Test Charts / Tire Reviews

2023 Tire Reviews UHP All Season 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: 275/40 R20
Tires tested: 7
Disciplines: 10

Read the measurements, not just the rank

Lower is better for braking distances and lap times; higher is better for subjective scores and aquaplaning speed. Bars start at zero. Read the gap alongside the position: adjacent tires can be separated by very different margins.

Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tires does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 PLUS	113 ft	Best
2Falken Azenis FK460 AS	114 ft	+1 ft
3Pirelli P Zero AS Plus 3	115 ft	+2 ft
4Atlas Force UHP	116 ft	+3 ft
5BFGoodrich g Force COMP 2 AS Plus	118 ft	+5 ft
6General G Max AS 05	121 ft	+8 ft
7Vredestein Hypertrac All Season	125 ft	+12 ft

The difference between best and worst was 10.7% (12 ft ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths).

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero AS Plus 3	42.14 s	Best
2Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 PLUS	42.27 s	+0.13 s
3Falken Azenis FK460 AS	42.52 s	+0.38 s
4BFGoodrich g Force COMP 2 AS Plus	42.75 s	+0.61 s
5Atlas Force UHP	42.76 s	+0.62 s
6General G Max AS 05	43.17 s	+1.03 s
6Vredestein Hypertrac All Season	43.17 s	+1.03 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero AS Plus 3	100 Points	Best
2Atlas Force UHP	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 PLUS	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2BFGoodrich g Force COMP 2 AS Plus	98 Points	-2.00 Points
5Falken Azenis FK460 AS	95 Points	-5.00 Points
6General G Max AS 05	92 Points	-8.00 Points
6Vredestein Hypertrac All Season	92 Points	-8.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 8% (8 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero AS Plus 3	153 ft	Best
2Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 PLUS	154 ft	+1 ft
3Falken Azenis FK460 AS	155 ft	+2 ft
4Vredestein Hypertrac All Season	162 ft	+9 ft
5General G Max AS 05	166 ft	+13 ft
6Atlas Force UHP	168 ft	+15 ft
7BFGoodrich g Force COMP 2 AS Plus	172 ft	+19 ft

The difference between best and worst was 12% (19 ft ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths).

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 PLUS	47.38 s	Best
2Pirelli P Zero AS Plus 3	47.83 s	+0.45 s
3Falken Azenis FK460 AS	48.24 s	+0.86 s
4Vredestein Hypertrac All Season	49.14 s	+1.76 s
5BFGoodrich g Force COMP 2 AS Plus	49.41 s	+2.03 s
6General G Max AS 05	49.66 s	+2.28 s
7Atlas Force UHP	50.24 s	+2.86 s

The difference between best and worst was 6% (2.86 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 PLUS	100 Points	Best
2General G Max AS 05	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2BFGoodrich g Force COMP 2 AS Plus	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Falken Azenis FK460 AS	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Pirelli P Zero AS Plus 3	98 Points	-2.00 Points
6Vredestein Hypertrac All Season	95 Points	-5.00 Points
7Atlas Force UHP	92 Points	-8.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 8% (8 Points).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Vredestein Hypertrac All Season	100 Points	Best
2General G Max AS 05	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Atlas Force UHP	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Pirelli P Zero AS Plus 3	98 Points	-2.00 Points
5Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 PLUS	95 Points	-5.00 Points
5BFGoodrich g Force COMP 2 AS Plus	95 Points	-5.00 Points
5Falken Azenis FK460 AS	95 Points	-5.00 Points

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

Subj. Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Vredestein Hypertrac All Season	100 Points	Best
2General G Max AS 05	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Atlas Force UHP	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2BFGoodrich g Force COMP 2 AS Plus	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Falken Azenis FK460 AS	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Pirelli P Zero AS Plus 3	98 Points	-2.00 Points
7Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 PLUS	95 Points	-5.00 Points

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

Value

Wear
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	cost per 1,000 miles
1General G Max AS 05	31,069 miles	Best	$21.60
1Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 PLUS	31,069 miles	Best	$24.56
1Vredestein Hypertrac All Season	31,069 miles	Best	$21.84
1Falken Azenis FK460 AS	31,069 miles	Best	$21.76
1Pirelli P Zero AS Plus 3	31,069 miles	Best	$23.80
6BFGoodrich g Force COMP 2 AS Plus	27,962 miles	-3,107 miles	$25.78
7Atlas Force UHP	24,855 miles	-6,214 miles	$17.08

The difference between best and worst was 20% (6,214 miles). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Atlas Force UHP) works out $218 cheaper than the most expensive (BFGoodrich g Force COMP 2 AS Plus).

How this is calculated

Tire life here is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, NOT measured wear - treat it as the maker's promise, not a test result.

Tire life is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, not measured wear. Assumes $80 fitting per set of four. US prices are from the time of the 2023 test; financing costs are excluded.

Value
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Atlas Force UHP	3.77 Price/1000	Best
2General G Max AS 05	5 Price/1000	+1.23 Price/1000
3Falken Azenis FK460 AS	5.04 Price/1000	+1.27 Price/1000
4Vredestein Hypertrac All Season	5.06 Price/1000	+1.29 Price/1000
5Pirelli P Zero AS Plus 3	5.55 Price/1000	+1.78 Price/1000
6Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 PLUS	5.74 Price/1000	+1.97 Price/1000
7BFGoodrich g Force COMP 2 AS Plus	6 Price/1000	+2.23 Price/1000

The difference between best and worst was 59.2% (2.23 Price/1000).

Test setup & methodology

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

Show full testing methodology

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	50%	20%
Dry Handling	45%	18%
Subj. Dry Handling	5%	2%
Wet · 45%
Wet Braking	50%	22.5%
Wet Handling	45%	20.25%
Subj. Wet Handling	5%	2.25%
Comfort · 10%
Subj. Comfort	50%	5%
Subj. Noise	50%	5%
Value · 5%
Value	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.

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.

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.

Wear

I do not conduct tread wear testing myself; where wear is included in a programme, it is carried out by a contracted specialist test provider using either an on-road convoy method or an accelerated machine-based method. In convoy wear testing, multiple vehicles run a defined public-road route over an extended distance, with tread depth measured at intervals and tires rotated methodically to reduce positional and vehicle-specific effects. In accelerated machine wear testing, the tire is run on a specialized roadwheel or rough-surfaced drum system designed to simulate real-world wear under controlled load, speed, alignment, and force inputs. I then use the contracted provider's measured wear rate relative to the reference tire to estimate projected tread life.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tire shortlist →Read the test →

More tire tests