Test setup & methodology
The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.
Recorded test conditions
Recorded test conditions
- Dry Braking
- 62.1 → 0.0 mph
- Wet Braking
- 62.1 → 0.0 mph
- Snow Braking
- 31.1 → 0.0 mph
Auto Bild are the European leaders in tire testing, and go to lengths with their tests no other publication can. Firstly, to select the sixteen all season tires in this test, they placed thirty two sets through a dry and wet braking test with the top sixteen qualifying, ensuring these sixteen are some of the very best on the market.
Secondly, Auto Bild contracted out a very expensive wear test, which consisted of 7,456 miles for each set of tires in real world conditions, then extrapolated the data through to 1.6mm. This allows the testers to put the total mileage covered against the purchase price to work out which tire is best value. More on this later in the article.
This Test VS Tire Reviews Test
If you've already seen the 2021 Tire Reviews All Season Tire Test, you will find the results of this test familiar in parts, and surprising in others due to the different ranking of the tires across the two tests. As these differences can be confusing to tire shoppers, I'd like to talk about why these differences exist.
Firstly, the Auto Bild test uses a different scoring weight to Tire Reviews, and they convert results into points and then into a final point based grade. Unlike Tire Reviews, some of the calculations made are not public, so it's difficult to work out the exact reason each tire came where, but they do provide most of the raw data which is very useful.
Secondly, Auto Bild have tested and scored on more categories, including wear and the overall value of the tire which is an important criteria Tire Reviews does not.
Thirdly, the test conditions were different. This test used 225/50 R17 on a heavy RWD BMW 3 Series, and tested the dry and wet performance of the tires in warm summer conditions (22c+). Tire Reviews used 205/55 R16 on a lighter FWD VW Golf and tested the dry and wet performance of the tires at a cool 4c. Tire Reviews also snow tested the traditional way outdoors during winter, whereas Auto Bild used a much smaller indoor snow facility.
Lastly, the grip surfaces were different. Tire Reviews tested on a track with a surface grip similar to a new tarmac road. Auto Bild like to use low grip surfaces to expand the differences between the tires, especially in wet braking which can sometimes be artificially low.
The Differing Results
Now you understand the differences in testing, what are the differences in results?
There are four important changes between the two tests, the Goodyear Vector 4 Seasons Gen-3 won this test instead of fifth in Tire Reviews, the Michelin CrossClimate 2 placed seventh here and won the Tire Reviews test, the Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2 dropped from second in Tire Reviews to fourteenth in this test, and the Nokian SeasonProof scored well in this test overall.
The Goodyear result is easy to explain. In the Tire Reviews test, the 16" Goodyear struggled in wet braking at both temperatures tested. Had it not, it would have been one of the best tires on test (noted in the article), and in this test it performed as expected. It's difficult to understand why the Goodyear didn't perform well in the Tire Reviews wet braking tests without further testing, but from all the other testing the tire has done, it seems like that was the outlier.
The Michelin CrossClimate 2 was marked down for two reasons in Auto Bild. Firstly, it scored relatively poorly in wear, and when you calculate value based on purchase price it worked out to be one of the worst value tires on test - this is not something Tire Reviews scores on. Secondly, the French tire struggled in the wet in both tests, which might be down to the lower grip surfaces used, or a function of the vehicle and size combination.
The Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2 lost a lot of points in this test due to the worst wet braking and wet handling in this test, compared to the Tire Reviews test where it had reasonable wet performance. This is harder to explain, but could again be a function of the low grip surface of the tracks or the tire size differences.
Finally, the Nokian SeasonProof actually had similar results between the tests, it just seems Auto Bild put a much higher weighting on snow performance than Tire Reviews does. Plus, the high wear and competitive purchase price made this tire the second best in terms of value on test, which is worth a lot of points promoting it in this test.
Conclusion
To conclude, there are differences in tire test results all the time, and I understand that it's frustrating for the customer especially when new tires like the CrossClimate 2 and SF2 have different results between the first big tests they feature in.
In the incredibly complicated world of tire test, the goal of Tire Reviews has never been to say "our data is right, ignore everyone else", instead it is to give you as many data points as possible to allow you to make your own purchase decision. I still encourage you do that for future purchases.
The positive is there is a lot of synergies between tests too! The Continental AllSeasonContact performed well in both tests, as did the Vredestein product, and the third placed Hankook in this test also performed well in the Tire Reviews test last year.
Dry
As we've become accustomed to in all season tests, the Michelin CrossClimate 2 led the way in dry braking and dry handling, but this time some of the other all season tires had closed the gap.
Dry Braking
Dry braking in feet (62 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
RefReference Summer |
122 ft | -1 ft | 0 mph |
| 123 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 126 ft | +3 ft | 12 mph | |
| 132 ft | +9 ft | 20 mph | |
| 132 ft | +9 ft | 21 mph | |
| 136 ft | +13 ft | 24 mph | |
| 136 ft | +13 ft | 24 mph | |
| 136 ft | +13 ft | 25 mph | |
| 137 ft | +14 ft | 25 mph | |
| 137 ft | +14 ft | 26 mph | |
| 138 ft | +15 ft | 26 mph | |
| 138 ft | +15 ft | 26 mph | |
| 138 ft | +15 ft | 26 mph | |
| 139 ft | +16 ft | 27 mph | |
| 139 ft | +16 ft | 27 mph | |
| 143 ft | +20 ft | 29 mph | |
| 143 ft | +20 ft | 29 mph | |
RefReference Winter |
145 ft | +22 ft | 31 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 18.5% (23 ft ≈ 1.5 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Giti GitiAllSeason AS1 would still be travelling at 29 mph when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Dry Handling
Dry Handling Average Speed
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefReference Summer |
57.7 mph | +1.1 mph |
| 56.6 mph | Best | |
| 56.4 mph | -0.2 mph | |
| 56.4 mph | -0.2 mph | |
| 56.2 mph | -0.4 mph | |
| 56.1 mph | -0.5 mph | |
| 56.0 mph | -0.6 mph | |
| 56.0 mph | -0.6 mph | |
| 55.9 mph | -0.7 mph | |
| 55.9 mph | -0.7 mph | |
| 55.9 mph | -0.7 mph | |
| 55.7 mph | -0.9 mph | |
| 55.6 mph | -1.0 mph | |
| 55.6 mph | -1.0 mph | |
| 55.3 mph | -1.3 mph | |
| 55.2 mph | -1.4 mph | |
RefReference Winter |
54.9 mph | -1.7 mph |
| 54.2 mph | -2.4 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 6% (3.5 mph).
Wet
Wet testing highlighted three brands as having good wet performance, Vredestein, Goodyear and Falken took the top three spots in both wet braking and wet handling.
Wet Braking
Wet braking in feet (62 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
RefReference Summer |
164 ft | 0 ft | 0 mph |
| 164 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 166 ft | +2 ft | 9 mph | |
| 167 ft | +3 ft | 10 mph | |
| 169 ft | +5 ft | 13 mph | |
| 172 ft | +8 ft | 17 mph | |
| 173 ft | +9 ft | 18 mph | |
| 174 ft | +10 ft | 19 mph | |
| 174 ft | +10 ft | 19 mph | |
| 174 ft | +10 ft | 19 mph | |
RefReference Winter |
175 ft | +11 ft | 20 mph |
| 176 ft | +12 ft | 20 mph | |
| 177 ft | +13 ft | 22 mph | |
| 177 ft | +13 ft | 22 mph | |
| 177 ft | +13 ft | 22 mph | |
| 178 ft | +14 ft | 23 mph | |
| 179 ft | +15 ft | 23 mph | |
| 184 ft | +20 ft | 26 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 12.2% (20 ft ≈ 1.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2 would still be travelling at 26 mph when the Vredestein Quatrac Pro had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Wet Handling
Wet Handling Average Speed
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefReference Summer |
49.6 mph | +1.6 mph |
| 48.0 mph | Best | |
| 47.0 mph | -1.0 mph | |
| 46.7 mph | -1.3 mph | |
| 46.5 mph | -1.5 mph | |
| 46.4 mph | -1.6 mph | |
| 46.3 mph | -1.7 mph | |
| 46.1 mph | -1.9 mph | |
| 45.7 mph | -2.3 mph | |
RefReference Winter |
45.4 mph | -2.6 mph |
| 45.3 mph | -2.7 mph | |
| 45.2 mph | -2.8 mph | |
| 45.1 mph | -2.9 mph | |
| 44.9 mph | -3.1 mph | |
| 44.9 mph | -3.1 mph | |
| 44.3 mph | -3.7 mph | |
| 44.1 mph | -3.9 mph | |
| 43.9 mph | -4.1 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 11.6% (5.7 mph).
The summer tire had a surprisingly large lead in the straight aquaplaning test. The curved aquaplaning data can be found in the results table below.
Straight Aqua
Float Speed in mph
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefReference Summer |
60.3 mph | +1.3 mph |
| 59.0 mph | Best | |
| 58.3 mph | -0.7 mph | |
| 58.0 mph | -1.0 mph | |
| 57.8 mph | -1.2 mph | |
| 57.4 mph | -1.6 mph | |
| 56.9 mph | -2.1 mph | |
| 56.9 mph | -2.1 mph | |
| 56.7 mph | -2.3 mph | |
RefReference Winter |
56.5 mph | -2.5 mph |
| 56.4 mph | -2.6 mph | |
| 56.3 mph | -2.7 mph | |
| 56.2 mph | -2.8 mph | |
| 56.2 mph | -2.8 mph | |
| 55.8 mph | -3.2 mph | |
| 55.1 mph | -3.9 mph | |
| 55.1 mph | -3.9 mph | |
| 52.8 mph | -6.2 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 12.5% (7.5 mph).
Snow
All three snow tests were led by Nokian, who have a strong history with excellent winter products. Michelin have improved on the snow performance of the CrossClimate+, with the CrossClimate 2 scoring well in all three tests, and Firestone and Continental also performed well in the winter conditions.
Snow Braking
Snow braking in feet (31 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 84 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
RefReference Winter |
85 ft | +1 ft | 7 mph |
| 86 ft | +2 ft | 11 mph | |
| 88 ft | +4 ft | 17 mph | |
| 88 ft | +4 ft | 18 mph | |
| 89 ft | +5 ft | 18 mph | |
| 89 ft | +5 ft | 18 mph | |
| 89 ft | +5 ft | 19 mph | |
| 89 ft | +5 ft | 19 mph | |
| 89 ft | +5 ft | 19 mph | |
| 90 ft | +6 ft | 20 mph | |
| 90 ft | +6 ft | 21 mph | |
| 91 ft | +7 ft | 22 mph | |
| 92 ft | +8 ft | 23 mph | |
| 93 ft | +9 ft | 24 mph | |
| 94 ft | +10 ft | 26 mph | |
| 100 ft | +16 ft | 32 mph | |
RefReference Summer |
187 ft | +103 ft | 59 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 122.3% (103 ft ≈ 7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Nexen N Blue 4 Season would still be travelling at 32 mph when the Nokian SeasonProof had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Snow Traction
Pulling Force in pounds-force
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 675 lbf | Best | |
| 673 lbf | -2 lbf | |
| 656 lbf | -19 lbf | |
RefReference Winter |
646 lbf | -29 lbf |
| 645 lbf | -30 lbf | |
| 637 lbf | -38 lbf | |
| 634 lbf | -41 lbf | |
| 634 lbf | -41 lbf | |
| 631 lbf | -44 lbf | |
| 626 lbf | -49 lbf | |
| 610 lbf | -65 lbf | |
| 605 lbf | -70 lbf | |
| 599 lbf | -76 lbf | |
| 591 lbf | -84 lbf | |
| 576 lbf | -99 lbf | |
| 563 lbf | -112 lbf | |
| 560 lbf | -115 lbf | |
RefReference Summer |
220 lbf | -455 lbf |
The difference between best and worst was 67.4% (455 lbf).
Snow Handling
Snow handling average speed
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 26.0 mph | Best | |
RefReference Winter |
25.9 mph | -0.1 mph |
| 25.7 mph | -0.3 mph | |
| 25.7 mph | -0.3 mph | |
| 25.7 mph | -0.3 mph | |
| 25.6 mph | -0.4 mph | |
| 25.5 mph | -0.5 mph | |
| 25.4 mph | -0.6 mph | |
| 25.4 mph | -0.6 mph | |
| 25.2 mph | -0.8 mph | |
| 25.2 mph | -0.8 mph | |
| 25.2 mph | -0.8 mph | |
| 25.0 mph | -1.0 mph | |
| 25.0 mph | -1.0 mph | |
| 24.8 mph | -1.2 mph | |
| 24.7 mph | -1.3 mph | |
| 24.6 mph | -1.4 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 5.5% (1.4 mph).
Environment
The Pirelli Cinturato SF2 had the lowest external noise on test in a group which was only split by 3db.
Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 71.1 dB | Best | |
| 71.4 dB | +0.30 dB | |
| 71.5 dB | +0.40 dB | |
| 71.6 dB | +0.50 dB | |
| 71.6 dB | +0.50 dB | |
| 71.9 dB | +0.80 dB | |
| 71.9 dB | +0.80 dB | |
| 72 dB | +0.90 dB | |
RefReference Summer |
72 dB | +0.90 dB |
| 72.1 dB | +1.00 dB | |
| 72.3 dB | +1.20 dB | |
| 72.5 dB | +1.40 dB | |
| 72.5 dB | +1.40 dB | |
| 72.6 dB | +1.50 dB | |
| 72.6 dB | +1.50 dB | |
| 73.1 dB | +2.00 dB | |
| 73.3 dB | +2.20 dB | |
RefReference Winter |
73.5 dB | +2.40 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 3.4% (2.4 dB).
Of the leading tires overall, Michelin and Pirelli had very low rolling resistances.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.13 kg/t | Best | $0 | |
| 7.17 kg/t | +0.04 kg/t | $2 | |
| 7.51 kg/t | +0.38 kg/t | $16 | |
| 7.62 kg/t | +0.49 kg/t | $20 | |
RefReference Summer |
7.64 kg/t | +0.51 kg/t | $21 |
| 7.66 kg/t | +0.53 kg/t | $22 | |
| 7.99 kg/t | +0.86 kg/t | $35 | |
| 8.13 kg/t | +1.00 kg/t | $41 | |
| 8.2 kg/t | +1.07 kg/t | $44 | |
| 8.24 kg/t | +1.11 kg/t | $46 | |
| 8.26 kg/t | +1.13 kg/t | $47 | |
| 8.57 kg/t | +1.44 kg/t | $59 | |
| 8.6 kg/t | +1.47 kg/t | $61 | |
| 8.79 kg/t | +1.66 kg/t | $68 | |
| 8.81 kg/t | +1.68 kg/t | $69 | |
| 9.19 kg/t | +2.06 kg/t | $85 | |
RefReference Winter |
9.33 kg/t | +2.20 kg/t | $91 |
| 9.44 kg/t | +2.31 kg/t | $95 |
The difference between best and worst was 32.4% (2.31 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Falken EUROALL SEASON AS210 uses about 26 gal ($95) more fuel than the Viking FourTech.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
Wear
The three charts below cover the calculated total tread life of the tire based on 9,321 miles on the road, then calculated down to 1.6mm, the purchase price of the tires in euros at the time of publication (this figure can vary between markets and times of year) and then the value of the tire, based on how many euros you pay in wear based every 1000 miles.
Michelin, long known for some of the best wear on test, seem to have dropped some mileage from the new CrossClimate 2, which could only finish mid pack with an estimated tread life of 24,855 miles. Instead, the Kumho Solus 4S HA32 proved to have the lowest wear of the group, calculated to cover over 33,554 miles with the Nokian SeasonProof in second at a very reasonable 31,690 miles.
Perhaps most impressively, given the high grip in nearly all tests, was the Goodyear Vector 4Season Gen-3 which promised to cover 31,069 miles, with it's main rivals from Continental and Hankook only expected to cover 26,719 miles and 21,127 miles respectively.
While the wear performance of the top tires on test were impressive, the difference in value was even more apparent, with the high priced Michelin one of the worst value tires on test with the group leading Kumho and Nexen products offering nearly half the price per kilometer travelled.
The Goodyear offered the best best value of the leading tires overall.
Wear
Predicted tread life in KM
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 33,880 miles | Best | |
| 31,892 miles | -1,988 miles | |
| 31,351 miles | -2,529 miles | |
| 29,067 miles | -4,813 miles | |
| 28,591 miles | -5,289 miles | |
| 27,850 miles | -6,030 miles | |
| 27,060 miles | -6,820 miles | |
| 26,250 miles | -7,630 miles | |
| 25,108 miles | -8,772 miles | |
| 24,894 miles | -8,986 miles | |
| 24,335 miles | -9,545 miles | |
| 23,808 miles | -10,072 miles | |
| 22,729 miles | -11,151 miles | |
| 21,558 miles | -12,322 miles | |
| 21,499 miles | -12,381 miles | |
| 19,060 miles | -14,820 miles |
The difference between best and worst was 43.7% (14,820 miles).
Value
Euros/1000km based on cost/wear
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | cost per 1,000 miles |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.34 Price/1000 | Best | €20.25 | |
| 8.23 Price/1000 | +0.89 Price/1000 | €25.55 | |
| 9.16 Price/1000 | +1.82 Price/1000 | €25.51 | |
| 9.45 Price/1000 | +2.11 Price/1000 | €31.43 | |
| 10.31 Price/1000 | +2.97 Price/1000 | €28.29 | |
| 10.37 Price/1000 | +3.03 Price/1000 | €25.17 | |
| 10.89 Price/1000 | +3.55 Price/1000 | €20.19 | |
| 11 Price/1000 | +3.66 Price/1000 | €26.67 | |
| 12.83 Price/1000 | +5.49 Price/1000 | €30.50 | |
| 13.02 Price/1000 | +5.68 Price/1000 | €26.34 | |
| 13.1 Price/1000 | +5.76 Price/1000 | €26.17 | |
| 13.58 Price/1000 | +6.24 Price/1000 | €37.39 | |
| 13.67 Price/1000 | +6.33 Price/1000 | €30.64 | |
| 14.12 Price/1000 | +6.78 Price/1000 | €28.47 | |
| 15.72 Price/1000 | +8.38 Price/1000 | €28.32 | |
| 15.97 Price/1000 | +8.63 Price/1000 | €39.39 |
The difference between best and worst was 117.6% (8.63 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Viking FourTech) works out €480 cheaper than the most expensive (Giti GitiAllSeason AS1).
How this is calculated
Assumes a typical car doing 29 mpg (rolling resistance causing 20% of fuel use), fuel at €6.25 per gallon and €70 fitting per set of four. Purchase prices are from the time of the 2021 test; financing costs are excluded.
Results
Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen 3
225/50 R17 98W XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 9th / 16 | 137 ft | +14 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 13th / 16 | 55.6 mph | -1.0 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 16 | 166 ft | +2 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 16 | 46.7 mph | -1.3 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 9th / 16 | 12.98 s | +0.57 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 2nd / 16 | 58.3 mph | -0.7 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 16 | 10.0 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 4th / 16 | 88 ft | +4 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 6th / 16 | 634 lbf | -41 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 16 | 25.6 mph | -0.4 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 10th / 16 | 72.3 dB | +1.20 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 3rd / 16 | 31,351 miles | -2,529 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 8th / 16 | 11 Price/1000 | +3.66 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 10th / 16 | 8.26 kg/t | +1.13 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/B/70
- Price
- 555.00
Continental AllSeasonContact
225/50 R17 98V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 13th / 16 | 139 ft | +16 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 11th / 16 | 55.7 mph | -0.9 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 9th / 16 | 174 ft | +10 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 8th / 16 | 45.7 mph | -2.3 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 4th / 16 | 12.81 s | +0.40 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 3rd / 16 | 58.0 mph | -1.0 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 5th / 16 | 8.8 ft/s² | -1.2 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 16 | 86 ft | +2 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 12th / 16 | 599 lbf | -76 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 16 | 25.7 mph | -0.3 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 13th / 16 | 72.6 dB | +1.50 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 7th / 16 | 27,060 miles | -6,820 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 14th / 16 | 14.12 Price/1000 | +6.78 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 5th / 16 | 7.66 kg/t | +0.53 kg/t |
- EU Label
- B/B/72
- Price
- 615.00
Hankook Kinergy 4S2
225/50 R17 98V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 4th / 16 | 132 ft | +9 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 16 | 56.0 mph | -0.6 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 16 | 172 ft | +8 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 16 | 46.5 mph | -1.5 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 2nd / 16 | 12.66 s | +0.25 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 5th / 16 | 57.4 mph | -1.6 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 8th / 16 | 8.3 ft/s² | -1.7 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 11th / 16 | 90 ft | +6 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 8th / 16 | 631 lbf | -44 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 25.2 mph | -0.8 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 11th / 16 | 72.5 dB | +1.40 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 14th / 16 | 21,558 miles | -12,322 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 9th / 16 | 12.83 Price/1000 | +5.49 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 9th / 16 | 8.24 kg/t | +1.11 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/B/72
- Price
- 445.00
Vredestein Quatrac Pro
225/50 R17 98V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 10th / 16 | 138 ft | +15 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 16 | 56.0 mph | -0.6 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 16 | 164 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 16 | 48.0 mph | Best in this discipline |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 1st / 16 | 12.41 s | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 56.4 mph | -2.6 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 6th / 16 | 8.7 ft/s² | -1.3 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 13th / 16 | 92 ft | +8 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 10th / 16 | 610 lbf | -65 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 16 | 25.4 mph | -0.6 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 16 | 71.4 dB | +0.30 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 15th / 16 | 21,499 miles | -12,381 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 12th / 16 | 13.58 Price/1000 | +6.24 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 15th / 16 | 9.19 kg/t | +2.06 kg/t |
- EU Label
- E/B/71
- Price
- 470.00
Nokian SeasonProof
225/50 R17 98V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 5th / 16 | 136 ft | +13 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 14th / 16 | 55.3 mph | -1.3 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 10th / 16 | 176 ft | +12 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 12th / 16 | 44.9 mph | -3.1 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 8th / 16 | 12.9 s | +0.49 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 11th / 16 | 56.2 mph | -2.8 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 4th / 16 | 8.9 ft/s² | -1.1 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 1st / 16 | 84 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 1st / 16 | 675 lbf | Best in this discipline |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 16 | 26.0 mph | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 3rd / 16 | 71.5 dB | +0.40 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 2nd / 16 | 31,892 miles | -1,988 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 3rd / 16 | 9.16 Price/1000 | +1.82 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 11th / 16 | 8.57 kg/t | +1.44 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/B/69
- Price
- 470.00
Falken EUROALL SEASON AS210
225/50 R17 98V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 12th / 16 | 138 ft | +15 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 16 | 56.4 mph | -0.2 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 16 | 167 ft | +3 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 16 | 47.0 mph | -1.0 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 7th / 16 | 12.89 s | +0.48 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 12th / 16 | 56.2 mph | -2.8 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 7th / 16 | 8.6 ft/s² | -1.4 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 5th / 16 | 89 ft | +5 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 5th / 16 | 637 lbf | -38 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 13th / 16 | 25.0 mph | -1.0 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 13th / 16 | 72.6 dB | +1.50 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 5th / 16 | 28,591 miles | -5,289 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 4th / 16 | 9.45 Price/1000 | +2.11 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 16th / 16 | 9.44 kg/t | +2.31 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/C/70
- Price
- 435.00
Michelin CrossClimate 2
225/50 R17 98V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 1st / 16 | 123 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 16 | 56.6 mph | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 11th / 16 | 177 ft | +13 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 12th / 16 | 44.9 mph | -3.1 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 11th / 16 | 13.09 s | +0.68 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 4th / 16 | 57.8 mph | -1.2 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 8.3 ft/s² | -1.7 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 5th / 16 | 89 ft | +5 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 2nd / 16 | 673 lbf | -2 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 16 | 25.7 mph | -0.3 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 8th / 16 | 72 dB | +0.90 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 25,108 miles | -8,772 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 15th / 16 | 15.72 Price/1000 | +8.38 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 2nd / 16 | 7.17 kg/t | +0.04 kg/t |
- EU Label
- B/B/71
- Price
- 635.00
Maxxis Premitra All Season AP3
225/50 R17 98W XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 16 | 126 ft | +3 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 16 | 56.1 mph | -0.5 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 15th / 16 | 179 ft | +15 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 10th / 16 | 45.2 mph | -2.8 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 10th / 16 | 13.08 s | +0.67 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 6th / 16 | 56.9 mph | -2.1 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 11th / 16 | 8.2 ft/s² | -1.8 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 8th / 16 | 89 ft | +5 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 4th / 16 | 645 lbf | -30 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 16 | 25.5 mph | -0.5 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 4th / 16 | 71.6 dB | +0.50 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 12th / 16 | 23,808 miles | -10,072 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 5th / 16 | 10.31 Price/1000 | +2.97 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 12th / 16 | 8.6 kg/t | +1.47 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/B/70
- Price
- 395.00
Dunlop Sport All Season
225/50 R17 98V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 8th / 16 | 137 ft | +14 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 16 | 56.2 mph | -0.4 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 16 | 169 ft | +5 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 16 | 46.3 mph | -1.7 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 6th / 16 | 12.87 s | +0.46 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 1st / 16 | 59.0 mph | Best in this discipline |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 16 | 10.0 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 14th / 16 | 93 ft | +9 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 6th / 16 | 634 lbf | -41 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 16th / 16 | 24.6 mph | -1.4 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 16th / 16 | 73.3 dB | +2.20 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 11th / 16 | 24,335 miles | -9,545 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 10th / 16 | 13.02 Price/1000 | +5.68 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4th / 16 | 7.62 kg/t | +0.49 kg/t |
- EU Label
- B/B/72
- Price
- 500.00
Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO
225/50 R17 98V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 5th / 16 | 136 ft | +13 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 16 | 56.4 mph | -0.2 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 7th / 16 | 174 ft | +10 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 16 | 46.4 mph | -1.6 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 4th / 16 | 12.81 s | +0.40 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 15th / 16 | 55.1 mph | -3.9 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 15th / 16 | 7.2 ft/s² | -2.8 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 12th / 16 | 91 ft | +7 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 626 lbf | -49 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 12th / 16 | 25.0 mph | -1.0 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 9th / 16 | 72.1 dB | +1.00 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 13th / 16 | 22,729 miles | -11,151 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 13th / 16 | 13.67 Price/1000 | +6.33 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 6th / 16 | 7.99 kg/t | +0.86 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/71
- Price
- 510.00
Viking FourTech
225/50 R17 98W XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 15th / 16 | 143 ft | +20 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 12th / 16 | 55.6 mph | -1.0 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 6th / 16 | 173 ft | +9 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 11th / 16 | 45.1 mph | -2.9 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 15th / 16 | 13.29 s | +0.88 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 8th / 16 | 56.7 mph | -2.3 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 16 | 9.8 ft/s² | -0.2 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 16 | 88 ft | +4 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 16th / 16 | 560 lbf | -115 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 25.2 mph | -0.8 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 11th / 16 | 72.5 dB | +1.40 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 8th / 16 | 26,250 miles | -7,630 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 7th / 16 | 10.89 Price/1000 | +3.55 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 1st / 16 | 7.13 kg/t | Best in this discipline |
- EU Label
- E/C/72
- Price
- 460.00
Kumho Solus 4S HA32
225/50 R17 98W XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 7th / 16 | 136 ft | +13 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 8th / 16 | 55.9 mph | -0.7 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 14th / 16 | 178 ft | +14 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 14th / 16 | 44.3 mph | -3.7 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 13th / 16 | 13.11 s | +0.70 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 13th / 16 | 55.8 mph | -3.2 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 13th / 16 | 7.7 ft/s² | -2.3 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 7th / 16 | 89 ft | +5 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 13th / 16 | 591 lbf | -84 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 11th / 16 | 25.2 mph | -0.8 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 16 | 71.9 dB | +0.80 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 1st / 16 | 33,880 miles | Best in this discipline |
| ValueLower is better | 1st / 16 | 7.34 Price/1000 | Best in this discipline |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 8th / 16 | 8.2 kg/t | +1.07 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/B/72
- Price
- 400.00
Firestone MultiSeason Gen 02
225/50 R17 98V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 14th / 16 | 139 ft | +16 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 55.9 mph | -0.7 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 13th / 16 | 177 ft | +13 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 45.3 mph | -2.7 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 11th / 16 | 13.09 s | +0.68 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 16th / 16 | 52.8 mph | -6.2 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 16th / 16 | 6.3 ft/s² | -3.7 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 8th / 16 | 89 ft | +5 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 3rd / 16 | 656 lbf | -19 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 16 | 25.7 mph | -0.3 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 15th / 16 | 73.1 dB | +2.00 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 6th / 16 | 27,850 miles | -6,030 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 6th / 16 | 10.37 Price/1000 | +3.03 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 7th / 16 | 8.13 kg/t | +1.00 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/B/71
- Price
- 465.00
Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2
225/50 R17 98W XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 16 | 132 ft | +9 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 55.9 mph | -0.7 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 16th / 16 | 184 ft | +20 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 16th / 16 | 43.9 mph | -4.1 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 16th / 16 | 13.3 s | +0.89 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 7th / 16 | 56.9 mph | -2.1 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 14th / 16 | 7.5 ft/s² | -2.5 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 15th / 16 | 94 ft | +10 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 11th / 16 | 605 lbf | -70 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 16 | 25.4 mph | -0.6 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 1st / 16 | 71.1 dB | Best in this discipline |
| WearHigher is better | 10th / 16 | 24,894 miles | -8,986 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 11th / 16 | 13.1 Price/1000 | +5.76 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 3rd / 16 | 7.51 kg/t | +0.38 kg/t |
- EU Label
- B/B/70
- Price
- 525.00
Nexen N Blue 4 Season
225/50 R17 94V
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 10th / 16 | 138 ft | +15 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 16th / 16 | 54.2 mph | -2.4 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 12th / 16 | 177 ft | +13 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 15th / 16 | 44.1 mph | -3.9 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 14th / 16 | 13.19 s | +0.78 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 10th / 16 | 56.3 mph | -2.7 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 12th / 16 | 8.0 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 16th / 16 | 100 ft | +16 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 15th / 16 | 563 lbf | -112 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 15th / 16 | 24.7 mph | -1.3 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 16 | 71.9 dB | +0.80 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 4th / 16 | 29,067 miles | -4,813 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 2nd / 16 | 8.23 Price/1000 | +0.89 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 13th / 16 | 8.79 kg/t | +1.66 kg/t |
- EU Label
- E/B/69
- Price
- 385.00
Giti GitiAllSeason AS1
225/50 R17 98W XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (14)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 15th / 16 | 143 ft | +20 ft |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 15th / 16 | 55.2 mph | -1.4 mph |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 7th / 16 | 174 ft | +10 ft |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 16 | 46.1 mph | -1.9 mph |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 3rd / 16 | 12.77 s | +0.36 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 14th / 16 | 55.1 mph | -3.9 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 8.3 ft/s² | -1.7 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 10th / 16 | 90 ft | +6 ft |
| Snow TractionHigher is better | 14th / 16 | 576 lbf | -99 lbf |
| Snow HandlingHigher is better | 14th / 16 | 24.8 mph | -1.2 mph |
| NoiseLower is better | 4th / 16 | 71.6 dB | +0.50 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 16th / 16 | 19,060 miles | -14,820 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 16th / 16 | 15.97 Price/1000 | +8.63 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 14th / 16 | 8.81 kg/t | +1.68 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/B/70
- Price
- 490.00
Hi Jonathan. I much appreciate your quantified approach.
Question: Auto Bild shows the traction force in snow in Newton. But what does it mean, since traction depends of the weight on the tire. The CC2 has 3500N in the all season SUV test, but 'only' 3000N in the standard all season test. Why the difference? Can values between two tests be compared?
Thanks for the help.
Differences in tire sizes, vehicle weight, snow type, snow temperature etc will affect this so its only really useful comparing in the same tests
Hallo Jonathan
I understand. Thanks for the speedy reply.
I saw that Auto Bild Allrad will publish a new all season test in September.
There will be lots of new tests around the start I'd September
Is there any reason why the Pirelli are so bad on this test, compared to the TR test?
I was going to buy some 225/45/18's but the wet braking has put me right off.
None that I know of, I did write a section about the differences in the article and what it could be.
ty. For now, I'm waiting till the 2022 All Season review. IF I'm lucky, the Pirelli's will be in it again this year.
If not, I'll be looking at what this year will bring.
They were in our test this year, I believe the wet performance matched this test rather than our test last year.
Hey all! Which all season tire for a size 245/45/R18 you would recommend for really hot summers and moderate winters (temps at their lowest are around -5 to -10C and there's a snow for around 10-15 days total). The rest of the winter is usually dry, or with rain, and the temps are around -2 to 0 (night) to 10C. Mid May through end of August/mid September temps are usually between 25 to ~35C (during the day).
Michelin
Goodyear
Pirelli
Continental
On my old car I was using CC+ in the similar size (225 instead of 245 now) for the last 2 years and I was soo happy with them, all year round. Now want to fit some new all seasons for the new car (Insignia Grand Sport petrol 121kw automatic and just want to make sure I make the right choice. All 4 tires are similarly priced here (maybe 5-10 euros difference) and I'm looking for the most comfy, least noisy and with a good life span. Was definitely interested in CC2 but after reading this review I just wanted your advice if they are still the best choice.
And finally, would you all go for 96Y standard ones or 100Y XL ones?
Thank you!
CC2 won my most recent test and I have them on my own car.
Thanks for a quick reply! And yeah, I was looking at your review (and some others as well), plus my own experience from using CC+ for the last 2 years but again, this review surprised me a bit (even though they have used a different car, different tire size, different conditions etc). And actually, I was between CC2 and Pirelli as I mainly need a good summer biased all season tire (due to the general weather here)
And what do you think about standard load and extra load, with either of these (96Y and 100Y)?
I really need to test standard load vs extra load sometime, from what I understand the differences are usually small and sometimes non existent.
Thanks! And yeah, I've heard that too. But yet again, it looks like opinions are very different from everything I've seen online and heard in person. And in my example, the size I need for CC2, actually has a bit different ratings for 96Y standard one and 100Y XL one. Its C for fuel consumption and B for wet grip (standard) and it's B in both categories for XL version. And for Pirelli SF2, I can't seem to find the standard version as it looks like there's only XL version available (maybe I'm wrong).
Unless you're hyper focused on comfort, I'd be getting the 100Y XL CC2!
Yep, thinking the same. Thanks man!
Hi, have you got performance testing (dry, wet, snow etc) of all season vs winter tires as the tires wear out?
Apparently all season tires start their life soft and perform well, but then harden through life and don't do so well (in addition to having less tread).
Any thoughts?
That will depend on brand, as it does on any type of tires. Some brands use a softer top layer, good brands don't.
So pretty safe with cross climate 2?
My winter conditions are 0 to 12 deg, maybe two to three events
As safe as you can be (I've just tested that but no results until autumn this year)
Awesome, tested what exactly?
Hello,
I live in Asturias, a province in the north of Spain and I want to buy the Nokian Sessionproof.
Here in Asturias it rains most of the year. We have sea and mountains of more than 2000 meters of altitude at 70km distance between sea and mountains, although the average of the most important mountain passes where roads pass are usually around 1200-1400 meters that in winter are snowed.
The purchase of the Nokian is fine for a person that the most he has ever driven on wet roads was 140 km/h or would you advise me to buy another model of all-season tires other than Nokian. I mean if the understeer is sufficiently pronounced when driving with these tires. I have 225/45 R17 tires.
This monday I have to call to put new ones on. I will pass my michelin crossclimatic + at the front and put these new ones on the rear.
But I would like to know the opinion if these Nokian Sessionproof are good in wetter climates than snow. The wet weather in Asturias ranges from 3 degrees to 30 degrees centigrade between autumn, winter, spring and summer.
Thank you very much for your reply.
Post Data: I would like you to do a review with the new Uniroyal AllSeasonExpert 2 tires as uniroyal say they have always been one of the best tires in the wet. If anyone has tried them and can tell us how they perform in the wet and dry as well as on snow and ice I would appreciate it as well.
Regards.
If you look at the test results, the Nokian SeasonProof isn't usually great in the wet so I would buy a tire that does well in the wet, if that's your priority.
Hi, many thanks for a great review. I’m thinking of mounting all-season tires on my 7-seater (205/55/17) and this really comes in handy. At the moment, my favorites are the new Pirelli and Goodyear. I have to say that I live at the cost of Adriatic Sea with really mild weather (quite a bit of rain in the winter, though) with few short trips to middle Europe during the year.
Basically, I am looking for a tire that will “cover” summer conditions, mild winters and occasional encounter with the snow. It seems that most of these new all-season tires could get the job done, but, as I said I’m leaning towards either Pirelli or Goodyear. However, during the summer, the temperatures here easily hit 35-40 C, and I have yet to see a review that covers all-season tire behavior in this kind of heat. Plus, after a couple of months of really hot weather, what is the wear and tear on these tires? Can I expect to be using the same set for 2.5 - 3 years (I do 15 - 20 thousand km/year), or will the tires lose their intended characteristics after the first summer season? I’d appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Plus, based on your experience, would either Pirelli or Goodyear be suited for this kind of climate or would you recommend a possible
third option? Obviously, the decision is mine to make, but I’m always open for suggestions. Once again, many thanks for a great review.
They're designed to be run all year so you won't get anything dangerous in 40c, but they won't be as good as a summer tire.
Snow performance drops off noticeably after 3mm on all tires
I would be fascinated to see the results if you would include a Michelin CC2 in your summer tire tests.
There's plenty of all season tests with the CC2 and a summer reference tire which will give some some idea :) I always push to get a cc2 in anytest!
Would you say Jonathan that for those of us living in England probably the optimal set up is to use one of the many fine summer tires from May to October and an AS with the characteristics of a MCC2 or Vred Q from November to April?
On an associated point I do wonder though whether Michelin in chasing improved snow performance haven't ever so slightly taken their eye off wet capabilities.
I do like an all season as a winter tire. I would also like to see better wet performance for the cc2, but it did improve over the cc+
Thanks Jonathan. Where I'm genuinely struggling at the moment in choosing a tire to replace my 5 year old MCCs is that none of the other AS tires are IMHO remotely good enough in the dry compared with the CC2 never mind the summer tire (in dry braking the CC2 is only about 6 ft worse than the MP4 which is very impressive while Pirelli, Goodyear and Conti are circa 14, 20 and 22ft worse respectively than the MP4 which makes them in dry conditions worse than a budget summer tire!!!). So top marks to the CC2. However the figures suggest that the CC2 isn't great in the wet compared with the best AS tires never mind the summer tire (circa 20 ft worse in warm wet braking than its MP4 cousin which is pretty disappointing). I know these figures will likely reverse in sub 7C conditions but........
I guess I'm being picky given what I'm wanting but I'm really just saying that I wish Michelin had stuck more closely to the original premise of the CC family which was a summerish tire that could cope in the snow rather than chase winter performance. Ultimately if you need stellar snow performance e.g. in central Europe/Scandinavia/Scotland you are probably swapping for a winter tire anyway in the cold months.
Ho hum.
The new CC2 is better than your current tire in the wet, so maybe it's a simpler choice than you think
Very fair point albeit one would and should expect improvement in performance over 5 years. Undoubtedly the CC2 will be better than the CC. My reasons for questioning the CC2 wet performance is that we have recently moved from Kent to Herefordshire/Welsh borders which is wetter which is why I am more bothered by wet performance than previously when I bought the original CCs.
I'm actually more interested in comparing the delta between the CC2 and summer tires than other AS tires as the latter are generally far too winter focussed for our mild climate.
Thus I had a go at comparing the CC2 v the P4 and it looks like on dry braking, dry handling and wet handling the CC2 is within 5-6% of the P4 which is really impressive and more than acceptable given that the P4 is an excellent summer tire. Wear and noise is within 8-10% which is OK. Straight aqua is circa 12% better - great😁. However summer wet braking is up to 13-15% worse and that is extremely disappointing.
I guess it proves your point that you really should swap tires every spring and autumn. However that's expensive plus you need to store the other set of wheels. It really is a fascinating subject.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think I will go with the CC2s for the point you make and accept the warm wet braking result and for the fact that in the winter months the P4 will suffer performance wise compared with the CC2 anyway.
Two presumably well run test by two clearly world class testers ( Don't be modest your testing is legit ), with some converging and some diverging results. However since they were multiple variables changed it's hard to know why, except to speculate. I find it completely fascinating it reminds me of an organic chemistry lab in college. I am having way too much fun trying to select an optimal tire, luckily I drive a Golf R, so tire reviews testing is spot on for me!
And you have a car that will flatter most tires :)
How its possible that Goodyear in tests from 2020 225/45 was 3rd lowest noise and year after 225/50 its 10th ?
Size differences, competitors moving on, different test conditions
Just to show how weighting can change results I took ABs scores and scored 40% for wet, 35% for dry, 10% for snow, 10% for wear/price/RR, 2.5% for Aqua and 2.5% for noise. On this basis Vredestein won with Michelin 2nd, Hankook 3rd and Goodyear only 5th.
Agreed, nice example. I really want to develop a system for the site where you can pick your weighting and see the results change in real time but my javascript skills are somewhat lacking!
As you always say, Jonathan, different people have different requirements from their tires. Living in Herefordshire/Shropshire we don't see a lot of snow so I need a tire that is dry/wet focussed. I don't need Nokian levels of snow performance. Rather I want a tire that on the rare occasions we get the white stuff has the traction to get me up the many hills around here and then brake safely. A summer tire can't do that. Hence I have the original CCs which I am about to change. If I was in Scotland that might be different. I just hope that with the new CC2 Michelin aren't giving wet performance away to boost their snow grip. The Vredestein result has given me food for thought due to its fantastic wet performance (we get a lot of rain in the Marches) but I guess the dry braking just isn't good enough.
One additional test that might be useful is black ice. We're far more likely to see that in most of the UK than snow. On the one occasion I hit a patch of black ice I can't say the CCs felt great. They were probably better than summer tires but it doesn't happen often enough for me to be able to compare accurately.
Ice testing would be useful, but it's incredibly time consuming (expensive) so it doesn't often get performed for all season, or even central European winter tire tests these days
Aha guess there had to be a reason. Fair enough😁
Slightly confused by the conclusions on the Auto Bild report. Auto Bild say the Goodyear tire has no weaknesses with convincing performance across all conditions yet it is 4.3 meters worse than the Michelin CC2 and only 9th in dry braking and 13th in dry handling which is 10.26% and 1.86% respectively worse than the CC2. Meanwhile the Michelin gets marked down for wet performance even though it is only 3.2 meters worse than the Goodyear in wet braking and is 12th in wet handling which is only 5.86% and 3.62% respectively worse than the Goodyear.
To be over 14 feet slower to brake in dry conditions than the CC2 is not great IMHO.
So if Michelin is being marked down for wet performance then surely Goodyear (and others) should be for dry performance
Agreed, I thought the same when writing it up. Maybe something was lost in translation but I did double check!
I've noticed that lots of all season tire reviews (not yours I'm happy to say) seem to make allowances for less than stellar dry performance provided snow is really good (a good example is the 2021 AZ all season test which gives 1st place to Conti despite a very average dry performance and wet as well - 6.3M worse under cool wet braking than the best!!! All made up for by a mega snow result).
I thought the CC2 wear results were fascinating. Michelin have always prided themselves on being near the best on wear so to be mid pack at 40K Km and 10K worse than the best premium tire was a surprise. Doing a maximum 7K Km a year in any one of our two cars then it's not that critical for me as I would probably change every 5-6 years anyway even if the tread depth was OK but if I was doing say 20K pa in a vehicle then that might be different.
what kind of tire are the "reference"? For example there are big differences between a michelin energy, primacy and sport pilot
Sadly Autobild didn't publish that information.
Out of all these test I just found my next winter tires: Nokian Seasonproof. It seems to be better than the winter tires in TR and AB tests , different cars , different conditions .
Mr. Benson , would you please take into account a future test or more with a FWD not sporty heavy estate , I mean for us that a RWD or a lighter, smaller car won't be good enough for transportation needs ( a family won't travel in it confortably, at least mine doesn't).
What do you say about it?
It's unlikely anyone will specifically use a heavy estate car for tire testing as you generally try and appeal to the largest audience. The good news is that there's not a huge difference in weights, and there have been some tests using estate versions of cars like the Golf estate which can be found on the site, plus it wouldn't really change the ranking in a meaningful way
I'm interested to know how the General Altimax 365 AW will fare vs. the other All Weather tires. I would expect superior snow and ice performance as it appears the 365 AW was derived from a winter tire heritage. Any data on this new tire yet?
I've not tested this against other all weather tires, General make some good tires for the price point so I assume it will be good value, but perhaps not as good as something like a CC2
Autobild tested the Altimax 365 in the qualification, it's ranked 28th from overall 32 tires. In the qualification they are only doing a dry and wet braking test. I think some of the lower ranked like the Kleber Quadraxer 2 or Uniroyal Allseasonexpert 2 are quite good in the snow but they have a disadvantage in the dry+wet braking test and failed to qualify.
I was about buying the Pirelli SF2 in 225/40 R19 (front) and 255/35 R19 (rear) for a Giulia with 280BHP, but seeing these results I now have some doubts. How could these results be so different from the tests from Tire reviews? They seem two entirely different tires.
Also, CC2 has similar results, way worse on wet in this test compared to the other one.
As I would use them as winter tires and I live in a temperate place, so dry and wet performance have more priority and temperature rarely below 0, and sporty feeling if possible. What would you suggest?
I've explained this in the article the best I can.