Test Charts / Tire Reviews

2022 Tire Reviews UUHP 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: 255/35 R19
Tires tested: 10
Disciplines: 9

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental SportContact 7	109 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	111 ft	+2 ft	10 mph
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	115 ft	+6 ft	19 mph
4Bridgestone Potenza Sport	116 ft	+7 ft	20 mph
5Federal Evoluzion ST 1	119 ft	+10 ft	24 mph
6Kumho Ecsta PS71	120 ft	+11 ft	24 mph
7Toyo Proxes Sport A	121 ft	+12 ft	25 mph
8Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	121 ft	+12 ft	25 mph
9Nankang Sportnex AS2+	123 ft	+14 ft	27 mph
10Goodride SA37	123 ft	+14 ft	27 mph

The difference between best and worst was 13.1% (14 ft ≈ 1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Goodride SA37 would still be travelling at 27 mph when the Continental SportContact 7 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
1Continental SportContact 7	52.16 s	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	52.18 s	+0.02 s
3Bridgestone Potenza Sport	52.37 s	+0.21 s
4Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	52.5 s	+0.34 s
5Toyo Proxes Sport A	53.24 s	+1.08 s
6Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	53.51 s	+1.35 s
7Kumho Ecsta PS71	53.94 s	+1.78 s
8Nankang Sportnex AS2+	54.4 s	+2.24 s
9Federal Evoluzion ST 1	54.57 s	+2.41 s
10Goodride SA37	54.95 s	+2.79 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.3% (2.79 s).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental SportContact 7	164 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	174 ft	+10 ft	18 mph
3Bridgestone Potenza Sport	175 ft	+11 ft	20 mph
4Nankang Sportnex AS2+	183 ft	+19 ft	26 mph
5Kumho Ecsta PS71	184 ft	+20 ft	26 mph
6Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	185 ft	+21 ft	27 mph
7Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	186 ft	+22 ft	27 mph
8Goodride SA37	200 ft	+36 ft	34 mph
9Toyo Proxes Sport A	200 ft	+36 ft	34 mph
10Federal Evoluzion ST 1	210 ft	+46 ft	37 mph

The difference between best and worst was 27.8% (46 ft ≈ 3.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Federal Evoluzion ST 1 would still be travelling at 37 mph when the Continental SportContact 7 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
1Continental SportContact 7	83.24 s	Best
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport	88.57 s	+5.33 s
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	91.11 s	+7.87 s
4Nankang Sportnex AS2+	91.69 s	+8.45 s
5Toyo Proxes Sport A	91.75 s	+8.51 s
6Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	93.57 s	+10.33 s
7Kumho Ecsta PS71	93.86 s	+10.62 s
8Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	93.99 s	+10.75 s
9Goodride SA37	96.95 s	+13.71 s
10Federal Evoluzion ST 1	101.1 s	+17.86 s

The difference between best and worst was 21.5% (17.86 s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Kumho Ecsta PS71	56.0 mph	Best
2Nankang Sportnex AS2+	55.6 mph	-0.4 mph
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	54.7 mph	-1.3 mph
4Goodride SA37	54.7 mph	-1.3 mph
5Toyo Proxes Sport A	54.5 mph	-1.5 mph
6Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	54.1 mph	-1.9 mph
7Bridgestone Potenza Sport	54.0 mph	-2.0 mph
8Continental SportContact 7	53.8 mph	-2.2 mph
9Federal Evoluzion ST 1	53.0 mph	-3.0 mph
10Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	53.0 mph	-3.0 mph

The difference between best and worst was 5.4% (3 mph).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Kumho Ecsta PS71	9.5 ft/s²	Best
2Nankang Sportnex AS2+	9.1 ft/s²	-0.4 ft/s²
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	8.5 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
4Goodride SA37	8.4 ft/s²	-1.1 ft/s²
5Bridgestone Potenza Sport	8.2 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
6Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	8.2 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
7Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	8.2 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
8Toyo Proxes Sport A	8.0 ft/s²	-1.5 ft/s²
8Continental SportContact 7	8.0 ft/s²	-1.5 ft/s²
10Federal Evoluzion ST 1	7.8 ft/s²	-1.7 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 17.6% (1.7 ft/s²).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nankang Sportnex AS2+	10 Points	Best
1Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	10 Points	Best
1Toyo Proxes Sport A	10 Points	Best
4Goodride SA37	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
6Federal Evoluzion ST 1	9 Points	-1.00 Points
6Continental SportContact 7	9 Points	-1.00 Points
8Kumho Ecsta PS71	8.8 Points	-1.20 Points
9Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
10Bridgestone Potenza Sport	8 Points	-2.00 Points

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

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nankang Sportnex AS2+	71.3 dB	Best
2Federal Evoluzion ST 1	71.8 dB	+0.50 dB
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	73 dB	+1.70 dB
4Continental SportContact 7	73.5 dB	+2.20 dB
5Toyo Proxes Sport A	73.6 dB	+2.30 dB
6Goodride SA37	73.7 dB	+2.40 dB
6Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	73.7 dB	+2.40 dB
8Bridgestone Potenza Sport	74.4 dB	+3.10 dB
9Kumho Ecsta PS71	74.8 dB	+3.50 dB
10Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	74.9 dB	+3.60 dB

The difference between best and worst was 5% (3.6 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Goodride SA37	8.99 kg/t	Best	$0
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	9.04 kg/t	+0.05 kg/t	$2
3Nankang Sportnex AS2+	9.17 kg/t	+0.18 kg/t	$6
4Kumho Ecsta PS71	9.29 kg/t	+0.30 kg/t	$10
5Federal Evoluzion ST 1	9.4 kg/t	+0.41 kg/t	$13
6Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	9.52 kg/t	+0.53 kg/t	$17
7Continental SportContact 7	9.57 kg/t	+0.58 kg/t	$19
8Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	9.61 kg/t	+0.62 kg/t	$20
9Toyo Proxes Sport A	9.66 kg/t	+0.67 kg/t	$22
10Bridgestone Potenza Sport	10.29 kg/t	+1.30 kg/t	$42

The difference between best and worst was 14.5% (1.3 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport uses about 12 gal ($42) more fuel than the Goodride SA37.

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 → 0.0 mph
Wet Braking: 62.1 → 0.0 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 · 40%
Dry Braking	52.2%	20.87%
Dry Handling	34.8%	13.91%
Subj. Dry Handling	13%	5.22%
Wet · 50%
Wet Braking	43.5%	21.74%
Wet Handling	30.4%	15.22%
Subj. Wet Handling	13%	6.52%
Straight Aqua	8.7%	4.35%
Curved Aquaplaning	4.3%	2.17%
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	50%	2.5%
Noise	50%	2.5%
Value · 5%
Rolling Resistance	100%	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.

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.

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.

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