Test Charts / Tire Reviews

2021 Tire Reviews SUV 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: 235/55 R18
Tires tested: 9
Disciplines: 13

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin Primacy 4	111 ft	Best	0 mph
2BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	114 ft	+3 ft	14 mph
3Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	114 ft	+3 ft	14 mph
4Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 SUV	115 ft	+4 ft	15 mph
5Uniroyal RainSport 5	116 ft	+5 ft	17 mph
5Nokian Wetproof SUV	116 ft	+5 ft	17 mph
7Avon ZX7	117 ft	+6 ft	18 mph
8Vredestein Ultrac Satin	118 ft	+7 ft	20 mph
9Westlake SU318 HT	130 ft	+19 ft	31 mph

The difference between best and worst was 17.1% (19 ft ≈ 1.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Westlake SU318 HT would still be travelling at 31 mph when the Michelin Primacy 4 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Avon ZX7	103.54 s	Best
1Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 SUV	103.54 s	Best
3Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	104.06 s	+0.52 s
4Nokian Wetproof SUV	104.37 s	+0.83 s
5Michelin Primacy 4	104.8 s	+1.26 s
6Vredestein Ultrac Satin	104.96 s	+1.42 s
7BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	105.33 s	+1.79 s
8Uniroyal RainSport 5	105.39 s	+1.85 s
9Westlake SU318 HT	105.71 s	+2.17 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	10 Points	Best
1Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 SUV	10 Points	Best
3Avon ZX7	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Michelin Primacy 4	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
5Vredestein Ultrac Satin	9 Points	-1.00 Points
6Uniroyal RainSport 5	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
6BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
6Nokian Wetproof SUV	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
9Westlake SU318 HT	7.5 Points	-2.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 25% (2.5 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Uniroyal RainSport 5	116 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Primacy 4	117 ft	+1 ft	6 mph
3Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 SUV	121 ft	+5 ft	16 mph
4Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	123 ft	+7 ft	19 mph
5Nokian Wetproof SUV	123 ft	+7 ft	19 mph
6BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	127 ft	+11 ft	24 mph
7Vredestein Ultrac Satin	129 ft	+13 ft	26 mph
8Avon ZX7	130 ft	+14 ft	26 mph
9Westlake SU318 HT	156 ft	+40 ft	40 mph

The difference between best and worst was 34% (40 ft ≈ 2.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Westlake SU318 HT would still be travelling at 40 mph when the Uniroyal RainSport 5 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Uniroyal RainSport 5	68.98 s	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	69.22 s	+0.24 s
3Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 SUV	69.36 s	+0.38 s
4Avon ZX7	69.39 s	+0.41 s
5Vredestein Ultrac Satin	69.71 s	+0.73 s
6Nokian Wetproof SUV	69.75 s	+0.77 s
7Michelin Primacy 4	69.82 s	+0.84 s
8BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	70.98 s	+2.00 s
9Westlake SU318 HT	72.09 s	+3.11 s

The difference between best and worst was 4.5% (3.11 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	10 Points	Best
1Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 SUV	10 Points	Best
3Vredestein Ultrac Satin	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Avon ZX7	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
4Michelin Primacy 4	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
4Uniroyal RainSport 5	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
7BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	8.2 Points	-1.80 Points
8Nokian Wetproof SUV	8 Points	-2.00 Points
9Westlake SU318 HT	7 Points	-3.00 Points

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

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Uniroyal RainSport 5	55.3 mph	Best
2Vredestein Ultrac Satin	53.4 mph	-1.9 mph
3BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	52.2 mph	-3.1 mph
4Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	52.0 mph	-3.3 mph
5Nokian Wetproof SUV	50.7 mph	-4.6 mph
6Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 SUV	50.6 mph	-4.7 mph
7Avon ZX7	48.7 mph	-6.6 mph
8Westlake SU318 HT	47.0 mph	-8.3 mph
9Michelin Primacy 4	46.8 mph	-8.5 mph

The difference between best and worst was 15.4% (8.5 mph).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Vredestein Ultrac Satin	8.0 ft/s²	Best
2Uniroyal RainSport 5	7.7 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
3BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	7.5 ft/s²	-0.5 ft/s²
3Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 SUV	7.5 ft/s²	-0.5 ft/s²
5Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	7.1 ft/s²	-0.9 ft/s²
6Nokian Wetproof SUV	7.0 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
7Avon ZX7	6.2 ft/s²	-1.8 ft/s²
8Westlake SU318 HT	6.0 ft/s²	-2.0 ft/s²
9Michelin Primacy 4	5.7 ft/s²	-2.3 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 28% (2.3 ft/s²).

Off road

Gravel Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	68 ft	Best
2Uniroyal RainSport 5	69 ft	+1 ft
3Vredestein Ultrac Satin	69 ft	+1 ft
4Nokian Wetproof SUV	70 ft	+2 ft
5BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	71 ft	+3 ft
6Michelin Primacy 4	72 ft	+4 ft
7Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 SUV	73 ft	+5 ft
8Avon ZX7	76 ft	+8 ft

The difference between best and worst was 10.8% (8 ft ≈ 0.5 Car Lengths).

Grass Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 SUV	15 ft	Best
2Michelin Primacy 4	15 ft	0 ft
3Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	15 ft	0 ft
4BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	15 ft	0 ft
5Uniroyal RainSport 5	15 ft	0 ft
6Vredestein Ultrac Satin	16 ft	+1 ft
7Avon ZX7	16 ft	+1 ft
8Nokian Wetproof SUV	16 ft	+1 ft
9Westlake SU318 HT	17 ft	+2 ft

The difference between best and worst was 12.8% (2 ft).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	10 Points	Best
2Uniroyal RainSport 5	9.8 Points	-0.20 Points
3Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Michelin Primacy 4	9.2 Points	-0.80 Points
5Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 SUV	8.8 Points	-1.20 Points
6Avon ZX7	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
6Nokian Wetproof SUV	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
8Vredestein Ultrac Satin	8.2 Points	-1.80 Points
9Westlake SU318 HT	8 Points	-2.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 20% (2 Points).

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	69.3 dB	Best
2Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 SUV	70.3 dB	+1.00 dB
3Vredestein Ultrac Satin	70.5 dB	+1.20 dB
4Westlake SU318 HT	70.8 dB	+1.50 dB
5Michelin Primacy 4	71 dB	+1.70 dB
6Uniroyal RainSport 5	71.1 dB	+1.80 dB
6Nokian Wetproof SUV	71.1 dB	+1.80 dB
8Avon ZX7	71.2 dB	+1.90 dB
9BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	71.9 dB	+2.60 dB

The difference between best and worst was 3.8% (2.6 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Michelin Primacy 4	6.61 kg/t	Best	$0
2Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	7.13 kg/t	+0.52 kg/t	$23
3BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	7.35 kg/t	+0.74 kg/t	$33
4Vredestein Ultrac Satin	7.9 kg/t	+1.29 kg/t	$57
5Uniroyal RainSport 5	7.93 kg/t	+1.32 kg/t	$59
6Nokian Wetproof SUV	8.03 kg/t	+1.42 kg/t	$63
7Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 SUV	8.37 kg/t	+1.76 kg/t	$78
8Westlake SU318 HT	8.68 kg/t	+2.07 kg/t	$92
9Avon ZX7	8.72 kg/t	+2.11 kg/t	$94

The difference between best and worst was 31.9% (2.11 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Avon ZX7 uses about 26 gal ($94) more fuel than the Michelin Primacy 4.

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

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 62.1 → 0.6 mph
Wet Braking: 49.7 → 0.6 mph
Gravel Traction: 3.1 → 24.9 mph
Grass Traction: 3.1 → 9.3 mph

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	63.2%	22.11%
Dry Handling	31.6%	11.05%
Subj. Dry Handling	5.3%	1.84%
Wet · 40%
Wet Braking	52.1%	20.83%
Wet Handling	31.3%	12.5%
Straight Aqua	8.3%	3.33%
Curved Aquaplaning	8.3%	3.33%
Off road · 7.5%
Gravel Traction	50%	3.75%
Grass Traction	50%	3.75%
Comfort · 10%
Subj. Comfort	25%	2.5%
Noise	75%	7.5%
Value · 7.5%
Rolling Resistance	100%	7.5%

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.

Curved Aquaplaning

For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 meters in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.

Gravel Traction

For gravel traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a prepared gravel surface with traction control active and measure speed and distance using GPS telemetry. Because natural surfaces are inherently variable, I place particular emphasis on repeat runs, careful reference tracking, and averaged results. Results are normalised against the control tire.

Grass Traction

For grass traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a prepared grass surface with traction control active and measure speed and distance using GPS telemetry. Because natural surfaces are inherently variable, I place particular emphasis on repeat runs, careful reference tracking, and averaged results. The surface is prepared to a defined and repeatable condition as far as practical before testing begins.

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