Menu

Are Budget Tyres Finally Good Enough? 8 Cheap Tyres VS 1 Premium Tyre

Jonathan Benson
Tested and written by Jonathan Benson
9 min read Updated
Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Testing Methodology
    1. Categories Tested
  3. Wet
  4. Dry
  5. Environment
  6. Results
  7. Continental PremiumContact 7
  8. Tomket Sport Series 1
  9. Nankang Econex NA1
  10. Winrun R330
  11. Davanti DX390
  12. Triangle SporteX TH201
  13. King Meiler Sport 1 KM
  14. Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1
  15. Double Coin DC99

In this article we'll be finding out what the best cheap tyre on the market is!

Are Budget Tyres Finally Good Enough? 8 Cheap Tyres VS 1 Premium Tyre

Times are hard, and now more so than ever people are asking me what the best budget tyre they can buy is. As these have never been tested against each other properly, I usually don't have an answer, but all that is about to change!

Sadly I've not been able to test every budget available, there are literally hundreds of tyre brands coming out of the far east, most of them from just a handful of factories. In fact, I've got over 300 tyre brands on the tyre reviews website, and as much as I love big tests, even that's too much for me.

Instead, I've bought eight of the most common and cheapest tyres available I could find, and because I've never tested a retread tyre, I bought one of those too. Naturally they'll all be going through a full tyre reviews tyre test to see which is best.

Obviously, there's no point in seeing what's best if we have no reference point to know how best that is, so to see if any of them can match a premium tyre, I've have a benchmark tyre in the test. It's not going to be easy as it's the brand new, and already multiple test winning, Continental PremiumContact 7.

Can any of these eight cheap tyres get anywhere near one of the best tyres on the market in this segment?! Let's find out.

Testing Methodology

Test Driver
Jonathan Benson
Tyre Size
205/55 R16
Test Location
Professional Proving Ground
Test Year
2023
Tyres Tested
9
Show full testing methodology Hide methodology

Every tyre is tested using calibrated instrumented measurement and structured subjective assessment. Reference tyres are retested throughout each session to correct for changing conditions, ensuring fair, repeatable comparisons. Multiple reference sets are used where needed so that control tyre wear does not affect accuracy.

We use professional-grade testing equipment including GPS data loggers, accelerometers, and calibrated microphones. All tyres are broken in and conditioned before testing begins. For full details on our equipment, preparation process, and calibration procedures, see our complete testing methodology.

Categories Tested

Dry Braking

For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tyres are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.

Dry Handling

For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.

Subj. Dry Handling

Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated dry handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

Wet Braking

For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tyre performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.

Wet Handling

For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.

Subj. Wet Handling

Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

Wet Circle

For wet lateral grip testing, I use a circular track of fixed radius, typically between 30 and 50 metres, broadly aligned with ISO 4138 principles. The surface is wetted in a controlled and repeatable manner. I progressively increase speed until the maximum sustainable cornering speed is reached. I normally record multiple laps in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions to reduce the influence of camber, banking, or directional track bias. I then calculate average lateral acceleration and compare the result with the reference tyre.

Straight Aqua

To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tyre set and average the valid results.

Curved Aquaplaning

For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 metres in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.

Subj. Comfort

To assess comfort, I drive on a wide range of road surfaces (often dedicated comfort tracks at test facilities) at speeds from 50 to 120 km/h, including smooth motorway, coarse surfaces, expansion joints, broken pavement, and sharp-edged obstacles. I evaluate primary ride quality, secondary ride quality, impact harshness, seat-transmitted vibration, and the tyre's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tyre.

Noise

I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.

Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tyre is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.

Standards: ISO 4138 UNECE Regulation 117 ISO 13325 ISO 28580 UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6
Score Weighting Hide Score Weighting

How each category is weighted in the overall score:

Dry 35%
Dry Braking 45%
Dry Handling 45%
Subj. Dry Handling 10%
Wet 50%
Wet Braking 40%
Wet Handling 35%
Subj. Wet Handling 10%
Wet Circle 5%
Straight Aqua 5%
Curved Aquaplaning 5%
Comfort 5%
Subj. Comfort 50%
Noise 50%
Value 10%
Rolling Resistance 100%

Wet

Naturally the premium tyre had a huge advantage in wet braking, stopping the Golf over 7 meters shorter from the 80 km/h than the best budget tyre, and over 14 meters shorter than the worst!

Wet Braking

Spread: 14.46 M (45.8%)|Avg: 40.95 M
Wet braking in meters (80 - 5 km/h) (Lower is better)
Wet Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tyre

Like in wet braking, the Continental was in a in a league of its own during the wet handling test, it's a brand new premium tyre and one of the best in its class in the wet, so that's no surprise. 

The next best tyre was the Tomket, 4.4 seconds behind the Continental, but the worst budget tyre, which was the Doublecoin, was another 7.1 seconds behind the tomket! The spread inside the cheap end of the market can be as big as it is between premium and budget tyres!

While the Tomket couldn't match the poise and balance of the Continental, it was pretty easy to drive, with nice steering, a good balance and predictable levels of grip. Predictability in tyre in the wet is underrated as people tend to focus on lap times, but having a well balanced tyre is a very important quality.

This was highlighted by the Nankang, which was almost as fast over the lap but wanted to oversteer you off the track at every opportunity. I've said it before about Nankang products, the grip levels aren't bad, and they certainly make for some entertaining tyres as track day tyres, but they need to work on the balance they give the vehicle. 

Davanti, Winrun, Triangle and Maxtrex were the next group, all struggling to really communicate what was happening to the driver, they'd push into understeer quite quickly then you'd spend a lot of time off power waiting for the tyre to come back to you. 

The retreaded King Meiler was next. This was my first experience with a retreaded tyre so I had no idea what to expect, and in the wet at least, it didn't feel any different to any of the other tyres at this end of the market.

And finally, the Doublecoin. Not only was it the slowest, but it was also the hardest to drive. I couldn't quite work out when or why or what caused the sudden oversteer, but there it was. It was the worst tyre in wet braking, wet handling, and straight and curved aquaplaning.

Wet Handling

Spread: 11.42 s (13.5%)|Avg: 91.82 s
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Continental PremiumContact 7
    84.85 s
  2. Tomket Sport Series 1
    89.21 s
  3. Nankang Econex NA1
    89.36 s
  4. Davanti DX390
    92.19 s
  5. Winrun R330
    92.25 s
  6. Triangle SporteX TH201
    93.11 s
  7. Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1
    93.93 s
  8. King Meiler Sport 1 KM
    95.24 s
  9. Double Coin DC99
    96.27 s

Straight Aqua

Spread: 10.36 Km/H (13.8%)|Avg: 70.26 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
  1. Continental PremiumContact 7
    74.91 Km/H
  2. Nankang Econex NA1
    74.13 Km/H
  3. Davanti DX390
    70.98 Km/H
  4. Winrun R330
    70.83 Km/H
  5. Tomket Sport Series 1
    70.52 Km/H
  6. King Meiler Sport 1 KM
    69.61 Km/H
  7. Triangle SporteX TH201
    69.51 Km/H
  8. Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1
    67.30 Km/H
  9. Double Coin DC99
    64.55 Km/H

Dry

Dry conditions usually means much closer results than in the wet, and while dry braking was closer, there was still a significant gap between the Continental and the best budget tyre, which was once again the Tomket. The difference, around 7% or nearly a car length, means when you're stopped on the Continental you're "only" doing 26kmh on the tomket, and 34 km/h on the triangle! That would be an expensive crash.

Dry Braking

Spread: 4.74 M (13.4%)|Avg: 38.72 M
Dry braking in meters (100 - 5 km/h) (Lower is better)
Dry Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tyre

The dry handling lap times were relatively close, but it's a short track and the VW Golf test vehicle doesn't have the most power, and while the Continental was the nicest to drive, there were also some good tyres in the group. 

The Winrun was my favorite, it had good steering and stable handling making it easy to drive fast, helped by a little understeer. The Tomket was also nice during lane changes and the lap, the Nankang felt sporty for a 16" tyre with quick turn in, but once again the rear wasn't very stable meaning oversteer. Fun for a track, but perhaps not the best on the road.

As for the retreaded King Meiler, well that felt good in steering and balance, but the compound couldn't seem to keep up with the demands of the car meaning the lap time wasn't great.

The Doublecoin and Davanti were the slowest of the group, the Davanti steering felt fine sublimit and was noticeably more comfortable on the way to track than some of its competitors, but once going quickly there was little feedback and a lot of understeer, and finally the Doublecoin continued to be a really messy tyre, difficult to control and subjectively by far the worse of the group.

Dry Handling

Spread: 1.66 s (3.2%)|Avg: 52.81 s
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Continental PremiumContact 7
    51.73 s
  2. Nankang Econex NA1
    52.23 s
  3. Tomket Sport Series 1
    52.78 s
  4. King Meiler Sport 1 KM
    52.84 s
  5. Winrun R330
    52.85 s
  6. Triangle SporteX TH201
    52.97 s
  7. Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1
    53.21 s
  8. Davanti DX390
    53.32 s
  9. Double Coin DC99
    53.39 s

Environment

Echoing my subjective experience, the Doublecoin and Davanti were the quietest during the passby noise test, with the premium Continental finishing midpack. While external noise does have an impact on the noise in the cabin, it is not a direct correlation as tyre manufacturers can direct the sound into the vehicle to achieve a slightly better external noise test, and this reading doesn't account for pitch.

Noise

Spread: 4.20 dB (6%)|Avg: 72.19 dB
External noise in dB (Lower is better)
  1. Double Coin DC99
    70.20 dB
  2. Davanti DX390
    70.30 dB
  3. Nankang Econex NA1
    71.90 dB
  4. Continental PremiumContact 7
    72.00 dB
  5. Winrun R330
    72.20 dB
  6. Tomket Sport Series 1
    72.60 dB
  7. King Meiler Sport 1 KM
    72.90 dB
  8. Triangle SporteX TH201
    73.20 dB
  9. Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1
    74.40 dB

The Winrun and Tomket also had better a rolling resistance than the Continental, though it was less than 2%, and we've seen in the other test that the Continental was also 20% behind the best premium, so this isn't a huge win for the cheap tyres.

Rolling Resistance

Spread: 1.54 kg / t (18.6%)|Avg: 8.82 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
  1. Tomket Sport Series 1
    8.28 kg / t
  2. Winrun R330
    8.37 kg / t
  3. Continental PremiumContact 7
    8.38 kg / t
  4. Davanti DX390
    8.56 kg / t
  5. Double Coin DC99
    8.63 kg / t
  6. Triangle SporteX TH201
    8.71 kg / t
  7. Nankang Econex NA1
    9.18 kg / t
  8. King Meiler Sport 1 KM
    9.42 kg / t
  9. Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1
    9.82 kg / t

19,000 km
£1.45/L
--
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.

Shockingly, the Continental was the most expensive tyre on test.

Price

Spread: 40.32 (87.9%)|Avg: 55.46
Price in local currency (Lower is better)
  1. Double Coin DC99
    45.87
  2. Winrun R330
    46.59
  3. Nankang Econex NA1
    46.69
  4. Tomket Sport Series 1
    50.49
  5. King Meiler Sport 1 KM
    54.30
  6. Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1
    55.18
  7. Triangle SporteX TH201
    56.08
  8. Davanti DX390
    57.78
  9. Continental PremiumContact 7
    86.19

Results

Are Budget Tyres Finally Good Enough? 8 Cheap Tyres VS 1 Premium TyreWatch the full video of this test on YouTube Watch on YouTube
Continental PremiumContact 7
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 1st 35.27 M 100%
Dry Handling 1st 51.73 s 100%
Subj. Dry Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 1st 31.58 M 100%
Wet Handling 1st 84.85 s 100%
Subj. Wet Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Wet Circle 1st 11.5 s 100%
Straight Aqua 1st 74.91 Km/H 100%
Curved Aquaplaning 1st 3.3 m/sec2 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 2nd 92 Points 100 Points -8 Points 92%
Noise 4th 72 dB 70.2 dB +1.8 dB 97.5%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 9th 86.19 45.87 +40.32 53.22%
Rolling Resistance 3rd 8.38 kg / t 8.28 kg / t +0.1 kg / t 98.81%
2nd

Tomket Sport Series 1

205/55 R16
Tomket Sport Series 1
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 2nd 37.83 M 35.27 M +2.56 M 93.23%
Dry Handling 3rd 52.78 s 51.73 s +1.05 s 98.01%
Subj. Dry Handling 3rd 85 Points 100 Points -15 Points 85%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 2nd 38.69 M 31.58 M +7.11 M 81.62%
Wet Handling 2nd 89.21 s 84.85 s +4.36 s 95.11%
Subj. Wet Handling 2nd 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Wet Circle 3rd 12 s 11.5 s +0.5 s 95.83%
Straight Aqua 5th 70.52 Km/H 74.91 Km/H -4.39 Km/H 94.14%
Curved Aquaplaning 5th 2.8 m/sec2 3.3 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 84.85%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 3rd 91 Points 100 Points -9 Points 91%
Noise 6th 72.6 dB 70.2 dB +2.4 dB 96.69%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 4th 50.49 45.87 +4.62 90.85%
Rolling Resistance 1st 8.28 kg / t 100%
3rd

Nankang Econex NA1

205/55 R16
Nankang Econex NA1
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 3rd 38.45 M 35.27 M +3.18 M 91.73%
Dry Handling 2nd 52.23 s 51.73 s +0.5 s 99.04%
Subj. Dry Handling 6th 75 Points 100 Points -25 Points 75%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 3rd 39.61 M 31.58 M +8.03 M 79.73%
Wet Handling 3rd 89.36 s 84.85 s +4.51 s 94.95%
Subj. Wet Handling 4th 70 Points 100 Points -30 Points 70%
Wet Circle 2nd 11.9 s 11.5 s +0.4 s 96.64%
Straight Aqua 2nd 74.13 Km/H 74.91 Km/H -0.78 Km/H 98.96%
Curved Aquaplaning 2nd 3.2 m/sec2 3.3 m/sec2 -0.1 m/sec2 96.97%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 8th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Noise 3rd 71.9 dB 70.2 dB +1.7 dB 97.64%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 3rd 46.69 45.87 +0.82 98.24%
Rolling Resistance 7th 9.18 kg / t 8.28 kg / t +0.9 kg / t 90.2%
4th

Winrun R330

205/55 R16
Winrun R330
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 6th 39.41 M 35.27 M +4.14 M 89.5%
Dry Handling 5th 52.85 s 51.73 s +1.12 s 97.88%
Subj. Dry Handling 2nd 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 5th 40.91 M 31.58 M +9.33 M 77.19%
Wet Handling 5th 92.25 s 84.85 s +7.4 s 91.98%
Subj. Wet Handling 4th 70 Points 100 Points -30 Points 70%
Wet Circle 4th 12.4 s 11.5 s +0.9 s 92.74%
Straight Aqua 4th 70.83 Km/H 74.91 Km/H -4.08 Km/H 94.55%
Curved Aquaplaning 4th 3 m/sec2 3.3 m/sec2 -0.3 m/sec2 90.91%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 1st 100 Points 100%
Noise 5th 72.2 dB 70.2 dB +2 dB 97.23%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 2nd 46.59 45.87 +0.72 98.45%
Rolling Resistance 2nd 8.37 kg / t 8.28 kg / t +0.09 kg / t 98.92%
5th

Davanti DX390

205/55 R16
Davanti DX390
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 4th 39.08 M 35.27 M +3.81 M 90.25%
Dry Handling 8th 53.32 s 51.73 s +1.59 s 97.02%
Subj. Dry Handling 8th 70 Points 100 Points -30 Points 70%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 4th 40.75 M 31.58 M +9.17 M 77.5%
Wet Handling 4th 92.19 s 84.85 s +7.34 s 92.04%
Subj. Wet Handling 7th 65 Points 100 Points -35 Points 65%
Wet Circle 4th 12.4 s 11.5 s +0.9 s 92.74%
Straight Aqua 3rd 70.98 Km/H 74.91 Km/H -3.93 Km/H 94.75%
Curved Aquaplaning 3rd 3.1 m/sec2 3.3 m/sec2 -0.2 m/sec2 93.94%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 3rd 91 Points 100 Points -9 Points 91%
Noise 2nd 70.3 dB 70.2 dB +0.1 dB 99.86%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 8th 57.78 45.87 +11.91 79.39%
Rolling Resistance 4th 8.56 kg / t 8.28 kg / t +0.28 kg / t 96.73%
6th

Triangle SporteX TH201

205/55 R16
Triangle SporteX TH201
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 9th 40.01 M 35.27 M +4.74 M 88.15%
Dry Handling 6th 52.97 s 51.73 s +1.24 s 97.66%
Subj. Dry Handling 5th 80 Points 100 Points -20 Points 80%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 7th 43.6 M 31.58 M +12.02 M 72.43%
Wet Handling 6th 93.11 s 84.85 s +8.26 s 91.13%
Subj. Wet Handling 4th 70 Points 100 Points -30 Points 70%
Wet Circle 6th 12.7 s 11.5 s +1.2 s 90.55%
Straight Aqua 7th 69.51 Km/H 74.91 Km/H -5.4 Km/H 92.79%
Curved Aquaplaning 7th 2.7 m/sec2 3.3 m/sec2 -0.6 m/sec2 81.82%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 3rd 91 Points 100 Points -9 Points 91%
Noise 8th 73.2 dB 70.2 dB +3 dB 95.9%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 7th 56.08 45.87 +10.21 81.79%
Rolling Resistance 6th 8.71 kg / t 8.28 kg / t +0.43 kg / t 95.06%
7th

King Meiler Sport 1 KM

205/55 R16
King Meiler Sport 1 KM
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 7th 39.48 M 35.27 M +4.21 M 89.34%
Dry Handling 4th 52.84 s 51.73 s +1.11 s 97.9%
Subj. Dry Handling 3rd 85 Points 100 Points -15 Points 85%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 8th 43.93 M 31.58 M +12.35 M 71.89%
Wet Handling 8th 95.24 s 84.85 s +10.39 s 89.09%
Subj. Wet Handling 7th 65 Points 100 Points -35 Points 65%
Wet Circle 6th 12.7 s 11.5 s +1.2 s 90.55%
Straight Aqua 6th 69.61 Km/H 74.91 Km/H -5.3 Km/H 92.92%
Curved Aquaplaning 5th 2.8 m/sec2 3.3 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 84.85%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 3rd 91 Points 100 Points -9 Points 91%
Noise 7th 72.9 dB 70.2 dB +2.7 dB 96.3%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 5th 54.3 45.87 +8.43 84.48%
Rolling Resistance 8th 9.42 kg / t 8.28 kg / t +1.14 kg / t 87.9%
8th

Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1

205/55 R16
Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 5th 39.32 M 35.27 M +4.05 M 89.7%
Dry Handling 7th 53.21 s 51.73 s +1.48 s 97.22%
Subj. Dry Handling 6th 75 Points 100 Points -25 Points 75%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 6th 43.45 M 31.58 M +11.87 M 72.68%
Wet Handling 7th 93.93 s 84.85 s +9.08 s 90.33%
Subj. Wet Handling 3rd 75 Points 100 Points -25 Points 75%
Wet Circle 6th 12.7 s 11.5 s +1.2 s 90.55%
Straight Aqua 8th 67.3 Km/H 74.91 Km/H -7.61 Km/H 89.84%
Curved Aquaplaning 8th 2.6 m/sec2 3.3 m/sec2 -0.7 m/sec2 78.79%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 3rd 91 Points 100 Points -9 Points 91%
Noise 9th 74.4 dB 70.2 dB +4.2 dB 94.35%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 6th 55.18 45.87 +9.31 83.13%
Rolling Resistance 9th 9.82 kg / t 8.28 kg / t +1.54 kg / t 84.32%
9th

Double Coin DC99

205/55 R16
Double Coin DC99
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 8th 39.62 M 35.27 M +4.35 M 89.02%
Dry Handling 9th 53.39 s 51.73 s +1.66 s 96.89%
Subj. Dry Handling 9th 30 Points 100 Points -70 Points 30%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 9th 46.04 M 31.58 M +14.46 M 68.59%
Wet Handling 9th 96.27 s 84.85 s +11.42 s 88.14%
Subj. Wet Handling 9th 50 Points 100 Points -50 Points 50%
Wet Circle 9th 12.8 s 11.5 s +1.3 s 89.84%
Straight Aqua 9th 64.55 Km/H 74.91 Km/H -10.36 Km/H 86.17%
Curved Aquaplaning 9th 2.3 m/sec2 3.3 m/sec2 -1 m/sec2 69.7%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 8th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Noise 1st 70.2 dB 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 1st 45.87 100%
Rolling Resistance 5th 8.63 kg / t 8.28 kg / t +0.35 kg / t 95.94%

Discussion

20 comments
  1. alespa archived

    How bad is the ice performance of the current crop of all-seasons (& more specifically, the best) vs, say, a reference winter tire (blizzak/870/etc)?

    I'm looking at moving to all-seasons (the contis, in particular) for my winter set of tires on a gs450h (currently 225/50/17 alpin 6 about to start its 4th season - might replace early). Winters here are generally mild (Sofia, Bulgaria), but I do drive in conditions that sometimes form the worst kind of ice (a few below subzero + wet weather + road with basically no sunlight = smooth, slick... you know) - plus the hard ice at winter resort parkings, of course. Same day I can be driving on a highway (140kph) in 15+ degrees dry & sunny weather (say, going to the seaside or to Greece or anywhere southern and/or generally flat), which sounds like the perfect way to degrade winter tires (both compound and thread) - or am I perhaps worrying too much and should stick with winters? And yes, I do see snow regularly, but the snow performance of today's all-seasons seems almost indistinguishable from a non-X-Ice-type winter tires.

    #9665
    1. TyreReviews alespa archived

      I've only done ice traction and braking but it was broadly similar. Data out in next few weeks.

      #9672
      1. alespa TyreReviews archived

        ...and I guess I should've posted under the correct article. Not sure how I ended up here, I was looking at the "best 2024 all-seasons" one. Sorry and please move if you're able - my bad.

        #9675
  2. Mark archived

    I'd be very interested to know the relative effect of tyre wear. We all know that a 50% worn tyre does not perform as well as it did when it was new. What we dont know is how does a 50% worn premium tyre compare against a brand new budget tyre...?
    Maybe if you buy budget but change at 50% wear, you might be overall safer than if you buy premium but run it til it's not legal anymore, I don't know?
    A purist will buy premium AND change well within the limit but not all of us have the budget to do that, so I'd love to see some hard facts on the topic.
    thanks, Mark

    #9486
    1. TyreReviews Mark archived

      In aquaplaning you likely would be safer with two budget tyres, but in every other way I would rather be on the premium tyre.

      #9495
  3. Osama Bin Jinping archived

    all your tests are done at high speeds. i am interested in the slow speed dry/wet braking test. does that also translate to cars driven inside the city at slow speeds (30 to 40 km/h)?

    #9018
    1. TyreReviews Osama Bin Jinping archived

      Trends continue but naturally things are much closer as distances are shorter

      #9019
  4. Denis archived

    I would compare budget summer tyres with the European winter tyres, as this should be the case. Those who wants to save some money, they would not even change non-studded winter tyres. I'm working in tyre online store in Latvia, mostly this is the issue - most of the drivers does not see the benefit in switching tyres, European winter tyres are considered as All season tyres: www.jaunasriepas.lv

    #8910
    1. TyreReviews Filip archived

      lol, top gif.

      External noise is a factor, however tyre companies can direct the noise of the tyre with tread pattern design, meaning some companies can direct the noise into the wheel arch to get a better EU label score, but have worse internal noise. I don't think it makes a massive difference.

      Pitch is also another thing you notice a lot more inside which isn't recorded on the external noise tests.

      #8891
        1. TyreReviews Filip archived

          Ah thanks, that's a copy and paste issue on my part!

          #8893
  5. Jon archived

    Did you try putting 4 different budget tyres on the car - some part worn etc. The number of times while I've been waiting for a tyre change someone has come in and asked for a single tyre change with the cheapest replacement going.

    #8859
    1. TyreReviews Jon archived

      I've not done all 4 but there's a video on the channel comparing budgets on the rear and premium on front of an M2

      #8864
  6. TassieLorenzo archived

    Best thinking face emoji in video thumbnail yet! :D

    #8855
  7. juraj archived

    I would add another recent test, where they compare set of premium tyres vs set of budget brands (some maybe rather known midrange brands, not necessarily Asian unknown brands):
    https://autozurnal.com/test...

    I know it is in Slovak, but nowadays with google translate available... anyway, it is mostly about graphs and numbers :)

    Btw, the test also confirms CPC7's great wet road abilities. I think the test was done in cooperation with Czech car club, as they have the same results in different graphic design on their web.

    #8853
    1. TyreReviews juraj archived

      There's a bunch of similar tests on the site from this year, all very similar results. It's nice when tyre testers agree.

      Though you are correct, I wouldn't call any of those tyres budget at all, lowest is mid range / tier 2. This is a true budget test!

      #8854
      1. TyreReviews TyreReviews archived

        Sorry, I realised there was a page 2 with lots of budget tyres on too, but I realised that as I was taking off on a flight so just got around to replying now :)

        Thanks for the link!

        #8856
  8. David Hoffman archived

    Retreaded passenger car tires are sometimes good for slow moving low load vehicles that travel on dirt roads. Farm cars, hunting cars we call them. In the USA the last company to offer retail retreaded passenger car tires finally went out of business recently. They produced lots of junk tires that failed at highway speeds and were a nightmare to own. Their off road low speed low load tires performed much better.

    #8827
    1. TyreReviews David Hoffman archived

      Agreed! Truck and bus tires also often get re-treaded, but they're designed to be!

      #8832