Menu

Test Charts / Auto Bild Allrad

2019 SUV 4x4 Summer Tire Test

Compare each discipline in the tested size. See the measured result, position and gap to the best tire, then read the verdict for the trade-offs behind the finishing order.

Tested size
225/55 R17
Tires tested
10
Disciplines
11

Read the measurements, not just the rank

Lower is better for braking distances and lap times; higher is better for subjective scores and aquaplaning speed. Bars start at zero. Read the gap alongside the position: adjacent tires can be separated by very different margins.

Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tires does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.

Dry

2

Dry Braking

Dry braking in feet

Lower is better ↓
Dry Braking
Position / TireResultGap to best
112 ft Best
114 ft +2 ft
114 ft +2 ft
116 ft +4 ft
117 ft +5 ft
117 ft +5 ft
120 ft +8 ft
122 ft +10 ft
123 ft +11 ft
124 ft +12 ft

The difference between best and worst was 11.2% (12 ft ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths).

Dry Handling

Dry Handling Average Speed

Higher is better ↑
Dry Handling
Position / TireResultGap to best
65.1 mph Best
64.6 mph -0.5 mph
64.6 mph -0.5 mph
64.6 mph -0.5 mph
64.5 mph -0.6 mph
64.2 mph -0.9 mph
63.9 mph -1.2 mph
63.9 mph -1.2 mph
63.7 mph -1.4 mph
63.6 mph -1.5 mph

All the tires in the Dry Handling test finished less than 3% apart.

Wet

3

Wet Braking

Wet braking in feet

Lower is better ↓
Wet Braking
Position / TireResultGap to best
154 ft Best
156 ft +2 ft
159 ft +5 ft
164 ft +10 ft
167 ft +13 ft
168 ft +14 ft
172 ft +18 ft
173 ft +19 ft
179 ft +25 ft
198 ft +44 ft

The difference between best and worst was 28.4% (44 ft ≈ 3 Car Lengths).

Wet Handling

Wet Handling Average Speed

Higher is better ↑
Wet Handling
Position / TireResultGap to best
55.8 mph Best
55.5 mph -0.3 mph
55.5 mph -0.3 mph
55.2 mph -0.6 mph
54.9 mph -0.9 mph
54.6 mph -1.2 mph
54.5 mph -1.3 mph
54.4 mph -1.4 mph
53.9 mph -1.9 mph
52.6 mph -3.2 mph

The difference between best and worst was 5.7% (3.2 mph).

Straight Aqua

Float Speed in mph

Higher is better ↑
Straight Aqua
Position / TireResultGap to best
51.0 mph Best
50.6 mph -0.4 mph
50.6 mph -0.4 mph
50.6 mph -0.4 mph
50.4 mph -0.6 mph
50.3 mph -0.7 mph
49.8 mph -1.2 mph
48.6 mph -2.4 mph
48.6 mph -2.4 mph
48.3 mph -2.7 mph

The difference between best and worst was 5.1% (2.7 mph).

Off road

4

Gravel Handling

Gravel Handling Average Speed

Higher is better ↑
Gravel Handling
Position / TireResultGap to best
41.9 mph Best
41.8 mph -0.1 mph
41.8 mph -0.1 mph
41.2 mph -0.7 mph
40.9 mph -1.0 mph
40.8 mph -1.1 mph
40.6 mph -1.3 mph
40.6 mph -1.3 mph
40.5 mph -1.4 mph
40.4 mph -1.5 mph

The difference between best and worst was 3.6% (1.5 mph).

Gravel Traction

Pulling Force in pounds-force

Higher is better ↑
Gravel Traction
Position / TireResultGap to best
2,226 lbf Best
2,156 lbf -70 lbf
2,142 lbf -84 lbf
2,133 lbf -93 lbf
2,078 lbf -148 lbf
2,055 lbf -171 lbf
2,037 lbf -189 lbf
1,975 lbf -251 lbf
1,929 lbf -297 lbf
1,897 lbf -329 lbf

The difference between best and worst was 14.8% (329 lbf).

Grass Traction

Pulling Force in pounds-force

Higher is better ↑
Grass Traction
Position / TireResultGap to best
2,146 lbf Best
2,127 lbf -19 lbf
2,091 lbf -55 lbf
1,996 lbf -150 lbf
1,986 lbf -160 lbf
1,971 lbf -175 lbf
1,960 lbf -186 lbf
1,916 lbf -230 lbf
1,814 lbf -332 lbf
1,796 lbf -350 lbf

The difference between best and worst was 16.3% (350 lbf).

Mud Traction

Pulling Force in pounds-force

Higher is better ↑
Mud Traction
Position / TireResultGap to best
613 lbf Best
578 lbf -35 lbf
571 lbf -42 lbf
565 lbf -48 lbf
545 lbf -68 lbf
544 lbf -69 lbf
542 lbf -71 lbf
541 lbf -72 lbf
538 lbf -75 lbf
501 lbf -112 lbf

The difference between best and worst was 18.2% (112 lbf).

Comfort

1

Noise

External noise in dB

Lower is better ↓
Noise
Position / TireResultGap to best
64.2 dB Best
64.8 dB +0.60 dB
65 dB +0.80 dB
65.2 dB +1.00 dB
65.5 dB +1.30 dB
66.1 dB +1.90 dB
66.1 dB +1.90 dB
67.1 dB +2.90 dB
67.4 dB +3.20 dB
67.4 dB +3.20 dB

The difference between best and worst was 5% (3.2 dB).

Value

1

Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance in kg t

Lower is better ↓
Rolling Resistance
Position / TireResultGap to bestExtra fuel / year
7.56 kg/t Best $0
8.39 kg/t +0.83 kg/t $32
8.58 kg/t +1.02 kg/t $40
8.69 kg/t +1.13 kg/t $44
8.74 kg/t +1.18 kg/t $46
8.79 kg/t +1.23 kg/t $48
9.18 kg/t +1.62 kg/t $63
9.18 kg/t +1.62 kg/t $63
9.38 kg/t +1.82 kg/t $71
10.24 kg/t +2.68 kg/t $104

The difference between best and worst was 35.4% (2.68 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Nexen N Fera RU1 uses about 29 gal ($104) more fuel than the Bridgestone Turanza T005.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions. These calculators use the full test field, independently of your tire selection above.

12,000 mi
$3.60/gal
Estimates based on typical driving conditions. Rolling resistance accounts for approximately 20% of IC vehicle fuel consumption and 25% of EV energy consumption. Actual savings vary based on driving style, vehicle weight, road conditions, and tire age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.

More tire tests

Cross-check this test

All tire tests

Where these tires were tested again, and how the verdict held up.

Rate your tires

My tires

Saved in this browser on this site. No account needed. Clearing browser data removes your choices.

Vehicle and size

Check the size, load and speed ratings on your vehicle. Saving a size does not confirm fitment.

Saved tires

Save tires from a tire page, test or comparison to keep them here.

Select 2–8 saved tires. Ranked comparisons require at least two shared tests.