| Test Summary | |
| Wet Braking |
Maxxis Mecotra ME3 |
| Dry Braking |
Continental Premium Contact 5 |
| Wear |
Falken Sincera SN832 Ecorun |
| Rolling Resistance |
Apollo Amazer 4G Eco |
| Noise |
Firestone Multihawk 2 |
| Snow Braking |
Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 Vredestein T Trac 2 Pneumant Summer ST2 Goodyear EfficientGrip Compact Fulda EcoControl |
In this 175/65 R14 test, the mid range brands dominate! Falken impressively win the test and continue their run of recently form with the SN832 Ecorun having a very balanced overall performance. The Continental owned brand Semperit finishes in second place, owing to an excellent wet performance, and third place was the best result a premium manufacturer could manage with the Dunlop proving to be a well balanced tyre.
Fourth to sixth are back to mid range brands, with the Michelin owned Kleber keeping the Michelin speciality at work, by having both low wear and a good dry and wet performance for fourth place. Fifth and sixth places were awarded to sister brands Vredestein and Apollo, both scoring excellent result in the rolling resistance tests, but still being acceptable in the wet.
It looks like Continental was marked down heavily for wear, as the Premium Contact 5 was otherwise a strong tyre, winning the wet testing, where as Goodyear in tenth again struggled with wet performance.
The one bit of raw data we've seen from this test was the best wet braking (Continental) stopped the car in 42.7m, and the worst (Sava) stopped the car in 52.2m.
More results below, or check out the ADAC website for the full details.
Results
The overall results are weighted 20% dry, 40% wet, 10% noise and comfort, 10% fuel consumption and 20% wear
Hello.You are testing Summer tyres and the results are weighted: 20% dry 40%wet???What's wrong with this picture?We are talking about Summer tyres here!!! Anyone understand what i'm saying?
The results must be equal between dry and wet.You must correct this wrong.Not all countries are north.What about Portugal-Spain-Greece-Italy-France etc.....
This is how the Germans like to test. For my own testing I do have more of a balance.
I would like to know your opinion about Yokohama BluEarth-ES ES32. Seems to be new tyre. Not much information available.
Also in the latest ADAC tests it seems that they are ignoring this brand.. Don't know why
. May be I'm wrong.
I can understand the Continental tyre being somewhat marked down due to 'high wear' (though the equivalent 205/55 R16 tyre seems to do OK on that in the ADAC test linked here), but THAT much so it ends up 9th out of 14?
The 'score' for wear, given how highly the ratings and the (numeric) score was must've been horrible, so why was 'only' given a 6/10? The top 3 in the test only received 7s and weren't the highest scoring in that category either.
Something doesn't seem right here - perhaps some badly fitted tyres that meant they wore far quicker than they should?
You can see the ADAC score weighting on their website at https://www.adac.de/ but I'm not sure that will make it any clearer.
Usually they weight heavily in favour of wet performance which means the tyre should have finished much higher.
If it's not too difficult, it'd be nice to include a link to the relevant bit of the ADAC site.
Of course, sorry, I do mean to link them!
https://www.adac.de/infotes...
Thanks. Are you able to clarify just what behaviours ADAC are appraising when they talk of wet "handling"?
From the site in mega detail:
Wet pavement (weight 40%, with note limits): Brakes (weighting 30%): Braking distance with ABS braking from 80 km / h to 20 km / h on asphalt and concrete carriageway, three repetitions with five test drives each. Aquaplaning lengthwise (weighting 20%): Acceleration during passage through a water basin, water depth 7 mm, only the left wheels roll through the water basin, the measured variable is the float speed at which the wheel in question gets a slip of 15%, five test runs per tire model , Aquaplaning transversal (weighting 10%): Gradually faster trip on circular path (diameter 200 m) with 20 m long, water-wetted sector, water depth 7 mm, speed increase from 65 km / h to 95 km / h in steps of 5 km / h, measured value is the variation of lateral acceleration on the waterway, One test drive per tire and speed level. Handling (weighting 20% for time evaluation, 10% subjective rating): fastest possible driving (in the border area) of a long-winded, winding handling course (length 1900 m) by two test drivers, measured value: lap time, additionally independent subjective assessment of the tire characteristics by both test drivers, each Driver completes two runs per tire model with three laps each. Circle / lateral guidance (weighting 10%): fastest possible driving on a completely permanently rainy circular path, measured quantity: lap time, five measuring rounds per tire model. curved handling course (length 1900 m) by two test drivers, measured value: lap time, additionally independent subjective assessment of the tire characteristics by both test drivers, each driver completes two runs per tire model with three laps each. Circle / lateral guidance (weighting 10%): fastest possible driving on a completely permanently rainy circular path, measured quantity: lap time, five measuring rounds per tire model. curved handling course (length 1900 m) by two test drivers, measured value: lap time, additionally independent subjective assessment of the tire characteristics by both test drivers, each driver completes two runs per tire model with three laps each. Circle / lateral guidance (weighting 10%): fastest possible driving on a completely permanently rainy circular path, measured quantity: lap time, five measuring rounds per tire model.
Hmm! Thanks; I hadn't found that.
still, mega in some way but micro in others. My main interest is in the subjective ratings & it would have been helpful to have a feeling for what was behind them. My own interest would be in limit behaviour in the wet (signalling of limit, breadth of limit zone, responsiveness to remedial interventions & soon.)
If you're interested in subjective the ADAC tests aren't for you. Auto Bild, Sport Auto and EVO magazine cover subjective more for their UHP stuff, but in the smaller sizes information is very limited.
Yes, I realise that. The trouble with larger size tests is that one doesn't even get the same tyres as are available in the sizes my old toys use. I was a bit interested in the Falken SN832 (just newly available in the colonies & in a useful size for me) but I'll dodge it on the wet handling fine print & continue to use the excellent Conti PC2 (PC5 not available here in useful sizes).
ADAC are already using subjective appraisals & all they really have to do is up-mega their standard blurb a bit to indicate what criteria their subjective testers are using & I'd be contentish.
And this IS the issue with those of us who wish to run performance "classic" and component vehicles safely on the road without busting either our bank balances cars our ourselves!!!