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
I would like a very quiet tires and safety as well.
My doubt is michelin primacy 4 or nokian wetproof. Size 225/45/17 for a Bmw 1 series.
I understood that Nokian are better on wet and dry as well, and noise is approximately the same. But when they are much aged, will they maintain the same characteristics? thanks for helping!
As a rule Michelin generally wear better than other brands, but the Nokian is a new tire from a premium brand so there's no reason this should perform worse than any other brand.
Thanks for your reply... In terms of noisy goodyear asymmetric 5 are better?
Have a look at our video and the various test data on this site :)
Already did ?. But I am confused. ...constructors declare a noise value but in test it is different. For instance goodyear f1 a3 68db and in your test f1 a5(70db) are quieter. Could you please advise me the quieter tires(premium brands) at high speeds(motorway).
I will appreciate very mutch! Thanks?
You have all the data I have :) My noise test was internal noise, some tests are external.
I would have liked to see Landsail tires in the list. Appreciate there are many makes now
though.
Sadly we don't see Landsail in many tests anymore.
I think that load and speed index should be known. They make a difference even in the same size and model. Correct me if I'm wrong.
They don't always made a difference, but you're right, it can. I'll work on getting it added to the database where available!
I have those Maxxis Premitra HP5, at first I liked them, but not anymore..
At a certain point, where there's approx 5-5,5mm of thread left, they change a lot, like it's a whole different rubber compound. Suddenly they're terrible sub 5deg Celsius. Also their wet capabilities have become poor. When it's wet and sub 5C they're lethal. They've become extremely noisy over time.
Wear is high in the beginning, but now it's really slow.
Also, how can the Premitra HP5 be 'new' (as mentioned in the text) if I have them already since February 2017.. DOT = 4616..
Or did they have an update?
Specially made an account for this:
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
This is how they look after ~40,000km, approx 4mm left
New with tires is relative, though you're right, I thought they were launched in early 2018 but I was wrong.
Obviously I can't comment on grip, but that's very good wear for 40,000 kms!
Interesting information, hopefully it's a one off or weather related but I'll keep an eye out for other reviews like this. ADAC did wear test a Maxxis tire and found nothing usual, though it was a different pattern.
For 5 years and 45000km I had the Pirelli Pzero Nero(205/45/16) and I was very satisfied with this tire. Now I'm thinking of putting the premitra hp5,but i am not sure if this should be a good choice. It can compare this tire with my old pirelli? Is Maxxis premitra a worth buying in your opinion?
Hi, I can't find it on the Autozeitung website as mentioned, can you give me a hint?
It might not be published yet, sorry! I'll update the article with a link when it is.
Nice clear layout for this one!
The surprise was the Kumho which usually tests pretty well and has strong reviews to back this up. Like the other Andy just said though, like the CC, this is more a 'general' tire stretched out to a more 'sporty' size against some more 'sportier' tires.
That said, the second surprise is the Maxxis, also a 'general' tire, testing a bit better than normal. They arent poor tires, but its a strong result nevertheless. The big downside of these astronomic wear, but that is the downfall of a lot of decent tires today!
I've just added even more data points to the overall results, should make things even clearer (though the formatting does need updating!)
A couple of points, one that TR needs to include on the review details, the other, more a commentary over Auto Zeitung's methodology:
1. The size/rating of the tires tested is not mentioned in the details or title of the review (the size for the ADAC review is). Given the CC+ is more suited to 'standard' (non-performance/low profile) tire sized to get the best performance (from reading previous reviews [and why I chose them for my car]), what size of tire tested could easily sway the result as regards how the CC+ fairs.
2. The test (at least as the results are shown here) don't show any marks for wear/value for money, which other tests often do. As many group tests have already shown, the CC+ is excellent on that score and more than offset the higher purchase price, especially when the winter performance is factored in. Similarly no marks were given for 'comfort', another rating that the CC+ often does very well on.
It's a shame (you're not at fault Jon, but the magazines testing them) that there isn't a more unified testing regime as what criteria are used - I have no problems with performance tires (obviously not the CC+ or other all-season tires) being weighted more to the handling/braking side of things, but I think all reviews and group tests should include comparative scores across a wide range of aspects of the tire, as some can look overly good or poor because a rating is included, excluded or weighted too heavily.
Hi Andy!
The size was in the database, I just forgot to mention it in the article. First of the year, I'm rusty :) It's added now!
As I'm sure you know, wear is very difficult to test, as to do it properly you actually have to go out and drive. For 10 sets of tires, which need at least 10,000 miles on, that's a lot of driving. I'm always thankful when ADAC and Auto Bild do include wear testing.
I'm in the process of adding the score weighting details to the database too so hopefully that will become more clear in the future. It's currently difficult to decide whether to use the raw data where available, or to use the scoring numbers magazines also feel the need to apply.
No problem Jon. I had an inkling that the tire size in the group test was a lower profile one, as from the reviews generally the CC+ seems to do less well in wider, lower profile sizes than those over 50. I'm keen on a group test with it against other all-season and summer tires for the two most popular sizes: 205/55 R16 and 195/65 R15.
I'm sure it's featured in those in the past? The data must be on the website (I'm on mobile so can't search right now)
In my judgement, it's a good thing that various magazines use different test protocols & weight different parameters of performance differently & differently for different classes of tire.
An astute user of tests should be ignoring overall scores anyway & mining the data for information on parameters of interest. A variety of test protocol "takes" on those prioritised areas adds breadth.
What should ideally be as apparent as possible is information about the test protocol which led to a given score & TR tries to supply this to some extent in the introductory "blurb" & in table annotations.