Error: Article not found
Similar Tire Tests
Show All summer tire tests2025 AutoView Sports Tire Test
May 2026
275/35R19
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
5 tires
2026 autozurnal Eco Summer Tire Test
April 2026
215/55 R18
Hankook iON Evo
10 tires
2026 Motor Summer Tire Test
April 2026
225/45 R17
Continental PremiumContact 7
9 tires
2026 AutoBild Track Day Tire Test
April 2026
275/35 R19
Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS
7 tires
2026 Summer ECO Tire Test
March 2026
195/55 R16
Dunlop Blue Response TG
8 tires
2026 Sport Auto Summer Tire Test
March 2026
205/45 R17
Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
7 tires
Surprised the Goodyear EfficientGrip beat the Conti Premium contact.... I found the Conti to be a very good handling tire in all conditions albeit a little noisy on less than perfect road surfaces. I replaced them with Goodyear EfficientGrip's as it was cheaper and being promoted with a free insurance and felt the adverse handling effect (It was more comfy and quiet though). if you driving a FWD with some grunt the Conti is the better option.
Never trust German tests. They are all biased and corrupted. These days all German tests are sponsorred. It's the same with rating agencies such as Moodys or S&P. Companies buy these ratings.
When the PC5 was released, your article on that release showed an official Continental "spider" chart comparing it to the PC2 & to the EC5. The PC5 & EC5 were superior to the PC2 in almost every respect & the only differences on the chart were that the PC5 was markedly better in wet braking & the EC5 in rolling resistance. That chart's claims contradict this test. Some of the detail of the tire test show, from the wet tests, the following point scores (lower is better):
- wet braking: PC5 2.3 & EC5 3.2 (as expected);
- longitudinal aquaplaning: 2.3 & 3 (perhaps not a surprise although the correlation of such scores with wet braking is not always high); but then we get bewildering disparities as follows:
- cornering aquaplaning: 2.5 & 3.5;
- handling: 1.9 & 3.1;
- tranverse stability: 2.0 & 3.5.
On the basis of the chart, these results are bizarre. Perhaps it's due to the rumoured re-compounding of the PC5 to improve wet grip. Or, as such a spread is what one would expect, perhaps Continental are to be condemned for a false PC5 release chart.
There's no chance Conti would have released a false release chart, especially as at the launch we drove on previous variants of both the PC and EC as a comparison.
Tires are incredibly complex, what's better in one size and on one vehicle might not be the same in a different tire size on a different vehicle. When you combine this with the fact they're being constantly updated during their life cycle for improved performance, it's not overly suspicious that a spider diagram from 3 years ago is slightly out of date.
http://www.tirereviews.co.u...
Thanks for the response; I'm aware of all of that but it's a pretty radical reshaping.'slightly' seems inapt!?!
Relatedly,I do wish that more tire tests would include just superseded tires (still sold & available in the relevant size & themselves presumably recompounded over time). In this context, the inclusion of a PC2 would have been interesting (a tire I much like).
It would be interesting to hear if your impressions at the time on the test vehicles bore out the spider chart on wet grip.
The Primacy 3 has 9 in the dry. Like the CPC5 no?
We translate from adac, they have the full data.
I know, and the Primacy 3 has 9 in the dry "the best score" with the CPC5. ;)
And there is a test in a smaller size no?
Sorry, yes you're absolutely right. Updated :)
There is a 185/60 R14 test too, we will publish the results this week :)
The smaller size test can be seen here:
http://www.tirereviews.co.u...