Test Charts / Tire Reviews

2019 Tire Reviews UHP 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: 265/35 R19
Tires tested: 8
Disciplines: 11
Test vehicle: BMW M2

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

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	115 ft	Best
2Continental Sport Contact 6	116 ft	+1 ft
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	117 ft	+2 ft
4Falken Azenis FK510	123 ft	+8 ft
5Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	124 ft	+9 ft
5Kumho Ecsta PS91	124 ft	+9 ft
7Toyo Proxes Sport	127 ft	+12 ft
8Accelera PHI	133 ft	+18 ft

The difference between best and worst was 15.7% (18 ft ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths).

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental Sport Contact 6	60.3 s	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	60.5 s	+0.20 s
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	60.6 s	+0.30 s
4Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	60.9 s	+0.60 s
5Falken Azenis FK510	61.1 s	+0.80 s
6Kumho Ecsta PS91	61.2 s	+0.90 s
7Toyo Proxes Sport	62.2 s	+1.90 s
8Accelera PHI	63.8 s	+3.50 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.8% (3.5 s).

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental Sport Contact 6	9 Points	Best
2Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	8.9 Points	-0.10 Points
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	8.7 Points	-0.30 Points
4Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	8.3 Points	-0.70 Points
5Toyo Proxes Sport	7.6 Points	-1.40 Points
6Kumho Ecsta PS91	7.5 Points	-1.50 Points
7Falken Azenis FK510	6.6 Points	-2.40 Points
8Accelera PHI	5.6 Points	-3.40 Points

The difference between best and worst was 37.8% (3.4 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	152 ft	Best
2Continental Sport Contact 6	154 ft	+2 ft
3Falken Azenis FK510	159 ft	+7 ft
4Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	159 ft	+7 ft
5Toyo Proxes Sport	164 ft	+12 ft
6Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	177 ft	+25 ft
7Kumho Ecsta PS91	186 ft	+34 ft
8Accelera PHI	240 ft	+88 ft

The difference between best and worst was 58.3% (88 ft ≈ 6 Car Lengths).

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	70.37 s	Best
2Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	72.78 s	+2.41 s
3Toyo Proxes Sport	73.17 s	+2.80 s
4Continental Sport Contact 6	73.36 s	+2.99 s
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	73.4 s	+3.03 s
6Falken Azenis FK510	73.54 s	+3.17 s
7Kumho Ecsta PS91	74.83 s	+4.46 s
8Accelera PHI	86.43 s	+16.06 s

The difference between best and worst was 22.8% (16.06 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	9 Points	Best
2Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	8 Points	-1.00 Points
3Falken Azenis FK510	7 Points	-2.00 Points
3Toyo Proxes Sport	7 Points	-2.00 Points
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	6.5 Points	-2.50 Points
6Kumho Ecsta PS91	6 Points	-3.00 Points
6Continental Sport Contact 6	6 Points	-3.00 Points
8Accelera PHI	2 Points	-7.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 77.8% (7 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Toyo Proxes Sport	54.0 mph	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	53.9 mph	-0.1 mph
3Falken Azenis FK510	53.4 mph	-0.6 mph
4Continental Sport Contact 6	53.3 mph	-0.7 mph
5Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	52.6 mph	-1.4 mph
6Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	52.1 mph	-1.9 mph
7Kumho Ecsta PS91	51.9 mph	-2.1 mph
8Accelera PHI	51.5 mph	-2.5 mph

The difference between best and worst was 4.6% (2.5 mph).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Falken Azenis FK510	9.8 Points	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	8.5 Points	-1.30 Points
3Accelera PHI	8 Points	-1.80 Points
3Continental Sport Contact 6	8 Points	-1.80 Points
3Toyo Proxes Sport	8 Points	-1.80 Points
6Kumho Ecsta PS91	7 Points	-2.80 Points
6Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	7 Points	-2.80 Points
8Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	6.5 Points	-3.30 Points

The difference between best and worst was 33.7% (3.3 Points).

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental Sport Contact 6	72.1 dB	Best
2Accelera PHI	72.3 dB	+0.20 dB
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	72.4 dB	+0.30 dB
4Kumho Ecsta PS91	72.5 dB	+0.40 dB
5Falken Azenis FK510	72.9 dB	+0.80 dB
6Toyo Proxes Sport	73.3 dB	+1.20 dB
7Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	73.4 dB	+1.30 dB
8Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	73.8 dB	+1.70 dB

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

Tire Weight
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	95.9 lb	Best
2Continental Sport Contact 6	97.2 lb	+1.3 lb
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	99.6 lb	+3.7 lb
4Toyo Proxes Sport	99.9 lb	+4.0 lb
5Falken Azenis FK510	105.4 lb	+9.5 lb
6Accelera PHI	105.6 lb	+9.7 lb
7Kumho Ecsta PS91	110.5 lb	+14.6 lb
8Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	113.1 lb	+17.2 lb

The difference between best and worst was 17.9% (17.2 lb).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Continental Sport Contact 6	8.18 kg/t	Best	$0
2Accelera PHI	8.31 kg/t	+0.13 kg/t	$5
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	8.7 kg/t	+0.52 kg/t	$19
4Toyo Proxes Sport	8.91 kg/t	+0.73 kg/t	$26
5Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	9.04 kg/t	+0.86 kg/t	$31
6Falken Azenis FK510	9.1 kg/t	+0.92 kg/t	$33
7Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	9.31 kg/t	+1.13 kg/t	$41
8Kumho Ecsta PS91	9.41 kg/t	+1.23 kg/t	$44

The difference between best and worst was 15% (1.23 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Kumho Ecsta PS91 uses about 12 gal ($44) more fuel than the Continental Sport Contact 6.

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.

Gas/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

12,000 mi

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

$3.60/gal

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

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.

Test setup & methodology

The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.

Tire Pressures (as recorded): OE

Show full testing methodology

Score Weighting

Weights express the scoring priorities, not how much each discipline actually changed the finishing order. The size of the performance gaps matters too. Category weights contribute to the overall score. Within each category, discipline weights divide that category’s share. Published finishing positions also need to be read alongside the editorial verdict.

Test	Within category	Share of overall score
Dry · 35%
Dry Braking	46%	16.1%
Dry Handling	45%	15.75%
Subj. Dry Handling	9%	3.15%
Wet · 50%
Wet Braking	37%	18.5%
Wet Handling	37%	18.5%
Subj. Wet Handling	10%	5%
Straight Aqua	16%	8%
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	46%	2.3%
Noise	45%	2.25%
Tire Weight	9%	0.45%
Value · 10%
Rolling Resistance	100%	10%

Our standard methods

The conditions above are recorded for this test. The descriptions below explain our standard procedures; measurement windows and run counts can vary by test.

Dry Braking

For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tires are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.

Dry Handling

For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behavior without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.

Subj. Dry Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated dry handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behavior, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tire before evaluating each candidate.

Wet Braking

For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tire performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tires repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.

Wet Handling

For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behavior without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.

Subj. Wet Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behavior, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tire before evaluating each candidate.

Straight Aqua

To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tire set and average the valid results.

Subj. Comfort

To assess comfort, I drive on a wide range of road surfaces (often dedicated comfort tracks at test facilities) at speeds from 50 to 120 km/h, including smooth motorway, coarse surfaces, expansion joints, broken pavement, and sharp-edged obstacles. I evaluate primary ride quality, secondary ride quality, impact harshness, seat-transmitted vibration, and the tire's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tire.

Noise

I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.

Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tire is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tire shortlist →Read the test →

More tire tests