Menu

The Best Touring Tyres for 2025 Tested

Jonathan Benson
Tested and written by Jonathan Benson
8 min read
Below are all the data points for the The Best Touring Tyres for 2025 Tested, displaying how each tyre performed across all test categories. The spider chart below provides a complete overview of performance, where one hundred percent represents the best performance in each category. The larger the area covered by each tyre's plot, the better its overall performance.
How to read these charts: For each test category, data is presented relative to the best performing tire. The direction indicates whether lower or higher values are better - pay close attention to this when interpreting results.

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.

Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
Pirelli Cinturato C3
Continental PremiumContact 7
Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
Goodtrip GR 66
Falken ZIEX ZE320
Vredestein Ultrac

Quick Navigation

Dry Performance Overview

Dry Braking (M)

Spread: 2.96 M (8.7%) | Avg: 35.00 M

Dry braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Pirelli Cinturato C3 with a result of 34.13 M. The difference between best and worst was 8%.
  1. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    34.13 M
  2. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    34.21 M
  3. Vredestein Ultrac
    34.43 M
  4. Continental PremiumContact 7
    34.65 M
  5. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    35.22 M
  6. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    35.27 M
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    37.09 M

Dry Handling (s)

Spread: 1.86 s (2.2%) | Avg: 86.21 s

Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: All the tyres in the dry handling test finished less than 3% apart.
  1. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    85.54 s
  2. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    85.61 s
  3. Continental PremiumContact 7
    85.73 s
  4. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    86.22 s
  5. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    86.43 s
  6. Vredestein Ultrac
    86.57 s
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    87.4 s

Subj. Dry Handling ( Points)

Spread: 4.00 Points (40%) | Avg: 8.93 Points

Subjective Dry Handling Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Michelin Primacy 4 Plus with a result of 10 Points. The difference between best and worst was 40%.
  1. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    10 Points
  2. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    10 Points
  3. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    9.5 Points
  4. Continental PremiumContact 7
    9.5 Points
  5. Vredestein Ultrac
    9 Points
  6. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    8.5 Points
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    6 Points

Wet Performance Overview

Wet Braking (M)

Spread: 9.39 M (38.2%) | Avg: 27.08 M

Wet braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental PremiumContact 7 with a result of 24.61 M. The difference between best and worst was 27.6%.
  1. Continental PremiumContact 7
    24.61 M
  2. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    24.96 M
  3. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    25.47 M
  4. Vredestein Ultrac
    25.79 M
  5. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    27.16 M
  6. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    27.57 M
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    34 M

Wet Handling (s)

Spread: 11.54 s (11%) | Avg: 108.56 s

Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Falken ZIEX ZE320 with a result of 105.18 s. The difference between best and worst was 9.9%.
  1. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    105.18 s
  2. Vredestein Ultrac
    106.28 s
  3. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    106.63 s
  4. Continental PremiumContact 7
    107.14 s
  5. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    108.05 s
  6. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    109.92 s
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    116.72 s

Subj. Wet Handling ( Points)

Spread: 2.00 Points (20%) | Avg: 9.36 Points

Subjective Wet Handling Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN with a result of 10 Points. The difference between best and worst was 20%.
  1. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    10 Points
  2. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    10 Points
  3. Vredestein Ultrac
    10 Points
  4. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    9.5 Points
  5. Continental PremiumContact 7
    9.25 Points
  6. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    8.75 Points
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    8 Points

Straight Aqua (Km/H)

Spread: 9.90 Km/H (10.1%) | Avg: 94.64 Km/H

Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental PremiumContact 7 with a result of 98.1 Km/H. The difference between best and worst was 10.1%.
  1. Continental PremiumContact 7
    98.1 Km/H
  2. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    97.7 Km/H
  3. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    95.7 Km/H
  4. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    95.5 Km/H
  5. Vredestein Ultrac
    95.2 Km/H
  6. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    92.1 Km/H
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    88.2 Km/H

Curved Aquaplaning (m/sec2)

Spread: 0.33 m/sec2 (12.7%) | Avg: 2.48 m/sec2

Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Pirelli Cinturato C3 with a result of 2.6 m/sec2. The difference between best and worst was 12.7%.
  1. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    2.6 m/sec2
  2. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    2.58 m/sec2
  3. Continental PremiumContact 7
    2.57 m/sec2
  4. Vredestein Ultrac
    2.55 m/sec2
  5. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    2.47 m/sec2
  6. Goodtrip GR 66
    2.35 m/sec2
  7. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    2.27 m/sec2

Comfort Performance Overview

Subj. Comfort ( Points)

Spread: 3.00 Points (30%) | Avg: 8.93 Points

Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Michelin Primacy 4 Plus with a result of 10 Points. The difference between best and worst was 30%.
  1. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    10 Points
  2. Vredestein Ultrac
    9.5 Points
  3. Continental PremiumContact 7
    9.5 Points
  4. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    9 Points
  5. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    9 Points
  6. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    8.5 Points
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    7 Points

Noise (dB)

Spread: 2.30 dB (3.2%) | Avg: 71.96 dB

External noise in dB (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Vredestein Ultrac with a result of 70.9 dB. The difference between best and worst was 3.1%.
  1. Vredestein Ultrac
    70.9 dB
  2. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    71.1 dB
  3. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    71.2 dB
  4. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    71.9 dB
  5. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    72.6 dB
  6. Goodtrip GR 66
    72.8 dB
  7. Continental PremiumContact 7
    73.2 dB

Value Performance Overview

Rolling Resistance (kg / t)

Spread: 0.63 kg / t (8.6%) | Avg: 7.68 kg / t

Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN with a result of 7.31 kg / t. The difference between best and worst was 7.9%.
  1. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    7.31 kg / t
  2. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    7.57 kg / t
  3. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    7.7 kg / t
  4. Continental PremiumContact 7
    7.72 kg / t
  5. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    7.77 kg / t
  6. Vredestein Ultrac
    7.78 kg / t
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    7.94 kg / t

Overall Findings

Based on the weighted scoring from all tests, here are the overall results:

Position Tyre Score
Pirelli Cinturato C3 98.3%
2 Continental PremiumContact 7 98.1%
3 Falken ZIEX ZE320 97.8%
4 Vredestein Ultrac 97.3%
5 Michelin Primacy 4 Plus 95.7%
6 Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN 95.4%
7 Goodtrip GR 66 86.4%

Test Winner

Goodtrip GR 66
Goodtrip GR 66

86.4%

Discussion

19 comments
  1. sebna archived

    Hey Jon,

    For someone who drives mostly on empty b-roads and lives for cornering but does not care for speed as such but being close to the limit (with margin for unexpected etc.). Would C3 225/45/17 XL be a good pairing to Civic 1.6diesel 10th gen (OEM is 215/50/17)? I am also considering PS5 215/50/17 and F1 Asy6 225/45/17 from UHP segment but I am afraid that extra grip will make the chassis hit the limit first, which makes for boring ride. Also I am looking for great communication and liveliness from tire which I do not think PS5 gives, nor Asy6 even if better at it (I owned gen 2 of Goodyear F1).

    Best tire I used was Pzero Nero back in the day on my MX-5. With very stiff wall, limited and snappy grip but with progressive sand paper like feeling to slide recovery :). Real joy to drive. Driver's tire. I believe that is what Pirelli still do, driver's tires? Can C3 be considered as such? And the main question is it better in this particular function than PS5 / Asy6?

    Sadly I cannot get PZ5 in the size I need as it probably would be my tire of choice.

    Thank you

    #10418
  2. Dr Towers archived

    I am finding it hard to locate the C3 in Golf format, ie 205/55 R16 91V....reinforced or 94 are there.

    Is it made in this format? Thank you.

    #10390
    1. TyreReviews Dr Towers archived

      If you can find it in 94v you're fine to fit it, often the 91 and 94 versions of the tyres are the same as it's cheaper to product one instead of two lines for very similar products.

      #10392
  3. Mauro archived

    Dear Tyre Reviews Team,

    I’d like to propose that you consider adding RIM PROTECTION as a highlighted feature in your tire reviews. While it doesn’t necessarily need to be tested exhaustively, it’s a feature that I, along with many other customers, truly value. Not all tire manufacturers provide rim protection, but it makes a significant difference to those of us who care about preserving our rims from damage caused by curbs.

    Personally, I would not consider purchasing a tire that doesn’t offer rim protection, and I believe many others share this sentiment. Including it in your reviews could help guide us in making more informed decisions.

    Thank you for considering this suggestion, and I look forward to seeing this feature in future reviews!

    Best regards,
    Mauro van Leijden

    #10306
  4. Sotiris Koutsomitros archived

    Hey Jon, What would be the more comfortable tyre on a Honda Civic 1.8 140ps . The cinturato C3 with a load index 94 or the Pilot sport 5 with a load index of 91? The reccommended load index is 91

    #10290
      1. Sotiris Koutsomitros Dr Towers archived

        Yes exactly. I actually got the c3 in 94. It is soft and forgiving on potholes, but not as sporty as I would like it.

        #10420
    1. sebna Sotiris Koutsomitros archived

      It should be C3 due to much softer construction in general. Good indication how soft the carcass of the tire will be is rolling resistance - the lower the softer.

      That is why tires like outgoing Potenza Sport are dying breed. ECO bureaucracy is changing the landscape, and of course not for better for car enthusiasts.

      #10419
  5. Neil archived

    Read this review a few times and you're right, I've just had 4 new Ultrac+ (225/60/18) put on my Outback, impressively quiet, very comfortable and a decent wedge less than 'premium" options. If they handle as well in the wet as the test suggests, I'll be even happier.

    #10139
  6. HeavyStuff archived

    Hey Jon we got pirelli pz5, hankook s1evo4 and kumho ps72 out, any updates for this years UHP test? Also would be amazing to finally see Falken fk520 in a UHP test from you.

    #10017
    1. TyreReviews HeavyStuff archived

      My test should be out next week with the PZ5 and FK520 in.

      #10025
  7. Ron H archived

    Super! Would these tests translate to a 16 inch fwd car?! Interesting to see C3 coming through well. As yet it isn't made in a 91V rating for a 16 inch wheel, so considering getting it in 94 load setting, or the PremContact 7 in 91. Also be good to compare the Primacy 5.

    #10012
    1. TyreReviews Ron H archived

      Generally there is good crossover between drivetrains.

      #10028
  8. 4cvg archived

    Interesting that, despite being poorest in curved aquaplaning, the ZE 320 had 'no issue with the deeper water on the track'. Care to comment on the bit of tension here?
    Perhaps the aquaplaning test water depth is deeper again (why not list it?).

    #10006
    1. TyreReviews 4cvg archived

      The best answer I can give is sometimes tyres testing does not make sense. Generally wet handling is 1mm and straight / curved aqua between 7 and 10mm.

      The deeper water parts on the track were puddles in places so deeper again, which might indicate the falken had a narrower profile. I didn't measure it this time.

      #10008
      1. 4cvg TyreReviews archived

        I suspect that the best explanatory hypothesis is that even the puddley bits of the wet track were not 7-10 mm.
        If they were, then my next hypothesis would be that, as it's a puddle & not an extended bit of deep water (as in an aquaplaning test), the tyre would be in & out of it very quickly & the capacity of the tread voids to briefly store water rather than move it out might be explanatorily significant.
        There's always sense to be made even if one can't make it!

        #10009
  9. Jim archived

    Nice test! Always looking forward to your tests.

    Too bad you didn’t get a hold of the new Ultrac+.

    I’m currently deciding between ultrac+ and ze320 so nice to see the falken is a good tire and it seems comfortable.

    #10003