2024 ADAC 16 Inch Winter Tire Test

For 2024 ADAC have tested two sizes of winter tires. The below test covers the 16" version. There's nothing particularly shocking in the overall results, so enjoy the data, which includes wear, below!

Test Publication:

205/55 R16 12 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: 205/55 R16

Tires Tested: 12 tires

Test Categories:
6 categories (12 tests)

Similar Tests

Dry

The Falken EUROWINTER HS02 performed best in dry braking, stopping in 43.3 meters. The worst performer was the Winrun Winter max A1 WR22, taking 46.5 meters to stop - a difference of 3.2 meters. Most tires clustered between 44-46 meters, with the top 3 (Falken, Nokian, and Goodyear) showing noticeably shorter braking distances.

Wet

In wet braking, there was a tie for first place between the Continental WinterContact TS 870 and Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2, both stopping in 35.1 meters. The worst performer was the Winrun Winter max A1 WR22 at 40.7 meters - a significant 5.6 meter difference. The top 5 tires were closely grouped within 0.8 meters of each other, while there was a clear performance drop-off for the bottom 3 tires.

On concrete in wet conditions, the Continental WinterContact TS 870 performed best, stopping in 38.5 meters. The Winrun Winter max A1 WR22 again performed worst, taking 46.6 meters - a substantial 8.1 meter difference. There was a noticeable performance gap between the top 4 tires and the rest of the field.

The Hankook Winter I cept RS3 performed best in straight aquaplaning, maintaining control up to 84.4 km/h. The worst performer was the Zeetex WH 1000 at 68.9 km/h - a significant 15.5 km/h difference. There was a clear performance divide, with the top 7 tires maintaining control above 80 km/h, while the bottom 5 dropped below 77 km/h.

In curved aquaplaning, the Continental WinterContact TS 870 performed best with 3.7 m/sec2 of lateral acceleration. The Zeetex WH 1000 and Winrun Winter max A1 WR22 tied for worst at 2.4 m/sec2 - a difference of 1.3 m/sec2. There was a notable performance gap between the top 5 tires and the rest of the field.

Snow

The Continental WinterContact TS 870 and Dunlop Winter Sport 5 tied for best snow braking performance, stopping in 9.9 meters. The Zeetex WH 1000 and Falken EUROWINTER HS02 tied for worst at 11.0 meters - a difference of 1.1 meters. Most tires performed relatively closely, with only 1.1 meters separating the best from worst.

The Michelin Alpin 6 provided the best snow traction at 236 N. The Zeetex WH 1000 performed worst at 208 N - a difference of 28 N. There was a clear performance divide, with the top 9 tires providing over 229 N of traction, while the bottom 3 dropped below 222 N.

Ice

On ice, the Continental WinterContact TS 870 performed best, stopping in 18.3 meters. The Nokian Snowproof 2 performed worst at 21.6 meters - a difference of 3.3 meters. There was a notable performance gap between the top 6 tires and the rest of the field.

Comfort

The Vredestein Wintrac was the quietest tire at 70.4 dB. The Dunlop Winter Sport 5 was the noisiest at 73.0 dB - a difference of 2.6 dB. Most tires performed relatively closely, with only 2.6 dB separating the quietest from the noisiest.

Value

The Michelin Alpin 6 showed the best projected tread life at 53,200 km. The Vredestein Wintrac had the shortest projected life at 33,400 km - a significant difference of 19,800 km. There was a wide range of performance, with clear tiers of durability among the tested tires.

Several tires tied for best fuel consumption at 5.1 l/100km. The worst performers (including Zeetex WH 1000 and Winrun Winter max A1 WR22) consumed 5.2 l/100km - a minor 0.1 l/100km difference. Overall, fuel consumption was very similar across all tested tires.

The Hankook Winter I cept RS3 and Michelin Alpin 6 tied for best (lowest) abrasion at 48 mg/km/t. The Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2 had the highest abrasion at 79 mg/km/t - a significant difference of 31 mg/km/t. There was a wide range of performance, with clear groupings of tires at different abrasion levels.

Results

1^st

Continental WinterContact TS 870

205/55 R16

• 3PMSF: yes
• Weight: 8.4 kgs

The Continental WinterContact TS 870 tire performs excellently in safety tests across all road surfaces. It scores particularly well in wet and winter conditions, offering good handling, short braking distances, and high safety reserves. The tire also has a good environmental rating due to its durability, low wear, light weight, and fuel efficiency.

Dry

96.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	5th	44.7 M	43.3 M	+1.4 M	96.87%

Wet

99.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	1st	35.1 M			100%
Wet Braking - Concrete	1st	38.5 M			100%
Straight Aqua	2nd	84 Km/H	84.4 Km/H	-0.4 Km/H	99.53%
Curved Aquaplaning	1st	3.7 m/sec2			100%

Snow

98.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	1st	9.9 M			100%
Snow Traction	9th	229 N	236 N	-7 N	97.03%

Ice

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	1st	18.3 M			100%

Comfort

99%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	4th	71.1 dB	70.4 dB	+0.7 dB	99.02%

Value

87.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	7th	43800 KM	53200 KM	-9400 KM	82.33%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.1 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	5th	59 mg/km/t	48 mg/km/t	+11 mg/km/t	81.36%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

2^nd

Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3

205/55 R16

• 3PMSF: yes
• Weight: 8 kgs

The Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 tire demonstrates varied capabilities across different road conditions. While it performs adequately on dry surfaces with good steering feel but some weaknesses in borderline situations, it excels on wet roads with above-average braking, aquaplaning resistance, and handling. In winter conditions, it shows strong handling performance and slightly above-average braking, but struggles on ice. The tire's environmental impact is positive, with good projected mileage, wear ratings, and fuel efficiency. Overall, the UltraGrip Performance 3 is most impressive on wet and general winter roads, with room for improvement on dry surfaces and icy conditions, making it a well-rounded option with particular strengths in challenging weather.

Dry

98%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	3rd	44.2 M	43.3 M	+0.9 M	97.96%

Wet

98.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	4th	35.5 M	35.1 M	+0.4 M	98.87%
Wet Braking - Concrete	4th	39.2 M	38.5 M	+0.7 M	98.21%
Straight Aqua	3rd	83.1 Km/H	84.4 Km/H	-1.3 Km/H	98.46%
Curved Aquaplaning	2nd	3.6 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.1 m/sec2	97.3%

Snow

98%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	4th	10.1 M	9.9 M	+0.2 M	98.02%
Snow Traction	6th	231 N	236 N	-5 N	97.88%

Ice

86.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	11th	21.2 M	18.3 M	+2.9 M	86.32%

Comfort

98.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	5th	71.2 dB	70.4 dB	+0.8 dB	98.88%

Value

91.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	3rd	49100 KM	53200 KM	-4100 KM	92.29%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.2 l/100km	5.1 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.08%
Abrasion	3rd	57 mg/km/t	48 mg/km/t	+9 mg/km/t	84.21%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

3^rd

Michelin Alpin 6

205/55 R16

• 3PMSF: yes
• Weight: 8.2 kgs

The Michelin Alpin 6 tire demonstrates good overall performance across various driving conditions. On dry roads, it offers good steering feedback and precise handling with adequate safety reserves, though its braking distance is slightly below average. In wet conditions, it excels in braking tests and performs well in aquaplaning resistance and handling. The tire's best performance is on winter roads, with average to above-average results in braking and traction, and very good handling due to its safety reserves and precise control. Ice braking is rated as satisfactory. Environmentally, the Alpin 6 stands out with the highest mileage and lowest wear in the test, as well as good efficiency due to its low weight and fuel consumption. However, it's slightly noisier than average. Overall, the Michelin Alpin 6 is a well-rounded tire with particular strengths in winter conditions and environmental performance.

Dry

95.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	7th	45.5 M	43.3 M	+2.2 M	95.16%

Wet

93.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	3rd	35.4 M	35.1 M	+0.3 M	99.15%
Wet Braking - Concrete	3rd	39.1 M	38.5 M	+0.6 M	98.47%
Straight Aqua	8th	77.2 Km/H	84.4 Km/H	-7.2 Km/H	91.47%
Curved Aquaplaning	8th	3.2 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.5 m/sec2	86.49%

Snow

98.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	8th	10.3 M	9.9 M	+0.4 M	96.12%
Snow Traction	1st	236 N			100%

Ice

88%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	10th	20.8 M	18.3 M	+2.5 M	87.98%

Comfort

97.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	9th	71.9 dB	70.4 dB	+1.5 dB	97.91%

Value

99.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	1st	53200 KM			100%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.2 l/100km	5.1 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.08%
Abrasion	1st	48 mg/km/t			100%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

4^th

Hankook Winter I cept RS3

205/55 R16

• 3PMSF: yes
• Weight: 8.4 kgs

The Hankook Winter icept RS3 tire shows mixed performance across different driving conditions. On dry roads, it offers good steering feedback, precise handling, and good safety reserves during sudden evasive maneuvers, though its braking distance is slightly longer than average. Its performance on wet roads is less impressive, barely missing a good rating. While it handles aquaplaning well, it struggles with wet braking and handling, showing weak grip and a tendency to oversteer. The tire performs well on winter roads, with above-average braking and acceleration on snow, and safe, precise handling on snowy courses. Ice braking performance is average. Environmentally, the tire scores well with above-average mileage, very low wear, light weight, and low fuel consumption. However, it's noted that production residues on new tires unnecessarily end up in nature during the first few kilometers of use. Overall, the Hankook Winter icept RS3 excels in dry and winter conditions but has room for improvement on wet surfaces.

Dry

94.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	9th	45.7 M	43.3 M	+2.4 M	94.75%

Wet

95.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	9th	37.1 M	35.1 M	+2 M	94.61%
Wet Braking - Concrete	9th	42.1 M	38.5 M	+3.6 M	91.45%
Straight Aqua	1st	84.4 Km/H			100%
Curved Aquaplaning	2nd	3.6 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.1 m/sec2	97.3%

Snow

98.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	3rd	10 M	9.9 M	+0.1 M	99%
Snow Traction	4th	233 N	236 N	-3 N	98.73%

Ice

92.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	6th	19.8 M	18.3 M	+1.5 M	92.42%

Comfort

98.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	8th	71.7 dB	70.4 dB	+1.3 dB	98.19%

Value

99.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	2nd	52800 KM	53200 KM	-400 KM	99.25%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.1 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	1st	48 mg/km/t			100%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

5^th

Dunlop Winter Sport 5

205/55 R16

• 3PMSF: yes
• Weight: 8.2 kgs

The Dunlop Winter Sport 5 tire shows mixed performance across different driving conditions. On dry roads, it struggles with precision and steering feedback, requiring frequent corrections to maintain the desired path. It also shows weaknesses in sudden evasive maneuvers and has below-average dry braking distances. Performance on wet roads is marginally good, with satisfactory results in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning, but excelling in lateral aquaplaning resistance and handling. The tire's strongest performance is on winter roads, where it achieves clearly good ratings. It offers some of the shortest braking distances on snow, above-average traction, and excellent handling with good combination of longitudinal and lateral forces. Ice braking narrowly misses a good rating. Environmentally, the Winter Sport 5 scores well, offering above-average mileage, low wear, and good efficiency due to its low weight and fuel consumption. Overall, the Dunlop Winter Sport 5 excels in winter conditions and environmental performance but has notable room for improvement on dry surfaces.

Dry

95%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	8th	45.6 M	43.3 M	+2.3 M	94.96%

Wet

93.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	10th	37.2 M	35.1 M	+2.1 M	94.35%
Wet Braking - Concrete	8th	41.7 M	38.5 M	+3.2 M	92.33%
Straight Aqua	9th	76.5 Km/H	84.4 Km/H	-7.9 Km/H	90.64%
Curved Aquaplaning	2nd	3.6 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.1 m/sec2	97.3%

Snow

99.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	1st	9.9 M			100%
Snow Traction	2nd	235 N	236 N	-1 N	99.58%

Ice

91.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	7th	20 M	18.3 M	+1.7 M	91.5%

Comfort

96.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	12th	73 dB	70.4 dB	+2.6 dB	96.44%

Value

91.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	4th	48700 KM	53200 KM	-4500 KM	91.54%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.1 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	3rd	57 mg/km/t	48 mg/km/t	+9 mg/km/t	84.21%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

6^th

Nokian Snowproof 2

205/55 R16

• 3PMSF: yes
• Weight: 8.2 kgs

The Nokian Tires Snowproof 2 demonstrates mixed performance across different driving conditions. On dry roads, it shows slight weaknesses in precision and steering feedback, requiring minor corrections to maintain the desired path. Its performance in sudden evasive maneuvers is not entirely convincing, with a tendency to oversteer. However, it achieves good dry braking distances. On wet surfaces, the tire performs well overall, with good results in aquaplaning resistance and handling, though narrowly missing a good rating in wet braking. Its weakest performance is on winter roads, where it achieves good snow braking but only satisfactory results in traction and handling due to average grip levels and suboptimal force combination. Ice braking is below average. Environmentally, the tire's performance is mixed, with below-average projected mileage but good wear resistance and efficiency due to low weight and fuel consumption. Overall, the Nokian Tires Snowproof 2 excels on wet roads but has room for improvement on dry and winter surfaces, as well as in terms of longevity.

Dry

98.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	2nd	44.1 M	43.3 M	+0.8 M	98.19%

Wet

95.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	7th	36.4 M	35.1 M	+1.3 M	96.43%
Wet Braking - Concrete	7th	41 M	38.5 M	+2.5 M	93.9%
Straight Aqua	5th	80.7 Km/H	84.4 Km/H	-3.7 Km/H	95.62%
Curved Aquaplaning	2nd	3.6 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.1 m/sec2	97.3%

Snow

95.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	6th	10.2 M	9.9 M	+0.3 M	97.06%
Snow Traction	10th	222 N	236 N	-14 N	94.07%

Ice

84.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	12th	21.6 M	18.3 M	+3.3 M	84.72%

Comfort

97.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	11th	72.5 dB	70.4 dB	+2.1 dB	97.1%

Value

83.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	9th	38500 KM	53200 KM	-14700 KM	72.37%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.1 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	7th	62 mg/km/t	48 mg/km/t	+14 mg/km/t	77.42%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

7^th

Falken EUROWINTER HS02

205/55 R16

• 3PMSF: yes
• Weight: 8.3 kgs

The Falken Eurowinter HS02 tire shows varied performance across different driving conditions. On dry roads, it excels with the best rating in the test, offering precise steering, good safety reserves, and the shortest braking distance. Wet performance is marginally good, with above-average results in braking and aquaplaning resistance, though it narrowly misses a good rating in handling due to slightly lower precision. The tire's weakest performance is on winter roads, where it achieves only satisfactory results in braking, traction, and handling, with early tendencies to under- and oversteer. Ice braking is average. Environmentally, the tire narrowly misses a good rating despite good projected mileage, wear resistance, and efficiency. Average noise levels and only adequate sustainability in its Turkish production prevent a higher environmental score. Overall, the Falken Eurowinter HS02 performs best on dry and wet roads but struggles in winter conditions, with room for improvement in environmental aspects.

Dry

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	1st	43.3 M			100%

Wet

94.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	5th	35.9 M	35.1 M	+0.8 M	97.77%
Wet Braking - Concrete	5th	40.2 M	38.5 M	+1.7 M	95.77%
Straight Aqua	7th	80.4 Km/H	84.4 Km/H	-4 Km/H	95.26%
Curved Aquaplaning	6th	3.3 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.4 m/sec2	89.19%

Snow

90.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	11th	11 M	9.9 M	+1.1 M	90%
Snow Traction	11th	216 N	236 N	-20 N	91.53%

Ice

94.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	3rd	19.4 M	18.3 M	+1.1 M	94.33%

Comfort

99.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	3rd	71 dB	70.4 dB	+0.6 dB	99.15%

Value

81.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	8th	42300 KM	53200 KM	-10900 KM	79.51%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.2 l/100km	5.1 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.08%
Abrasion	8th	71 mg/km/t	48 mg/km/t	+23 mg/km/t	67.61%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

8^th

Zeetex WH 1000

205/55 R16

• 3PMSF: yes
• Weight: 9 kgs

The Zeetex WH 1000 tire demonstrates below-average performance across most driving conditions. On dry roads, it offers only adequate steering feedback and precision, requiring frequent corrections. It tends to oversteer during dynamic maneuvers, and its braking distance is longer than average. Wet performance is also rated as merely adequate, with satisfactory results in braking and aquaplaning tests but weak handling due to low grip and poor combination of longitudinal and lateral forces. Winter performance is slightly better, rated as satisfactory overall. Snow and ice braking narrowly miss good ratings, but snow traction is clearly satisfactory, and handling is again rated as just adequate due to early under- and oversteering tendencies and lack of precision. Environmentally, the tire achieves a satisfactory rating. It scores well in projected mileage and wear resistance but misses a good efficiency rating due to its weight. Sustainability is impacted by rubber protrusions on new tires. Overall, the Zeetex WH 1000, produced in China, shows significant room for improvement across all performance aspects, particularly in dry and wet conditions.

Dry

94.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	11th	46 M	43.3 M	+2.7 M	94.13%

Wet

80.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	11th	39.7 M	35.1 M	+4.6 M	88.41%
Wet Braking - Concrete	11th	44.3 M	38.5 M	+5.8 M	86.91%
Straight Aqua	12th	68.9 Km/H	84.4 Km/H	-15.5 Km/H	81.64%
Curved Aquaplaning	11th	2.4 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-1.3 m/sec2	64.86%

Snow

89.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	11th	11 M	9.9 M	+1.1 M	90%
Snow Traction	12th	208 N	236 N	-28 N	88.14%

Ice

91.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	7th	20 M	18.3 M	+1.7 M	91.5%

Comfort

98.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	7th	71.6 dB	70.4 dB	+1.2 dB	98.32%

Value

82.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	6th	44100 KM	53200 KM	-9100 KM	82.89%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.2 l/100km	5.1 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.08%
Abrasion	9th	72 mg/km/t	48 mg/km/t	+24 mg/km/t	66.67%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

9^th

GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo

205/55 R16

• 3PMSF: yes
• Weight: 8.8 kgs

The GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo tire demonstrates mixed performance across different driving conditions, with notable weaknesses on dry roads. It struggles with steering precision and feedback on dry surfaces, requiring frequent corrections and showing a tendency to oversteer in dynamic maneuvers. Wet performance is slightly better, rated as clearly satisfactory overall, though handling remains a weak point due to low grip and imprecise control. The tire's best performance is in winter conditions, where it nearly achieves a good rating with strong snow braking and traction, but still shows room for improvement in handling precision and combining longitudinal and lateral forces. Environmentally, the tire receives a satisfactory rating, with good wear resistance and efficiency but only satisfactory projected mileage. Produced in China, its sustainability rating is adequate. Overall, while the GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo shows some strengths in winter conditions, it requires significant improvements across all performance aspects, particularly in dry conditions and environmental factors.

Dry

94.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	10th	45.8 M	43.3 M	+2.5 M	94.54%

Wet

88.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	8th	36.9 M	35.1 M	+1.8 M	95.12%
Wet Braking - Concrete	10th	42.3 M	38.5 M	+3.8 M	91.02%
Straight Aqua	10th	76.1 Km/H	84.4 Km/H	-8.3 Km/H	90.17%
Curved Aquaplaning	10th	2.9 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.8 m/sec2	78.38%

Snow

96.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	8th	10.3 M	9.9 M	+0.4 M	96.12%
Snow Traction	8th	230 N	236 N	-6 N	97.46%

Ice

90.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	9th	20.3 M	18.3 M	+2 M	90.15%

Comfort

98.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	6th	71.3 dB	70.4 dB	+0.9 dB	98.74%

Value

78.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	10th	37100 KM	53200 KM	-16100 KM	69.74%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.1 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	9th	72 mg/km/t	48 mg/km/t	+24 mg/km/t	66.67%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

10^th

Vredestein Wintrac

205/55 R16

• 3PMSF: yes
• Weight: 8.3 kgs

The Vredestein Wintrac tire receives mixed ratings for driving safety. It performs adequately on dry roads, narrowly misses a good rating on wet surfaces, and earns a clear "good" rating on winter roads. On dry surfaces, it lacks precision and requires frequent steering corrections. In wet conditions, it excels in braking and aquaplaning resistance but falls short in handling. The tire performs well on winter roads, offering good traction, excellent handling, and strong performance in icy conditions. However, its environmental assessment is only satisfactory, with a mediocre predicted lifespan. The tire's efficiency is praised for its low fuel consumption and light weight.

Dry

97.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	4th	44.5 M	43.3 M	+1.2 M	97.3%

Wet

94.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	6th	36.1 M	35.1 M	+1 M	97.23%
Wet Braking - Concrete	6th	40.3 M	38.5 M	+1.8 M	95.53%
Straight Aqua	4th	81 Km/H	84.4 Km/H	-3.4 Km/H	95.97%
Curved Aquaplaning	6th	3.3 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.4 m/sec2	89.19%

Snow

96.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	10th	10.5 M	9.9 M	+0.6 M	94.29%
Snow Traction	2nd	235 N	236 N	-1 N	99.58%

Ice

94.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	3rd	19.4 M	18.3 M	+1.1 M	94.33%

Comfort

100%

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

Value

76.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	12th	33400 KM	53200 KM	-19800 KM	62.78%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.1 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	9th	72 mg/km/t	48 mg/km/t	+24 mg/km/t	66.67%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

11^th

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2

205/55 R16

• 3PMSF: yes
• Weight: 8.5 kgs

The Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2 tire receives mixed ratings for driving safety. It performs adequately on dry roads, earning only a satisfactory rating due to insufficient steering precision and a tendency to oversteer during dynamic maneuvers. However, it achieves good ratings on both wet and winter roads. On wet surfaces, it excels in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning resistance, narrowly missing good ratings in lateral aquaplaning and handling. The tire performs well on winter roads, with good braking on snow and ice, excellent snow traction, and very good handling characteristics. Its environmental assessment falls short of a good rating, with satisfactory wear resistance and only average predicted lifespan. However, the tire scores well in efficiency, particularly due to its low weight.

Dry

95.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	6th	45.2 M	43.3 M	+1.9 M	95.8%

Wet

93.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	1st	35.1 M			100%
Wet Braking - Concrete	2nd	39 M	38.5 M	+0.5 M	98.72%
Straight Aqua	6th	80.6 Km/H	84.4 Km/H	-3.8 Km/H	95.5%
Curved Aquaplaning	9th	3 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.7 m/sec2	81.08%

Snow

97.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	6th	10.2 M	9.9 M	+0.3 M	97.06%
Snow Traction	4th	233 N	236 N	-3 N	98.73%

Ice

95.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	2nd	19.1 M	18.3 M	+0.8 M	95.81%

Comfort

99.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	2nd	70.9 dB	70.4 dB	+0.5 dB	99.29%

Value

74.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	11th	34000 KM	53200 KM	-19200 KM	63.91%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.2 l/100km	5.1 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.08%
Abrasion	12th	79 mg/km/t	48 mg/km/t	+31 mg/km/t	60.76%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

12^th

Winrun Winter max A1 WR22

205/55 R16

• 3PMSF: yes
• Weight: 9.2 kgs

The Winrun Winter-max A1 WR22 tire receives a poor overall safety rating, primarily due to significant weaknesses on wet surfaces. On dry roads, it offers good steering feedback and borderline behavior, though with longer than average braking distances. Its performance on wet roads is inadequate, with early understeer and oversteer tendencies, poor grip, and barely satisfactory aquaplaning resistance. However, the tire performs well on winter roads, demonstrating good braking and traction on snow and ice, as well as precise handling on snowy surfaces. In terms of environmental impact, the Chinese-made tire narrowly misses a good rating. It scores well in predicted mileage and wear resistance but only achieves a satisfactory efficiency rating due to its high weight.

Dry

93.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	12th	46.5 M	43.3 M	+3.2 M	93.12%

Wet

78.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	12th	40.7 M	35.1 M	+5.6 M	86.24%
Wet Braking - Concrete	12th	46.6 M	38.5 M	+8.1 M	82.62%
Straight Aqua	11th	69 Km/H	84.4 Km/H	-15.4 Km/H	81.75%
Curved Aquaplaning	11th	2.4 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-1.3 m/sec2	64.86%

Snow

98%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	4th	10.1 M	9.9 M	+0.2 M	98.02%
Snow Traction	6th	231 N	236 N	-5 N	97.88%

Ice

94.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Ice Braking	3rd	19.4 M	18.3 M	+1.1 M	94.33%

Comfort

97.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	10th	72 dB	70.4 dB	+1.6 dB	97.78%

Value

88.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	5th	47000 KM	53200 KM	-6200 KM	88.35%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.2 l/100km	5.1 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.08%
Abrasion	6th	61 mg/km/t	48 mg/km/t	+13 mg/km/t	78.69%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts