2023 ADAC 16 Inch Tire Test

Below is the data from the 2023 16" ADAC winter tire test. 

Noteworthy performers included the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 with good dry braking, Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 showcasing remarkable wet braking, and the Goodyear UltraGrip 9 Plus excelling in snow and ice braking. On the flip side, the Austone SP 901 displayed weaknesses in wet conditions and aquaplaning scenarios. The Fulda Kristall Control HP2 emerged as a durable option with the longest wear, while the Barum Polaris 5 stood out for fuel efficiency. 

The biggest surprise is probably the winner. The  now aging Dunlop Winter Sport 5 emerged as the overall victor in the 2023 ADAC 16 Inch Tire Test, exhibiting a balanced performance across various testing categories. Its well-rounded performance underscores its reliability and suitability for diverse road conditions, making it a commendable choice for motorists seeking a harmonized blend of safety, comfort, and efficiency

Test Publication:

205/60 R16 16 tires 6 categories

Similar Tests

Images courtesy of ADAC

Test Publication:

https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/ausstattung-technik-zubehoer/reifen/reifentest/

Images courtesy of ADAC

Test Size: 205/60 R16

Tires Tested: 16 tires

Test Categories:
6 categories (12 tests)

Similar Tests

Dry

In the dry braking test, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 stood out with a shortest braking distance of 41.4 M, showcasing its superior stopping power on dry surfaces. On the other hand, the Uniroyal WinterExpert lagged with a longer braking distance of 45.6 M, indicating room for improvement in dry braking performance.

Wet

For wet braking the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 demonstrated excellent braking performance, stopping at a distance of 35.2 M. Conversely, the Austone SP 901 had a less desirable outcome with a braking distance of 45.6 M, showing its limitations in wet conditions.

Again, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 showed strong performance on concrete wet surfaces with a braking distance of 36.4 M, indicating its reliable wet grip. The Austone SP 901 again struggled with a distance of 45.1 M, reflecting its weaker performance in these conditions.

In the straight aquaplaning test, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 exhibited impressive control, maintaining a speed of 90.6 Km/H. The Austone SP 901, on the other hand, was significantly slower with a speed of 69.1 Km/H, showing susceptibility to aquaplaning.

The Firestone Winterhawk 4 again showcased superior control in curved aquaplaning scenarios with a speed of 3.9 m/sec², indicating its strong aquaplaning resistance. The Austone SP 901 struggled with a speed of 2.1 m/sec², displaying a higher tendency to lose control.

Snow

In snowy conditions, the Goodyear UltraGrip 9 Plus excelled with a short braking distance of 9.5 M, demonstrating reliable stopping power. In contrast, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 required a longer distance of 11.4 M to halt, suggesting less effectiveness in snow braking.

The BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 led in snow traction with a force of 265.3 N, indicating strong grip on snowy surfaces. The Lassa Snoways 4, however, showed weaker traction with a force of 223.6 N, hinting at its limitations in snow traction.

Ice

The Goodyear UltraGrip 9 Plus performed exceptionally in ice braking, stopping at 18.6 M, showcasing its capability on icy surfaces. The Kleber Krisalp HP3 had a longer braking distance of 21.8 M, reflecting a lesser performance on ice.

Comfort

Noise test results indicated a quieter ride with Austone SP 901 registering 70.4 dB, thus offering a more comfortable driving experience. In contrast, the Fulda Kristall Control HP2 was louder with 74.1 dB, which might be perceived as less comfortable.

Value

In the wear test, the Fulda Kristall Control HP2 showcased outstanding durability with 56300 KM, promising a longer tire lifespan. The Bridgestone Blizzak LM005, however, showed quicker wear with 34800 KM, indicating a shorter tire lifespan.

The Barum Polaris 5 proved to be fuel-efficient with a consumption of 5.5 l/100km, making it a more economical choice. The Austone SP 901 consumed more fuel at 5.8 l/100km, making it less economical in comparison.

The Michelin Alpin 6 exhibited the lowest abrasion with 51 mg/km/t, suggesting better material endurance. On the other hand, the Uniroyal WinterExpert had higher abrasion at 90 mg/km/t, indicating a propensity for quicker material degradation​1​.

Results

1^st

Dunlop Winter Sport 5

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The DUNLOP Winter Sport 5 demonstrates precise steering and good safety margins on dry roads, including quick stabilization after evasive maneuvers. Braking performance from 100 km/h is rated as good within the test field. On wet roads, the WINTER SPORT 5 tire performs well in all sub-criteria, including above-average scores in braking and handling. However, its performance in longitudinal aquaplaning is below the average of competitors. On snowy and icy roads, the tire scores above average in braking, acceleration, and handling. Regarding environmental impact, the WINTER SPORT 5 also receives good ratings, offering high projected mileage, low wear, low weight, and decent fuel efficiency.

Dry

93.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	9th	44.4 M	41.4 M	+3 M	93.24%

Wet

92.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	6th	37.2 M	35.2 M	+2 M	94.62%
Wet Braking - Concrete	6th	39.4 M	36.4 M	+3 M	92.39%
Straight Aqua	13th	82.3 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-8.3 Km/H	90.84%
Curved Aquaplaning	6th	3.6 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.3 m/sec2	92.31%

Snow

98.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	5th	9.6 M	9.5 M	+0.1 M	98.96%
Snow Traction	4th	260.1 N	265.3 N	-5.2 N	98.04%

Ice

94.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	4th	19.6 M	18.6 M	+1 M	94.9%

Comfort

97.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	14th	72.4 dB	70.4 dB	+2 dB	97.24%

Value

85%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	3rd	47700 KM	56300 KM	-8600 KM	84.72%
Fuel Consumption	6th	5.7 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.49%
Abrasion	7th	69 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+18 mg/km/t	73.91%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

2^nd

Michelin Alpin 6

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The MICHELIN ALPIN 6 performs well on dry roads, offering precise steering and sufficient safety margins, even at the limit. Its braking from 100 km/h is slightly above average. On wet surfaces, the tire excels in braking distance measurements but receives only satisfactory ratings in lateral aquaplaning. Handling is nearly rated as good; for better precision, the tire needs to better integrate longitudinal and lateral forces. On winter roads, the ALPIN 6 scores well, with slightly below-average braking and above-average traction measurements. Its handling and ice braking are rated as good. Environmentally, the ALPIN 6 stands out for its above-average wear resistance and low fuel consumption, attributed to its low weight and low rolling resistance. Noise levels are average.

Dry

96.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	4th	43 M	41.4 M	+1.6 M	96.28%

Wet

90.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	3rd	36.4 M	35.2 M	+1.2 M	96.7%
Wet Braking - Concrete	5th	38.9 M	36.4 M	+2.5 M	93.57%
Straight Aqua	14th	81.5 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-9.1 Km/H	89.96%
Curved Aquaplaning	15th	3.2 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.7 m/sec2	82.05%

Snow

94.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	14th	10.5 M	9.5 M	+1 M	90.48%
Snow Traction	3rd	260.9 N	265.3 N	-4.4 N	98.34%

Ice

95.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	3rd	19.5 M	18.6 M	+0.9 M	95.38%

Comfort

98.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	7th	71.2 dB	70.4 dB	+0.8 dB	98.88%

Value

97.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	2nd	53300 KM	56300 KM	-3000 KM	94.67%
Fuel Consumption	6th	5.7 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.49%
Abrasion	1st	51 mg/km/t			100%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

3^rd

Goodyear UltraGrip 9+

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The GOODYEAR UltraGrip 9+ shows minor weaknesses in steering precision and feedback on dry roads but compensates with good safety margins during sudden evasive maneuvers and average braking distances. On wet roads, it performs clearly above average, offering short braking distances and secure, easily controllable handling. In lateral aquaplaning, its performance is rated as good, and it narrowly misses an excellent rating in longitudinal aquaplaning. On winter roads, the UltraGrip 9+ scores above average in braking and slightly above average in traction. While it offers good safety reserves in snow handling, steering could be more precise. In ice braking tests, the UltraGrip 9+ excels with the shortest braking distances. Environmentally, the tire achieves a good rating for its projected lifespan and wear, and it receives the best rating in the test for efficiency.

Dry

92.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	13th	44.9 M	41.4 M	+3.5 M	92.2%

Wet

95.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	4th	36.9 M	35.2 M	+1.7 M	95.39%
Wet Braking - Concrete	9th	40.2 M	36.4 M	+3.8 M	90.55%
Straight Aqua	2nd	88.8 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-1.8 Km/H	98.01%
Curved Aquaplaning	2nd	3.8 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.1 m/sec2	97.44%

Snow

98.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	1st	9.5 M			100%
Snow Traction	7th	257.3 N	265.3 N	-8 N	96.98%

Ice

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	1st	18.6 M			100%

Comfort

99%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	5th	71.1 dB	70.4 dB	+0.7 dB	99.02%

Value

81.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	6th	43900 KM	56300 KM	-12400 KM	77.98%
Fuel Consumption	2nd	5.6 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.21%
Abrasion	11th	74 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+23 mg/km/t	68.92%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

4^th

Continental WinterContact TS 870 P

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The Continental WinterContact TS 870 P exhibits minor weaknesses in steering precision and feedback on dry roads but compensates with good safety reserves in sudden evasive maneuvers and clearly above-average braking distances. On wet roads, the tire performs consistently well across all sub-criteria, including slightly above-average results in braking and aquaplaning. It also offers easy and secure handling. On winter roads, the tire achieves average scores in braking and traction but excels in handling due to its large safety reserves and precise steering. Ice braking performance is average. Environmentally, the tire receives a barely good rating; its wear is average, and its projected lifespan is slightly below average but still rated as good. Efficiency metrics are average.

Dry

96.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	2nd	42.9 M	41.4 M	+1.5 M	96.5%

Wet

91.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	7th	38.2 M	35.2 M	+3 M	92.15%
Wet Braking - Concrete	6th	39.4 M	36.4 M	+3 M	92.39%
Straight Aqua	9th	84.5 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-6.1 Km/H	93.27%
Curved Aquaplaning	8th	3.5 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.4 m/sec2	89.74%

Snow

94.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	10th	9.9 M	9.5 M	+0.4 M	95.96%
Snow Traction	12th	245.7 N	265.3 N	-19.6 N	92.61%

Ice

91.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	7th	20.3 M	18.6 M	+1.7 M	91.63%

Comfort

99.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	4th	70.9 dB	70.4 dB	+0.5 dB	99.29%

Value

80.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	9th	41700 KM	56300 KM	-14600 KM	74.07%
Fuel Consumption	6th	5.7 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.49%
Abrasion	9th	71 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+20 mg/km/t	71.83%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

5^th

Hankook Winter I cept RS3

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The Hankook Winter i*cept RS3 shows minor deficiencies in steering precision and feedback on dry roads but earns a good overall rating due to its safety reserves in sudden evasive maneuvers and braking performance rated as "still good." On wet roads, the tire performs well in braking, longitudinal aquaplaning, and handling, but falls short in lateral aquaplaning with a satisfactory rating. On winter roads, it ranks second-best in the test, excelling in braking and acceleration, and offering secure and precise handling on snow. Its ice braking performance is also above average. Environmentally, the tire misses a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan, although its wear and efficiency are rated as good.

Dry

92.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	12th	44.8 M	41.4 M	+3.4 M	92.41%

Wet

92.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	4th	36.9 M	35.2 M	+1.7 M	95.39%
Wet Braking - Concrete	4th	38.7 M	36.4 M	+2.3 M	94.06%
Straight Aqua	6th	85.5 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-5.1 Km/H	94.37%
Curved Aquaplaning	10th	3.4 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.5 m/sec2	87.18%

Snow

98.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	1st	9.5 M			100%
Snow Traction	6th	258.1 N	265.3 N	-7.2 N	97.29%

Ice

94.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	5th	19.7 M	18.6 M	+1.1 M	94.42%

Comfort

98.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	11th	71.8 dB	70.4 dB	+1.4 dB	98.05%

Value

79.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	13th	38700 KM	56300 KM	-17600 KM	68.74%
Fuel Consumption	6th	5.7 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.49%
Abrasion	8th	70 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+19 mg/km/t	72.86%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

6^th

Bridgestone Blizzak LM005

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The BRIDGESTONE BLIZZAK LM 005 has minor issues with steering precision and feedback on dry roads but maintains a good overall rating due to its safety reserves during sudden evasive maneuvers and average braking distances. On wet roads, it sets the standard, achieving the shortest braking distances in the test and excelling in aquaplaning and handling. On winter roads, it earns a good rating for its decent braking distances, good handling, and safety reserves, although its ice braking performance is below average. Environmentally, the tire falls short of a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan and satisfactory wear rating. While it scores well in fuel efficiency, its weight is rated as satisfactory.

Dry

94.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	6th	43.7 M	41.4 M	+2.3 M	94.74%

Wet

98.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	1st	35.2 M			100%
Wet Braking - Concrete	1st	36.4 M			100%
Straight Aqua	4th	86.4 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-4.2 Km/H	95.36%
Curved Aquaplaning	2nd	3.8 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.1 m/sec2	97.44%

Snow

98.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	5th	9.6 M	9.5 M	+0.1 M	98.96%
Snow Traction	2nd	261.4 N	265.3 N	-3.9 N	98.53%

Ice

88.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	11th	21 M	18.6 M	+2.4 M	88.57%

Comfort

98.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	11th	71.8 dB	70.4 dB	+1.4 dB	98.05%

Value

73.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	16th	34800 KM	56300 KM	-21500 KM	61.81%
Fuel Consumption	6th	5.7 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.49%
Abrasion	14th	83 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+32 mg/km/t	61.45%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

7^th

Firestone Winterhawk 4

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The Firestone WINTERHAWK 4 provides satisfactory steering feedback on dry roads and remains stable at the limit, earning a good overall rating for dry conditions due to its good braking performance. On wet roads, the tire performs well in braking and handling, with very good ratings in longitudinal aquaplaning and above-average results in lateral aquaplaning. On winter roads, it scores well for braking and handling but falls short in traction and ice braking, receiving only a satisfactory rating for these criteria. Environmentally, the tire misses a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan and satisfactory wear. However, it scores well in fuel efficiency and weight.

Dry

92%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	15th	45 M	41.4 M	+3.6 M	92%

Wet

98.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	2nd	35.9 M	35.2 M	+0.7 M	98.05%
Wet Braking - Concrete	2nd	38.3 M	36.4 M	+1.9 M	95.04%
Straight Aqua	1st	90.6 Km/H			100%
Curved Aquaplaning	1st	3.9 m/sec2			100%

Snow

93.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	12th	10 M	9.5 M	+0.5 M	95%
Snow Traction	12th	245.7 N	265.3 N	-19.6 N	92.61%

Ice

91.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	9th	20.4 M	18.6 M	+1.8 M	91.18%

Comfort

99.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	3rd	70.8 dB	70.4 dB	+0.4 dB	99.44%

Value

72.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	15th	35700 KM	56300 KM	-20600 KM	63.41%
Fuel Consumption	6th	5.7 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.49%
Abrasion	15th	89 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+38 mg/km/t	57.3%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

8^th

BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 provides only satisfactory steering feedback on dry roads but remains stable at the limit. Its braking is rated as "still good," earning it an overall good rating for dry conditions. On wet roads, the tire receives a satisfactory overall rating; while its braking and aquaplaning are rated as good, it struggles in wet handling due to excessive understeer or oversteer. On winter roads, it scores well for braking and handling but falls short in ice braking, receiving a satisfactory rating. Environmentally, the tire achieves a barely good rating; its projected lifespan is rated as just good, its wear is clearly good, and while it performs well in fuel efficiency, its weight is only rated as satisfactory.

Dry

93.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	7th	44.2 M	41.4 M	+2.8 M	93.67%

Wet

90.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	13th	39.5 M	35.2 M	+4.3 M	89.11%
Wet Braking - Concrete	12th	41 M	36.4 M	+4.6 M	88.78%
Straight Aqua	7th	85.4 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-5.2 Km/H	94.26%
Curved Aquaplaning	8th	3.5 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.4 m/sec2	89.74%

Snow

99.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	5th	9.6 M	9.5 M	+0.1 M	98.96%
Snow Traction	1st	265.3 N			100%

Ice

88.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	11th	21 M	18.6 M	+2.4 M	88.57%

Comfort

98.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	8th	71.3 dB	70.4 dB	+0.9 dB	98.74%

Value

87.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	9th	41700 KM	56300 KM	-14600 KM	74.07%
Fuel Consumption	6th	5.7 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.49%
Abrasion	2nd	56 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+5 mg/km/t	91.07%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

9^th

Fulda Kristall Control HP2

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The KRISTALL CONTROL HP 2 provides good steering feedback and precision on dry roads, along with good safety margins at the limit. Its braking is also rated as good. On wet roads, the tire receives an overall satisfactory rating; it scores well in aquaplaning but only satisfactory in braking and inadequate in handling due to low grip levels and imprecise steering. On winter roads, it earns a good overall rating due to its strong braking performance on snow and ice, although it falls short in traction and handling. Environmentally, the tire excels across the board, offering the highest projected lifespan in the test, low wear, and above-average performance in fuel efficiency and weight.

Dry

93%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	10th	44.5 M	41.4 M	+3.1 M	93.03%

Wet

90.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	15th	41.2 M	35.2 M	+6 M	85.44%
Wet Braking - Concrete	14th	42.1 M	36.4 M	+5.7 M	86.46%
Straight Aqua	10th	84.4 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-6.2 Km/H	93.16%
Curved Aquaplaning	2nd	3.8 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.1 m/sec2	97.44%

Snow

95.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	9th	9.7 M	9.5 M	+0.2 M	97.94%
Snow Traction	10th	248.6 N	265.3 N	-16.7 N	93.71%

Ice

93%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	6th	20 M	18.6 M	+1.4 M	93%

Comfort

95%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	16th	74.1 dB	70.4 dB	+3.7 dB	95.01%

Value

92.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	1st	56300 KM			100%
Fuel Consumption	2nd	5.6 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.21%
Abrasion	5th	65 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+14 mg/km/t	78.46%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

10^th

Kleber Krisalp HP3

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The Kleber KRISALP HP3 provides only average steering feedback and lacks precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections during steering and cornering. Its braking distance is average within the test field and rated as good. On wet roads, the tire achieves a satisfactory overall rating; it performs well in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but falls short in lateral aquaplaning and wet handling due to excessive understeer or oversteer. On winter roads, it earns a good rating for its decent braking distances and good handling, although its ice braking performance is below average. Environmentally, the tire achieves a barely good rating; its projected lifespan is rated as just good, its wear is clearly good, and while it performs well in fuel efficiency, its weight is slightly above average and rated as satisfactory.

Dry

93.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	8th	44.3 M	41.4 M	+2.9 M	93.45%

Wet

90.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	8th	38.5 M	35.2 M	+3.3 M	91.43%
Wet Braking - Concrete	11th	40.5 M	36.4 M	+4.1 M	89.88%
Straight Aqua	5th	86.2 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-4.4 Km/H	95.14%
Curved Aquaplaning	10th	3.4 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.5 m/sec2	87.18%

Snow

98.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	1st	9.5 M			100%
Snow Traction	8th	257 N	265.3 N	-8.3 N	96.87%

Ice

85.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	16th	21.8 M	18.6 M	+3.2 M	85.32%

Comfort

99.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	2nd	70.6 dB	70.4 dB	+0.2 dB	99.72%

Value

87.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	9th	41700 KM	56300 KM	-14600 KM	74.07%
Fuel Consumption	6th	5.7 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.49%
Abrasion	2nd	56 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+5 mg/km/t	91.07%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

11^th

Falken EUROWINTER HS02

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02 provides good steering feedback and safety margins on dry roads, along with above-average braking performance. On wet roads, it excels in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but receives only a satisfactory rating in lateral aquaplaning and handling. While the tire offers sufficient safety reserves, it lacks precision due to inadequate integration of longitudinal and lateral forces. On winter roads, the tire achieves a satisfactory overall rating, missing good scores in braking, traction, and handling. The vehicle tends to understeer or oversteer early, limiting the handling precision. However, its ice braking performance is average and rated as good. Environmentally, the tire receives a satisfactory overall rating; its projected lifespan and wear are rated as just good, but its higher weight impacts its efficiency rating negatively. Its sustainability, given its production in Turkey, is rated as inadequate.

Dry

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	1st	41.4 M			100%

Wet

90.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	8th	38.5 M	35.2 M	+3.3 M	91.43%
Wet Braking - Concrete	3rd	38.6 M	36.4 M	+2.2 M	94.3%
Straight Aqua	11th	83.2 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-7.4 Km/H	91.83%
Curved Aquaplaning	12th	3.3 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.6 m/sec2	84.62%

Snow

84.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	16th	11.4 M	9.5 M	+1.9 M	83.33%
Snow Traction	15th	228 N	265.3 N	-37.3 N	85.94%

Ice

91.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	7th	20.3 M	18.6 M	+1.7 M	91.63%

Comfort

99%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	5th	71.1 dB	70.4 dB	+0.7 dB	99.02%

Value

79.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	7th	42100 KM	56300 KM	-14200 KM	74.78%
Fuel Consumption	6th	5.7 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.49%
Abrasion	12th	76 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+25 mg/km/t	67.11%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

12^th

Barum Polaris 5

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The Barum POLARIS 5 provides inadequate steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections. The vehicle tends to oversteer during dynamic evasive maneuvers, earning the tire a barely satisfactory rating in limit behavior. Its braking distance is average and rated as good. On wet roads, the tire achieves a satisfactory overall rating, excelling only in longitudinal aquaplaning. It falls short in braking, lateral aquaplaning, and handling due to early understeer or oversteer. On winter roads, it also receives a satisfactory rating, narrowly missing good scores in traction and handling. Its ice braking performance is average. Environmentally, the tire performs well, with good projected lifespan and wear. It also scores well in weight and achieves the best fuel efficiency in the test.

Dry

92.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	11th	44.6 M	41.4 M	+3.2 M	92.83%

Wet

87.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	10th	38.7 M	35.2 M	+3.5 M	90.96%
Wet Braking - Concrete	13th	41.9 M	36.4 M	+5.5 M	86.87%
Straight Aqua	15th	80.1 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-10.5 Km/H	88.41%
Curved Aquaplaning	12th	3.3 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.6 m/sec2	84.62%

Snow

92.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	10th	9.9 M	9.5 M	+0.4 M	95.96%
Snow Traction	14th	236.7 N	265.3 N	-28.6 N	89.22%

Ice

89.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	10th	20.8 M	18.6 M	+2.2 M	89.42%

Comfort

96.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	15th	72.8 dB	70.4 dB	+2.4 dB	96.7%

Value

85%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	4th	46900 KM	56300 KM	-9400 KM	83.3%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.5 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	9th	71 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+20 mg/km/t	71.83%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

13^th

Vredestein Wintrac

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The VREDESTEIN WINTRAC provides inadequate steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections. The vehicle tends to oversteer during dynamic maneuvers, earning the tire a barely satisfactory rating in limit behavior. Its braking distance is average and rated as good. On wet roads, it performs well in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but falls short in lateral aquaplaning and handling. While the tire offers sufficient safety reserves, it lacks precision due to inadequate integration of longitudinal and lateral forces. On winter roads, it earns a good rating for its decent braking distances and good handling, although its traction performance is only satisfactory. It secures the second-best result in the test for ice braking. Environmentally, the tire performs well, with good projected lifespan and wear. It also scores well in fuel efficiency and weight.

Dry

96.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	2nd	42.9 M	41.4 M	+1.5 M	96.5%

Wet

90%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	11th	39.1 M	35.2 M	+3.9 M	90.03%
Wet Braking - Concrete	8th	39.8 M	36.4 M	+3.4 M	91.46%
Straight Aqua	8th	85 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-5.6 Km/H	93.82%
Curved Aquaplaning	12th	3.3 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.6 m/sec2	84.62%

Snow

93.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	13th	10.2 M	9.5 M	+0.7 M	93.14%
Snow Traction	10th	248.6 N	265.3 N	-16.7 N	93.71%

Ice

97.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	2nd	19.1 M	18.6 M	+0.5 M	97.38%

Comfort

98.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	8th	71.3 dB	70.4 dB	+0.9 dB	98.74%

Value

86.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	5th	44700 KM	56300 KM	-11600 KM	79.4%
Fuel Consumption	2nd	5.6 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.21%
Abrasion	4th	62 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+11 mg/km/t	82.26%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

14^th

Uniroyal WinterExpert

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The UNIROYAL WinterExpert provides inadequate steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections. The vehicle tends to oversteer in dynamic maneuvers but earns a barely satisfactory rating in limit behavior. Its braking distance is below average but still rated as good. On wet roads, it narrowly misses a good rating, performing satisfactorily in braking and handling due to imprecise steering. It excels only in aquaplaning tests. On winter roads, it earns a nearly good rating for its snow braking and handling but falls short in snow traction and ice braking. Environmentally, the tire achieves a satisfactory rating, with both its projected lifespan and wear rated as satisfactory. Despite good ratings in weight and fuel efficiency, the overall environmental performance is only satisfactory.

Dry

90.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	16th	45.6 M	41.4 M	+4.2 M	90.79%

Wet

89.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	11th	39.1 M	35.2 M	+3.9 M	90.03%
Wet Braking - Concrete	15th	42.5 M	36.4 M	+6.1 M	85.65%
Straight Aqua	12th	82.6 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-8 Km/H	91.17%
Curved Aquaplaning	6th	3.6 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.3 m/sec2	92.31%

Snow

96.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	5th	9.6 M	9.5 M	+0.1 M	98.96%
Snow Traction	9th	251.1 N	265.3 N	-14.2 N	94.65%

Ice

88.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	11th	21 M	18.6 M	+2.4 M	88.57%

Comfort

97.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	13th	72.1 dB	70.4 dB	+1.7 dB	97.64%

Value

73.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	14th	37000 KM	56300 KM	-19300 KM	65.72%
Fuel Consumption	2nd	5.6 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.21%
Abrasion	16th	90 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+39 mg/km/t	56.67%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

15^th

Lassa Snoways 4

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The LASSA SNOWAYS 4 provides good steering feedback and precision on dry roads, with satisfactory limit behavior and good braking performance. On wet roads, it performs well in braking and aquaplaning tests but lacks the precision needed for a good handling rating. On winter roads, the tire struggles, earning only satisfactory ratings in braking and traction tests and a poor rating in handling. It loses traction early and has a narrow limit of safety, making precise maneuvering difficult. Ice braking performance is also only satisfactory. Environmentally, the tire narrowly misses a good rating. Its projected lifespan and wear are rated as good, but its high weight results in only a satisfactory efficiency rating.

Dry

92.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	13th	44.9 M	41.4 M	+3.5 M	92.2%

Wet

93%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	14th	40 M	35.2 M	+4.8 M	88%
Wet Braking - Concrete	10th	40.3 M	36.4 M	+3.9 M	90.32%
Straight Aqua	3rd	87.3 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-3.3 Km/H	96.36%
Curved Aquaplaning	2nd	3.8 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-0.1 m/sec2	97.44%

Snow

84.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	15th	11.3 M	9.5 M	+1.8 M	84.07%
Snow Traction	16th	223.6 N	265.3 N	-41.7 N	84.28%

Ice

87.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	14th	21.2 M	18.6 M	+2.6 M	87.74%

Comfort

98.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	10th	71.4 dB	70.4 dB	+1 dB	98.6%

Value

78.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	7th	42100 KM	56300 KM	-14200 KM	74.78%
Fuel Consumption	6th	5.7 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.49%
Abrasion	13th	78 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+27 mg/km/t	65.38%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

16^th

Austone SP 901

205/60 R16

• 3PMSF: yes

The AUSTONE ATHENA SP-901 provides barely adequate steering feedback and is imprecise on dry roads, requiring constant corrections. It tends to oversteer early in dynamic maneuvers, earning it a barely adequate rating for limit behavior. Its braking performance on dry roads is average but rated as good. On wet roads, the tire struggles significantly. Its braking distance is rated as barely adequate, and while it earns a satisfactory rating for longitudinal aquaplaning, it performs poorly in lateral aquaplaning and handling due to low grip levels and early understeer/oversteer tendencies. On winter roads, however, the tire excels, showing the best behavior in the test. It handles securely and precisely on snow, with good results in braking and traction tests. Its ice braking performance is rated as satisfactory. Environmentally, the tire misses a good rating. Its projected lifespan is rated as satisfactory, and although its wear is rated as good, its high weight results in an adequate efficiency rating.

Dry

95.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	5th	43.2 M	41.4 M	+1.8 M	95.83%

Wet

72%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	16th	45.6 M	35.2 M	+10.4 M	77.19%
Wet Braking - Concrete	16th	45.1 M	36.4 M	+8.7 M	80.71%
Straight Aqua	16th	69.1 Km/H	90.6 Km/H	-21.5 Km/H	76.27%
Curved Aquaplaning	16th	2.1 m/sec2	3.9 m/sec2	-1.8 m/sec2	53.85%

Snow

99%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	1st	9.5 M			100%
Snow Traction	4th	260.1 N	265.3 N	-5.2 N	98.04%

Ice

86.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	15th	21.4 M	18.6 M	+2.8 M	86.92%

Comfort

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	1st	70.4 dB			100%

Value

80.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	12th	40000 KM	56300 KM	-16300 KM	71.05%
Fuel Consumption	16th	5.8 l/100km	5.5 l/100km	+0.3 l/100km	94.83%
Abrasion	6th	67 mg/km/t	51 mg/km/t	+16 mg/km/t	76.12%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts