Price/1000 |
+4.7 Price/1000 |
70.06% |
| Rolling Resistance |
7th |
7.58 kg / t |
5.86 kg / t |
+1.72 kg / t |
77.31% |
| Range |
5th |
373.1 km |
410 km |
-36.9 km |
91% |
As the budget option, the Goodride Solmax 1 showed significant compromises in safety. It recorded the longest wet braking distance (48.7m) and limited handling capabilities. Its projected lifespan was 31,030km with moderate rolling resistance (7.22 kg/t), providing a range of 373.2km. Despite its affordable price (€340), its safety limitations resulted in a "conditionally recommended" rating, placing it last in the test.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
8th |
37.8 M |
33.6 M |
+4.2 M |
88.89% |
| Dry Handling |
8th |
88.2 Km/H |
92.8 Km/H |
-4.6 Km/H |
95.04% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
8th |
48.7 M |
39.4 M |
+9.3 M |
80.9% |
| Wet Handling |
8th |
68.4 Km/H |
74.4 Km/H |
-6 Km/H |
91.94% |
| Wet Circle |
8th |
13.03 s |
12.45 s |
+0.58 s |
95.55% |
| Straight Aqua |
6th |
67.5 Km/H |
80.1 Km/H |
-12.6 Km/H |
84.27% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
3rd |
2.85 m/sec2 |
3.02 m/sec2 |
-0.17 m/sec2 |
94.37% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
8th |
5 Points |
8 Points |
-3 Points |
62.5% |
| Noise |
4th |
70.3 dB |
68.7 dB |
+1.6 dB |
97.72% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
6th |
31030 KM |
49050 KM |
-18020 KM |
63.26% |
| Value |
1st |
11 Price/1000 |
|
|
100% |
| Rolling Resistance |
5th |
7.22 kg / t |
5.86 kg / t |
+1.36 kg / t |
81.16% |
| Range |
4th |
373.2 km |
410 km |
-36.8 km |
91.02% |
These are great tests and the results are very helpful. However, I have a 2020 Tesla Model Y that have 255/40R20 so it's harder or impossible to find in your test fleet. In my location of Minneapolis it's VERY common to have dedicated snows (mine are Sottozero 3) and a good All Season for the rest of the year. It turns out finding a good 3+ seasons tire in my size is not easy. I must walk thru a whole series of trade-offs to get a few remaining features I can live with. I can find a summer tire with does well dry & wet & handling & braking. But replacing that soft rubber every 25K miles? I managed nearly 30K miles out of the original Eagle F1 that came with my Model Y (they've changed that now) only because I have experience driving a 4200 pound over-powered car before. It's not the weight its the heavy foot. Taking the highway cloverleaf ramp at 55 mph when it's 90 degrees F means you rub off 1000 hwy miles in 15 seconds. Anyway, some tire testing with my tire size requirements would be immensely helpful. You do great testing! Thank you for that work.
I am in Canada and Hankook has the winter version of the iON. It's called the ION icept
That's a lot of difference a tire can make on the range! Is there any data on this publication at what sort of speed range tests were performed?
I didn't see that data, sorry.
This is a great question! From what I understand, the impact of tires on range is much smaller at highway speeds. So if this test was run at highway speeds, you might see as much as 2x this impact at slower speeds, versus if this test was done at lower speeds, the impact could be as little as 1/2 of this at highway speeds
I believe Autobild usually run the tyres on an oval around 80kmh but I would need to check.
A tyres impact remains relatively constant but you are correct that the aero factor squares so at higher speeds the air is a bigger issue.
Shouldn´t the range scale be the other way around? I believe the Falken should have a 100% grade and be the 1st and the Continental 84%, being the 8th.
Which chart are you referring to?
The last one
Yes you are correct, nice spot. Let me fix that.