Top Tire Review has put six Asian-market ultra-high performance tires through a comprehensive test for 2024/25. The lineup includes five standard UHP tires - Continental MaxContact MC7, Michelin Pilot Sport 5, Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6, Toyo Proxes TR1, and the Chinese-made RoadX RXMotion U11. Adding an interesting comparison, Hankook's EV-focused iON evo was included to see how a dedicated electric vehicle tire performs against traditional UHP options.
Testing was carried out using 235/45 R18 tires mounted on an Audi SQ2. Given Asia's frequent heavy rainfall, wet performance made up 40% of the final score, followed by dry performance (30%), noise and comfort (25%), and rolling resistance (5%).
Test Publication:
Top tire review specialises in the APAC (Asian) tire market.
Images courtesy of TopTireReview
Test Size:
235/45 R18
Tires Tested:
6 tires
Test Categories:
4 categories (12 tests)
Similar Tests
4 categories (12 tests)
Dry
Dry Braking
Dry Handling
Wet
Wet Braking
Wet Handling
Wet Circle
Straight Aqua
Comfort
Subj. Comfort
Noise
Value
Rolling Resistance
Results
- 3PMSF: no
Continental MaxContact MC7 dominated the test, taking first place in most wet tests and dry braking. The tire led wet braking at 29.3m and wet handling with an 80.05s lap time. It also topped the comfort ratings at 7.1 points. While its overall performance was hard to fault, it scored mid-pack for interior noise at 69.2 dB and aquaplaning resistance, suggesting small room for improvement in these areas.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 1st | 34 M | 100% |
| Dry Handling | 2nd | 53.79 s | 99.72% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 1st | 7.5 Points | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 1st | 29.3 M | 100% |
| Wet Handling | 1st | 80.05 s | 100% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 1st | 7.5 Points | 100% |
| Wet Circle | 1st | 0.95 m/s | 100% |
| Straight Aqua | 3rd | 77.9 Km/H | 99.74% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 3rd | 3.1 m/sec2 | 93.66% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Comfort | 1st | 7.1 Points | 100% |
| Noise | 4th | 69.2 dB | 99.13% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling Resistance | 4th | 8.33 kg / t | 91.84% |
- 3PMSF: no
Hankook iON evo impressed as an EV-focused tire, finishing second overall. It performed strongly in the wet, stopping at 30.1m and lapping in 81.81s. The tire led both rolling resistance at 7.65 N/kN and interior noise at 68.6 dB - key metrics for EVs. However, its dry performance was less impressive, with mid-pack results in both braking and handling tests showing room for improvement.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 3rd | 35.2 M | 96.59% |
| Dry Handling | 3rd | 53.84 s | 99.63% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 3rd | 7.2 Points | 96% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 2nd | 30.1 M | 97.34% |
| Wet Handling | 3rd | 81.81 s | 97.85% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 3rd | 7 Points | 93.33% |
| Wet Circle | 3rd | 0.926 m/s | 97.47% |
| Straight Aqua | 2nd | 78 Km/H | 99.87% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 4th | 3.02 m/sec2 | 91.24% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Comfort | 2nd | 6.8 Points | 95.77% |
| Noise | 1st | 68.6 dB | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling Resistance | 1st | 7.65 kg / t | 100% |
- 3PMSF: no
Michelin Pilot Sport 5 secured third place with balanced performance. It excelled in aquaplaning tests, leading both longitudinal (78.1 km/h) and lateral (3.31 m/s²) measurements. The tire also performed well in wet handling with an 80.93s lap time. However, its rolling resistance was high at 8.54 N/kN, and comfort scores were average at 6.5 points, falling short of premium expectations.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 2nd | 35 M | 97.14% |
| Dry Handling | 4th | 54.7 s | 98.06% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 3rd | 7.2 Points | 96% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 3rd | 30.3 M | 96.7% |
| Wet Handling | 2nd | 80.93 s | 98.91% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 2nd | 7.3 Points | 97.33% |
| Wet Circle | 4th | 0.923 m/s | 97.16% |
| Straight Aqua | 1st | 78.1 Km/H | 100% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 1st | 3.31 m/sec2 | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Comfort | 3rd | 6.5 Points | 91.55% |
| Noise | 3rd | 69 dB | 99.42% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling Resistance | 5th | 8.54 kg / t | 89.58% |
- 3PMSF: no
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 showed its strength in dry conditions, leading both handling tests with a 53.64s lap time and 7.5 subjective score. It also performed well in wet cornering and lateral aquaplaning. The tire's main weakness was wet performance, particularly in braking where it needed 31.5m to stop - over 2m longer than the test winner.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 4th | 35.5 M | 95.77% |
| Dry Handling | 1st | 53.64 s | 100% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 1st | 7.5 Points | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 4th | 31.5 M | 93.02% |
| Wet Handling | 4th | 82.69 s | 96.81% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 4th | 6.8 Points | 90.67% |
| Wet Circle | 2nd | 0.947 m/s | 99.68% |
| Straight Aqua | 4th | 77.8 Km/H | 99.62% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 2nd | 3.21 m/sec2 | 96.98% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Comfort | 3rd | 6.5 Points | 91.55% |
| Noise | 2nd | 68.8 dB | 99.71% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling Resistance | 2nd | 8.12 kg / t | 94.21% |
- 3PMSF: no
Toyo Proxes TR1 struggled in most performance tests, though did show some positives in efficiency. While its rolling resistance was competitive at 8.17 N/kN, the tire needed significant improvements across both wet and dry handling. Wet braking required 35.6m - over 6m longer than the leader, while both wet and dry handling lap times were among the slowest.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 5th | 39.3 M | 86.51% |
| Dry Handling | 6th | 56.05 s | 95.7% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 6th | 6.8 Points | 90.67% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 5th | 35.6 M | 82.3% |
| Wet Handling | 5th | 84.05 s | 95.24% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 5th | 6.5 Points | 86.67% |
| Wet Circle | 5th | 0.83 m/s | 87.37% |
| Straight Aqua | 5th | 75.5 Km/H | 96.67% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 5th | 2.89 m/sec2 | 87.31% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Comfort | 3rd | 6.5 Points | 91.55% |
| Noise | 4th | 69.2 dB | 99.13% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling Resistance | 3rd | 8.17 kg / t | 93.64% |
- 3PMSF: no
RoadX RXMotion U11 finished last, with notable weaknesses in wet performance. The tire needed 37.7m to stop in wet conditions and posted the slowest wet handling lap at 89.26s. Its only real strength was dry handling, where it performed better than expected for a budget option. The tire's low price point reflects its position as an economy option with significant performance compromises.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 6th | 39.9 M | 85.21% |
| Dry Handling | 5th | 55.62 s | 96.44% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 5th | 7.1 Points | 94.67% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 6th | 37.7 M | 77.72% |
| Wet Handling | 6th | 89.26 s | 89.68% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 6th | 4.8 Points | 64% |
| Wet Circle | 6th | 0.779 m/s | 82% |
| Straight Aqua | 6th | 73.6 Km/H | 94.24% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 6th | 2.58 m/sec2 | 77.95% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Comfort | 3rd | 6.5 Points | 91.55% |
| Noise | 6th | 69.4 dB | 98.85% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling Resistance | 6th | 8.56 kg / t | 89.37% |