TÜV SÜD and DEKRA have tested the Michelin Primacy 5 against premium touring rivals in size 205/55 R16 on a Volkswagen Golf. The TÜV SÜD report covers wet braking, dry braking and rolling resistance against the Bridgestone Turanza 6, Continental PremiumContact 7, Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2, Hankook Ventus Prime 4 and Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2, and DEKRA measured tread wear on all of them except the Pirelli.
The Continental was the strongest braker on both wet and dry roads. The Primacy 5 was close behind it in the wet, fractionally behind the Pirelli, and mid-field in the dry. It had the lowest rolling resistance and the lowest wear rate, and the Hankook was the weakest braker. Neither TÜV SÜD nor DEKRA ranks the tires, so the finishing order shown here is our own, worked out from our standard weighting as explained below.
Test setup & methodology
The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.
Recorded test conditions
Recorded test conditions
- Dry Braking
- 62.1 → 0.0 mph
- Wet Braking
- 49.7 → 12.4 mph
Michelin supplied the Primacy 5 and TÜV SÜD bought the rivals on the open market (TÜV SÜD report 713332054-PCY-02, July 2024). The DEKRA wear test states it was commissioned by Michelin (report CPA MARK24B, Oct 2024). Neither report gives an overall score or ranking, so the finishing order on this page is our own. We scored each result against the best in the test and combined them using our standard summer weighting: wet braking 50.5%, dry braking 33.5%, rolling resistance 6.9%, projected mileage 6.9% and rate of wear 2.2%. Those weights are our choice, not TÜV SÜD's or DEKRA's. We count tires within 0.4 points of each other as tied, so the PremiumContact 7 and Primacy 5, a quarter of a point apart, share first place. TÜV SÜD also tested the Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2, but DEKRA did not include it in the wear test, so we have left it out of the charts and the finishing order to keep every chart complete. Its TÜV SÜD results are given in the text below. For the full method, see the original TÜV SÜD and DEKRA reports.
Wet
From 50 mph to 12 mph, the PremiumContact 7 stopped shortest, with the Primacy 5 next. The Pirelli, not shown in the chart, stopped in 79ft, fractionally ahead of the Primacy 5. The Ventus Prime 4 was the longest to stop, about 11ft behind the Michelin.
Wet Braking
Wet braking in feet (50 - 12 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 77 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 80 ft | +3 ft | 14 mph | |
| 83 ft | +6 ft | 21 mph | |
| 84 ft | +7 ft | 23 mph | |
| 91 ft | +14 ft | 31 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 17.8% (14 ft ≈ 0.9 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Hankook Ventus Prime 4 would still be travelling at 31 mph when the Continental PremiumContact 7 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Dry
In the dry the PremiumContact 7 was clearly best, the Goodyear second and the Primacy 5 third, with the Hankook again last. The Pirelli stopped in 115ft, which would have placed it second.
Dry Braking
Dry braking in feet (62 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 113 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 117 ft | +4 ft | 15 mph | |
| 118 ft | +5 ft | 17 mph | |
| 119 ft | +6 ft | 18 mph | |
| 122 ft | +9 ft | 22 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 8.1% (9 ft ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Hankook Ventus Prime 4 would still be travelling at 22 mph when the Continental PremiumContact 7 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Value
The Primacy 5 had the lowest rolling resistance coefficient, with the Goodyear and Bridgestone close behind and the PremiumContact 7 the highest in the chart. The Pirelli measured 8.81 kg/t, higher than any tire shown.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 kg/t | Best | $0 | |
| 7.58 kg/t | +0.08 kg/t | $3 | |
| 7.67 kg/t | +0.17 kg/t | $7 | |
| 7.76 kg/t | +0.26 kg/t | $10 | |
| 8.32 kg/t | +0.82 kg/t | $32 |
The difference between best and worst was 10.9% (0.82 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Continental PremiumContact 7 uses about 9 gal ($32) more fuel than the Michelin Primacy 5.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
DEKRA drove the five tires for 7,188 miles near Narbonne in May and June 2024 on a Golf 2.0 TDI and measured the rate of rubber loss, in milligrams per kilometer per tonne. The Primacy 5 lost rubber at the lowest rate, followed by the Hankook and Goodyear, with the Bridgestone and Continental the highest. DEKRA's projected life, which uses Michelin's evaluation method and the front tires only, ranks them differently: the Goodyear about 1,936 miles short of the Primacy 5, the Continental 3,810 miles, the Hankook 4,993 miles and the Bridgestone 6,165 miles. DEKRA's report names the Goodyear as the EfficientGrip 2, which we have taken to be the EfficientGrip Performance 2 that TÜV SÜD tested.
Abrasion
Weight of Tire Wear Particles Lost (mg/km/t)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 65 mg/km/t | Best | |
| 75.1 mg/km/t | +10.10 mg/km/t | |
| 76.8 mg/km/t | +11.80 mg/km/t | |
| 94.9 mg/km/t | +29.90 mg/km/t | |
| 95.1 mg/km/t | +30.10 mg/km/t |
The difference between best and worst was 46.3% (30.1 mg/km/t).
Wear
Predicted tread life in KM
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 20,070 miles | Best | |
| 18,144 miles | -1,926 miles | |
| 16,280 miles | -3,790 miles | |
| 15,099 miles | -4,971 miles | |
| 13,919 miles | -6,151 miles |
The difference between best and worst was 30.7% (6,151 miles).
Projected mileage calculated by Tire Reviews, not printed by DEKRA. DEKRA gives each rival's projected life only as a percentage of the reference tire's and a gap in kilometers, so we worked the reference tire's figure out from those percentages (about 32,350 km, accurate to within about 20 km) and took each gap from it. Rounded to the nearest 100 km.
Results
The Primacy 5 did not lead on grip here. The PremiumContact 7 braked best on both surfaces, and the Pirelli edged the Primacy 5 in the wet. The Michelin's strengths were efficiency and wear: the lowest rolling resistance and the slowest rate of wear in the test, with competitive braking alongside. On our weighting, where braking carries most of the weight, the PremiumContact 7 and Primacy 5 share first place: the Continental's braking balanced against the Michelin's efficiency and wear.
Michelin Primacy 5
205/55 R16 91V
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (5)
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 / 5 | 118 ft | +5 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 80 ft | +3 ft |
| WearHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 20,070 miles | Best in this discipline |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 1st / 5 | 7.5 kg/t | Best in this discipline |
| AbrasionLower is better | 1st / 5 | 65 mg/km/t | Best in this discipline |
Continental PremiumContact 7
205/55 R16 91V
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (5)
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 / 5 | 113 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 5 | 77 ft | Best in this discipline |
| WearHigher is better | 3rd / 5 | 16,280 miles | -3,790 miles |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 5th / 5 | 8.32 kg/t | +0.82 kg/t |
| AbrasionLower is better | 5th / 5 | 95.1 mg/km/t | +30.10 mg/km/t |
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
205/55 R16 91V
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (5)
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 / 5 | 117 ft | +4 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 5 | 84 ft | +7 ft |
| WearHigher is better | 2nd / 5 | 18,144 miles | -1,926 miles |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 7.58 kg/t | +0.08 kg/t |
| AbrasionLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 76.8 mg/km/t | +11.80 mg/km/t |
Bridgestone Turanza 6
205/55 R16 91V
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (5)
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 / 5 | 119 ft | +6 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 83 ft | +6 ft |
| WearHigher is better | 5th / 5 | 13,919 miles | -6,151 miles |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 7.67 kg/t | +0.17 kg/t |
| AbrasionLower is better | 4th / 5 | 94.9 mg/km/t | +29.90 mg/km/t |
Hankook Ventus Prime 4
205/55 R16 91V
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (5)
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 / 5 | 122 ft | +9 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 5 | 91 ft | +14 ft |
| WearHigher is better | 4th / 5 | 15,099 miles | -4,971 miles |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4th / 5 | 7.76 kg/t | +0.26 kg/t |
| AbrasionLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 75.1 mg/km/t | +10.10 mg/km/t |
Discussion