Here at Tire Reviews, we receive many different questions about tires, but one question that comes up more than most asks if modern retreaded tires, sometimes called "retread" or "remoulds", any good?

While we've not been able to test ourselves, tests from many years ago indicate that retreaded tires don't perform as well as even a budget tire. Car tires typically aren't designed to be retreaded (commercial bus and lorry tires are), so the retreading process can leave you with not only poor performance, but a product that could be classified as unsafe.

Naturally in the past few years there have been improvements in the car retreading process, and one brand in particular, King Meiler, has established a name for itself as "the" retreading brand.

To find out whether a modern retread can match a premium, or even a budget tire, the Polish magazine "Motor" have tested the King Meiler HPZ against the premium Continental PremiumContact 6, and a much cheaper Debica Presto HP.

The results speak for themselves.

Dry

It's been a while since we've seen such huge differences in the dry between a premium tire and a brand like Debica, which indicates that this version of the Presto HP certainly isn't the grippiest tire on test, so for the retreaded tire to be so far behind in both dry braking and dry handling, indicates a serious lack of grip!

Wet

Wet was a similar story to dry, except with larger margins. While the Debica stopped the car a pretty sizable 6.3 meters after the premium Continental, the King Meiler took a HUGE extra 24.3 meters to stop the car, again from 100 km/h.  This means, where the car on the Debica stops, the car fitted with the King-Meiler tires will still be doing more than 48 km/h!

The retread tire also performed poorly in straight aquaplaning.

Environment

With the retreaded tire both noiser, and less comfortable than the premium and budget tires, its only positive quality was price. However, with the longevity of the tire untested, is a 100 euro saving really worth all the negative qualities?

Results

1st: Continental Premium Contact 6
195/65 R16 3PMSF: no	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 1st 35.5 M 100% Dry Handling 1st 52.6 s 100% Subj. Dry Handling 1st 7.4 Points 100% Wet Braking 1st 51.8 M 100% Wet Handling 1st 86.7 s 100% Straight Aqua 2nd 82.1 Km/H 82.3 Km/H -0.2 Km/H 99.76% Subj. Comfort 1st 7.5 Points 100% Noise 2nd 64.4 dB 63.3 dB +1.1 dB 98.29% Price 3rd 228.76 129.72 +99.04 56.71% Excellent handling and short braking distances in all conditions. Relatively poor aquaplaning resistance, increased noise level. Read Reviews
2nd: Debica Presto HP
195/65 R16 3PMSF: no	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 2nd 39.2 M 35.5 M +3.7 M 90.56% Dry Handling 2nd 53.3 s 52.6 s +0.7 s 98.69% Subj. Dry Handling 2nd 5.4 Points 7.4 Points -2 Points 72.97% Wet Braking 2nd 58.1 M 51.8 M +6.3 M 89.16% Wet Handling 2nd 92 s 86.7 s +5.3 s 94.24% Straight Aqua 1st 82.3 Km/H 100% Subj. Comfort 2nd 6.5 Points 7.5 Points -1 Points 86.67% Noise 1st 63.3 dB 100% Price 2nd 175.28 129.72 +45.56 74.01% Good aquaplaning resistance with low noise. Average braking performance. Read Reviews
3rd: King Meiler HPZ
195/65 R16 3PMSF: no	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 3rd 42.5 M 35.5 M +7 M 83.53% Dry Handling 3rd 55 s 52.6 s +2.4 s 95.64% Subj. Dry Handling 3rd 4.5 Points 7.4 Points -2.9 Points 60.81% Wet Braking 3rd 76.1 M 51.8 M +24.3 M 68.07% Wet Handling 3rd 100.5 s 86.7 s +13.8 s 86.27% Straight Aqua 3rd 71.1 Km/H 82.3 Km/H -11.2 Km/H 86.39% Subj. Comfort 3rd 6 Points 7.5 Points -1.5 Points 80% Noise 3rd 64.7 dB 63.3 dB +1.4 dB 97.84% Price 1st 129.72 100% Low price, acceptable braking performance and handling on dry surfaces Poor handling and dangerously long braking distances on wet surfaces, weak aquaplaning resistance, high noise level. Read Reviews