Below is the data from the 2024 EVO Summer Tire Test. As usual, EVO do an excellent job of digging into the subjective nature of the tires, so be sure to read the full test over at https://www.evo.co.uk/technology

Dry

Dry Braking

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental SportContact 7	101 ft	Best
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport	105 ft	+4 ft
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	109 ft	+8 ft
4Falken Azenis FK520	110 ft	+9 ft
5Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	110 ft	+9 ft
6Pirelli P Zero PZ4	110 ft	+9 ft
7Vredestein Ultrac Pro	115 ft	+14 ft

The difference between best and worst was 14.3% (14 ft ≈ 1 Car Lengths).

Dry Handling

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	100.58 s	Best
2Vredestein Ultrac Pro	101.18 s	+0.60 s
3Bridgestone Potenza Sport	101.2 s	+0.62 s
4Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	101.21 s	+0.63 s
5Pirelli P Zero PZ4	101.23 s	+0.65 s
6Continental SportContact 7	101.58 s	+1.00 s
7Falken Azenis FK520	102.52 s	+1.94 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental SportContact 7	61 Points	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	58.5 Points	-2.50 Points
3Bridgestone Potenza Sport	58 Points	-3.00 Points
4Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	57 Points	-4.00 Points
4Vredestein Ultrac Pro	57 Points	-4.00 Points
6Pirelli P Zero PZ4	56 Points	-5.00 Points
7Falken Azenis FK520	51 Points	-10.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 16.4% (10 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	103 ft	Best
2Continental SportContact 7	106 ft	+3 ft
2Vredestein Ultrac Pro	106 ft	+3 ft
4Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	110 ft	+7 ft
5Falken Azenis FK520	112 ft	+9 ft
6Pirelli P Zero PZ4	112 ft	+9 ft
7Bridgestone Potenza Sport	115 ft	+12 ft

The difference between best and worst was 11.8% (12 ft ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths).

Wet Handling

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport	67.51 s	Best
2Pirelli P Zero PZ4	68.36 s	+0.85 s
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	69.17 s	+1.66 s
4Continental SportContact 7	69.25 s	+1.74 s
5Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	69.41 s	+1.90 s
6Vredestein Ultrac Pro	69.8 s	+2.29 s
7Falken Azenis FK520	71.27 s	+3.76 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.6% (3.76 s).

Subj. Wet Handling

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	60 Points	Best
2Pirelli P Zero PZ4	58 Points	-2.00 Points
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport	58 Points	-2.00 Points
4Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	57.5 Points	-2.50 Points
5Vredestein Ultrac Pro	57 Points	-3.00 Points
6Continental SportContact 7	56.5 Points	-3.50 Points
7Falken Azenis FK520	47 Points	-13.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 21.7% (13 Points).

Straight Aqua

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport	45.1 mph	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	44.8 mph	-0.3 mph
3Continental SportContact 7	44.7 mph	-0.4 mph
4Vredestein Ultrac Pro	44.6 mph	-0.5 mph
5Falken Azenis FK520	44.4 mph	-0.7 mph
6Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	43.9 mph	-1.2 mph
7Pirelli P Zero PZ4	43.4 mph	-1.7 mph

The difference between best and worst was 3.9% (1.7 mph).

Curved Aquaplaning

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Falken Azenis FK520	227.5 ft/s²	Best
2Pirelli P Zero PZ4	222.4 ft/s²	-5.1 ft/s²
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	222.1 ft/s²	-5.4 ft/s²
4Continental SportContact 7	220.3 ft/s²	-7.2 ft/s²
5Bridgestone Potenza Sport	219.4 ft/s²	-8.1 ft/s²
6Vredestein Ultrac Pro	217.0 ft/s²	-10.5 ft/s²
7Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	215.9 ft/s²	-11.6 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 5.1% (11.6 ft/s²).

Comfort

Subj. Noise

Subj. Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental SportContact 7	24.5 Points	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	24 Points	-0.50 Points
3Pirelli P Zero PZ4	23.5 Points	-1.00 Points
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	23.5 Points	-1.00 Points
3Vredestein Ultrac Pro	23.5 Points	-1.00 Points
6Bridgestone Potenza Sport	22 Points	-2.50 Points
7Falken Azenis FK520	21 Points	-3.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 14.3% (3.5 Points).

Value

Rolling Resistance

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	8.5 kg/t	Best	$0
2Falken Azenis FK520	8.68 kg/t	+0.18 kg/t	$6
3Vredestein Ultrac Pro	8.86 kg/t	+0.36 kg/t	$12
4Continental SportContact 7	9.01 kg/t	+0.51 kg/t	$18
5Pirelli P Zero PZ4	9.17 kg/t	+0.67 kg/t	$23
6Bridgestone Potenza Sport	10.04 kg/t	+1.54 kg/t	$53
7Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	10.44 kg/t	+1.94 kg/t	$67

The difference between best and worst was 22.8% (1.94 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport uses about 19 gal ($67) more fuel than the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.

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.

Results

The Continental SportContact 7 showed remarkable improvement from its sixth-place finish last year to take the overall win. Its dry handling performance was particularly impressive, topping the subjective scores and showing excellent speed through corners. The tire demonstrated a perfect balance of grip and feedback, setting strong times while maintaining good feel. In wet conditions, it built on these strengths with strong scores across all tests. The tire's performance in dry conditions was notably strong, matching or beating the previous benchmark times while feeling more composed. This combination of improved performance across all conditions, along with good refinement and balance, made it the clear winner and earned it top marks in most key categories.

Dry99.6%

Wet97.2%

Comfort100%

Rolling Resistance94.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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	1^st / 7	101 ft	Best in this discipline
Dry HandlingLower is better	6^th / 7	101.58 s	+1.00 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 7	61 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 7	106 ft	+3 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 7	69.25 s	+1.74 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 7	56.5 Points	-3.50 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 7	44.7 mph	-0.4 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	4^th / 7	220.3 ft/s²	-7.2 ft/s²
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	1^st / 7	24.5 Points	Best in this discipline
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	4^th / 7	9.01 kg/t	+0.51 kg/t

The Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S demonstrated significant improvements over its previous version, particularly in straight-line aquaplaning where it had traditionally struggled. The standout performance came in wet braking, where it jumped from third to first place. The tire felt secure and precise in wet conditions, ranking fourth in both subjective scores and lap times. It was especially impressive in high-speed wet driving, offering a fluid feel through transitions with bright and connected steering feedback. While not outstanding in all wet tests, it made up for this with strong dry performance and good refinement. The combination of strong wet performance, excellent dry handling, and the lowest rolling resistance in the test secured its second-place finish.

Dry96%

Wet97.8%

Comfort98%

Rolling Resistance100%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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	3^rd / 7	109 ft	+8 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	4^th / 7	101.21 s	+0.63 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 7	58.5 Points	-2.50 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 7	103 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 7	69.17 s	+1.66 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 7	57.5 Points	-2.50 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 7	43.9 mph	-1.2 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	7^th / 7	215.9 ft/s²	-11.6 ft/s²
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	2^nd / 7	24 Points	-0.50 Points
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	1^st / 7	8.5 kg/t	Best in this discipline

The Goodyear Eagle F1 Supersport showed strong performance across all tests, particularly standing out in wet conditions. The tire was quick around the handling circuit, just a fraction behind the quickest time, and scored highly in subjective rating with good grip levels. It demonstrated a stable yet adjustable character in the wet while maintaining strong precision. The tire's wet braking was solid, coming in fourth with a stopping distance about 7ft off the best. Aquaplaning resistance was strong in both straight and curved tests, and the tire showed good levels of refinement on the road, though it initially needed some warming up. Overall, an impressive performance that earned it third place.

Dry95.6%

Wet96.7%

Comfort95.9%

Rolling Resistance81.4%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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	5^th / 7	110 ft	+9 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	1^st / 7	100.58 s	Best in this discipline
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 7	57 Points	-4.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 7	110 ft	+7 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 7	69.41 s	+1.90 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 7	60 Points	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 7	44.8 mph	-0.3 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 7	222.1 ft/s²	-5.4 ft/s²
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	3^rd / 7	23.5 Points	-1.00 Points
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	7^th / 7	10.44 kg/t	+1.94 kg/t

The Bridgestone Potenza Sport, last year's winner, delivered another strong performance but missed out on the overall win as competitors stepped up their game. It set the pace in wet handling, being a second faster than the next best tire and matching that with strong subjective scores. The tire showed good balance and traction in wet conditions, though it was less progressive than some rivals. In the dry, it ranked third in both lap times and subjective scores, demonstrating good response at medium to high speeds. Its only real weaknesses were high rolling resistance and somewhat disappointing wet braking results, but it remained an impressive performer overall.

Dry97.3%

Wet95.9%

Comfort89.8%

Rolling Resistance84.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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	2^nd / 7	105 ft	+4 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 7	101.2 s	+0.62 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 7	58 Points	-3.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 7	115 ft	+12 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 7	67.51 s	Best in this discipline
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 7	58 Points	-2.00 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 7	45.1 mph	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	5^th / 7	219.4 ft/s²	-8.1 ft/s²
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	6^th / 7	22 Points	-2.50 Points
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 7	10.04 kg/t	+1.54 kg/t

Testing the new Vredestein Ultrac Pro for the first time, it showed strong consistency across all tests, particularly in wet conditions. The tire performed well in wet circle and wet handling lap times, coming in just two meters behind the best in wet braking. Its strongest showing was in dry handling, where it offered good precision and adjustability, though it placed seventh and last in dry braking. The tire demonstrated progressive, predictable behavior and was easily managed at the limit. While its weak point was dry braking, it showed decent refinement on the road and strong overall performance that nearly matched the top-tier tires.

Dry93.4%

Wet96.8%

Comfort95.9%

Rolling Resistance95.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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	7^th / 7	115 ft	+14 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 7	101.18 s	+0.60 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 7	57 Points	-4.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 7	106 ft	+3 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 7	69.8 s	+2.29 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 7	57 Points	-3.00 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 7	44.6 mph	-0.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 7	217.0 ft/s²	-10.5 ft/s²
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	3^rd / 7	23.5 Points	-1.00 Points
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	3^rd / 7	8.86 kg/t	+0.36 kg/t

The Pirelli P Zero PZ4 finished sixth in testing, showing better performance than previous versions but still lagging behind the top performers. The tire showed strong wet subjective scores and performed adequately in dry tests. Braking performance was mixed, coming in fifth in wet braking at 8ft behind the best. In wet tests, the tire was quick but lacked steering feel, though it was sharp and responsive with strong on-the-brakes performance. The tire stood out for refinement, being one of the quietest on test, but lacked some feedback and outright steering feel compared to the leaders.

Dry95%

Wet95.9%

Comfort95.9%

Rolling Resistance92.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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	6^th / 7	110 ft	+9 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	5^th / 7	101.23 s	+0.65 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 7	56 Points	-5.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 7	112 ft	+9 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 7	68.36 s	+0.85 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 7	58 Points	-2.00 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 7	43.4 mph	-1.7 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 7	222.4 ft/s²	-5.1 ft/s²
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	3^rd / 7	23.5 Points	-1.00 Points
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	5^th / 7	9.17 kg/t	+0.67 kg/t

The Falken Azenis FK520's strongest performance was in curved aquaplaning, where it topped the results, backed by decent straight-line aquaplaning resistance. However, it struggled in most other areas, finishing seventh in wet handling (almost four seconds off the best lap time) and scoring poorly in subjective handling tests. The tire needed careful management in wet conditions, requiring time to settle into turns and showing tentative grip characteristics. While it offered good refinement on regular roads, the Falken struggled to match its high-performance competitors, particularly in wet conditions. Feedback from the tire was decent, but it needs improvement in wet grip to compete with the leading brands.

Dry94%

Wet93.7%

Comfort85.7%

Rolling Resistance97.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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	4^th / 7	110 ft	+9 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	7^th / 7	102.52 s	+1.94 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 7	51 Points	-10.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 7	112 ft	+9 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 7	71.27 s	+3.76 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 7	47 Points	-13.00 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 7	44.4 mph	-0.7 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 7	227.5 ft/s²	Best in this discipline
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	7^th / 7	21 Points	-3.50 Points
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 7	8.68 kg/t	+0.18 kg/t

Menu

Tire shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Dry

Wet

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test