Test Charts / Tire Reviews

2022/23 Best 9 All Terrain Tires

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: 275/65 R18
Tires tested: 9
Disciplines: 20

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental TerrainContact AT	136 ft	Best	0 mph
2Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	139 ft	+3 ft	10 mph
3Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	139 ft	+3 ft	11 mph
4Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	142 ft	+6 ft	16 mph
5Toyo Open Country AT III	143 ft	+7 ft	17 mph
6Nitto Terra Grappler G2	143 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
7Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	144 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
8Firestone Destination AT2	148 ft	+12 ft	23 mph
9BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	153 ft	+17 ft	26 mph

The difference between best and worst was 12% (17 ft ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA would still be travelling at 26 mph when the Continental TerrainContact AT 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
1Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	68.32 s	Best
2Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	68.41 s	+0.09 s
3Continental TerrainContact AT	68.6 s	+0.28 s
4Toyo Open Country AT III	68.63 s	+0.31 s
4Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	68.63 s	+0.31 s
6Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	68.99 s	+0.67 s
7Firestone Destination AT2	69.06 s	+0.74 s
8BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	69.33 s	+1.01 s
9Nitto Terra Grappler G2	69.34 s	+1.02 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	100 Points	Best
2Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	95 Points	-5.00 Points
2Continental TerrainContact AT	95 Points	-5.00 Points
2Nitto Terra Grappler G2	95 Points	-5.00 Points
2Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	95 Points	-5.00 Points
6Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	90 Points	-10.00 Points
6BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	90 Points	-10.00 Points
6Toyo Open Country AT III	90 Points	-10.00 Points
6Firestone Destination AT2	90 Points	-10.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 10% (10 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental TerrainContact AT	190 ft	Best	0 mph
2Firestone Destination AT2	192 ft	+2 ft	8 mph
3Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	196 ft	+6 ft	13 mph
4Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	198 ft	+8 ft	16 mph
5Toyo Open Country AT III	206 ft	+16 ft	22 mph
6Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	207 ft	+17 ft	22 mph
7Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	208 ft	+18 ft	23 mph
8BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	225 ft	+35 ft	31 mph
9Nitto Terra Grappler G2	243 ft	+53 ft	37 mph

The difference between best and worst was 27.7% (53 ft ≈ 3.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Nitto Terra Grappler G2 would still be travelling at 37 mph when the Continental TerrainContact AT 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 TerrainContact AT	81.33 s	Best
2Firestone Destination AT2	81.59 s	+0.26 s
3Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	82.28 s	+0.95 s
4Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	82.48 s	+1.15 s
5Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	83.78 s	+2.45 s
6Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	84.3 s	+2.97 s
7Toyo Open Country AT III	84.56 s	+3.23 s
8BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	86.02 s	+4.69 s
9Nitto Terra Grappler G2	88.67 s	+7.34 s

The difference between best and worst was 9% (7.34 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	100 Points	Best
1Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	100 Points	Best
1Continental TerrainContact AT	100 Points	Best
4Firestone Destination AT2	90 Points	-10.00 Points
5Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	85 Points	-15.00 Points
5BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	85 Points	-15.00 Points
7Toyo Open Country AT III	80 Points	-20.00 Points
7Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	80 Points	-20.00 Points
9Nitto Terra Grappler G2	70 Points	-30.00 Points

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

Wet Circle
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Firestone Destination AT2	13.3 s	Best
2Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	13.39 s	+0.09 s
2Continental TerrainContact AT	13.39 s	+0.09 s
4Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	13.53 s	+0.23 s
5Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	13.69 s	+0.39 s
6Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	13.7 s	+0.40 s
7Toyo Open Country AT III	13.77 s	+0.47 s
8BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	13.91 s	+0.61 s
9Nitto Terra Grappler G2	14.43 s	+1.13 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.5% (1.13 s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	53.7 mph	Best
2Firestone Destination AT2	53.4 mph	-0.3 mph
3Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	53.1 mph	-0.6 mph
4Continental TerrainContact AT	52.4 mph	-1.3 mph
5Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	52.1 mph	-1.6 mph
6BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	51.6 mph	-2.1 mph
7Nitto Terra Grappler G2	51.5 mph	-2.2 mph
8Toyo Open Country AT III	51.4 mph	-2.3 mph
9Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	50.4 mph	-3.3 mph

The difference between best and worst was 6.2% (3.3 mph).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	12.2 ft/s²	Best
2Firestone Destination AT2	11.9 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
3Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	11.2 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
4Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	11.0 ft/s²	-1.2 ft/s²
5Nitto Terra Grappler G2	10.4 ft/s²	-1.8 ft/s²
6Continental TerrainContact AT	10.2 ft/s²	-2.0 ft/s²
7Toyo Open Country AT III	10.2 ft/s²	-2.0 ft/s²
8Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	9.6 ft/s²	-2.6 ft/s²
9BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	9.1 ft/s²	-3.1 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 25.7% (3.1 ft/s²).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	128 ft	Best
2Firestone Destination AT2	149 ft	+21 ft
3Continental TerrainContact AT	157 ft	+29 ft
4Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	164 ft	+36 ft
5Toyo Open Country AT III	166 ft	+38 ft
6Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	168 ft	+40 ft
7Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	169 ft	+41 ft

The difference between best and worst was 31.9% (41 ft ≈ 2.8 Car Lengths).

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	4.57 s	Best
2Firestone Destination AT2	5.07 s	+0.50 s
3Toyo Open Country AT III	5.61 s	+1.04 s
4Continental TerrainContact AT	5.66 s	+1.09 s
5Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	6.07 s	+1.50 s
6Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	6.26 s	+1.69 s
7Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	6.93 s	+2.36 s

The difference between best and worst was 51.6% (2.36 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	97.4 s	Best
2Firestone Destination AT2	97.73 s	+0.33 s
3Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	101.77 s	+4.37 s
4Toyo Open Country AT III	102.45 s	+5.05 s
5Continental TerrainContact AT	102.56 s	+5.16 s
6Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	111.18 s	+13.78 s
7Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	111.23 s	+13.83 s

The difference between best and worst was 14.2% (13.83 s).

Off road

Gravel Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	61.6 s	Best
2Firestone Destination AT2	61.77 s	+0.17 s
3Toyo Open Country AT III	62.12 s	+0.52 s
3Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	62.12 s	+0.52 s
5Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	62.47 s	+0.87 s
6Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	62.73 s	+1.13 s
6Continental TerrainContact AT	62.73 s	+1.13 s
8Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	63.16 s	+1.56 s
9Nitto Terra Grappler G2	64.06 s	+2.46 s

The difference between best and worst was 4% (2.46 s).

Subj. Gravel Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	100 Points	Best
1Toyo Open Country AT III	100 Points	Best
3Firestone Destination AT2	95 Points	-5.00 Points
3Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	95 Points	-5.00 Points
5Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	90 Points	-10.00 Points
5Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	90 Points	-10.00 Points
7Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	85 Points	-15.00 Points
7Continental TerrainContact AT	85 Points	-15.00 Points
7Nitto Terra Grappler G2	85 Points	-15.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 15% (15 Points).

Dirt Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	56.86 s	Best
2Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	57.76 s	+0.90 s
3Firestone Destination AT2	57.91 s	+1.05 s
4Nitto Terra Grappler G2	57.95 s	+1.09 s
5Continental TerrainContact AT	58 s	+1.14 s
6Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	58.26 s	+1.40 s
7Toyo Open Country AT III	58.37 s	+1.51 s
8Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	58.41 s	+1.55 s
9Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	58.55 s	+1.69 s

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

Subj. Dirt Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	100 Points	Best
2Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	95 Points	-5.00 Points
2Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	95 Points	-5.00 Points
2Continental TerrainContact AT	95 Points	-5.00 Points
2Toyo Open Country AT III	95 Points	-5.00 Points
2Firestone Destination AT2	95 Points	-5.00 Points
2Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	95 Points	-5.00 Points
8Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	90 Points	-10.00 Points
8Nitto Terra Grappler G2	90 Points	-10.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 10% (10 Points).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	100 Points	Best
2Continental TerrainContact AT	95 Points	-5.00 Points
2Firestone Destination AT2	95 Points	-5.00 Points
4Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	90 Points	-10.00 Points
4Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	90 Points	-10.00 Points
4BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	90 Points	-10.00 Points
7Toyo Open Country AT III	85 Points	-15.00 Points
7Nitto Terra Grappler G2	85 Points	-15.00 Points
9Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	80 Points	-20.00 Points

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

Subj. Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	100 Points	Best
1Continental TerrainContact AT	100 Points	Best
1BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	100 Points	Best
4Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	95 Points	-5.00 Points
4Firestone Destination AT2	95 Points	-5.00 Points
4Nitto Terra Grappler G2	95 Points	-5.00 Points
7Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	90 Points	-10.00 Points
7Toyo Open Country AT III	90 Points	-10.00 Points
9Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	85 Points	-15.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 15% (15 Points).

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental TerrainContact AT	71.9 dB	Best
2Firestone Destination AT2	72.8 dB	+0.90 dB
3Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	73 dB	+1.10 dB
4Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	73.2 dB	+1.30 dB
5BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	73.5 dB	+1.60 dB
6Toyo Open Country AT III	75.3 dB	+3.40 dB
7Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	76.7 dB	+4.80 dB
8Nitto Terra Grappler G2	77.3 dB	+5.40 dB
9Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	78.1 dB	+6.20 dB

The difference between best and worst was 8.6% (6.2 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Firestone Destination AT2	8.42 kg/t	Best	$0
2BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA	8.86 kg/t	+0.44 kg/t	$15
3Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus	8.89 kg/t	+0.47 kg/t	$16
4Toyo Open Country AT III	9.27 kg/t	+0.85 kg/t	$30
5Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure	9.49 kg/t	+1.07 kg/t	$37
5Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain	9.49 kg/t	+1.07 kg/t	$37
7Yokohama Geolandar AT G015	9.56 kg/t	+1.14 kg/t	$40
8Continental TerrainContact AT	9.67 kg/t	+1.25 kg/t	$44
9Nitto Terra Grappler G2	9.77 kg/t	+1.35 kg/t	$47

The difference between best and worst was 16% (1.35 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Nitto Terra Grappler G2 uses about 13 gal ($47) more fuel than the Firestone Destination AT2.

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 · 30%
Dry Braking	55%	16.5%
Dry Handling	40%	12%
Subj. Dry Handling	5%	1.5%
Wet · 35%
Wet Braking	45%	15.75%
Wet Handling	25%	8.75%
Subj. Wet Handling	5%	1.75%
Wet Circle	5%	1.75%
Straight Aqua	15%	5.25%
Curved Aquaplaning	5%	1.75%
Off road · 15%
Gravel Handling	25%	3.75%
Subj. Gravel Handling	25%	3.75%
Dirt Handling	25%	3.75%
Subj. Dirt Handling	25%	3.75%
Comfort · 10%
Subj. Comfort	40%	4%
Subj. Noise	40%	4%
Noise	20%	2%
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.

Wet Circle

For wet lateral grip testing, I use a circular track of fixed radius, typically between 30 and 50 meters, broadly aligned with ISO 4138 principles. The surface is wetted in a controlled and repeatable manner. I progressively increase speed until the maximum sustainable cornering speed is reached. I normally record multiple laps in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions to reduce the influence of camber, banking, or directional track bias. I then calculate average lateral acceleration and compare the result with the reference tire.

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.

Snow Braking

For snow braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 50 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a groomed, compacted snow surface, measuring 45-5 km/h. I generally use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tire ever brakes on the same piece of snow twice. My standard programme is twelve runs per tire set, although the sequence can extend further if the data justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. To correct for changing snow surface conditions, I run reference tires repeatedly — typically every two candidate test sets.

Snow Traction

For snow traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a groomed snow surface with traction control active and measure speed and time using GPS telemetry. I typically use a 5–35 km/h measurement window to reduce the influence of launch transients and powertrain irregularities. I use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tire ever accelerates on the same piece of snow twice. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I complete multiple runs per tire set and average the valid results. Reference tires are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing snow surface conditions.

Snow Handling

For snow handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated snow handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tires are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly than asphalt, control runs are carried out more frequently — typically every two candidate test sets.

Gravel Handling

For gravel handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated gravel handling course with ESC typically disabled. I complete multiple timed laps per tire set, excluding laps affected by driver error or environmental inconsistency. Because natural surfaces are inherently variable, I place particular emphasis on repeat runs, careful reference tracking, and averaged results. The control tire is retested at regular intervals throughout the session.

Subj. Gravel Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment on a dedicated gravel course. I score steering feel, traction, stability, 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.

Dirt Handling

For dirt handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated dirt handling course with ESC typically disabled. I complete multiple timed laps per tire set, excluding laps affected by driver error or environmental inconsistency. Because natural surfaces are inherently variable, I place particular emphasis on repeat runs, careful reference tracking, and averaged results. The control tire is retested at regular intervals.

Subj. Dirt Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment on a dedicated dirt course. I score steering feel, traction, stability, 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.

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.

Subj. Noise

For subjective noise assessment, I drive at constant speeds across multiple surface types with the windows closed, ventilation off, and audio system off. I assess overall noise level, tonal quality, cavity boom, pattern noise, broadband roar, and sensitivity to both speed and road texture. Each tire is rated on a 1–10 scale and supported by written observations on noise character and annoyance.

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