Performance Overview
This radar chart shows relative performance across all test categories, with 100% representing the best performance in each category. Reference tires may have gaps where data is not available.
Dry Performance Overview
Dry Braking (M)
Dry braking in meters (Lower is better)
Dry Handling (Km/H)
Dry Handling Average Speed (Higher is better)
Wet Performance Overview
Wet Braking (M)
Wet braking in meters (Lower is better)
Wet Handling (Km/H)
Wet Handling Average Speed (Higher is better)
Wet Circle (m/s)
Lateral wet grip in m/s squared (Higher is better)
Straight Aqua (Km/H)
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
Curved Aquaplaning (m/sec2)
Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)
Comfort Performance Overview
Noise (dB)
External noise in dB (Lower is better)
Value Performance Overview
Wear (KM)
Predicted tread life in KM (Higher is better)
Value (Price/1000)
Euros/1000km based on cost/wear (Lower is better)
Price
Price in local currency (Lower is better)
Rolling Resistance (kg / t)
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
Overall Findings
Based on the weighted scoring from all tests, here are the overall results:
| Position | Tyre | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 | 0% | |
| 2 | Hankook Ventus Prime 4 | 0% |
| 3 | Michelin Primacy 4 | 0% |
| 4 | Bridgestone Turanza T005 | 0% |
| 5 | Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun | 0% |
| 6 | Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 0% |
| 7 | Sava Intensa UHP 2 | 0% |
| 8 | Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2 | 0% |
| 9 | BFGoodrich Advantage | 0% |
| 10 | Fulda SportControl 2 | 0% |
| 11 | Toyo Proxes Comfort | 0% |
| 12 | Debica Presto UHP2 | 0% |
| 13 | Kleber Dynaxer HP4 | 0% |
| 14 | Vredestein Ultrac | 0% |
| 15 | Maxxis Premitra HP5 | 0% |
| 16 | Laufenn S Fit EQ Plus | 0% |
| 17 | Nexen N Fera Primus | 0% |
| 18 | Goodride SA57 | 0% |
| 19 | Continental EcoContact 6 | 0% |
| 20 | GT-Radial FE2 | 0% |
| 21 | Nokian PowerProof | 0% |
| 22 | Reference All Season | 0% |
I was checking out the FALKEN 205/55 R16 ZIEX ZE310AEC 91V, which have a Fuel Efficiency mark A, but it says here it has almost the highest rolling resistance... So, now I'm a bit confused...
This test would have been started in 2021 so it might be that the tyre has had a midlife update.
Got it. Might be :)
Still no Primacy 4+ review...
I tested it in a comparison video on youtube against ps5 and ps4s and auto express have tested it: https://www.tyrereviews.com...
When the Conti EC5 was released, it had spider charts comparing it with the EC3 & a (woeful) "fuel efficiency optimised" experimental tyre. The message was that one can't go too far down the LRR path without serious degradation of wet grip. It seems that that experimental tyre is the parent of the execrable EC6..
Conti EC 6 is already older (Oct. 2018 productions starts, 2019 first sales but developed much earlier), see https://reifenpresse.de/202...
It has already kind of "Evo" further optimized (pattern, fuel consumption, compound, grip and handling) and more quiet successor which is called EC 6Q, at least already in the OEM versions. But I see at the bottom of the reference that currently its available ony in 17-21'...but it was not yet publicly and independently tested, first test results I expect to be published in the spring 2023.
Normally I saw there are still shops selling the older EC5, maybe also in smaller sizes, which are probably no more profitable for the producers, given the huge raise of primary materials, energies and inflation.
You can also use alternatives from the remaining top producers, like e.g. not so much known Hankook K435 Eco 2, Michelin Primacy 4/4+ or Bridgestone Turanza T005 or Eco etc. But probably all producers will increase the prices within the 1st half of this year, at least, so hurry up to buy slightly older stock, if you need it this year.
I do wish that other qualities were optimised a bit more or that the excellent PC5 &/or PC2 were maintained in more smaller sizes as an alternative to the EC6. Presumably the market isn't there. I have used the Kinergy Eco2 (to replace no longer available PC2 in my size) dirt is a decided step down in crispness of response, wet grip & limit behaviour.
.
I am not sure how the Goodyear wins this considering it is way behind the best in terms of performance on the road. Looking at the individual results suggest that is the middle of the pack at most things (apart from wear)
Auto Bild have quite a complicated downgrade system meaning if a tyre is best in every test but one key test where is was "yellow" then it can never finish in the top group. The exact details of this aren't published as far as I know so we have to trust the results.
I remember a website (Hungarian I think) that contained some of the tyre tests where you could value various criteria on your own (e.g. safety parameters in the dry / wet, performance, rolling resistance, estimated mileage). And it changed the rankings according to your criteria. Sadly I can't remember its address anymore, it's been a few years.
It is not just tyre tests, current Euro NCAP also no longer analyses real safety of a given car but checks if it has enough assisting and potentially dangerous gizmos instead.
IF safety was the primary criteria, Vredestein and Nokian would be definitely in the top three whereas Goodyear would have been in the bottom third.
If you ever find that website please share it, I remember it too and loved the solution, I'm trying to implement one on tyre reviews so it would be great to have it as a reference.
Found it, deeply burried at autonavigator.hu.
the most recent being a winter tyre test of 2021 (https://www.autonavigator.h...
Legend, thank you for finding that! :D
Graphs - or texts - for rolling resistance and noise should switch positions. Also, there's no final verdict (pros and cons) for »Bridgestone T005« now. It's nice you mentioned »Auto bild« site and magazine for details, but maybe it would be useful to mark »Volkswagen Passat Variant B8« as test-vehicle.
Well spotted, thank you.