| Test Summary | |
| Wet Braking |
Michelin Primacy 3 Continental Premium Contact 5 |
| Dry Braking |
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance Pirelli Cinturato P7 Blue Kumho Solus HS51 Harmony Sports |
| Wear |
Michelin Primacy 3 |
| Rolling Resistance |
Hankook K425 Kinergy Eco Bridgestone Ecopia EP001S |
| Snow Braking |
Michelin Energy Saver Plus Michelin Primacy 3 |
| Snow Handling |
Hankook K425 Kinergy Eco Continental Eco Contact 5 |
The 2015 European tyre test by the German organisations ADAC and Stiftung Warentest is here, and this time it's a little more interesting than usual.
This year testing 205/55 R16, ADAC made their annual tyre test a little more in-depth by including a number of "low rolling resistance" ECO tyres. These tyres are designed to use less fuel than normal tyres, with a little trade in dry and wet grip.
Unfortunately for those of us looking to save a few pound on the annual fuel bill, not one of the ECO tyres offered a balance of performance ADAC were happy with, and they finished in the final five places. While all the tyres offered slightly improved rolling resistance scores, the trade off in wet grip wasn't worth the small saving.
While the ECO Michelin Energy Saver+ could only manage 15th place due to a poor wet performance, it's sister tyre, the Michelin Primacy 3, won the test by a large margin thanks to an excellent performance in the dry, wet, the best wear score and low rolling resistance.
The usual suspects filled places two to five, with Bridgestone making a suprise return to the top six with the Turenza T001 - apparently Bridgestone have finally got on top of the wet performance issues their tyres have faced in the past.
The Results
Surprised the Goodyear EfficientGrip beat the Conti Premium contact.... I found the Conti to be a very good handling tyre in all conditions albeit a little noisy on less than perfect road surfaces. I replaced them with Goodyear EfficientGrip's as it was cheaper and being promoted with a free insurance and felt the adverse handling effect (It was more comfy and quiet though). if you driving a FWD with some grunt the Conti is the better option.
Never trust German tests. They are all biased and corrupted. These days all German tests are sponsorred. It's the same with rating agencies such as Moodys or S&P. Companies buy these ratings.
When the PC5 was released, your article on that release showed an official Continental "spider" chart comparing it to the PC2 & to the EC5. The PC5 & EC5 were superior to the PC2 in almost every respect & the only differences on the chart were that the PC5 was markedly better in wet braking & the EC5 in rolling resistance. That chart's claims contradict this test. Some of the detail of the tyre test show, from the wet tests, the following point scores (lower is better):
- wet braking: PC5 2.3 & EC5 3.2 (as expected);
- longitudinal aquaplaning: 2.3 & 3 (perhaps not a surprise although the correlation of such scores with wet braking is not always high); but then we get bewildering disparities as follows:
- cornering aquaplaning: 2.5 & 3.5;
- handling: 1.9 & 3.1;
- tranverse stability: 2.0 & 3.5.
On the basis of the chart, these results are bizarre. Perhaps it's due to the rumoured re-compounding of the PC5 to improve wet grip. Or, as such a spread is what one would expect, perhaps Continental are to be condemned for a false PC5 release chart.
There's no chance Conti would have released a false release chart, especially as at the launch we drove on previous variants of both the PC and EC as a comparison.
Tyres are incredibly complex, what's better in one size and on one vehicle might not be the same in a different tyre size on a different vehicle. When you combine this with the fact they're being constantly updated during their life cycle for improved performance, it's not overly suspicious that a spider diagram from 3 years ago is slightly out of date.
http://www.tyrereviews.co.u...
Thanks for the response; I'm aware of all of that but it's a pretty radical reshaping.'slightly' seems inapt!?!
Relatedly,I do wish that more tyre tests would include just superseded tyres (still sold & available in the relevant size & themselves presumably recompounded over time). In this context, the inclusion of a PC2 would have been interesting (a tyre I much like).
It would be interesting to hear if your impressions at the time on the test vehicles bore out the spider chart on wet grip.
The Primacy 3 has 9 in the dry. Like the CPC5 no?
We translate from adac, they have the full data.
I know, and the Primacy 3 has 9 in the dry "the best score" with the CPC5. ;)
And there is a test in a smaller size no?
Sorry, yes you're absolutely right. Updated :)
There is a 185/60 R14 test too, we will publish the results this week :)
The smaller size test can be seen here:
http://www.tyrereviews.co.u...