For the 2019 summer season Auto Zeitung have tested nine 235/45 R18 summer tyres, and included the summer-bias all season Michelin CrossClimate.
The stand out performances go to the new Continental Premium Contact 6 and Michelin Primacy 4, both showing extremely well balanced test results, and also the new Maxxis Premitra HP5. The quality of Maxxis tyres has quietly improving quickly over the past 12 months, and it's great to see the Premitra HP5 prove it's excellent price / performance ratio.
It's also worth noting, which the Michelin CrossClimate only finished seventh place overall, this is the only tyre on test which has any sort of ability in the snow. The trade for snow performance is often dry grip, but the CrossClimate held its own in a full summer tyre test, which makes it unique amongst all season tyres.
Dry
The dry testing was led by the top three tyres overall, with the Continental, Michelin Primacy 4 and Maxxis trading places in the dry braking and dry handling testing. The Nankang AS1 was last in both tests.
Dry Braking
Spread: 3.20 M (8.9%)|Avg: 37.61 M
Dry braking in meters (Lower is better)
Dry Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tyre
Dry Handling
Spread: 1.60 s (2.7%)|Avg: 60.28 s
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Continental Premium Contact 6
59.30 s
Michelin Primacy 4
59.70 s
Pirelli CINTURATO P7
60.20 s
Maxxis Premitra HP5
60.20 s
Apollo Aspire XP
60.30 s
Yokohama BluEarth AE50
60.40 s
Michelin CrossClimate Plus
60.40 s
Kumho Ecsta HS51
60.70 s
Bridgestone Turanza T005
60.70 s
Nankang AS1
60.90 s
Wet
The Michelin CrossClimate had a surprise advantage during wet braking, but couldn't match the performance during the wet handling lap. The Continental Premium Contact 6 was the best of the summer tyres, with the Maxxis, Yokohama and Bridgestone all having excellent results. The Nankang AS1 was again last.
Wet Braking
Spread: 22.70 M (41.6%)|Avg: 63.27 M
Wet braking in meters (Lower is better)
Wet Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tyre
Wet Handling
Spread: 9.90 s (11%)|Avg: 94.61 s
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Continental Premium Contact 6
90.00 s
Maxxis Premitra HP5
91.20 s
Bridgestone Turanza T005
92.80 s
Yokohama BluEarth AE50
93.40 s
Apollo Aspire XP
94.00 s
Michelin Primacy 4
94.20 s
Michelin CrossClimate Plus
96.00 s
Pirelli CINTURATO P7
96.60 s
Kumho Ecsta HS51
98.00 s
Nankang AS1
99.90 s
The Kumho was the best tyre for straight aquaplaning resistance.
Straight Aqua
Spread: 6.90 Km/H (9.2%)|Avg: 72.66 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
Kumho Ecsta HS51
75.10 Km/H
Bridgestone Turanza T005
74.30 Km/H
Pirelli CINTURATO P7
74.20 Km/H
Apollo Aspire XP
74.10 Km/H
Continental Premium Contact 6
74.00 Km/H
Maxxis Premitra HP5
73.20 Km/H
Michelin Primacy 4
72.30 Km/H
Yokohama BluEarth AE50
70.80 Km/H
Michelin CrossClimate Plus
70.40 Km/H
Nankang AS1
68.20 Km/H
Environment
The Michelin Primacy 4 had an extremely low rolling resistance, while the Continental's only weakness was highlighted.
Rolling Resistance
Spread: 1.72 kg / t (23.9%)|Avg: 8.05 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
Michelin Primacy 4
7.20 kg / t
Bridgestone Turanza T005
7.46 kg / t
Yokohama BluEarth AE50
7.68 kg / t
Michelin CrossClimate Plus
7.78 kg / t
Apollo Aspire XP
8.16 kg / t
Pirelli CINTURATO P7
8.19 kg / t
Maxxis Premitra HP5
8.31 kg / t
Continental Premium Contact 6
8.34 kg / t
Kumho Ecsta HS51
8.49 kg / t
Nankang AS1
8.92 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.
The Maxxis was the quietest tyre on test, with a 1dB margin over the next best.
Noise
Spread: 4.00 dB (5.9%)|Avg: 70.20 dB
External noise in dB (Lower is better)
Maxxis Premitra HP5
68.00 dB
Nankang AS1
69.00 dB
Pirelli CINTURATO P7
70.00 dB
Yokohama BluEarth AE50
70.00 dB
Kumho Ecsta HS51
70.00 dB
Apollo Aspire XP
70.00 dB
Continental Premium Contact 6
71.00 dB
Bridgestone Turanza T005
71.00 dB
Michelin Primacy 4
71.00 dB
Michelin CrossClimate Plus
72.00 dB
The cheapest set of tyres on test, the Nankang AS1, were almost a third of the price of the most expensive.
Price
Spread: 380.00 (143.4%)|Avg: 460.00
Price in local currency (Lower is better)
Nankang AS1
265.00
Kumho Ecsta HS51
325.00
Maxxis Premitra HP5
345.00
Apollo Aspire XP
400.00
Pirelli CINTURATO P7
465.00
Yokohama BluEarth AE50
470.00
Bridgestone Turanza T005
540.00
Continental Premium Contact 6
555.00
Michelin Primacy 4
590.00
Michelin CrossClimate Plus
645.00
Results
As always, you can see the full results on the Auto Zeitung website.
I would like a very quiet tyres and safety as well. My doubt is michelin primacy 4 or nokian wetproof. Size 225/45/17 for a Bmw 1 series. I understood that Nokian are better on wet and dry as well, and noise is approximately the same. But when they are much aged, will they maintain the same characteristics? thanks for helping!
As a rule Michelin generally wear better than other brands, but the Nokian is a new tyre from a premium brand so there's no reason this should perform worse than any other brand.
Already did ?. But I am confused. ...constructors declare a noise value but in test it is different. For instance goodyear f1 a3 68db and in your test f1 a5(70db) are quieter. Could you please advise me the quieter tyres(premium brands) at high speeds(motorway). I will appreciate very mutch! Thanks?
I have those Maxxis Premitra HP5, at first I liked them, but not anymore.. At a certain point, where there's approx 5-5,5mm of thread left, they change a lot, like it's a whole different rubber compound. Suddenly they're terrible sub 5deg Celsius. Also their wet capabilities have become poor. When it's wet and sub 5C they're lethal. They've become extremely noisy over time. Wear is high in the beginning, but now it's really slow.
Also, how can the Premitra HP5 be 'new' (as mentioned in the text) if I have them already since February 2017.. DOT = 4616.. Or did they have an update?
Interesting information, hopefully it's a one off or weather related but I'll keep an eye out for other reviews like this. ADAC did wear test a Maxxis tyre and found nothing usual, though it was a different pattern.
For 5 years and 45000km I had the Pirelli Pzero Nero(205/45/16) and I was very satisfied with this tire. Now I'm thinking of putting the premitra hp5,but i am not sure if this should be a good choice. It can compare this tire with my old pirelli? Is Maxxis premitra a worth buying in your opinion?
Nice clear layout for this one! The surprise was the Kumho which usually tests pretty well and has strong reviews to back this up. Like the other Andy just said though, like the CC, this is more a 'general' tyre stretched out to a more 'sporty' size against some more 'sportier' tyres. That said, the second surprise is the Maxxis, also a 'general' tyre, testing a bit better than normal. They arent poor tyres, but its a strong result nevertheless. The big downside of these astronomic wear, but that is the downfall of a lot of decent tyres today!
A couple of points, one that TR needs to include on the review details, the other, more a commentary over Auto Zeitung's methodology:
1. The size/rating of the tyres tested is not mentioned in the details or title of the review (the size for the ADAC review is). Given the CC+ is more suited to 'standard' (non-performance/low profile) tyre sized to get the best performance (from reading previous reviews [and why I chose them for my car]), what size of tyre tested could easily sway the result as regards how the CC+ fairs.
2. The test (at least as the results are shown here) don't show any marks for wear/value for money, which other tests often do. As many group tests have already shown, the CC+ is excellent on that score and more than offset the higher purchase price, especially when the winter performance is factored in. Similarly no marks were given for 'comfort', another rating that the CC+ often does very well on.
It's a shame (you're not at fault Jon, but the magazines testing them) that there isn't a more unified testing regime as what criteria are used - I have no problems with performance tyres (obviously not the CC+ or other all-season tyres) being weighted more to the handling/braking side of things, but I think all reviews and group tests should include comparative scores across a wide range of aspects of the tyre, as some can look overly good or poor because a rating is included, excluded or weighted too heavily.
The size was in the database, I just forgot to mention it in the article. First of the year, I'm rusty :) It's added now!
As I'm sure you know, wear is very difficult to test, as to do it properly you actually have to go out and drive. For 10 sets of tyres, which need at least 10,000 miles on, that's a lot of driving. I'm always thankful when ADAC and Auto Bild do include wear testing.
I'm in the process of adding the score weighting details to the database too so hopefully that will become more clear in the future. It's currently difficult to decide whether to use the raw data where available, or to use the scoring numbers magazines also feel the need to apply.
No problem Jon. I had an inkling that the tyre size in the group test was a lower profile one, as from the reviews generally the CC+ seems to do less well in wider, lower profile sizes than those over 50. I'm keen on a group test with it against other all-season and summer tyres for the two most popular sizes: 205/55 R16 and 195/65 R15.
In my judgement, it's a good thing that various magazines use different test protocols & weight different parameters of performance differently & differently for different classes of tyre. An astute user of tests should be ignoring overall scores anyway & mining the data for information on parameters of interest. A variety of test protocol "takes" on those prioritised areas adds breadth. What should ideally be as apparent as possible is information about the test protocol which led to a given score & TR tries to supply this to some extent in the introductory "blurb" & in table annotations.
I would like a very quiet tyres and safety as well.
My doubt is michelin primacy 4 or nokian wetproof. Size 225/45/17 for a Bmw 1 series.
I understood that Nokian are better on wet and dry as well, and noise is approximately the same. But when they are much aged, will they maintain the same characteristics? thanks for helping!
As a rule Michelin generally wear better than other brands, but the Nokian is a new tyre from a premium brand so there's no reason this should perform worse than any other brand.
Thanks for your reply... In terms of noisy goodyear asymmetric 5 are better?
Have a look at our video and the various test data on this site :)
Already did ?. But I am confused. ...constructors declare a noise value but in test it is different. For instance goodyear f1 a3 68db and in your test f1 a5(70db) are quieter. Could you please advise me the quieter tyres(premium brands) at high speeds(motorway).
I will appreciate very mutch! Thanks?
You have all the data I have :) My noise test was internal noise, some tests are external.
I would have liked to see Landsail tyres in the list. Appreciate there are many makes now
though.
Sadly we don't see Landsail in many tests anymore.
I think that load and speed index should be known. They make a difference even in the same size and model. Correct me if I'm wrong.
They don't always made a difference, but you're right, it can. I'll work on getting it added to the database where available!
I have those Maxxis Premitra HP5, at first I liked them, but not anymore..
At a certain point, where there's approx 5-5,5mm of thread left, they change a lot, like it's a whole different rubber compound. Suddenly they're terrible sub 5deg Celsius. Also their wet capabilities have become poor. When it's wet and sub 5C they're lethal. They've become extremely noisy over time.
Wear is high in the beginning, but now it's really slow.
Also, how can the Premitra HP5 be 'new' (as mentioned in the text) if I have them already since February 2017.. DOT = 4616..
Or did they have an update?
Specially made an account for this:
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
This is how they look after ~40,000km, approx 4mm left
New with tyres is relative, though you're right, I thought they were launched in early 2018 but I was wrong.
Obviously I can't comment on grip, but that's very good wear for 40,000 kms!
Interesting information, hopefully it's a one off or weather related but I'll keep an eye out for other reviews like this. ADAC did wear test a Maxxis tyre and found nothing usual, though it was a different pattern.
For 5 years and 45000km I had the Pirelli Pzero Nero(205/45/16) and I was very satisfied with this tire. Now I'm thinking of putting the premitra hp5,but i am not sure if this should be a good choice. It can compare this tire with my old pirelli? Is Maxxis premitra a worth buying in your opinion?
Hi, I can't find it on the Autozeitung website as mentioned, can you give me a hint?
It might not be published yet, sorry! I'll update the article with a link when it is.
Nice clear layout for this one!
The surprise was the Kumho which usually tests pretty well and has strong reviews to back this up. Like the other Andy just said though, like the CC, this is more a 'general' tyre stretched out to a more 'sporty' size against some more 'sportier' tyres.
That said, the second surprise is the Maxxis, also a 'general' tyre, testing a bit better than normal. They arent poor tyres, but its a strong result nevertheless. The big downside of these astronomic wear, but that is the downfall of a lot of decent tyres today!
I've just added even more data points to the overall results, should make things even clearer (though the formatting does need updating!)
A couple of points, one that TR needs to include on the review details, the other, more a commentary over Auto Zeitung's methodology:
1. The size/rating of the tyres tested is not mentioned in the details or title of the review (the size for the ADAC review is). Given the CC+ is more suited to 'standard' (non-performance/low profile) tyre sized to get the best performance (from reading previous reviews [and why I chose them for my car]), what size of tyre tested could easily sway the result as regards how the CC+ fairs.
2. The test (at least as the results are shown here) don't show any marks for wear/value for money, which other tests often do. As many group tests have already shown, the CC+ is excellent on that score and more than offset the higher purchase price, especially when the winter performance is factored in. Similarly no marks were given for 'comfort', another rating that the CC+ often does very well on.
It's a shame (you're not at fault Jon, but the magazines testing them) that there isn't a more unified testing regime as what criteria are used - I have no problems with performance tyres (obviously not the CC+ or other all-season tyres) being weighted more to the handling/braking side of things, but I think all reviews and group tests should include comparative scores across a wide range of aspects of the tyre, as some can look overly good or poor because a rating is included, excluded or weighted too heavily.
Hi Andy!
The size was in the database, I just forgot to mention it in the article. First of the year, I'm rusty :) It's added now!
As I'm sure you know, wear is very difficult to test, as to do it properly you actually have to go out and drive. For 10 sets of tyres, which need at least 10,000 miles on, that's a lot of driving. I'm always thankful when ADAC and Auto Bild do include wear testing.
I'm in the process of adding the score weighting details to the database too so hopefully that will become more clear in the future. It's currently difficult to decide whether to use the raw data where available, or to use the scoring numbers magazines also feel the need to apply.
No problem Jon. I had an inkling that the tyre size in the group test was a lower profile one, as from the reviews generally the CC+ seems to do less well in wider, lower profile sizes than those over 50. I'm keen on a group test with it against other all-season and summer tyres for the two most popular sizes: 205/55 R16 and 195/65 R15.
I'm sure it's featured in those in the past? The data must be on the website (I'm on mobile so can't search right now)
In my judgement, it's a good thing that various magazines use different test protocols & weight different parameters of performance differently & differently for different classes of tyre.
An astute user of tests should be ignoring overall scores anyway & mining the data for information on parameters of interest. A variety of test protocol "takes" on those prioritised areas adds breadth.
What should ideally be as apparent as possible is information about the test protocol which led to a given score & TR tries to supply this to some extent in the introductory "blurb" & in table annotations.