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 (s)
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Wet Performance Overview
Wet Braking (M)
Wet braking in meters (Lower is better)
Wet Handling (s)
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Wet Circle (s)
Wet Circle Lap Time in seconds (Lower is better)
Straight Aqua (Km/H)
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
Curved Aquaplaning (m/sec2)
Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)
Value Performance Overview
Price
Price in local currency (Lower is better)
Rolling Resistance (kg / t)
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
Fuel Consumption (l/100km)
Fuel consumption in Litres per 100 km (Lower is better)
Overall Findings
Based on the weighted scoring from all tests, here are the overall results:
| Position | Tyre | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Continental Premium Contact 6 | 0% | |
| 2 | Nokian Hakka Blue 3 | 0% |
| 3 | Bridgestone Turanza T005 | 0% |
| 4 | Toyo Proxes Comfort | 0% |
| 5 | Michelin Primacy 4 | 0% |
| 6 | Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 | 0% |
| 7 | Nokian Hakka Green 3 | 0% |
| 8 | Continental EcoContact 6 | 0% |
| 9 | Michelin e.Primacy | 0% |
| 10 | Petlas Imperium PT515 | 0% |
I wonder if you wear down those non-eco tyres down to eco-tyre thread depts what would consumption will look like....
A magazine did it and it ended up pretty close...
Why on earth is the fuel consumption test set up so clumsily?!
Driving in a continuous circle, which introduces centrifugal forces and changes the characteristics of each tyre...
Using a petrol engine, which wastes more than 75% of energy in the cooling system, is of course going to minimise the effects. They really could not find a single electric car in all of Sweden...?
With EVs, rolling resistance makes up more than half of the typical consumption.
I run an Jaguar I-Pace EV. I have switched from the OEM B label Good Years summer tyres to A label Pirelli's. (The Pirellli's are all season tyres,, which I run in winter.)
I have a clearly measured improvement in efficiency of more than 1.5kWh per 100km, or nearly 10%. 10% more range, 10% less charging time etc, that really makes a difference.
It is very encouraging to see that all manufacturers increasingly understand the importance and field gradual improvements with each new tyre released. In my opinion this 'test' does little to advance understanding or awareness as it leads to dismissing the entire notion as marketing. While the pressure shoulf IMO be to gain the tangible, real benefits without the trade-off disadvantages that speaks from this test.
Because fuel consumption tests are hard. Driving in a straight line introduces wind issues. We have the bench tests of the tyres so we have actual rolling resistance data of the tyres fortunately.
And yes you're right the RR effect of a tyre on an EV is around 3x an IC. EVs still aren't usually part of test fleets yet because of the recharge time and the amount of energy used in a full test.
Funny to see that some brand new tyres have just 2 mm thread more than the value (4mm) some few years ago manufacturers was suggesting as limit for safe wet conditions...
I will never trade 5.6 meters on wet bracking or 10 km/h margin on aquaplaning for 0.2 l/100km... (happy to spend extea 0.36 €/100km for safety).
Finally a test like this one to break many urban and marketing myths! It's funny to see, however, how that 1% of fuel consumption increase for each 5% of rolling resistance increase rule of thumb almost goes out of the window. For instance: the Michelin e-Primacy has 13% lower RR than the Conti EC6 but has a FC 1,2% higher; the Conti PC6 has a RR 31% higher than the Conti EC6 but only wastes 3,8% more fuel, and the same Conti PC6 has a RR 7,5% higher than the Michelin P4 but has a FC 0,6% lower. Of course, comparing the results on a naked eye, in general terms, the lower the RR the lower the fuel consumption, so, I wonder if tyre weight is that important in terms of fuel consumption as rolling resistance or have they measured the RR and FC in this test in a very scientific manner or not? But then, the Bridgestone T005 has a RR 0,4% lower than the Goodyear EGP2, weighs 8,4% less but burns 2 % more fuel...
Maybe tyre aerodynamics counts just as much...
Fuel consumption was measured in a driven circle, I'm not sure how accurate that is, but rolling resistance is measured on a drum and VERY accurate as it's also the EU standard for the label!
You're right though, it's very interesting.
Sadly all reviews of this size are missing the Michelin Pilot Sport 4. Actually the PS4 is available in 205/55 R16 for some time (as was the PS3 before) as one of the very few UHP tyres in this 'milder' size. 'Sadly' because I supect it would be a clear winner. At the very least it likely would be on par with Conti's PremiumContact 6.