2024 ADAC Summer Tire Test

Below is the data from the excellent 2024 ADAC summer tire test, which tested sixteen tires in the popular 215/55 R17 size.

Dry BrakingContinental PremiumContact 7: 35.4 MSemperit Speed Life 3: 40.9 M
Wet BrakingContinental PremiumContact 7: 28.5 MGoodride Solmax 1: 35.1 M
Wet Braking - ConcreteContinental PremiumContact 7: 32 MGoodride Solmax 1: 40.1 M
Straight AquaBridgestone Turanza 6: 78.5 Km/HKumho Ecsta HS52: 73.8 Km/H
Curved AquaplaningVredestein Ultrac: 3.5 m/sec2Hankook Ventus Prime 4: 2.7 m/sec2
NoiseSailun Atrezzo ZSR2: 70 dBKumho Ecsta HS52: 72.6 dB
WearKumho Ecsta HS52: 69300 KMVredestein Ultrac: 27200 KM
ValueKumho Ecsta HS52: 1.77 Price/1000Vredestein Ultrac: 5.11 Price/1000
PriceLinglong Sport Master: 95 Michelin Primacy 4 Plus: 182
Fuel ConsumptionHankook Ventus Prime 4: 5.7 l/100kmFalken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun: 6 l/100km
AbrasionMichelin Primacy 4 Plus: 48.1 mg/km/tVredestein Ultrac: 102.7 mg/km/t

ADAC do not share all the data they use to read their final order, but they do share some very interesting test results, including wear! We've added a value calculation to the results comparing the reported purchase price against projected total mileage.

Dry

The new Continental PremiumContact 7 had a good advantage in dry braking over the second placed Michelin, which drew with the Linglong Sport Master.

Wet

The Continental also aced the wet braking test on both tarmac and concrete.

On average the Vredestein Ultrac was best in the deeper water of aquaplaning tests.

Comfort

The cheaper tires performed very well in the external noise tests with Sailun and Linglong leading the way.

Value

Kumho narrowly beat Goodyear to be the best wearing tires on test, and the quick stopping Continental matched the Michelin for third place.

The low wear of the Kumho paired with its reasonable purchase price it proved to be the cheapest per 1000km driven.

ADAC test fuel consumption by driving, not on a machine. The results were very close with three tires tying for top spot.

As usual, Michelin had the lowest wearing compound which means it produced the lowest amount of environmental pollution.

Results

1st: Continental PremiumContact 7

Continental PremiumContact 7
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: C/A/71
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking1st35.4 M100%
Wet Braking1st28.5 M100%
Wet Braking - Concrete1st32 M100%
Straight Aqua15th74 Km/H78.5 Km/H-4.5 Km/H94.27%
Curved Aquaplaning14th2.8 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.7 m/sec280%
Noise5th71.3 dB70 dB+1.3 dB98.18%
Wear3rd60300 KM69300 KM-9000 KM87.01%
Value9th2.89 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+1.12 Price/100061.25%
Price15th174 95 +79 54.6%
Fuel Consumption7th5.9 l/100km5.7 l/100km+0.2 l/100km96.61%
Abrasion5th60.1 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+12 mg/km/t80.03%
The Continental PremiumContact 7 excels in driving safety for both dry and wet road conditions in this year's test, achieving the top marks for its excellent steering feedback, safe handling at the limit, and shortest braking distances, though it receives an average rating for aquaplaning resistance. While it demonstrates very good projected mileage and low tire wear, its environmental impact rating is slightly reduced due to its relatively high weight and average noise levels, narrowly missing a high rating in efficiency.

Read Reviews    Buy from £133.02

2nd: Michelin Primacy 4+

Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: B/A/70
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking2nd37.3 M35.4 M+1.9 M94.91%
Wet Braking2nd31.1 M28.5 M+2.6 M91.64%
Wet Braking - Concrete5th37.1 M32 M+5.1 M86.25%
Straight Aqua10th75.3 Km/H78.5 Km/H-3.2 Km/H95.92%
Curved Aquaplaning13th2.9 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.6 m/sec282.86%
Noise3rd70.7 dB70 dB+0.7 dB99.01%
Wear3rd60300 KM69300 KM-9000 KM87.01%
Value10th3.02 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+1.25 Price/100058.61%
Price16th182 95 +87 52.2%
Fuel Consumption4th5.8 l/100km5.7 l/100km+0.1 l/100km98.28%
Abrasion1st48.1 mg/km/t100%
The Michelin Primacy 4+ earns a solid rating for driving safety, delivering good steering feedback and secure handling at the limit on dry roads, along with a commendable short braking distance. Its performance on wet roads is also rated positively, with good marks in braking distance measurements and handling, allowing the test vehicle to be safely and easily maneuvered. However, it just misses a high rating in aquaplaning tests. In terms of environmental impact, the Primacy 4+ secures the second-best rating in the test. Its projected mileage is rated as very good, and tire wear is minimal. Thanks to its low weight and fuel consumption, it also achieves a good rating in efficiency.

Read Reviews    Buy from £148.26

3rd: Kumho Ecsta HS52

Kumho Ecsta HS52
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: C/A/72
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking12th38.1 M35.4 M+2.7 M92.91%
Wet Braking5th32.8 M28.5 M+4.3 M86.89%
Wet Braking - Concrete2nd35.8 M32 M+3.8 M89.39%
Straight Aqua16th73.8 Km/H78.5 Km/H-4.7 Km/H94.01%
Curved Aquaplaning12th3 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.5 m/sec285.71%
Noise16th72.6 dB70 dB+2.6 dB96.42%
Wear1st69300 KM100%
Value1st1.77 Price/1000100%
Price5th123 95 +28 77.24%
Fuel Consumption7th5.9 l/100km5.7 l/100km+0.2 l/100km96.61%
Abrasion3rd55 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+6.9 mg/km/t87.45%
The Kumho Ecsta HS52 earns a solid rating in driving safety, providing good steering feedback and secure handling at the limit on dry roads, complemented by a short braking distance. On wet roads, it impresses with its braking performance and wet handling, offering good grip and easy, secure maneuverability. However, its aquaplaning performance is rated as average. Overall, the Kumho receives a good rating for wet performance. In terms of environmental impact, the Kumho achieves only an average outcome. While it scores well in projected mileage and wear, its higher tire weight results in only average efficiency. The sustainability of this tire, produced in China/Korea, is rated as sufficient.

Read Reviews    Buy from £99.31

4th: Debica Presto UHP2

Debica Presto UHP2
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: C/A/71
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking9th37.9 M35.4 M+2.5 M93.4%
Wet Braking13th34.6 M28.5 M+6.1 M82.37%
Wet Braking - Concrete8th37.4 M32 M+5.4 M85.56%
Straight Aqua6th77.3 Km/H78.5 Km/H-1.2 Km/H98.47%
Curved Aquaplaning3rd3.3 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.2 m/sec294.29%
Noise9th71.6 dB70 dB+1.6 dB97.77%
Wear10th42700 KM69300 KM-26600 KM61.62%
Value6th2.81 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+1.04 Price/100062.99%
Price3rd120 95 +25 79.17%
Fuel Consumption7th5.9 l/100km5.7 l/100km+0.2 l/100km96.61%
Abrasion12th80.8 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+32.7 mg/km/t59.53%
The Debica Presto UHP 2 is rated as good on dry roads but achieves only an average rating in wet conditions and overall driving safety. On dry roads, it provides just average steering feedback, making it challenging for drivers to immediately find the necessary steering angle for curves. However, its handling at the limit and braking distance are still rated as good, barely earning a good rating for dry performance. On wet roads, the Debica Presto UHP 2 does not surpass an average rating. While its aquaplaning resistance receives good marks, its braking performance and handling are deemed average. The tire offers a moderate level of grip and satisfactorily combines longitudinal and lateral forces. In terms of environmental impact, the Presto UHP 2 narrowly misses a higher rating. Its projected mileage and wear are rated as nearly good. Additionally, its fuel consumption and low weight contribute to a good efficiency rating.

Read Reviews

5th: Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2

Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: C/A/70
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking4th37.5 M35.4 M+2.1 M94.4%
Wet Braking12th34.4 M28.5 M+5.9 M82.85%
Wet Braking - Concrete9th38.2 M32 M+6.2 M83.77%
Straight Aqua3rd77.8 Km/H78.5 Km/H-0.7 Km/H99.11%
Curved Aquaplaning1st3.5 m/sec2100%
Noise14th71.8 dB70 dB+1.8 dB97.49%
Wear9th43700 KM69300 KM-25600 KM63.06%
Value15th3.57 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+1.8 Price/100049.58%
Price12th156 95 +61 60.9%
Fuel Consumption7th5.9 l/100km5.7 l/100km+0.2 l/100km96.61%
Abrasion11th79.8 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+31.7 mg/km/t60.28%
The Dunlop Sport Maxx RT2 receives a just satisfactory rating in driving safety. On dry roads, it provides good steering feedback, precise control, and secure handling at the limit, along with a short braking distance, earning a solid good rating for dry performance. However, on wet roads, the Sport Maxx RT2 narrowly misses achieving more than a satisfactory rating. While it performs well in aquaplaning tests with good marks, it only achieves satisfactory results in braking distance measurements and wet handling. The tire offers a medium level of grip and combines longitudinal and lateral forces satisfactorily. In terms of environmental impact, the Dunlop Sport Maxx RT2 just falls short of a good rating. Its projected mileage and wear are rated as nearly good, as are its weight and fuel consumption. However, due to slightly higher rolling noise and just satisfactory sustainability, it narrowly misses a good evaluation.

Read Reviews    Buy from £110.60

6th: Bridgestone Turanza 6

Bridgestone Turanza 6
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: B/A/70
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking11th38 M35.4 M+2.6 M93.16%
Wet Braking13th34.6 M28.5 M+6.1 M82.37%
Wet Braking - Concrete14th39.9 M32 M+7.9 M80.2%
Straight Aqua1st78.5 Km/H100%
Curved Aquaplaning7th3.2 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.3 m/sec291.43%
Noise6th71.4 dB70 dB+1.4 dB98.04%
Wear7th47900 KM69300 KM-21400 KM69.12%
Value14th3.53 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+1.76 Price/100050.14%
Price14th169 95 +74 56.21%
Fuel Consumption1st5.7 l/100km100%
Abrasion9th73 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+24.9 mg/km/t65.89%
The new Bridgestone Turanza 6 achieves only a satisfactory rating in driving safety due to minor weaknesses on both dry and wet roads. On dry roads, it fails to provide the necessary steering feedback, making it somewhat difficult for drivers to accurately adjust the steering angle for curves as required for a good rating. Its handling at the limit is also rated as just satisfactory, although it does secure a good rating for its braking distance. On wet surfaces, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 shows slight weaknesses, with its wet performance also deemed satisfactory within the test group. While it receives good marks in aquaplaning tests, these are not enough to offset its satisfactory performance in braking distance measurements and wet handling ability, where it offers a medium level of grip and suboptimal combination of longitudinal and lateral forces. In terms of environmental impact, the new Bridgestone Turanza 6 achieves a clearly good result. Its projected mileage and wear are rated as good, and it also records a good efficiency rating. However, it falls short of receiving good ratings in external noise and sustainability.

Read Reviews    Buy from £132.16

7th: Fulda SportControl 2

Fulda SportControl 2
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: C/A/71
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking7th37.8 M35.4 M+2.4 M93.65%
Wet Braking15th34.9 M28.5 M+6.4 M81.66%
Wet Braking - Concrete10th38.3 M32 M+6.3 M83.55%
Straight Aqua4th77.7 Km/H78.5 Km/H-0.8 Km/H98.98%
Curved Aquaplaning3rd3.3 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.2 m/sec294.29%
Noise11th71.7 dB70 dB+1.7 dB97.63%
Wear12th40400 KM69300 KM-28900 KM58.3%
Value13th3.42 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+1.65 Price/100051.75%
Price8th138 95 +43 68.84%
Fuel Consumption7th5.9 l/100km5.7 l/100km+0.2 l/100km96.61%
Abrasion14th82.5 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+34.4 mg/km/t58.3%
The Fulda SportControl 2 achieves a good rating on dry roads but does not surpass a satisfactory rating in wet conditions, impacting its overall safety rating. On dry roads, it provides satisfactory steering feedback but is considered safe at the limit, with its braking distance rated clearly good compared to the test field. However, on wet surfaces, the SportControl 2 misses a good rating, showing strength in aquaplaning resistance but only achieving satisfactory results in wet braking and handling, offering a medium level of grip and suboptimal combination of longitudinal and lateral forces. In terms of environmental impact, the SportControl 2 narrowly misses a good rating, with its projected mileage and wear assessed as just satisfactory. However, its efficiency is rated as good due to low weight and fuel consumption.

Read Reviews

8th: Hankook Ventus Prime 4

Hankook Ventus Prime 4
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: B/A/69
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking12th38.1 M35.4 M+2.7 M92.91%
Wet Braking5th32.8 M28.5 M+4.3 M86.89%
Wet Braking - Concrete12th39.1 M32 M+7.1 M81.84%
Straight Aqua13th74.3 Km/H78.5 Km/H-4.2 Km/H94.65%
Curved Aquaplaning16th2.7 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.8 m/sec277.14%
Noise9th71.6 dB70 dB+1.6 dB97.77%
Wear6th49900 KM69300 KM-19400 KM72.01%
Value5th2.77 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+1 Price/100063.9%
Price8th138 95 +43 68.84%
Fuel Consumption1st5.7 l/100km100%
Abrasion4th58.7 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+10.6 mg/km/t81.94%
The Hankook Ventus Prime4 achieves only a satisfactory rating, primarily due to its wet performance. On dry roads, it provides satisfactory steering feedback and is considered safe at the limit, with its braking distance rated as good compared to other tires in the test. However, on wet roads, the Ventus Prime4 narrowly misses a good rating in braking distance measurements and clearly falls short in wet handling, offering a medium level of grip and suboptimal integration of longitudinal and lateral forces. Its aquaplaning resistance is also rated as just satisfactory. In terms of environmental impact, the Ventus Prime4 receives a good rating, with both its projected mileage and wear rated as good. Its weight is considered good for efficiency, and it nearly achieves a very good rating in fuel consumption.

Read Reviews    Buy from £116.63

9th: Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2

Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: B/A/70
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking9th37.9 M35.4 M+2.5 M93.4%
Wet Braking9th33.3 M28.5 M+4.8 M85.59%
Wet Braking - Concrete10th38.3 M32 M+6.3 M83.55%
Straight Aqua12th74.9 Km/H78.5 Km/H-3.6 Km/H95.41%
Curved Aquaplaning9th3.1 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.4 m/sec288.57%
Noise4th71 dB70 dB+1 dB98.59%
Wear2nd68800 KM69300 KM-500 KM99.28%
Value2nd2.43 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+0.66 Price/100072.84%
Price13th167 95 +72 56.89%
Fuel Consumption4th5.8 l/100km5.7 l/100km+0.1 l/100km98.28%
Abrasion2nd51.9 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+3.8 mg/km/t92.68%
The Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 only achieves a satisfactory rating, with its dry performance being the limiting factor. On dry surfaces, it provides just adequate steering feedback and does not exceed a satisfactory rating in handling at the limit. The insufficient steering feedback makes it challenging to accurately adjust the steering angle for curves, leading to a tendency for the test vehicle to oversteer during sudden evasion maneuvers. However, the tire does achieve a clearly good rating in braking distance. Overall, its dry performance does not surpass a satisfactory outcome. On wet roads, the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 narrowly misses a good rating in braking and aquaplaning but secures a good grade in wet handling due to its controllability. In terms of environmental impact, it falls just short of an excellent evaluation but still impresses with a very high projected mileage in the wear test, low wear, low tire weight, and low fuel consumption.

Read Reviews    Buy from £113.05

10th: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun

Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: C/A/69
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking5th37.7 M35.4 M+2.3 M93.9%
Wet Braking3rd32.6 M28.5 M+4.1 M87.42%
Wet Braking - Concrete3rd36.3 M32 M+4.3 M88.15%
Straight Aqua5th77.4 Km/H78.5 Km/H-1.1 Km/H98.6%
Curved Aquaplaning3rd3.3 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.2 m/sec294.29%
Noise6th71.4 dB70 dB+1.4 dB98.04%
Wear8th46300 KM69300 KM-23000 KM66.81%
Value8th2.85 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+1.08 Price/100062.11%
Price7th132 95 +37 71.97%
Fuel Consumption16th6 l/100km5.7 l/100km+0.3 l/100km95%
Abrasion8th72 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+23.9 mg/km/t66.81%
The Falken Ziex ZE 310 EcoRun achieves only a satisfactory overall result, primarily due to its dry performance. On dry surfaces, it fails to provide precise steering feedback, making it difficult for drivers to adjust the steering angle for curves accurately, which precludes a good rating. Its handling at the limit is also rated as just satisfactory, though it does receive a good rating for its braking distance. In wet conditions, the Falken Ziex ZE 310 EcoRun performs better, securing good ratings in braking distance measurements and aquaplaning resistance, but narrowly misses a good rating in handling. While the vehicle can be safely driven on the course, increased grip and precision would improve its performance. Environmentally, the Falken Ziex ZE 310 EcoRun only achieves a satisfactory rating. It scores well for projected mileage and wear, but its status as the heaviest tire in the test leads to only an adequate rating in that criterion. Its fuel consumption is barely rated as good, and sustainability, particularly for tires produced in Turkey, is deemed adequate.

Read Reviews    Buy from £109.90

11th: Nexen N Fera Primus

Nexen N Fera Primus
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: B/B/70
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking14th38.4 M35.4 M+3 M92.19%
Wet Braking7th33 M28.5 M+4.5 M86.36%
Wet Braking - Concrete6th37.2 M32 M+5.2 M86.02%
Straight Aqua11th75.1 Km/H78.5 Km/H-3.4 Km/H95.67%
Curved Aquaplaning7th3.2 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.3 m/sec291.43%
Noise11th71.7 dB70 dB+1.7 dB97.63%
Wear11th40800 KM69300 KM-28500 KM58.87%
Value11th3.11 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+1.34 Price/100056.91%
Price6th127 95 +32 74.8%
Fuel Consumption7th5.9 l/100km5.7 l/100km+0.2 l/100km96.61%
Abrasion10th73.5 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+25.4 mg/km/t65.44%
The Nexen N'Fera Primus receives a satisfactory rating in driving safety, failing to achieve a good rating in both dry and wet conditions. On dry roads, it provides barely satisfactory steering feedback and does not surpass a satisfactory rating in handling at the limit. A lack of precise steering feedback makes it challenging to accurately adjust the steering angle for curves, leading to a tendency for the vehicle to oversteer during sudden evasion maneuvers. However, the tire achieves a clearly good rating in braking distance. On wet surfaces, the N'Fera Primus secures good ratings in braking distance measurements and lateral aquaplaning but only achieves satisfactory results in longitudinal aquaplaning and handling, preventing a good overall rating in wet performance. Environmentally, the Nexen narrowly misses a good rating, with its projected mileage, noise, and sustainability rated as just satisfactory, while its wear and efficiency are rated as good.

Read Reviews

12th: Goodride Solmax 1

Goodride Solmax 1
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: C/A/72
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking15th38.9 M35.4 M+3.5 M91%
Wet Braking16th35.1 M28.5 M+6.6 M81.2%
Wet Braking - Concrete16th40.1 M32 M+8.1 M79.8%
Straight Aqua8th76.7 Km/H78.5 Km/H-1.8 Km/H97.71%
Curved Aquaplaning3rd3.3 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.2 m/sec294.29%
Noise8th71.5 dB70 dB+1.5 dB97.9%
Wear15th35600 KM69300 KM-33700 KM51.37%
Value12th3.37 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+1.6 Price/100052.52%
Price3rd120 95 +25 79.17%
Fuel Consumption7th5.9 l/100km5.7 l/100km+0.2 l/100km96.61%
Abrasion15th87.3 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+39.2 mg/km/t55.1%
The Goodride Solmax 1 achieves only a satisfactory rating in this year's summer tire test, primarily due to its performance on wet roads. On dry surfaces, it fails to provide sufficiently accurate steering feedback, making it challenging for drivers to adjust the steering angle for curves as needed for a good rating. Its handling at the limit is also rated as just satisfactory, although it scores a clearly good rating in braking distance. On wet surfaces, the Solmax 1 receives clear satisfactory ratings in braking distance and barely satisfactory in wet handling, demonstrating a relatively weak grip level and moderate ability to combine longitudinal and lateral forces. However, its aquaplaning resistance is rated as good. Environmentally, the Goodride Solmax 1 has a satisfactory impact, with both its projected mileage and wear rated as satisfactory. In terms of efficiency, it achieves a good rating due to low fuel consumption and a comparatively reasonable weight. However, the sustainability of this tire, produced in China, is considered adequate.

Read Reviews

13th: Sailun Atrezzo ZSR2

Sailun Atrezzo ZSR2
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: B/A/69
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking5th37.7 M35.4 M+2.3 M93.9%
Wet Braking4th32.7 M28.5 M+4.2 M87.16%
Wet Braking - Concrete15th40 M32 M+8 M80%
Straight Aqua9th76.4 Km/H78.5 Km/H-2.1 Km/H97.32%
Curved Aquaplaning9th3.1 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.4 m/sec288.57%
Noise1st70 dB100%
Wear13th38000 KM69300 KM-31300 KM54.83%
Value7th2.82 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+1.05 Price/100062.77%
Price2nd107 95 +12 88.79%
Fuel Consumption1st5.7 l/100km100%
Abrasion13th81.2 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+33.1 mg/km/t59.24%
The Sailun Atrezzo ZSR2 achieves only a satisfactory rating in driving safety, providing just adequate steering feedback on dry roads and not exceeding a satisfactory rating in handling at the limit. The insufficient feedback affects the ability to accurately adjust the steering for curves, leading to a tendency for the vehicle to oversteer during sudden maneuvers. However, it does receive a clearly good rating in braking distance. Overall, its performance on dry roads is rated as satisfactory. On wet surfaces, the Sailun narrowly misses a good rating in both braking and aquaplaning, with only its wet handling performance being rated as just good. Thus, it achieves an overall satisfactory rating on wet roads. Environmentally, the Sailun also receives a satisfactory rating, with both its projected mileage and wear deemed satisfactory, albeit the latter just barely. It scores a good rating in efficiency due to low fuel consumption and a relatively low weight. However, the sustainability of this tire, produced in China, is rated as adequate.

Read Reviews

14th: Semperit Speed Life 3

Semperit Speed Life 3
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: C/B/72
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking16th40.9 M35.4 M+5.5 M86.55%
Wet Braking10th33.6 M28.5 M+5.1 M84.82%
Wet Braking - Concrete13th39.5 M32 M+7.5 M81.01%
Straight Aqua7th76.8 Km/H78.5 Km/H-1.7 Km/H97.83%
Curved Aquaplaning9th3.1 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.4 m/sec288.57%
Noise11th71.7 dB70 dB+1.7 dB97.63%
Wear5th55200 KM69300 KM-14100 KM79.65%
Value3rd2.52 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+0.75 Price/100070.24%
Price10th139 95 +44 68.35%
Fuel Consumption4th5.8 l/100km5.7 l/100km+0.1 l/100km98.28%
Abrasion6th67.4 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+19.3 mg/km/t71.36%
The Semperit Speed-Life 3 receives a borderline satisfactory rating in driving safety, with only adequate steering feedback on dry roads and a similar rating in handling at the limit, leading to a tendency for the vehicle to oversteer during sudden maneuvers. Its braking performance is satisfactory, which just suffices for an overall satisfactory rating for its dry road properties. On wet roads, the Semperit Speed-Life 3 narrowly misses a good rating, achieving only satisfactory results in braking distance measurements and lateral aquaplaning. Despite good ratings in longitudinal aquaplaning and handling, it does not achieve a good overall wet performance rating. Environmentally, the Speed-Life 3 performs well, with a very good rating in projected mileage and good ratings in wear and efficiency. However, its noise level and sustainability receive satisfactory ratings.

Read Reviews

15th: Linglong Sport Master

Linglong Sport Master
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: C/A/69
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking2nd37.3 M35.4 M+1.9 M94.91%
Wet Braking8th33.2 M28.5 M+4.7 M85.84%
Wet Braking - Concrete7th37.3 M32 M+5.3 M85.79%
Straight Aqua14th74.2 Km/H78.5 Km/H-4.3 Km/H94.52%
Curved Aquaplaning14th2.8 m/sec23.5 m/sec2-0.7 m/sec280%
Noise2nd70.6 dB70 dB+0.6 dB99.15%
Wear14th37400 KM69300 KM-31900 KM53.97%
Value4th2.54 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+0.77 Price/100069.69%
Price1st95 100%
Fuel Consumption7th5.9 l/100km5.7 l/100km+0.2 l/100km96.61%
Abrasion7th70.4 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+22.3 mg/km/t68.32%
The Linglong Sport Master receives an overall satisfactory rating in driving safety. On dry roads, it provides only sufficient steering feedback and achieves an adequate rating in handling at the limit, with a tendency to oversteer during sudden evasive maneuvers and a slow stabilization time. Its braking performance on dry roads is also rated as satisfactory. In wet conditions, although the Sport Master achieves a good rating in braking distances, it only manages a satisfactory rating for aquaplaning resistance and handling, offering medium grip and suboptimal integration of longitudinal and lateral forces, leading to a satisfactory wet performance rating. Environmentally, the Linglong has a satisfactory impact, with satisfactory predicted mileage and good wear. Its efficiency is rated as good due to low fuel consumption and relatively low weight, but its sustainability, particularly for the tire produced in China, is considered adequate.

Read Reviews

16th: Vredestein Ultrac

Vredestein Ultrac
  • 215/55 R17
  • EU Label: C/A/69
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking7th37.8 M35.4 M+2.4 M93.65%
Wet Braking11th34.1 M28.5 M+5.6 M83.58%
Wet Braking - Concrete3rd36.3 M32 M+4.3 M88.15%
Straight Aqua2nd78.4 Km/H78.5 Km/H-0.1 Km/H99.87%
Curved Aquaplaning1st3.5 m/sec2100%
Noise14th71.8 dB70 dB+1.8 dB97.49%
Wear16th27200 KM69300 KM-42100 KM39.25%
Value16th5.11 Price/10001.77 Price/1000+3.34 Price/100034.64%
Price10th139 95 +44 68.35%
Fuel Consumption7th5.9 l/100km5.7 l/100km+0.2 l/100km96.61%
Abrasion16th102.7 mg/km/t48.1 mg/km/t+54.6 mg/km/t46.84%
The Vredestein Ultrac is rated as good in driving safety. It provides good steering feedback and secure handling at the limit on dry roads, along with a short braking distance. On wet roads, its properties are also considered good, including in braking distance measurements and aquaplaning resistance, although it narrowly misses a good rating in handling. The tire offers a medium level of grip but needs to better combine longitudinal and lateral forces for a higher rating. In terms of environmental impact, the Vredestein Ultrac is rated as merely adequate overall due to its low projected mileage. It receives a satisfactory rating for wear but is praised for its efficiency, attributed to its low weight and fuel consumption.

Read Reviews    Buy from £120.48


Discussion:

comments powered by Disqus