2025 Sport Auto UUHP Tire Test

The 2025 Sport Auto UUHP tire test is the first to test the new Falken Azenis RS820!

The test used a G series BMW M4 with 275/35 R19 front and 285/30 R20 rear tire sizes. Sport Auto evaluated four performance tires: Continental SportContact 7, Michelin Pilot Sport 4S, Falken Azenis RS 820, and the BMW OE-marked Pirelli P Zero (PZ4*). Testing covered wet and dry braking, handling, aquaplaning resistance, and rolling resistance.

Continental won the test with a score of 9.6, thanks to superior wet performance and the lowest rolling resistance. Michelin placed second at 8.5 points, while Falken (7.0) and Pirelli (6.8) followed behind.

OE vs Aftermarket Performance

The test revealed significant differences between the OE-marked Pirelli P Zero and the aftermarket alternatives. The Pirelli tire, which is factory-equipped on new BMW M models, showed notable shortcomings in wet braking. Its stopping distance from 80 km/h on wet surfaces was nearly 8 meters longer than the Continental.

Sport Auto suggests the OE tire's firmer rubber compound, likely designed for higher mileage and lower rolling resistance to meet manufacturer specifications, compromises wet weather performance. As vehicles age, the magazine recommends considering aftermarket options like the Continental SportContact 7, which offers improved safety margins particularly in wet conditions.

While the Pirelli demonstrated predictable handling characteristics with a tendency toward understeer, it required larger steering inputs and provided less feedback than the Continental and Michelin alternatives. This translated to a less engaging driving experience that masked some of the M4's dynamic capabilities.

Dry

In dry braking the Continental SportContact 7 delivered the shortest stopping distance from 100-0 km/h, with all four tires showing relatively minor performance differences of just 1.2 meters between best and worst.

Michelin Pilot Sport 4S recorded the highest average speed on the dry handling circuit, demonstrating its strong cornering grip and stability during performance driving.

Wet

The test revealed significant differences in wet braking performance, with Continental stopping 7.9 meters shorter than the Pirelli P Zero PZ4 from 80 km/h.

Continental maintained its wet performance advantage with the highest average speed on the wet handling circuit, though differences between the top three contenders were relatively small,

Continental and Pirelli led the way in straight and curved aquaplaning.

Comfort

Continental proved to be the quietest tire, though differences in external noise levels were minimal, ranging just 1.6 dB across all tested tires.

Value

Continental also had the lowest rolling resistance, measuring 18% lower than the poorest performer in this category.

Results

1^st

Continental SportContact 7

285/30 R20 99Y

• EU Label: C/A/75
• Price: 289.00

The Continental SportContact 7 is the clear test winner with outstanding wet and dry performance. It delivered the shortest braking distances in all conditions and showed excellent handling characteristics with precise steering response. The Continental offered the best balance of grip and control on both wet and dry surfaces. It was particularly impressive in wet conditions, where it maintained predictable and safe behaviour even at the limit. The tire also scored top marks for fuel efficiency with the lowest rolling resistance in the test and minimal road noise.

Dry

99.9%

Test	#	%
Dry Braking	1st	100%
Dry Handling	2nd	99.85%

Wet

99.2%

Test	#	%
Wet Braking	1st	100%
Wet Handling	1st	100%
Straight Aqua	1st	100%
Curved Aquaplaning	2nd	96.81%

Comfort

100%

Test	#	%
Noise	1st	100%

Value

100%

Test	#	%
Rolling Resistance	1st	100%

Read Reviews Test Results

2^nd

Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S

285/30 R20 99Y

• EU Label: D/A/73
• Price: 354.00

The Michelin Pilot Sport 4S is a very good performer that excelled on dry surfaces with high cornering grip. The Michelin delivered slightly quicker lap times on the track than the Continental, but with a narrower performance window on wet surfaces. While it offered high lateral grip on wet roads, it had a relatively narrow performance window before grip suddenly broke away. The tire showed a tendency toward gentle understeer, making it predictable and safe even for less experienced drivers. One of the more expensive options in the test.

Dry

99.6%

Test	#	%
Dry Braking	2nd	99.1%
Dry Handling	1st	100%

Wet

92%

Test	#	%
Wet Braking	2nd	94.79%
Wet Handling	2nd	99.38%
Straight Aqua	3rd	96.21%
Curved Aquaplaning	4th	77.69%

Comfort

99.7%

Test	#	%
Noise	2nd	99.73%

Value

85.7%

Test	#	%
Rolling Resistance	3rd	85.71%

Read Reviews Test Results

3^rd

Falken Azenis RS820

285/30 R20 99Y

• EU Label: D/A/72
• Price: 242.00

The most budget-friendly option in the test, but the Falken Azenis RS820 struggled to meet the high demands of the powerful BMW M4. While it performed adequately on regular roads, it showed instability at higher speeds and quickly reached its limits on the racetrack. The tire's front-to-rear grip balance wasn't well matched, making it difficult to maintain the desired line through corners. It also demonstrated weak wet grip and poor aquaplaning resistance combined with higher rolling resistance and more noticeable road noise.

Dry

97.7%

Test	#	%
Dry Braking	3rd	97.63%
Dry Handling	4th	97.76%

Wet

90.6%

Test	#	%
Wet Braking	3rd	88.72%
Wet Handling	3rd	98.76%
Straight Aqua	4th	94.98%
Curved Aquaplaning	3rd	80.08%

Comfort

97.9%

Test	#	%
Noise	4th	97.86%

Value

87.6%

Test	#	%
Rolling Resistance	2nd	87.64%

Read Reviews Test Results

4^th

Pirelli P Zero PZ4

285/30 R20 99Y

• EU Label: D/B/74
• Price: 336.00

This OE-spec Pirelli P Zero PZ4 tire (marked with BMW's star symbol) showed notable weaknesses in wet braking, with stopping distances nearly 8 meters longer than the best performer. The Pirelli's harder compound, likely designed for improved durability and rolling resistance, compromised wet grip. While it offered good aquaplaning resistance and forgiving handling with pronounced understeer, it required larger steering inputs during spirited driving, making the M4 feel heavier and less responsive. The tire's indirect steering feel and limited feedback diminished much of the BMW M4's dynamic potential.

Dry

98.1%

Test	#	%
Dry Braking	4th	96.49%
Dry Handling	3rd	99.61%

Wet

93.5%

Test	#	%
Wet Braking	4th	78.65%
Wet Handling	4th	96.64%
Straight Aqua	2nd	98.88%
Curved Aquaplaning	1st	100%

Comfort

98.9%

Test	#	%
Noise	3rd	98.92%

Value

82.1%

Test	#	%
Rolling Resistance	4th	82.11%

Read Reviews Test Results