This is the most in depth tire test Tire Reviews has ever performed! This UHP summer tire test will compare six of the very best ultra high performance tires, and including a full wear test, some cooler temperature testing, and worn state testing!
On test we have the latest and greatest 18" sports tires from Bridgestone, Continental, Goodyear, Hankook, Michelin and Yokohama. As usual we'll be covering every aspect of the tires performance, including the wet performance, dry grip, internal noise, comfort, rolling resistance and the all important wear!
4 categories (18 tests)
Wet
The wet grip of a tire is a critical aspect for a driver, especially in adverse weather conditions, and in this test all the tires showcased great grip around the wet lap, with just a 3-second difference between the top and bottom performers – a small gap for a 93-second lap!
The Yokohama and Michelin tires were the slowest, albeit with starkly different behaviors. The Michelin offered a comfortable driving experience, characterised by responsive steering and a progressive understeer balance. Despite the cooler testing conditions, Michelin's consistent time and grip over three laps indicates its suitability for real-world applications.
Conversely, Yokohama's performance was distinctive. While its super-quick steering resulted in a fast front axle turn, the rear showed a tendency to swing more. Although this made for a fun track experience, it might not be as enjoyable on the road. Another notable aspect was Yokohama's warm-up time. The tire's first lap was a second slower than the second, pointing to a temperature-related grip increase. This suggests the Yokohama might shine in dry, race-like conditions. However, for everyday use, the Michelin might be a safer bet.
Next in line was the Hankook. Despite its impressive grip, the tire felt slow to respond to steering, behaving more like a touring tire than a sports variant. It shared Michelin's safe understeer balance but lacked the latter's willingness to turn.
Continental and Goodyear's performances were notable, with Continental's new PremiumContact 7 showing a significant improvement in wet conditions compared to its predecessor, the PC6. This model was far less sensitive to load changes and behaved much like the Michelin, albeit with slightly less communication at the limit.
Goodyear’s performance might not have been the fastest, trailing the best by only 0.8%, but it excelled in overall balance. It combined the safe understeer balance of the Michelin and Continental with some sporty handling, proving both predictable and quick. As an all-rounder for this Golf GTI, Goodyear's Asymmetric range was the standout, demonstrating impressive performance in the wet.
Finally, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport took the crown as the fastest tire, albeit by a small margin. Its lateral grip was exceptional, giving it a sporty feel, second only to the Yokohama. This tire got grippier as it warmed up, similar to the Yokohama. Drivers seeking an exciting wet drive might find this tire worth considering.
The standout performer in wet braking was the newest tire on test, the PremiumContact 7, though the results are nuanced.
We conducted wet braking tests in three different ways, twice at the new state and once at the worn state. For the new state, we tested at different temperatures. Ideally, we wanted the cold temperature test to be at around 5-7°C, but logistical delays meant we tested with an average air temperature of 8°C and water at 12°C. While this was cooler than standard test conditions, it was still warmer than real-world conditions. The warm temperature test was done at an average of 18°C air and 19°C water.
Why are these temperatures significant? It's become increasingly apparent that some tire manufacturers could be tuning their products for optimal performance at tire test temperatures, which doesn't always translate to real-world wet conditions.
The third run involved wet braking tests on worn tires, specifically those machined down to 2mm with a small run-in. While we intended to do more with these worn tires, weather constraints limited our testing. However, it's worth noting that wet braking is most critical at the worn state, as tires generally improve in dry conditions as they wear.
So, what do these wet braking tests reveal? The Continental tire demonstrated superior performance when new, both in cooler and warmer temperatures. However, it shared the most significant performance drop, alongside the Yokohama, when worn.
Bridgestone, Goodyear, and Michelin saw the least performance reduction when worn. However, Bridgestone and Goodyear's performance dipped in cooler conditions. The Hankook tire registered the smallest performance drop as temperatures cooled, but it was among the most affected when worn. As for the Yokohama, it struggled with wet braking across all tests.
The take-home message here is that no single tire excelled in all aspects of wet braking, indicating a complex interplay of factors influencing tire performance under different conditions.
There was a standout tire in aquaplaning, the Continental finished top in both straight and curved aquaplaning, with the Michelin and Goodyear also very good in deeper water.
Dry
During the dry braking test, barring Yokohama, all the tires were within a 2% difference, or 65 cm (25 inches) of each other. Yokohama could benefit from slightly more grip, an issue potentially influenced by the cooler conditions.
As for handling, all tires performed within a 2% range on the lap, demonstrating their high-quality performance. However, considering these tires essentially target the same customer, it's interesting to observe the significant differences in feel.
The tires can be categorised into three groups, the first group of tires I'm calling 'sports touring', which includes Hankook, Michelin, and surprisingly, Continental. The surprise is because the PremiumContact 6 was one of my favourites for sporty dry drives, but its successor, the PremiumContact 7, seems more mature and resembles Michelin's performance. Among these, Hankook was the least precise in steering and communication at the limit. Both Michelin and Continental offered lovely initial steering, albeit not the fastest. They offered incredibly safe balances with a predominance of understeer, which as I always point out, is safe, if somewhat unexciting. If I were to recommend a tire for a fast lap to a novice, say my father, it would be one of these.
Then we have the 'fun' tires, namely Yokohama and Bridgestone. Both were swift to steer and felt sportier than the others, but the trade-off is a more playful rear end, making them more challenging to handle. Personally, I relish this trait in a tire, and if I were fitting one for a track day, Yokohama would be my choice. It provided similar steering to Bridgestone but offered better feedback at the limit and better grip. The Bridgestone Potenza Sport, however, seemed to degrade quite quickly after just three laps on this demanding circuit.
Lastly, there's Goodyear, which positioned itself somewhere between the fun tires and those tending towards understeer. It seemed to perform well in all aspects, and for dry handling at least, it appears to offer the best compromise. All in all, these tires are excellent performers. For road use, I'd lean towards either the Michelin or Goodyear, depending on your specific preferences.
Wear
In terms of tire wear, the method utilised in this test is what the industry refers to as the 'gold standard' of wear. The wear experts at Dekra conducted this test, which involved a convoy of cars traversing a carefully planned route for 12,000 kilometres. The tire wear was monitored and measured by lasers every few thousand kilometres, with results carefully extrapolated to predict end-of-life figures. This method more accurately reflects real-world tire wear compared to many machine-based tests.
As one might expect, Michelin demonstrated the longest tread life, surpassing Goodyear and Continental by 15%, Hankook by 24%, and Bridgestone and Yokohama by a significant 33%. This aligns with Michelin's reputation for longevity, and importantly, it allows us to include a 'value' metric in our testing. This metric - cost per 1,000 kilometres - helps to determine whether a more expensive, long-lasting tire offers better value than a cheaper, quicker-wearing alternative.
Bear in mind that prices will fluctuate depending on your location, so feel free to crunch your own numbers and share your findings in the comments. However, based on the prices we paid, Hankook offered the best value at €3.16 per 1,000 kilometres, closely followed by Continental at €3.30. Michelin and Goodyear tied at €3.50, while the quick-wearing and more costly Bridgestone was the least economical at €4.53 per 1,000 kilometres.
Environment
The test revealed a noticeable inverse relationship between the 'fun' factor of a tire and its rolling resistance. Both the Bridgestone and Yokohama tires significantly underperformed in comparison to the other four tires in terms of rolling resistance, with Continental slightly outperforming the rest.
Regarding the comfort level of the tires, as anticipated, most demonstrated an inverse correlation with handling. The Continental, Michelin, and Goodyear tires performed best across various surface types tested. Hankook showed exceptional performance over larger impacts but was somewhat more jittery on smoother surfaces. Bridgestone began to show signs of firmness, while Yokohama was particularly jarring over potholes.
We did measure internal noise levels; however, as is often the case, the results were closely matched, and due to weather constraints, we were unable to conduct a subjective assessment of the tires noise.
Finally, we looked at abrasion figures, which measure the amount of tire tread lost per kilometre, normalised to a one-tonne vehicle. While this data doesn't directly impact tire performance or your wallet, it does have environmental implications. This figure represents the amount of rubber dust your tires produce while driving.
Michelin led in this category, producing over 9% less rubber particulate matter. On the other hand, Hankook generated 32% more. This is an aspect I believe the industry should focus on more in the future, and it's something Michelin is advocating. Let's be kinder to our environment, folks.
Results
The final order of results follow, and as always you can use the link below to adjust the score weighting based on your own driving style and requirements and select the best tire for you.
- EU Label: C/A/72
- Rim Protection: Small
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 8.9 kgs
- Tread: 6.5 mm
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 4th | 33.41 M | 98.77% |
| Dry Handling | 4th | 74.12 s | 99.27% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 3rd | 95 Points | 95% |
| Subj. Fun | 4th | 8 Points | 80% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 1st | 27.1 M | 100% |
| Wet Braking - Cool | 1st | 27.9 M | 100% |
| Wet Braking - Worn | 4th | 42.2 M | 95.97% |
| Wet Handling | 3rd | 92.06 s | 99.07% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 2nd | 98 Points | 98% |
| Straight Aqua | 1st | 80.9 Km/H | 100% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 1st | 6.31 m/sec2 | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Comfort | 1st | 100 Points | 100% |
| Noise | 1st | 71.9 dB | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wear | 3rd | 25802 KM | 84.33% |
| Value | 2nd | 3.3 Price/1000 | 95.76% |
| Price | 2nd | 85.2 | 86.03% |
| Rolling Resistance | 1st | 8.4 kg / t | 100% |
| Abrasion | 4th | 75.9 mg/km/t | 86.56% |
- EU Label: C/A/72
- Rim Protection: Small
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 9.2 kgs
- Tread: 6.5 mm
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 5th | 33.65 M | 98.07% |
| Dry Handling | 5th | 74.44 s | 98.84% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 1st | 100 Points | 100% |
| Subj. Fun | 4th | 8 Points | 80% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 5th | 29.1 M | 93.13% |
| Wet Braking - Cool | 3rd | 30.7 M | 90.88% |
| Wet Braking - Worn | 3rd | 41.7 M | 97.12% |
| Wet Handling | 6th | 94.67 s | 96.33% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 2nd | 98 Points | 98% |
| Straight Aqua | 2nd | 80.5 Km/H | 99.51% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 1st | 6.31 m/sec2 | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Comfort | 3rd | 98 Points | 98% |
| Noise | 5th | 72.8 dB | 98.76% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wear | 1st | 30595 KM | 100% |
| Value | 3rd | 3.5 Price/1000 | 90.29% |
| Price | 6th | 107.2 | 68.38% |
| Rolling Resistance | 2nd | 8.6 kg / t | 97.67% |
| Abrasion | 1st | 65.7 mg/km/t | 100% |
- EU Label: C/A/70
- Rim Protection: Large
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 9.2 kgs
- Tread: 5.9 mm
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 1st | 33 M | 100% |
| Dry Handling | 3rd | 73.92 s | 99.54% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 1st | 100 Points | 100% |
| Subj. Fun | 3rd | 8.5 Points | 85% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 3rd | 28.6 M | 94.76% |
| Wet Braking - Cool | 4th | 31.4 M | 88.85% |
| Wet Braking - Worn | 1st | 40.5 M | 100% |
| Wet Handling | 2nd | 91.97 s | 99.16% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 1st | 100 Points | 100% |
| Straight Aqua | 3rd | 79 Km/H | 97.65% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 3rd | 6.25 m/sec2 | 99.05% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Comfort | 1st | 100 Points | 100% |
| Noise | 4th | 72.4 dB | 99.31% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wear | 2nd | 26053 KM | 85.15% |
| Value | 4th | 3.52 Price/1000 | 89.77% |
| Price | 4th | 91.8 | 79.85% |
| Rolling Resistance | 2nd | 8.6 kg / t | 97.67% |
| Abrasion | 3rd | 72.4 mg/km/t | 90.75% |
- EU Label: C/A/72
- Rim Protection: None
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 9.5 kgs
- Tread: 6.7 mm
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 3rd | 33.4 M | 98.8% |
| Dry Handling | 6th | 74.98 s | 98.13% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 4th | 92 Points | 92% |
| Subj. Fun | 6th | 7 Points | 70% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 4th | 28.9 M | 93.77% |
| Wet Braking - Cool | 2nd | 29.5 M | 94.58% |
| Wet Braking - Worn | 5th | 43.4 M | 93.32% |
| Wet Handling | 4th | 93.25 s | 97.8% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 4th | 95 Points | 95% |
| Straight Aqua | 5th | 76.8 Km/H | 94.93% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 6th | 5.21 m/sec2 | 82.57% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Comfort | 3rd | 98 Points | 98% |
| Noise | 2nd | 72 dB | 99.86% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wear | 4th | 23231 KM | 75.93% |
| Value | 1st | 3.16 Price/1000 | 100% |
| Price | 1st | 73.3 | 100% |
| Rolling Resistance | 2nd | 8.6 kg / t | 97.67% |
| Abrasion | 6th | 97 mg/km/t | 67.73% |
- EU Label: D/A/72
- Rim Protection: Large
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 10 kgs
- Tread: 5.8 mm
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 2nd | 33.21 M | 99.37% |
| Dry Handling | 2nd | 73.71 s | 99.82% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 4th | 92 Points | 92% |
| Subj. Fun | 2nd | 9.5 Points | 95% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 2nd | 28.3 M | 95.76% |
| Wet Braking - Cool | 5th | 31.5 M | 88.57% |
| Wet Braking - Worn | 1st | 40.5 M | 100% |
| Wet Handling | 1st | 91.2 s | 100% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 4th | 95 Points | 95% |
| Straight Aqua | 4th | 78.3 Km/H | 96.79% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 5th | 5.7 m/sec2 | 90.33% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Comfort | 5th | 95 Points | 95% |
| Noise | 3rd | 72.2 dB | 99.58% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wear | 6th | 20459 KM | 66.87% |
| Value | 6th | 4.53 Price/1000 | 69.76% |
| Price | 5th | 92.7 | 79.07% |
| Rolling Resistance | 6th | 10.3 kg / t | 81.55% |
| Abrasion | 2nd | 72.3 mg/km/t | 90.87% |
- EU Label: D/A/71
- Rim Protection: None
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 9.8 kgs
- Tread: 5.9 mm
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 6th | 34.68 M | 95.16% |
| Dry Handling | 1st | 73.58 s | 100% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 4th | 92 Points | 92% |
| Subj. Fun | 1st | 10 Points | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 6th | 29.7 M | 91.25% |
| Wet Braking - Cool | 6th | 32.3 M | 86.38% |
| Wet Braking - Worn | 6th | 44.9 M | 90.2% |
| Wet Handling | 5th | 94.6 s | 96.41% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 6th | 90 Points | 90% |
| Straight Aqua | 5th | 76.8 Km/H | 94.93% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 4th | 6.22 m/sec2 | 98.57% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Comfort | 6th | 90 Points | 90% |
| Noise | 6th | 72.9 dB | 98.63% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wear | 5th | 20728 KM | 67.75% |
| Value | 5th | 4.17 Price/1000 | 75.78% |
| Price | 3rd | 86.4 | 84.84% |
| Rolling Resistance | 5th | 10.2 kg / t | 82.35% |
| Abrasion | 5th | 92 mg/km/t | 71.41% |