Adjust Result Weighting
The overall scores below are calculated using our weighting system based on the test methodology. You can adjust the weightings below to explore how different priorities affect the results.
Test Results Data
BEST
Good
Average
Below Average
Cells are colour-coded from green (best) to red (worst). The Total Score reflects the weighted sum of all categories. A ★ marks the best tyre in each test.
| # | Tyre | Total Score | Dry | Wet | Comfort | Value | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braking M | Handling s | Subj. Dry Handling Points | % | Braking M | Handling s | Subj. Wet Handling Points | Straight Aqua Km/H | Curved Aquaplaning m/sec2 | % | Subj. Comfort Points | Noise dB | % | Rolling Resistance kg / t | % | |||
| 1 | Pirelli Cinturato C3 | 98.3% | 34.13 ★ | 85.61 2 | 10 ★ | 100% | 24.96 2 | 106.63 3 | 9.5 | 95.7 3 | 2.6 ★ | 98.2% | 9 | 71.9 | 94.3% | 7.7 3 | 94.9% |
| 2 ▼1 | Continental PremiumContact 7 | 98.1% | 34.65 | 85.73 3 | 9.5 3 | 98.7% | 24.61 ★ | 107.14 | 9.25 | 98.1 ★ | 2.57 3 | 98.6% | 9.5 2 | 73.2 | 95.9% | 7.72 | 94.7% |
| 3 | Falken ZIEX ZE320 | 97.8% | 34.21 2 | 85.54 ★ | 9.5 3 | 99.4% | 25.47 3 | 105.18 ★ | 10 ★ | 95.5 | 2.27 | 97.7% | 9 | 71.2 3 | 94.8% | 7.77 | 94.1% |
| 4 ▼1 | Vredestein Ultrac | 97.3% | 34.43 3 | 86.57 | 9 | 98.1% | 25.79 | 106.28 2 | 10 ★ | 95.2 | 2.55 | 97.4% | 9.5 2 | 70.9 ★ | 97.5% | 7.78 | 94% |
| 5 | Michelin Primacy 4 Plus | 95.7% | 35.22 | 86.43 | 10 ★ | 98.1% | 27.16 | 109.92 | 8.75 | 97.7 2 | 2.58 2 | 93.4% | 10 ★ | 71.1 2 | 99.9% | 7.57 2 | 96.6% |
| 6 | Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN | 95.4% | 35.27 | 86.22 | 8.5 | 96.7% | 27.57 | 108.05 | 10 ★ | 92.1 | 2.47 | 93.9% | 8.5 | 72.6 | 91.3% | 7.31 ★ | 100% |
| 7 | Goodtrip GR 66 | 86.4% | 37.09 | 87.4 | 6 | 91.5% | 34 | 116.72 | 8 | 88.2 | 2.35 | 82% | 7 | 72.8 | 83.7% | 7.94 | 92.1% |
Scroll for more
Dry
100%
Wet
98%
Comfort
94%
Value
95%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
34.13 M
★
Dry Handling
85.61 s
2
Subj. Dry Handling
10 Points
★
Wet
Wet Braking
24.96 M
2
Wet Handling
106.63 s
3
Subj. Wet Handling
9.5 Points
Straight Aqua
95.7 Km/H
3
Curved Aquaplaning
2.6 m/sec2
★
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
9 Points
Noise
71.9 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance
7.7 kg / t
3
Dry
99%
Wet
99%
Comfort
96%
Value
95%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
34.65 M
Dry Handling
85.73 s
3
Subj. Dry Handling
9.5 Points
3
Wet
Wet Braking
24.61 M
★
Wet Handling
107.14 s
Subj. Wet Handling
9.25 Points
Straight Aqua
98.1 Km/H
★
Curved Aquaplaning
2.57 m/sec2
3
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
9.5 Points
2
Noise
73.2 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance
7.72 kg / t
Dry
99%
Wet
98%
Comfort
95%
Value
94%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
34.21 M
2
Dry Handling
85.54 s
★
Subj. Dry Handling
9.5 Points
3
Wet
Wet Braking
25.47 M
3
Wet Handling
105.18 s
★
Subj. Wet Handling
10 Points
★
Straight Aqua
95.5 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
2.27 m/sec2
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
9 Points
Noise
71.2 dB
3
Value
Rolling Resistance
7.77 kg / t
Dry
98%
Wet
97%
Comfort
98%
Value
94%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
34.43 M
3
Dry Handling
86.57 s
Subj. Dry Handling
9 Points
Wet
Wet Braking
25.79 M
Wet Handling
106.28 s
2
Subj. Wet Handling
10 Points
★
Straight Aqua
95.2 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
2.55 m/sec2
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
9.5 Points
2
Noise
70.9 dB
★
Value
Rolling Resistance
7.78 kg / t
Dry
98%
Wet
93%
Comfort
100%
Value
97%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
35.22 M
Dry Handling
86.43 s
Subj. Dry Handling
10 Points
★
Wet
Wet Braking
27.16 M
Wet Handling
109.92 s
Subj. Wet Handling
8.75 Points
Straight Aqua
97.7 Km/H
2
Curved Aquaplaning
2.58 m/sec2
2
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
10 Points
★
Noise
71.1 dB
2
Value
Rolling Resistance
7.57 kg / t
2
Dry
97%
Wet
94%
Comfort
91%
Value
100%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
35.27 M
Dry Handling
86.22 s
Subj. Dry Handling
8.5 Points
Wet
Wet Braking
27.57 M
Wet Handling
108.05 s
Subj. Wet Handling
10 Points
★
Straight Aqua
92.1 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
2.47 m/sec2
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
8.5 Points
Noise
72.6 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance
7.31 kg / t
★
Dry
92%
Wet
82%
Comfort
84%
Value
92%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
37.09 M
Dry Handling
87.4 s
Subj. Dry Handling
6 Points
Wet
Wet Braking
34 M
Wet Handling
116.72 s
Subj. Wet Handling
8 Points
Straight Aqua
88.2 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
2.35 m/sec2
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
7 Points
Noise
72.8 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance
7.94 kg / t
Not every driver has the same priorities. Adjust the category weightings above to re-rank the tyres based on what matters most to your driving style.
Scores are colour-coded from red (weakest) through yellow to green (strongest) to help you quickly spot each tyre's strengths and weaknesses.
The original test ranking is shown in the # column. Arrows indicate how each tyre moves when your custom weighting is applied.
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
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.
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.
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
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
is that because you can't get the C3 in 91??
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.
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.
Agreed
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.
Yay
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.
My test should be out next week with the PZ5 and FK520 in.
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.
Generally there is good crossover between drivetrains.
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?).
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.
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!
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.