6 min read
Updated
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
CPC6 "very strong in the dry" with 126 points & Hankook K125 with "average dry performance" with 129 points in the dry sounds a bit bias...
The AZ "dry" scoring also includes comfort, noise and rolling resistance points, which I also separated out but did not subtract from the total dry score. This is why there's a difference between the testers comments and the "dry" scoring.
Hello, the graph of the rolling resistence can’t be correct for the Giti tires, because it’s got the
Same points the Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance has got and in the Test Summary on top
Of the page it’s classified as second.
Well spotted! The graph is correct, the score isn't. Updated :)
I wish manufacturers would produce a summer tire with slightly better snow capability. Enough to get you home, but not as good as the all-season tires, and with no discernible loss of feel and feedback in the summer compared to a premium summer tire. I think this is the tire enthusiastic drivers are waiting for. You could fit it and leave it on all year, without worrying about getting stuck in the snow, and without feeling you're losing out on fun in the summer. Driving home from the dentist in the snow yesterday, in my BMW 130i on Conti Premium Contact 6, I almost didn't make it home. Not a nice feeling. I'd like to fit Michelin Crossclimate+, but I hear feel and feedback are some way off the mark compared to a premium summer tire, so I just can't bring myself to do it. Still waiting for that elusive perfect tire ...
The CrossClimate is as close as we've gotten to that perfect tire. Some of the basic requirements of a tire which works in snow is a higher land/sea ratio (ie, more blocky pattern) and sipes, both of which detract from handling.
Maybe one day the technology will exist, but for now we have to make do with what we have.
Hi. is this Falken Azenis FK510 is a run flat tire ?
This test will have tested the non-runflat version of the tire.
It's a shame all the graphs have a false origin - the scale does not start at zero. This makes the differences appear much larger than they really are. In 'dry handling', for example, there's only a two-second spread in lap times of around a minute. that's 5% and most drivers wouldn't notice such a small change. Please use percentages like Auto Express.
If all the graphs started at 0 they would be almost unreadable, the purpose of the graph would vanish. The graphs look great and start at the right scale.
Yes, the difference somewhere is minimal, and it's up to the reader to notice it and decide if it matters or not.
Tire tests are done driving at the limit. Of course in normal-everyday drive all the tires would be almost equal. It's in emergencies when the tire you have matters, than those 5% between the best and worst can mean accident/injury or forgetting about the incident next week if nothing happened.
But it's ridiculous to score tires on attributes when the differences are so small. It would make more sense to put tires into similar abilities in each test. Tire tests should point out where there are significant shortfalls in a particular area. Auto Express did this in its last group test. Any graph with a false origin is either intended to deceive or an insult to its readers.
All season tires are inevitably a compromise. It's important to find where the manufacturer has sacrificed one ability to enhance another. I'm willing to lose some snow traction to get better wet grip. But a diference of 5% or less is of no consequence. I will never drive on the limit. In poor driving conditions I leave a large gap between me and vehicles in front. And when some moron tailgates me, I leave additional braking space so that I can brake gently if the car infront explodes or somersaults.
As Igor mentioned, it's rare to find graphs starting at 0 when there's such a small spread of results as consuming the data is too difficult on smaller screens.
Please can you explain your point about Auto Express more? Also express simply take the braking distances, make the best 100% then each one after that is a percentage of the 100% result. This means in things like dry braking you have 8 tires all within 4% of each other, which is just as meaningful as 8 tires within 2 meters of each other!
4% is a small difference. 2 metrers is half the width of the graph and this looks a large difference. The noise differeces look significant but 3dB is the smallest change detectable by humans!
Here's my version of AutoBild's 225/50R17 test
https://drive.google.com/op...
4% is quite a small difference, but 2 metres is a third the width of the graph. The noise differences look quite big, but 3dB is only just noticeable to the human ear.
My version of AutoBild's 225/50R17 tests is here.....
https://disq.us/url?url=htt...
While I understand your point, your version of the graph is too difficult to see the differences between the results. The way the site generates the graph is actually fairly standard, with many of the magazines publishing their tables with non-zero indexes too.
This made me laugh!
" your version of the graph is too difficult to see the differences between the results."
That's exactly my point when the differences are a bit trivial, let's say 5% or less, even 10%.
But let's agree to differ :-)
I completely agree with kelper.
For my sins, I teach medical students in university on critical appraisal of statistics.
Truncation of the graph axis, as done here, is generally considered to produce misleading interpretations by exaggerating the differences between products. A typical example is an expensive new drug which is only slightly better than the cheap old drug. But the graph can be drawn in a way that makes the expensive drug seem a whole lot better.
Lots of articles on the web explaining misleading graphs, and how to overcome this by showing the entire axis and/or axis breaks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
https://venngage.com/blog/m...
I do think this is a great tire review site and I value the advice. But I don't look at graphs.
3db is double the noise so i would think you would definitely hear a difference.
3dB is double the sound energy. It takes ten times the sound energy for a perceived doubling in noise. I think 1dB change is perceptible in lab conditions. But if two cars passed you and the measured sounds were less than 3dB, most people could not, reliably, say which was louder. If you are interested you can test this yourself at http://www.audiocheck.net/b...
For a steady tone I could not hear the 1dB rise or fall. But the washing machine is on behind me and I have some high trequncy hearing loss from years in ship's engine rooms.
look here for evidence http://www.autoexpress.co.u...
There is no info of tire size tested.
Considering the tire models, should I suppose its 225/45R17
Sorry, and very good guess! Article updated :)