Test Charts / Tire Reviews

2020 Tire Reviews Ultimate 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: 205/55 R16
Tires tested: 12
Disciplines: 11

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental Premium Contact 6	112 ft	Best
2Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	113 ft	+1 ft
2Nokian WetProof	113 ft	+1 ft
2Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2	113 ft	+1 ft
5Bridgestone Turanza T005	114 ft	+2 ft
6Michelin Primacy 4	115 ft	+3 ft
7Maxxis Premitra HP5	115 ft	+3 ft
8Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	115 ft	+3 ft
8BFGoodrich Advantage	115 ft	+3 ft
10Uniroyal RainSport 5	117 ft	+5 ft
11Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125	119 ft	+7 ft
12Goodride RP28	123 ft	+11 ft

The difference between best and worst was 9.6% (11 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths).

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	101.17 s	Best
2Maxxis Premitra HP5	101.25 s	+0.08 s
2Continental Premium Contact 6	101.25 s	+0.08 s
4Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	101.47 s	+0.30 s
5Bridgestone Turanza T005	101.67 s	+0.50 s
6Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125	102.05 s	+0.88 s
7Nokian WetProof	102.24 s	+1.07 s
8Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2	102.32 s	+1.15 s
9Michelin Primacy 4	102.57 s	+1.40 s
10Uniroyal RainSport 5	102.77 s	+1.60 s
11BFGoodrich Advantage	103.07 s	+1.90 s
12Goodride RP28	104.01 s	+2.84 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Maxxis Premitra HP5	10 Points	Best
1Continental Premium Contact 6	10 Points	Best
3Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2	9.4 Points	-0.60 Points
4Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4Nokian WetProof	9 Points	-1.00 Points
6Bridgestone Turanza T005	8.6 Points	-1.40 Points
6Michelin Primacy 4	8.6 Points	-1.40 Points
8Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	8 Points	-2.00 Points
9Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125	7.5 Points	-2.50 Points
9Goodride RP28	7.5 Points	-2.50 Points
11Uniroyal RainSport 5	7 Points	-3.00 Points
11BFGoodrich Advantage	7 Points	-3.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 30% (3 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	117 ft	Best
2Continental Premium Contact 6	118 ft	+1 ft
2Uniroyal RainSport 5	118 ft	+1 ft
4Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	125 ft	+8 ft
5BFGoodrich Advantage	128 ft	+11 ft
6Nokian WetProof	128 ft	+11 ft
7Michelin Primacy 4	131 ft	+14 ft
8Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2	131 ft	+14 ft
9Maxxis Premitra HP5	132 ft	+15 ft
10Bridgestone Turanza T005	135 ft	+18 ft
11Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125	138 ft	+21 ft
12Goodride RP28	150 ft	+33 ft

The difference between best and worst was 28.3% (33 ft ≈ 2.2 Car Lengths).

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Maxxis Premitra HP5	69.86 s	Best
2Nokian WetProof	69.95 s	+0.09 s
3Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	70.04 s	+0.18 s
4Bridgestone Turanza T005	70.05 s	+0.19 s
5Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	70.09 s	+0.23 s
6Uniroyal RainSport 5	70.39 s	+0.53 s
7Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2	70.88 s	+1.02 s
8Michelin Primacy 4	70.97 s	+1.11 s
9Continental Premium Contact 6	71.64 s	+1.78 s
10BFGoodrich Advantage	71.93 s	+2.07 s
11Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125	72.28 s	+2.42 s
12Goodride RP28	76.76 s	+6.90 s

The difference between best and worst was 9.9% (6.9 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Maxxis Premitra HP5	10 Points	Best
1Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2	10 Points	Best
3Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	9.2 Points	-0.80 Points
4Nokian WetProof	8.8 Points	-1.20 Points
5Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125	8.6 Points	-1.40 Points
5Bridgestone Turanza T005	8.6 Points	-1.40 Points
5Michelin Primacy 4	8.6 Points	-1.40 Points
5Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	8.6 Points	-1.40 Points
5BFGoodrich Advantage	8.6 Points	-1.40 Points
10Continental Premium Contact 6	7.5 Points	-2.50 Points
10Uniroyal RainSport 5	7.5 Points	-2.50 Points
12Goodride RP28	5 Points	-5.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 50% (5 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Uniroyal RainSport 5	56.9 mph	Best
2Maxxis Premitra HP5	53.0 mph	-3.9 mph
3Michelin Primacy 4	51.5 mph	-5.4 mph
4Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	51.3 mph	-5.6 mph
5Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125	51.3 mph	-5.6 mph
6Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2	51.0 mph	-5.9 mph
7Nokian WetProof	50.5 mph	-6.4 mph
8Bridgestone Turanza T005	50.4 mph	-6.5 mph
9BFGoodrich Advantage	50.3 mph	-6.6 mph
10Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	48.8 mph	-8.1 mph
10Continental Premium Contact 6	48.8 mph	-8.1 mph
12Goodride RP28	44.8 mph	-12.1 mph

The difference between best and worst was 21.3% (12.1 mph).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich Advantage	10 Points	Best
2Michelin Primacy 4	9.8 Points	-0.20 Points
3Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	9.4 Points	-0.60 Points
3Nokian WetProof	9.4 Points	-0.60 Points
5Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125	9 Points	-1.00 Points
5Bridgestone Turanza T005	9 Points	-1.00 Points
5Uniroyal RainSport 5	9 Points	-1.00 Points
8Maxxis Premitra HP5	8.8 Points	-1.20 Points
8Continental Premium Contact 6	8.8 Points	-1.20 Points
8Goodride RP28	8.8 Points	-1.20 Points
11Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	8.2 Points	-1.80 Points
11Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2	8.2 Points	-1.80 Points

The difference between best and worst was 18% (1.8 Points).

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich Advantage	61.2 dB	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	61.4 dB	+0.20 dB
3Bridgestone Turanza T005	61.5 dB	+0.30 dB
3Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2	61.5 dB	+0.30 dB
5Michelin Primacy 4	61.6 dB	+0.40 dB
5Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	61.6 dB	+0.40 dB
5Uniroyal RainSport 5	61.6 dB	+0.40 dB
8Goodride RP28	61.9 dB	+0.70 dB
9Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125	62.1 dB	+0.90 dB
9Continental Premium Contact 6	62.1 dB	+0.90 dB
11Nokian WetProof	62.2 dB	+1.00 dB
12Maxxis Premitra HP5	62.3 dB	+1.10 dB

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

Tire Weight
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian WetProof	17.6 lb	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	17.9 lb	+0.3 lb
3Uniroyal RainSport 5	18.8 lb	+1.2 lb
4Continental Premium Contact 6	18.9 lb	+1.3 lb
5Bridgestone Turanza T005	19.3 lb	+1.7 lb
5BFGoodrich Advantage	19.3 lb	+1.7 lb
7Maxxis Premitra HP5	19.4 lb	+1.8 lb
8Goodride RP28	19.4 lb	+1.8 lb
9Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125	19.7 lb	+2.1 lb
9Michelin Primacy 4	19.7 lb	+2.1 lb
11Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2	19.9 lb	+2.3 lb
12Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	20.2 lb	+2.6 lb

The difference between best and worst was 14.8% (2.6 lb).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Bridgestone Turanza T005	7.19 kg/t	Best	$0
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	7.28 kg/t	+0.09 kg/t	$4
3Michelin Primacy 4	8.08 kg/t	+0.89 kg/t	$36
4BFGoodrich Advantage	8.34 kg/t	+1.15 kg/t	$47
5Continental Premium Contact 6	8.37 kg/t	+1.18 kg/t	$48
6Nokian WetProof	8.44 kg/t	+1.25 kg/t	$51
7Goodride RP28	8.81 kg/t	+1.62 kg/t	$66
8Uniroyal RainSport 5	8.85 kg/t	+1.66 kg/t	$68
9Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125	8.98 kg/t	+1.79 kg/t	$73
10Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2	9.76 kg/t	+2.57 kg/t	$105
11Maxxis Premitra HP5	9.77 kg/t	+2.58 kg/t	$105
12Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	9.82 kg/t	+2.63 kg/t	$107

The difference between best and worst was 36.6% (2.63 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun uses about 30 gal ($107) 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.

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.

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

For cabin noise assessment, I drive at controlled speeds, typically 50, 80, 100, and 120 km/h, on NVH test surfaces with defined texture characteristics. Calibrated microphones are positioned at ear height within the cabin. Measurements are taken using A-weighting, with one-third octave analysis where required to identify tonal features such as cavity resonance. Windows remain closed, ventilation is off, and ambient conditions are controlled so the data reflects the tire rather than external interference.

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