The 2023 Tire Reviews UHP winter tire test was an unusual test for Tire Reviews. Due to travel schedules I was unable to drive the snow part of the testing, and as these tires have been tested before this year I wouldn't have usually run such a similar test again, but this one had the possibility of a real world wear test which is hard to say no to.
The results, well they are very interesting and shine a new light on some of the products tested.
This test used a Ford Mustang to test the large 255/40 R19 ultra high performance winter tire test, and the fact we tested wear means we could also test the tires at a worn state, and due to the timing of the testing, there was the opportunity to test wet braking at warm and cooler temperatures.
This is a tire test for the real geeks, so I'll be concentrating on the data heavily.
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 · 59–68 °F
- Dry Handling
- 66–68 °F
- Wet Braking
- 49.7 → 0.0 mph · 64–70 °F
- Wet Braking - Cool
- 49.7 → 0.0 mph · 39–52 °F
- Wet Braking - Worn
- 49.7 → 0.0 mph · 70–73 °F
- Wet Handling
- 48–52 °F
- Wet Circle
- 52–55 °F
- Snow Braking
- 24.9 → 0.0 mph · 12–21 °F
- Snow Traction
- 0.0 → 12.4 mph · 12–21 °F
- Snow Handling
- 19–30 °F
- Snow Slalom
- 23–28 °F
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 · 20% | ||
| Dry Braking | 50% | 10% |
| Dry Handling | 45% | 9% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 5% | 1% |
| Wet · 35% | ||
| Wet Braking | 20% | 7% |
| Wet Braking - Cool | 20% | 7% |
| Wet Braking - Worn | 15% | 5.25% |
| Wet Handling | 25% | 8.75% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 5% | 1.75% |
| Wet Circle | 2.5% | 0.88% |
| Straight Aqua | 10% | 3.5% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 2.5% | 0.88% |
| Snow · 30% | ||
| Snow Braking | 35% | 10.5% |
| Snow Traction | 20% | 6% |
| Snow Handling | 30% | 9% |
| Subj. Snow Handling | 5% | 1.5% |
| Snow Slalom | 10% | 3% |
| Comfort · 5% | ||
| Subj. Comfort | 50% | 2.5% |
| Noise | 50% | 2.5% |
| Value · 10% | ||
| Wear | 40% | 4% |
| Value | 20% | 2% |
| Rolling Resistance | 40% | 4% |
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 Braking - Cool
This test follows the same procedure as the standard wet braking test — entry speed of 88 km/h, full ABS braking, VBOX measurement over the 80–5 km/h window — but is conducted at cooler ambient temperatures, typically below 7°C. The lower temperature allows assessment of how each tire's compound performs when cold, which is particularly relevant for all-season and winter tire evaluation. Reference tires are run at the same frequency as the standard wet braking programme.
Wet Braking - Worn
This test follows the same procedure as the standard wet braking test — entry speed of 88 km/h, full ABS braking, VBOX measurement over the 80–5 km/h window — but uses tires that have been worn to low tread depth, typically around 2mm. This evaluates how each tire performs as its tread wears down, which is a critical safety metric. Many tires lose significant wet braking performance at lower tread depths, and this test quantifies that degradation.
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.
Subj. Snow Handling
I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated snow handling circuit. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tires are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I score steering precision, turn-in behavior, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence on snow 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.
Snow Slalom
My slalom layout is variable rather than fixed, with cone count and spacing adjusted to suit the vehicle, tire category, and objective of the programme. On snow, the test is designed to evaluate transient response, lateral grip recovery, body control during rapid load transfer, and steering precision on a low-friction surface. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. Timing is usually recorded using VBOX rather than light gates. I average the valid runs and, where appropriate, disable ESC so the result reflects the tire's behavior rather than the intervention strategy of the vehicle.
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.
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.
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.
Dry
In the dry the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 proved to be the best at stopping the car, impressively beating the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 which usually dominates the category. The Michelin did have the best subjective results when analysing the balance of the vehicle across the lap and during emergency lane changes.
Dry Braking
Dry braking in feet (62 - 0 mph) [Average Temperature 64°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 137 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 138 ft | +1 ft | 7 mph | |
| 138 ft | +1 ft | 8 mph | |
| 140 ft | +3 ft | 12 mph | |
| 141 ft | +4 ft | 13 mph | |
| 141 ft | +4 ft | 14 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 3.1% (4 ft). From 80 mph, the Superia Bluewin UHP2 would still be travelling at 14 mph when the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Michelin jumped back to the front for dry handling, ahead of the Vredestein Wintrac Pro.
Dry Handling
Dry handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 67°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 52.46 s | Best | |
| 52.87 s | +0.41 s | |
| 53.01 s | +0.55 s | |
| 53.09 s | +0.63 s | |
| 53.18 s | +0.72 s | |
| 54.9 s | +2.44 s |
The difference between best and worst was 4.7% (2.44 s).
Wet
When it comes to winter tires and wet grip, it's always been difficult to beat the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005, and this test is no different with the Japanese tire having a large advantage over the second placed Vredestein and Continental pairing.
Wet Braking
Wet braking in feet (50 - 0 mph) [Average Temperature 67°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 91 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 100 ft | +9 ft | 25 mph | |
| 100 ft | +9 ft | 25 mph | |
| 103 ft | +12 ft | 28 mph | |
| 104 ft | +13 ft | 28 mph | |
| 110 ft | +19 ft | 33 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 21% (19 ft ≈ 1.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Superia Bluewin UHP2 would still be travelling at 33 mph when the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
The Bridgestone still led in the cooler wet braking test, but it's advantage was smaller, and Continental jumped above the Vredestein. The order otherwise remained the same.
Wet Braking - Cool
Wet braking at cooler temperature in feet (50 - 0 mph) [Average Temperature 46°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 101 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 102 ft | +1 ft | 10 mph | |
| 104 ft | +3 ft | 14 mph | |
| 108 ft | +7 ft | 21 mph | |
| 108 ft | +7 ft | 21 mph | |
| 111 ft | +10 ft | 25 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 10.4% (10 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Superia Bluewin UHP2 would still be travelling at 25 mph when the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Usually worn wet braking is conducted with the tires buffed down to the same tread depth. We didn't have the chance to do this, but as we had worn tires from the wear test I wanted the data to see how they'd brake at their post-wear tread depth.
The order was surprisingly similar, especially when you consider the Bridgestone had much lower tread depth compared to some of its rivals (more on that in a bit.) As this is an unusual way of doing a worn wet braking, the overall weighting of this test is very low in the final results. The worn depth of the tires can be found in the wear section.
Wet Braking - Worn
Wet braking at Low Tread Depth (50 - 0 mph) [Average Temperature 72°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 107 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 108 ft | +1 ft | 6 mph | |
| 109 ft | +2 ft | 10 mph | |
| 114 ft | +7 ft | 19 mph | |
| 122 ft | +15 ft | 28 mph | |
| 138 ft | +31 ft | 38 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 29.1% (31 ft ≈ 2.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Superia Bluewin UHP2 would still be travelling at 38 mph when the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Bridgestone remained at the front for the wet handling test, with the Continental close behind, with both tires leading the subjective scoring.
Wet Handling
Wet handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 50°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 84.77 s | Best | |
| 85.01 s | +0.24 s | |
| 85.73 s | +0.96 s | |
| 86.57 s | +1.80 s | |
| 87.85 s | +3.08 s | |
| 91.97 s | +7.20 s |
The difference between best and worst was 8.5% (7.2 s).
Bridgestone was the fastest around the wet circle.
Wet Circle
Wet Circle Lap Time in seconds [Average Temperature 54°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 11.81 s | Best | |
| 12.02 s | +0.21 s | |
| 12.05 s | +0.24 s | |
| 12.09 s | +0.28 s | |
| 12.32 s | +0.51 s | |
| 12.43 s | +0.62 s |
The difference between best and worst was 5.2% (0.62 s).
The Bridgestone also had the best straight and curved aquaplaning result, rounding it out as undoubtedly the best winter tire in the wet.
Straight Aqua
Float Speed in mph
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 62.2 mph | Best | |
| 59.0 mph | -3.2 mph | |
| 57.7 mph | -4.5 mph | |
| 57.5 mph | -4.7 mph | |
| 57.4 mph | -4.8 mph | |
| 54.4 mph | -7.8 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 12.5% (7.8 mph).
Curved Aquaplaning
Remaining lateral acceleration
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 10.8 ft/s² | Best | |
| 7.8 ft/s² | -3.0 ft/s² | |
| 7.6 ft/s² | -3.2 ft/s² | |
| 7.5 ft/s² | -3.3 ft/s² | |
| 6.1 ft/s² | -4.7 ft/s² | |
| 4.0 ft/s² | -6.8 ft/s² |
The difference between best and worst was 62.8% (6.8 ft/s²).
Snow
The snowmaster Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 proved once again it was the best in snow braking.
Snow Braking
Snow braking in feet (25 - 0 mph) [Average Temperature 17°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 52 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 53 ft | +1 ft | 8 mph | |
| 53 ft | +1 ft | 8 mph | |
| 53 ft | +1 ft | 11 mph | |
| 54 ft | +2 ft | 13 mph | |
| 54 ft | +2 ft | 14 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 3.1% (2 ft). From 80 mph, the Vredestein Wintrac Pro would still be travelling at 14 mph when the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
The Michelin also led the snow traction test, with the Hankook Winter I*Cept evo3 close behind.
Snow Traction
Snow acceleration time (0 - 12 mph) [Average Temperature 17°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 7.93 s | Best | |
| 7.94 s | +0.01 s | |
| 8.2 s | +0.27 s | |
| 8.34 s | +0.41 s | |
| 8.36 s | +0.43 s | |
| 8.8 s | +0.87 s |
The difference between best and worst was 11% (0.87 s).
The Michelin was also the best during snow handling with the subjective driver reporting it was also the best subjectively.
Snow Handling
Snow handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 25°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 79.76 s | Best | |
| 80 s | +0.24 s | |
| 80.32 s | +0.56 s | |
| 80.48 s | +0.72 s | |
| 81.04 s | +1.28 s | |
| 82.56 s | +2.80 s |
The difference between best and worst was 3.5% (2.8 s).
Comfort
The budget winter tire was best in the external passby noise test.
Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 71.3 dB | Best | |
| 72 dB | +0.70 dB | |
| 72.4 dB | +1.10 dB | |
| 73.1 dB | +1.80 dB | |
| 73.7 dB | +2.40 dB | |
| 75.1 dB | +3.80 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 5.3% (3.8 dB).
Value
We always expect Michelin products to do best in wear, and we were not disappointed with their predicted tread life to 1.6mm being the best in test! However interestingly if you live in an area where there is a 4mm law for winter tires, the Vredestein proved to be the best as it started with a higher tread depth than the Michelin and still had an excellent wear compound.
The wear was tested on a fleet of FWD Audi A6s, driven for 7,531 miles, and the wear was averaged between the two front tires to calculate down to 4mm and 1.6mm.
| Tire | Starting Tread Depth | Tread depth at 7,531 miles | Projected wear to 4mm | Projected wear to 1.6mm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 | 8mm | 4.3mm | 11,375mm | 10,824 miles |
| Continental WinterContact TS870P | 8.5mm | 6.5mm | 10,874 miles | 16,156 miles |
| Hankook Winter I*Cept Evo 3 | 8.5mm | 6.4mm | 10,004 miles | 15,646 miles |
| Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 | 7.6mm | 5.9mm | 11,853 miles | 19,548 miles |
| Superia Bluewin UHP2 | 6.6mm | 3.3mm | 3,915 miles | 10,340 miles |
| Vredestein Wintrac Pro | 8.5mm | 6.9mm | 12,505 miles | 18,741 miles |
Please note that wear is non-linear, tires wear faster during the first few thousand miles. The tires are measured at least ten times during the wear test and the projected wear calculations are made from the data points after the wear has stabilised, which is why the numbers above don't line up if you straight calculate it.
In terms of purchase price, the budget Superia winter tire proved to be very cheap to buy, less than half the price of the next cheapest product.
With wear and purchase price we can calculate one of the most important metrics, cost per 1000 km driven. Thanks to the exceptional mileage and low purchase price, the Vredestein Wintrac Pro had a clear advantage in this test. The budget tire, which was so cheap to buy didn't offer much of an value advantage when compared to the tires which actually offered grip in the dry, wet and snow.
The big loser of the value category was the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005, which compared high wear with a high purchase price to make it significantly more expensive than the Michelin and Continental per 1000 km driven.
Value
Euros/1000km based on cost/wear
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | cost per 1,000 miles |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.19 Price/1000 | Best | £33.64 | |
| 5.71 Price/1000 | +1.52 Price/1000 | £46.94 | |
| 7.29 Price/1000 | +3.10 Price/1000 | £50.74 | |
| 7.83 Price/1000 | +3.64 Price/1000 | £56.41 | |
| 8.58 Price/1000 | +4.39 Price/1000 | £59.74 | |
| 12.41 Price/1000 | +8.22 Price/1000 | £88.97 |
The difference between best and worst was 196.2% (8.22 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Superia Bluewin UHP2) works out £1,383 cheaper than the most expensive (Bridgestone Blizzak LM005).
How this is calculated
Assumes a typical car doing 29 mpg (rolling resistance causing 20% of fuel use), fuel at £5.49 per gallon and £60 fitting per set of four. Purchase prices are from the time of the 2023 test; financing costs are excluded.
Vredestein sadly undid some of it's amazing value work by having the highest rolling resistance of the test, with the Hankook and Continental the only tires to sneak under the 8kg/t mark.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.84 kg/t | Best | $0 | |
| 7.97 kg/t | +0.13 kg/t | $5 | |
| 8.02 kg/t | +0.18 kg/t | $7 | |
| 8.45 kg/t | +0.61 kg/t | $23 | |
| 8.58 kg/t | +0.74 kg/t | $28 | |
| 9.3 kg/t | +1.46 kg/t | $55 |
The difference between best and worst was 18.6% (1.46 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Vredestein Wintrac Pro uses about 15 gal ($55) more fuel than the Hankook Winter i cept evo3.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
Results
So, the big question is, how important is wear? If it was a summer or all season test, it would be unquestionably important, and to the people who do a lot of miles on your winter tires, then again it's important. But if you're a person who's winter tires age out before they wear out, and you just want the best grip overall, then it's less of a thing for you.
In summary, if wear isn't important to you as your winter tires age out before they wear out, the Bridgestone is still very hard to beat. In the final rankings I am including wear as I do think it's important to more people than it's not, so the winner of this test was once again the Continental Wintercontact TS870P proving that not only does it have good grip in all conditions, as we've seen in other tests, but also that it wears well too.
That's not to say the Michelin and Vredestein aren't also great tires from this test, the gap between the top three was incredibly tiny, and the Hankook once again proved to be a solid winter tire.
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
255/40 R19 100V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (21)
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 | 4th / 6 | 140 ft | +3 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 6 | 53.01 s | +0.55 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 6 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 100 ft | +9 ft |
| Wet Braking - CoolLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 102 ft | +1 ft |
| Wet Braking - WornLower is better | 3rd / 6 | 109 ft | +2 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 85.01 s | +0.24 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 6 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 12.02 s | +0.21 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 2nd / 6 | 59.0 mph | -3.2 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 2nd / 6 | 7.8 ft/s² | -3.0 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 4th / 6 | 53 ft | +1 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 3rd / 6 | 8.2 s | +0.27 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 80 s | +0.24 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 6 | 9.8 Points | -0.20 Points |
| Snow SlalomHigher is better | 2nd / 6 | 1.1 ft/s² | -0.1 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 1st / 6 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 72 dB | +0.70 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 3rd / 6 | 16,156 miles | -3,392 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 5th / 6 | 8.58 Price/1000 | +4.39 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 7.97 kg/t | +0.13 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/B/71
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 11.26 kgs
- Tread
- 8.5 mm
- Price
- 223.80
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
255/40 R19 100V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (21)
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 | 2nd / 6 | 138 ft | +1 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 1st / 6 | 52.46 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 6 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 6 | 103 ft | +12 ft |
| Wet Braking - CoolLower is better | 4th / 6 | 108 ft | +7 ft |
| Wet Braking - WornLower is better | 5th / 6 | 122 ft | +15 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 6 | 85.73 s | +0.96 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 6 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 3rd / 6 | 12.05 s | +0.24 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 5th / 6 | 57.4 mph | -4.8 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 5th / 6 | 6.1 ft/s² | -4.7 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 1st / 6 | 52 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 1st / 6 | 7.93 s | Best in this discipline |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 1st / 6 | 79.76 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 6 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Snow SlalomHigher is better | 1st / 6 | 1.2 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 6 | 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 3rd / 6 | 72.4 dB | +1.10 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 1st / 6 | 19,548 miles | Best in this discipline |
| ValueLower is better | 4th / 6 | 7.83 Price/1000 | +3.64 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4th / 6 | 8.45 kg/t | +0.61 kg/t |
- EU Label
- D/B/70
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 11.21 kgs
- Tread
- 7.6 mm
- Price
- 246.46
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
255/40 R19 100V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (21)
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 | 3rd / 6 | 138 ft | +1 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 52.87 s | +0.41 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 6 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 100 ft | +9 ft |
| Wet Braking - CoolLower is better | 3rd / 6 | 104 ft | +3 ft |
| Wet Braking - WornLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 108 ft | +1 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 4th / 6 | 86.57 s | +1.80 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 6 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 4th / 6 | 12.09 s | +0.28 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 3rd / 6 | 57.7 mph | -4.5 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 4th / 6 | 7.5 ft/s² | -3.3 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 6th / 6 | 54 ft | +2 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 5th / 6 | 8.36 s | +0.43 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 6th / 6 | 82.56 s | +2.80 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 6 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Snow SlalomHigher is better | 6th / 6 | 1.1 ft/s² | -0.1 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 6 | 9.25 Points | -0.75 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 5th / 6 | 73.7 dB | +2.40 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 2nd / 6 | 18,741 miles | -807 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 5.71 Price/1000 | +1.52 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 6th / 6 | 9.3 kg/t | +1.46 kg/t |
- EU Label
- D/B/72
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 12.68 kgs
- Tread
- 8.5 mm
- Price
- 172.34
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
255/40 R19 100V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (21)
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 | 5th / 6 | 141 ft | +4 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 5th / 6 | 53.18 s | +0.72 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 6 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 6 | 104 ft | +13 ft |
| Wet Braking - CoolLower is better | 4th / 6 | 108 ft | +7 ft |
| Wet Braking - WornLower is better | 4th / 6 | 114 ft | +7 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 5th / 6 | 87.85 s | +3.08 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 6 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 5th / 6 | 12.32 s | +0.51 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 4th / 6 | 57.5 mph | -4.7 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 6 | 7.6 ft/s² | -3.2 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 53 ft | +1 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 7.94 s | +0.01 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 4th / 6 | 80.48 s | +0.72 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 6 | 9.2 Points | -0.80 Points |
| Snow SlalomHigher is better | 4th / 6 | 1.1 ft/s² | -0.1 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 6 | 9.25 Points | -0.75 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 6 | 75.1 dB | +3.80 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 4th / 6 | 15,833 miles | -3,715 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 3rd / 6 | 7.29 Price/1000 | +3.10 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 1st / 6 | 7.84 kg/t | Best in this discipline |
- EU Label
- C/B/73
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 11.47 kgs
- Tread
- 8.5 mm
- Price
- 185.85
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
255/40 R19 100V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (21)
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 | 1st / 6 | 137 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 4th / 6 | 53.09 s | +0.63 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 6 | 9.8 Points | -0.20 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 6 | 91 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet Braking - CoolLower is better | 1st / 6 | 101 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet Braking - WornLower is better | 1st / 6 | 107 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 1st / 6 | 84.77 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 6 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 1st / 6 | 11.81 s | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 1st / 6 | 62.2 mph | Best in this discipline |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 6 | 10.8 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 6 | 53 ft | +1 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 4th / 6 | 8.34 s | +0.41 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 6 | 80.32 s | +0.56 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 6 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Snow SlalomHigher is better | 3rd / 6 | 1.1 ft/s² | -0.1 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 6 | 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 4th / 6 | 73.1 dB | +1.80 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 5th / 6 | 10,824 miles | -8,724 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 6th / 6 | 12.41 Price/1000 | +8.22 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 5th / 6 | 8.58 kg/t | +0.74 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/73
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 11.89 kgs
- Tread
- 8 mm
- Price
- 216.22
Superia Bluewin UHP2
255/40 R19 100V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (21)
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 | 6th / 6 | 141 ft | +4 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 6th / 6 | 54.9 s | +2.44 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 6 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 6th / 6 | 110 ft | +19 ft |
| Wet Braking - CoolLower is better | 6th / 6 | 111 ft | +10 ft |
| Wet Braking - WornLower is better | 6th / 6 | 138 ft | +31 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 6th / 6 | 91.97 s | +7.20 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 6 | 5 Points | -5.00 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 6th / 6 | 12.43 s | +0.62 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 6th / 6 | 54.4 mph | -7.8 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 6th / 6 | 4.0 ft/s² | -6.8 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 5th / 6 | 54 ft | +2 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 6th / 6 | 8.8 s | +0.87 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 5th / 6 | 81.04 s | +1.28 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 6 | 9.2 Points | -0.80 Points |
| Snow SlalomHigher is better | 4th / 6 | 1.1 ft/s² | -0.1 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 6 | 9.25 Points | -0.75 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 1st / 6 | 71.3 dB | Best in this discipline |
| WearHigher is better | 6th / 6 | 10,340 miles | -9,208 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 1st / 6 | 4.19 Price/1000 | Best in this discipline |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 3rd / 6 | 8.02 kg/t | +0.18 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/C/72
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Weight
- 11.8 kgs
- Tread
- 6.6 mm
- Price
- 69.73
I'm trying to decide between Vredestein Wintrac Pro and Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plus for a UHP sporty feel.winyer tire. If I understand correctly UG P+ are more "sporty" than UG P3, is that correct? In the size that I need (225/50R17), P3 are rated C in wet grip while P+ are rated B. How would you compare the Wintrac Pro to UG P+ in terms od subjective handling? Tires will be used on RX-8 in south of Poland, so I expect some snow and a lot of melting slush.
I'm not sure what I'd go with. The Wintrac still tests very well sometimes, I thought the UGP3 replaces the P+ but I'd have to check and can't at the moment (on a flight)
Since these tires are UHP, why were the speed ratings of these tires left out of the comparison? Continental's 830P winter tires are designed for UHP vehicles--not the 870P's that were tested. The Vredestein tires tested were the correct tires for UHP vehicles with a "W" speed rating. All the others limited out at "V".
The clear winner here is the Vredestein for true UHP performance.
Another tire that should have been tested is the Yokohama BluEarth Winter V905. It has a "W" rating.
Speed ratings can be found in the results section.
The TS830P has been replaced twice, first by the TS850S and now the TS870P.
The ContiWinterContact TS 830 P is listed right now on Continental's website, so it has not been replaced. This series is listed as factory fit for Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, and Rolls-Royce. The 830P is described on Conitental's website as a "performance winter tire for high performance cars", and is their only winter tire described in those terms.
The 870P is a very good tire, but not one for a UHP category. High performance yes, but not ultra high performance.
By the way, I don't want to sound too critical--just discerning. I am grateful the UHP winter comparison review was made as Tire Reviews is the only site with so much depth in their tire reviews. Please keep it up! I am also grateful that you responded to my initial comment.
Also, I was wrong about Continental's winter tires maxing out with a speed rating of V. For some reason, many of their winter tire models range from T to W, and it varies with the specific size you need. Very odd. The winter tires that fit my BMW have a V rating in the 830P series. I went with Vredestein this winter because of the W rating that fit my BMW 750ix. The Vredestein tires are excellent for Pacific NW winters.
TS850P launch - specifically states it replaces the 830P
https://www.pressebox.com/p...
TS870P launch - replaces 850P
https://www.continental.com...
The 830P only still exists for sale due to old OE programs still being used. They will be working on replacement with the newer models. OE programs can be very behind the latest pattern due to the time and costs involved in OE programs.
You are right. 830P are still offered in Audi dealerships and when they put VIN number of your car computer is showing 830P and that's all they offer :)
870P is a first non-asymmetric Conti sport tire from many years.
830P, 850P, 860S = asymmetric
Great review but I had some questions about the wear data.
Living in a Nordic country I, and everybody around me, use winter tires every year. Never have I seen a tire, even a cheap Chinese one, to last less than 20 000km. And we're talking about best of the best tires in the world here, surely they must last way longer than the projected numbers in this review.
My last tires which I replaced after 4 seasons due to rubber getting hard and loss of grip drove over 23 000 and still had 6mm of tread left. I had 5 year old Hankook IZ2 on my previous car with over 30 000 and they were still superb and at around 5mm of tread.
The wear data feels slightly off. Or your testing regimen was very hard on tires. Usually, driving style in winter conditions is calm and grandfatherly which helps with the longevity of the tires as well.
Also, Nordic countries have a legal winter tire tread limit of 3mm. Going down to 1.6 is dangerous and illegal. However I'm sure in Central-European countries that don't mandate winter tires the tires can be worn down to 1.6.
You are getting a LOT of miles out of nordic winters. Even Michelin will only warrant the X-Ice Snow to 30k in the US, and that's the best of the bunch in wear, and that's also down to 1.6mm!
Why no Pirelli P Zero Winter? :(