In their latest tire test, Teknikens Värld magazine has put eight leading SUV tires through their paces. Using the popular Volvo XC60 as their test platform with the increasingly common 235/55 R19 tire size, the Swedish publication's experienced test team subjected each tire to a battery of challenges ranging from emergency braking and handling to comfort and fuel efficiency assessments.
Test Publication:
Teknikens Varld
235/55 R19
8 tires
3 categories
Images courtesy of Teknikens Varld
Test Publication:
Teknikens Varld
Images courtesy of Teknikens Varld
Test Size:
235/55 R19
Tires Tested:
8 tires
The All-Season Question: Michelin CrossClimate 2 VOL
A particularly interesting inclusion in this summer tire test was the Michelin CrossClimate 2 VOL – a Volvo-specific version of Michelin's all-season tire that had previously been offered as original equipment on the XC60. The testers were keen to assess how this compromised tire would fare against dedicated summer tires.
The results were conclusive and somewhat cautionary. Despite being specifically developed in collaboration with Volvo, the CrossClimate 2 VOL struggled to match the performance of purpose-built summer tires, particularly on wet surfaces. The tire exhibited noticeably more understeer and significantly duller steering responses, making the Volvo feel less connected to the road and more sluggish in dynamic driving situations.
Teknikens Värld's verdict was clear: while all-season tires offer convenience, they represent a compromise that still isn't optimal for Swedish driving conditions. The test team explicitly recommended against standardizing vehicles with all-season tires in this market, suggesting instead that drivers would be better served by switching between dedicated summer and winter tires appropriate to the season. Their assessment highlights the persistent performance gap between specialized seasonal tires and all-season alternatives, even when the latter are specifically tailored to a particular vehicle model.
The full data is below. The magazine didn't publish a lot, but you can skip to the summaries for each tire at the bottom of the page.
Dry
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Pirelli Scorpion
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Michelin e.Primacy
- Nokian Hakka Black 3 SUV
- Nexen N Fera Sport SUV
- Michelin CrossClimate 2
- Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco
Wet
- Michelin e.Primacy
- Nexen N Fera Sport SUV
- Pirelli Scorpion
- Nokian Hakka Black 3 SUV
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Michelin CrossClimate 2
- Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco
- Pirelli Scorpion
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Nokian Hakka Black 3 SUV
- Michelin e.Primacy
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Nexen N Fera Sport SUV
- Michelin CrossClimate 2
- Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco
Comfort
- Michelin e.Primacy
- Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco
- Michelin CrossClimate 2
- Nexen N Fera Sport SUV
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Pirelli Scorpion
- Nokian Hakka Black 3 SUV
Results
The Pirelli Scorpion emerged as the overall test winner, delivering classic performance where grip and excellent road behavior were clear priorities. While slightly noisier than some competitors, this drawback was easily overlooked given the tire's exceptional road manners. The Scorpion made the Volvo XC60 feel exactly as it should - with precise, responsive steering that built force predictably, outstanding directional stability, and excellent balance. The testers noted it provided perfect steering feedback from initial input through corners, making the car feel planted and confident at all times. Despite having higher rolling resistance as a trade-off for its superior grip, the Pirelli Scorpion consistently delivered top-tier performance in safety-critical tests.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
2nd |
21.87 M |
21.75 M |
+0.12 M |
99.45% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
3rd |
24.75 M |
24.64 M |
+0.11 M |
99.56% |
| Wet Handling |
1st |
38.71 s |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
6th |
7 Points |
10 Points |
-3 Points |
70% |
The Michelin e Primacy impressed with its remarkably low rolling resistance (best in test by a significant margin) while maintaining strong overall performance. Though it sacrificed some grip in hydroplaning resistance, this weakness wasn't generally noticeable in normal driving. The e Primacy delivered exceptional comfort, being both the quietest tire and offering excellent shock absorption without feeling spongy. Its handling characteristics were quite similar to the winning Pirelli, though slightly less precise in steering feel and responsiveness. For drivers prioritizing comfort and fuel efficiency while still wanting strong safety performance, the Michelin e Primacy offers an excellent compromise, finishing just one point behind the test winner.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
4th |
22.35 M |
21.75 M |
+0.6 M |
97.32% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
1st |
24.64 M |
|
|
100% |
| Wet Handling |
4th |
39.44 s |
38.71 s |
+0.73 s |
98.15% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
1st |
10 Points |
|
|
100% |
The Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 performed confidently throughout the test, showing particular strength in emergency maneuvers by tying for first in the moose test. With mild understeer, the tire provided predictable handling around the wet track without any surprises, allowing drivers to easily anticipate the car's reactions in various situations. While it didn't match the Pirelli's precise, engaging road feel, the Goodyear offered a well-balanced performance across all test metrics. The testers noted that the small differences in road feel and stability compared to the top performers were what relegated it to third place, despite impressive objective measurements in most safety categories.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
1st |
21.75 M |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
5th |
25.41 M |
24.64 M |
+0.77 M |
96.97% |
| Wet Handling |
5th |
39.49 s |
38.71 s |
+0.78 s |
98.02% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
6th |
7 Points |
10 Points |
-3 Points |
70% |
The Continental PremiumContact 7 delivered consistent, high-level performance across most test categories with no significant weaknesses. Like Goodyear, it excelled in the moose test, showing excellent emergency handling capabilities. However, the testers noted the tire felt slightly sluggish in everyday driving compared to the leaders, with less responsive steering and a somewhat lazier character than expected, particularly given Continental's typically sharper performance in smaller dimensions. While braking performance, wet handling, and hydroplaning resistance were all good, the Continental couldn't match the precision and engaging road feel of the test winner, making the Volvo XC60 feel less connected to the road than with the Pirelli mounted.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
3rd |
21.9 M |
21.75 M |
+0.15 M |
99.32% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
6th |
26.18 M |
24.64 M |
+1.54 M |
94.12% |
| Wet Handling |
2nd |
39.33 s |
38.71 s |
+0.62 s |
98.42% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
3rd |
8 Points |
10 Points |
-2 Points |
80% |
The Nexen N'Fera Sport SUV SU2S represented something of an eye-opener for the test team, showing significant improvement over previous Nexen products while landing in a tie for fifth place. The Korean manufacturer has clearly addressed many prior criticisms, delivering impressive objective performance in braking and hydroplaning resistance. However, the tire still lagged behind the leaders in subjective handling characteristics, with testers noting a spongy feel with poor response and diminished stability that made the vehicle feel disconnected from the road. Interestingly, the historically budget-oriented brand has now priced itself alongside premium competitors, reflecting the costs of their performance improvements but losing their previous price advantage.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
6th |
23 M |
21.75 M |
+1.25 M |
94.57% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
2nd |
24.73 M |
24.64 M |
+0.09 M |
99.64% |
| Wet Handling |
6th |
39.94 s |
38.71 s |
+1.23 s |
96.92% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
3rd |
8 Points |
10 Points |
-2 Points |
80% |
The Nokian Hakka Black 3 SUV tied for fifth place, delivering strong grip performance but struggling with comfort. The Finnish tire generated the most noise of any in the test, producing a deeper, low-frequency sound on all road surfaces that became particularly noticeable on coarser pavement. Its shock absorption was also inferior, transmitting more road imperfections into the otherwise comfortable Volvo XC60. On the positive side, its handling response was quite similar to the winning Pirelli, though with less overall grip. The testers questioned why the Nokian was the most expensive tire in the test despite these compromises, noting that while it performed well in grip-focused categories, it couldn't match the balanced approach of the top performers.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
5th |
22.55 M |
21.75 M |
+0.8 M |
96.45% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
4th |
25.21 M |
24.64 M |
+0.57 M |
97.74% |
| Wet Handling |
3rd |
39.34 s |
38.71 s |
+0.63 s |
98.4% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
8th |
6 Points |
10 Points |
-4 Points |
60% |
The Michelin CrossClimate 2 VOL, despite being a Volvo-specific version previously offered as original equipment on the XC60, clearly lagged behind dedicated summer tires in most test categories. As an all-season tire attempting to bridge summer and winter performance, it demonstrated compromises that became particularly evident on wet surfaces, where significant understeer and duller responses made the car feel sluggish and less connected. The testers explicitly recommended against standardizing cars with all-season tires in Sweden, suggesting that drivers would be better served by dedicated summer tires paired with proper winter tires when the season changes, rather than this compromise solution that fell well short of true summer tire performance.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
7th |
23.4 M |
21.75 M |
+1.65 M |
92.95% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
7th |
26.88 M |
24.64 M |
+2.24 M |
91.67% |
| Wet Handling |
7th |
40.83 s |
38.71 s |
+2.12 s |
94.81% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
3rd |
8 Points |
10 Points |
-2 Points |
80% |
The Goodride ZuperEco Z-107, the least expensive tire in the test by a considerable margin, proved the old adage that "you get what you pay for." While surprisingly competent in comfort metrics and relatively quiet on smooth surfaces, the tire's critical safety deficiencies were impossible to overlook. It was the only tire to demonstrate unstable, unpredictable sliding tendencies combined with severe understeer, making the vehicle genuinely difficult to control in emergency situations. Its catastrophic performance in the moose test (7 km/h slower than the next worst tire) led to a 10-point penalty in the final scoring. Despite some acceptable objective measurements in other categories, the testers strongly advised avoiding this tire due to its dangerous handling characteristics.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
8th |
24.96 M |
21.75 M |
+3.21 M |
87.14% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
8th |
26.97 M |
24.64 M |
+2.33 M |
91.36% |
| Wet Handling |
8th |
40.85 s |
38.71 s |
+2.14 s |
94.76% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
2nd |
9 Points |
10 Points |
-1 Points |
90% |
