Menu

Michelin CrossClimate 2 VS Michelin CrossClimate+

Jonathan Benson
Tested and written by Jonathan Benson
2 min read Updated
Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Testing Methodology
    1. Categories Tested
  3. Dry
  4. Wet
  5. Snow
  6. Environment
  7. Results
  8. Michelin CrossClimate 2
  9. Michelin CrossClimate+

Testing Methodology

Test Driver
Jonathan Benson
Tire Size
205/55 R16
Test Location
Professional Proving Ground
Test Year
2021
Tires Tested
2
Show full testing methodology Hide methodology

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

We use professional-grade testing equipment including GPS data loggers, accelerometers, and calibrated microphones. All tires 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 tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tires 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 tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire 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 tires 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.

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 tire performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tires 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 tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire 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 tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.

Snow Handling

For snow handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated snow handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tires are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly than asphalt, control runs are carried out more frequently — typically every two candidate test sets.

Fuel Consumption

For real-world fuel consumption testing, I use matched vehicles on the same route under stabilised conditions, comparing candidate tires with reference tires. When an oval is not used, fuel use is measured over repeated runs in both directions to minimise the influence of wind and gradient. The result is reported in litres per 100 km, and the difference in consumption between candidate and reference is attributed to the difference in rolling resistance.

The Michelin CrossClimate 2 has finally been launched in Europe, and Tire Reviews has the exclusive first test comparing the new Michelin CrossClimate 2 to the outgoing Michelin CrossClimate+.

In this test we look at the improvements made in dry grip, including dry braking which was already very impressive, the step forward in wet grip and aquaplaning resistance, the huge improvement in rolling resistance meaning lower fuel consumption / better MPG for your car, and the serious step forward Michelin have made in the snow performance of the new tire.

Watch the video to see how the new Michelin CrossClimate 2 is better than the Michelin CrossClimate+ in nearly every way!

Dry

Dry Braking

Spread: 1.81 M (5.3%)|Avg: 35.06 M
Dry braking in meters (60 - 3 MPH) (Lower is better)
  1. Michelin CrossClimate 2
    34.15 M
  2. Michelin CrossClimate Plus
    35.96 M

Dry Handling

Spread: 1.74 s (2.2%)|Avg: 81.30 s
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Michelin CrossClimate 2
    80.43 s
  2. Michelin CrossClimate Plus
    82.17 s

Wet

Wet Braking

Spread: 1.43 M (4.9%)|Avg: 29.92 M
Wet braking in meters (50 - 5 MPH) (Lower is better)
  1. Michelin CrossClimate 2
    29.20 M
  2. Michelin CrossClimate Plus
    30.63 M

Wet Handling

Spread: 0.03 s (0.1%)|Avg: 49.02 s
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Michelin CrossClimate 2
    49.00 s
  2. Michelin CrossClimate Plus
    49.03 s

Snow

Snow Handling

Spread: 2.70 s (3%)|Avg: 92.65 s
Snow handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Michelin CrossClimate 2
    91.30 s
  2. Michelin CrossClimate Plus
    94.00 s

Environment

Fuel Consumption

Spread: 0.11 l/100km (2%)|Avg: 5.61 l/100km
Fuel consumption in Litres per 100 km (Lower is better)
  1. Michelin CrossClimate 2
    5.55 l/100km
  2. Michelin CrossClimate Plus
    5.66 l/100km

Results

1st

Michelin CrossClimate 2

205/55 R16
Michelin CrossClimate 2
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 1st 34.15 M 100%
Dry Handling 1st 80.43 s 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 1st 29.2 M 100%
Wet Handling 1st 49 s 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Handling 1st 91.3 s 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Fuel Consumption 1st 5.55 l/100km 100%
2nd

Michelin CrossClimate+

205/55 R16
Michelin CrossClimate Plus
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 2nd 35.96 M 34.15 M +1.81 M 94.97%
Dry Handling 2nd 82.17 s 80.43 s +1.74 s 97.88%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 2nd 30.63 M 29.2 M +1.43 M 95.33%
Wet Handling 2nd 49.03 s 49 s +0.03 s 99.94%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Handling 2nd 94 s 91.3 s +2.7 s 97.13%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Fuel Consumption 2nd 5.66 l/100km 5.55 l/100km +0.11 l/100km 98.06%

comments powered by Disqus