Test setup & methodology

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

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 62.1 → 0.0 mph
Wet Braking: 62.1 → 0.0 mph

The 2021 Auto Bild All Rad SUV test has tested ten SUV tires in the popular 215/60 R17 size. While the German publication used a Jeep Renegade for testing, this size is also fitted to vehicles like the Nissan Qashqai, VW Transporter, Renault Kadjar, Toyota C HR and many other popular crossover SUVs.

As always Auto Bild have done a great job testing, as not only have they tested in the dry and wet, they've also conducted FIVE off-road tests. Given these sort of vehicles rarely see any activity outside of the school run, the tests have a low weighting in the overall results, but it's certainly excellent data if you ever plan to take your crossover SUV on grass, gravel, sand or mud!

As usual with these complex tests, there's no one tire that does everything well, however the top three tires had the fewest weaknesses overall.

The test winning Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV wasn't the very best in the dry or wet, but it was close enough in every test to secure it first place, with Auto Bild only negative noted based on its purchase price.

The Michelin Primacy 4 placed a strong second. While it didn't win a single test, it's only weakness was traction on sand (and again it's price) so it was also highly recommend, while the third placed Bridgestone Turanza T005 struggled on grass rather than sand, but was good enough in other areas to also be "highly recommended".

For all the test details, be sure to keep reading below!

Dry

The top three tires in dry braking were three of the top four tires overall, with only the Goodyear slipping behind the leaders.

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Turanza T005	116 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Primacy 4	117 ft	+1 ft	6 mph
3Continental Premium Contact 6	117 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
4Maxxis Premitra HP5	120 ft	+4 ft	14 mph
4Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	120 ft	+4 ft	14 mph
6Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	120 ft	+4 ft	14 mph
7Toyo Proxes Comfort	121 ft	+5 ft	16 mph
8BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	122 ft	+6 ft	17 mph
9Nokian Wetproof SUV	123 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
10Imperial EcoSport SUV	130 ft	+14 ft	26 mph

The difference between best and worst was 12.1% (14 ft ≈ 1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Imperial EcoSport SUV would still be travelling at 26 mph when the Bridgestone Turanza T005 had stopped.

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

The Goodyear improved on its dry braking performance which meant the fastest four tires around the dry handling lap were the top four tires overall.

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Turanza T005	63.9 mph	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	63.6 mph	-0.3 mph
3Continental Premium Contact 6	63.5 mph	-0.4 mph
4Michelin Primacy 4	63.2 mph	-0.7 mph
5Toyo Proxes Comfort	63.1 mph	-0.8 mph
5Nokian Wetproof SUV	63.1 mph	-0.8 mph
7Maxxis Premitra HP5	63.1 mph	-0.8 mph
8Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	62.9 mph	-1.0 mph
9Imperial EcoSport SUV	62.4 mph	-1.5 mph
10BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	61.8 mph	-2.1 mph

The difference between best and worst was 3.2% (2.1 mph).

Wet

The Continental PremiumContact 6 had a significant advantage during wet braking, stopping the Jeep over a meter sooner than the next best tire. The new Toyo Proxes Comfort, and the usually impressive Maxxis Premitra HP5 couldn't beat the Imperial budget tire, all performing poorly in wet braking.

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental Premium Contact 6	157 ft	Best	0 mph
2Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	165 ft	+8 ft	17 mph
3BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	169 ft	+12 ft	21 mph
4Michelin Primacy 4	172 ft	+15 ft	23 mph
5Nokian Wetproof SUV	174 ft	+17 ft	24 mph
6Bridgestone Turanza T005	175 ft	+18 ft	25 mph
7Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	178 ft	+21 ft	27 mph
8Toyo Proxes Comfort	189 ft	+32 ft	33 mph
9Imperial EcoSport SUV	189 ft	+32 ft	33 mph
10Maxxis Premitra HP5	190 ft	+33 ft	33 mph

The difference between best and worst was 20.6% (33 ft ≈ 2.2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Maxxis Premitra HP5 would still be travelling at 33 mph when the Continental Premium Contact 6 had stopped.

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

The PremiumContact 6 was also the best tire during the wet handling lap.

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental Premium Contact 6	38.9 mph	Best
2Bridgestone Turanza T005	38.8 mph	-0.1 mph
3Michelin Primacy 4	38.8 mph	-0.1 mph
4Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	38.7 mph	-0.2 mph
5Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	38.6 mph	-0.3 mph
6Nokian Wetproof SUV	38.5 mph	-0.4 mph
7BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	38.3 mph	-0.6 mph
8Maxxis Premitra HP5	38.3 mph	-0.6 mph
8Toyo Proxes Comfort	38.3 mph	-0.6 mph
10Imperial EcoSport SUV	37.7 mph	-1.2 mph

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

Maxxis, and the budget Imperial time did perform better in deeper water, winning the straight aquaplaning test.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Maxxis Premitra HP5	54.3 mph	Best
2Imperial EcoSport SUV	54.0 mph	-0.3 mph
3Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	53.3 mph	-1.0 mph
4Michelin Primacy 4	53.2 mph	-1.1 mph
5Nokian Wetproof SUV	52.9 mph	-1.4 mph
6Toyo Proxes Comfort	52.8 mph	-1.5 mph
7Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	51.9 mph	-2.4 mph
8BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	51.8 mph	-2.5 mph
9Continental Premium Contact 6	51.0 mph	-3.3 mph
10Bridgestone Turanza T005	49.3 mph	-5.0 mph

The difference between best and worst was 9.2% (5 mph).

Off-Road

Auto Bild only tested the handling of the tires on gravel, opting for objective traction tests for the other surfaces.

The new Goodyear was the fastest tire around the gravel handling lap, with a relatively close group overall.

Gravel Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	41.6 mph	Best
2Maxxis Premitra HP5	41.5 mph	-0.1 mph
2Continental Premium Contact 6	41.5 mph	-0.1 mph
4Bridgestone Turanza T005	41.4 mph	-0.2 mph
5Nokian Wetproof SUV	41.3 mph	-0.3 mph
6Michelin Primacy 4	41.1 mph	-0.5 mph
7Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	41.1 mph	-0.5 mph
8BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	40.8 mph	-0.8 mph
9Toyo Proxes Comfort	40.5 mph	-1.1 mph
10Imperial EcoSport SUV	40.5 mph	-1.1 mph

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

Nokian took its first test win for the WetProof SUV during the gravel traction testing.

Gravel Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Wetproof SUV	2,107 lbf	Best
2Michelin Primacy 4	2,037 lbf	-70 lbf
3Maxxis Premitra HP5	1,996 lbf	-111 lbf
4Bridgestone Turanza T005	1,984 lbf	-123 lbf
5BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	1,984 lbf	-123 lbf
6Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	1,966 lbf	-141 lbf
7Toyo Proxes Comfort	1,957 lbf	-150 lbf
8Imperial EcoSport SUV	1,876 lbf	-231 lbf
9Continental Premium Contact 6	1,745 lbf	-362 lbf
10Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	1,725 lbf	-382 lbf

The difference between best and worst was 18.1% (382 lbf).

The Goodyear proved to have the highest traction on grass, confirming it's multi-surface ability.

Grass Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	881 lbf	Best
2Nokian Wetproof SUV	864 lbf	-17 lbf
3Michelin Primacy 4	842 lbf	-39 lbf
4Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	823 lbf	-58 lbf
5Maxxis Premitra HP5	767 lbf	-114 lbf
5BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	767 lbf	-114 lbf
7Imperial EcoSport SUV	735 lbf	-146 lbf
8Continental Premium Contact 6	712 lbf	-169 lbf
8Toyo Proxes Comfort	712 lbf	-169 lbf
10Bridgestone Turanza T005	694 lbf	-187 lbf

The difference between best and worst was 21.2% (187 lbf).

BFGoodrich took its first win during the mud traction testing, which is a difficult test to do reliably.

Mud Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	902 lbf	Best
2Bridgestone Turanza T005	898 lbf	-4 lbf
3Maxxis Premitra HP5	889 lbf	-13 lbf
4Imperial EcoSport SUV	879 lbf	-23 lbf
5Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	878 lbf	-24 lbf
6Michelin Primacy 4	874 lbf	-28 lbf
7Continental Premium Contact 6	848 lbf	-54 lbf
8Nokian Wetproof SUV	843 lbf	-59 lbf
9Toyo Proxes Comfort	828 lbf	-74 lbf
10Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	819 lbf	-83 lbf

The difference between best and worst was 9.2% (83 lbf).

And the cheapest tire on test performed well in the sand, just beating the Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV to the top spot.

Sand Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Imperial EcoSport SUV	1,856 lbf	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	1,852 lbf	-4 lbf
3Toyo Proxes Comfort	1,806 lbf	-50 lbf
4Bridgestone Turanza T005	1,745 lbf	-111 lbf
5Nokian Wetproof SUV	1,740 lbf	-116 lbf
6Continental Premium Contact 6	1,738 lbf	-118 lbf
7Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	1,713 lbf	-143 lbf
8Maxxis Premitra HP5	1,704 lbf	-152 lbf
9BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	1,677 lbf	-179 lbf
10Michelin Primacy 4	1,646 lbf	-210 lbf

The difference between best and worst was 11.4% (210 lbf).

Environment

The Goodyear continued its impressive results by having the lowest external noise on test at both speeds tested (31 mph and 50 mph.)

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	69 dB	Best
2Michelin Primacy 4	69.7 dB	+0.70 dB
3Nokian Wetproof SUV	70 dB	+1.00 dB
4Toyo Proxes Comfort	70.1 dB	+1.10 dB
5Bridgestone Turanza T005	70.5 dB	+1.50 dB
6Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	70.8 dB	+1.80 dB
7Maxxis Premitra HP5	71.2 dB	+2.20 dB
8Continental Premium Contact 6	71.4 dB	+2.40 dB
9BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	71.6 dB	+2.60 dB
9Imperial EcoSport SUV	71.6 dB	+2.60 dB

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

As usual, the Bridgestone Turanza T005 has the lowest rolling resistance, with the Michelin Primacy 4 in second place. The cheapest tire on test might be a false economy, as it had the highest fuel use of the group.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Bridgestone Turanza T005	7 kg/t	Best	$0
2Michelin Primacy 4	7.32 kg/t	+0.32 kg/t	$13
3Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	7.56 kg/t	+0.56 kg/t	$24
4BFGoodrich Advantage SUV	7.64 kg/t	+0.64 kg/t	$27
5Continental Premium Contact 6	8.39 kg/t	+1.39 kg/t	$58
6Maxxis Premitra HP5	8.44 kg/t	+1.44 kg/t	$60
7Toyo Proxes Comfort	8.45 kg/t	+1.45 kg/t	$61
8Nokian Wetproof SUV	8.78 kg/t	+1.78 kg/t	$75
9Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	8.89 kg/t	+1.89 kg/t	$79
10Imperial EcoSport SUV	8.98 kg/t	+1.98 kg/t	$83

The difference between best and worst was 28.3% (1.98 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Imperial EcoSport SUV uses about 23 gal ($83) more fuel than the Bridgestone Turanza T005.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.

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.

There was a 260 euro difference between the cheapest and most expensive tires on test, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the most expensive tires on test were also the best.

Results

Highly Recommended.

Dry98.1%

Wet97%

Off road98.1%

Comfort100%

Rolling Resistance92.6%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	6^th / 10	120 ft	+4 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 10	63.6 mph	-0.3 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 10	165 ft	+8 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 10	38.7 mph	-0.2 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 10	51.9 mph	-2.4 mph
Gravel HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 10	41.6 mph	Best in this discipline
Gravel TractionHigher is better	6^th / 10	1,966 lbf	-141 lbf
Sand TractionHigher is better	2^nd / 10	1,852 lbf	-4 lbf
Grass TractionHigher is better	1^st / 10	881 lbf	Best in this discipline
Mud TractionHigher is better	5^th / 10	878 lbf	-24 lbf
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 10	69 dB	Best in this discipline
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	3^rd / 10	7.56 kg/t	+0.56 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/70
Price: 500.00

Highly Recommended.

Dry99.2%

Wet96.1%

Off road95.4%

Comfort99%

Rolling Resistance95.6%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 10	117 ft	+1 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 10	63.2 mph	-0.7 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 10	172 ft	+15 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 10	38.8 mph	-0.1 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 10	53.2 mph	-1.1 mph
Gravel HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 10	41.1 mph	-0.5 mph
Gravel TractionHigher is better	2^nd / 10	2,037 lbf	-70 lbf
Sand TractionHigher is better	10^th / 10	1,646 lbf	-210 lbf
Grass TractionHigher is better	3^rd / 10	842 lbf	-39 lbf
Mud TractionHigher is better	6^th / 10	874 lbf	-28 lbf
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 10	69.7 dB	+0.70 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 10	7.32 kg/t	+0.32 kg/t

EU Label: B/A/69
Price: 525.00

Highly Recommended.

Dry100%

Wet94.1%

Off road93.2%

Comfort97.9%

Rolling Resistance100%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	1^st / 10	116 ft	Best in this discipline
Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 10	63.9 mph	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 10	175 ft	+18 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 10	38.8 mph	-0.1 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	10^th / 10	49.3 mph	-5.0 mph
Gravel HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 10	41.4 mph	-0.2 mph
Gravel TractionHigher is better	4^th / 10	1,984 lbf	-123 lbf
Sand TractionHigher is better	4^th / 10	1,745 lbf	-111 lbf
Grass TractionHigher is better	10^th / 10	694 lbf	-187 lbf
Mud TractionHigher is better	2^nd / 10	898 lbf	-4 lbf
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 10	70.5 dB	+1.50 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	1^st / 10	7 kg/t	Best in this discipline

EU Label: B/A/71
Price: 495.00

Recommended.

Dry99.2%

Wet98.9%

Off road90.2%

Comfort96.6%

Rolling Resistance83.4%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 10	117 ft	+1 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 10	63.5 mph	-0.4 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 10	157 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 10	38.9 mph	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 10	51.0 mph	-3.3 mph
Gravel HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 10	41.5 mph	-0.1 mph
Gravel TractionHigher is better	9^th / 10	1,745 lbf	-362 lbf
Sand TractionHigher is better	6^th / 10	1,738 lbf	-118 lbf
Grass TractionHigher is better	8^th / 10	712 lbf	-169 lbf
Mud TractionHigher is better	7^th / 10	848 lbf	-54 lbf
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 10	71.4 dB	+2.40 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	5^th / 10	8.39 kg/t	+1.39 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/71
Price: 500.00

Recommended.

Dry96.7%

Wet95.3%

Off road96.9%

Comfort98.6%

Rolling Resistance79.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	9^th / 10	123 ft	+7 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 10	63.1 mph	-0.8 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 10	174 ft	+17 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 10	38.5 mph	-0.4 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 10	52.9 mph	-1.4 mph
Gravel HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 10	41.3 mph	-0.3 mph
Gravel TractionHigher is better	1^st / 10	2,107 lbf	Best in this discipline
Sand TractionHigher is better	5^th / 10	1,740 lbf	-116 lbf
Grass TractionHigher is better	2^nd / 10	864 lbf	-17 lbf
Mud TractionHigher is better	8^th / 10	843 lbf	-59 lbf
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 10	70 dB	+1.00 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	8^th / 10	8.78 kg/t	+1.78 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/69
Price: 440.00

Recommended.

Dry97.8%

Wet94.6%

Off road91.4%

Comfort97.5%

Rolling Resistance78.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	4^th / 10	120 ft	+4 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 10	62.9 mph	-1.0 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 10	178 ft	+21 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 10	38.6 mph	-0.3 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 10	53.3 mph	-1.0 mph
Gravel HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 10	41.1 mph	-0.5 mph
Gravel TractionHigher is better	10^th / 10	1,725 lbf	-382 lbf
Sand TractionHigher is better	7^th / 10	1,713 lbf	-143 lbf
Grass TractionHigher is better	4^th / 10	823 lbf	-58 lbf
Mud TractionHigher is better	10^th / 10	819 lbf	-83 lbf
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 10	70.8 dB	+1.80 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	9^th / 10	8.89 kg/t	+1.89 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/67
Price: 420.00

Satisfactory.

Dry97.9%

Wet92.3%

Off road94.4%

Comfort96.9%

Rolling Resistance82.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	4^th / 10	120 ft	+4 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 10	63.1 mph	-0.8 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	10^th / 10	190 ft	+33 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 10	38.3 mph	-0.6 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 10	54.3 mph	Best in this discipline
Gravel HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 10	41.5 mph	-0.1 mph
Gravel TractionHigher is better	3^rd / 10	1,996 lbf	-111 lbf
Sand TractionHigher is better	8^th / 10	1,704 lbf	-152 lbf
Grass TractionHigher is better	5^th / 10	767 lbf	-114 lbf
Mud TractionHigher is better	3^rd / 10	889 lbf	-13 lbf
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 10	71.2 dB	+2.20 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 10	8.44 kg/t	+1.44 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/70
Price: 385.00

Satisfactory.

Dry96.1%

Wet95.7%

Off road94%

Comfort96.4%

Rolling Resistance91.6%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	8^th / 10	122 ft	+6 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	10^th / 10	61.8 mph	-2.1 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 10	169 ft	+12 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 10	38.3 mph	-0.6 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 10	51.8 mph	-2.5 mph
Gravel HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 10	40.8 mph	-0.8 mph
Gravel TractionHigher is better	5^th / 10	1,984 lbf	-123 lbf
Sand TractionHigher is better	9^th / 10	1,677 lbf	-179 lbf
Grass TractionHigher is better	5^th / 10	767 lbf	-114 lbf
Mud TractionHigher is better	1^st / 10	902 lbf	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	9^th / 10	71.6 dB	+2.60 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	4^th / 10	7.64 kg/t	+0.64 kg/t

EU Label: B/A/70
Price: 420.00

Satisfactory.

Dry97.4%

Wet92%

Off road92.1%

Comfort98.4%

Rolling Resistance82.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	7^th / 10	121 ft	+5 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 10	63.1 mph	-0.8 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 10	189 ft	+32 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 10	38.3 mph	-0.6 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 10	52.8 mph	-1.5 mph
Gravel HandlingHigher is better	9^th / 10	40.5 mph	-1.1 mph
Gravel TractionHigher is better	7^th / 10	1,957 lbf	-150 lbf
Sand TractionHigher is better	3^rd / 10	1,806 lbf	-50 lbf
Grass TractionHigher is better	8^th / 10	712 lbf	-169 lbf
Mud TractionHigher is better	9^th / 10	828 lbf	-74 lbf
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 10	70.1 dB	+1.10 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	7^th / 10	8.45 kg/t	+1.45 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/70
Price: 400.00

Not Recommended.

Dry93.4%

Wet91.8%

Off road93.5%

Comfort96.4%

Rolling Resistance78%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	10^th / 10	130 ft	+14 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	9^th / 10	62.4 mph	-1.5 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	9^th / 10	189 ft	+32 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	10^th / 10	37.7 mph	-1.2 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 10	54.0 mph	-0.3 mph
Gravel HandlingHigher is better	10^th / 10	40.5 mph	-1.1 mph
Gravel TractionHigher is better	8^th / 10	1,876 lbf	-231 lbf
Sand TractionHigher is better	1^st / 10	1,856 lbf	Best in this discipline
Grass TractionHigher is better	7^th / 10	735 lbf	-146 lbf
Mud TractionHigher is better	4^th / 10	879 lbf	-23 lbf
NoiseLower is better	9^th / 10	71.6 dB	+2.60 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	10^th / 10	8.98 kg/t	+1.98 kg/t

EU Label: C/C/71
Price: 265.00

Menu

Tire shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry

Wet

Off-Road

Environment

Results

Cross-check this test