Below is the data from the excellent 2024 ADAC summer tire test, which tested sixteen tires in the popular 215/55 R17 size.
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 → 0.0 mph
- Wet Braking - Concrete
- 49.7 → 0.0 mph
ADAC do not share all the data they use to read their final order, but they do share some very interesting test results, including wear! We've added a value calculation to the results comparing the reported purchase price against projected total mileage.
Dry
The new Continental PremiumContact 7 had a good advantage in dry braking over the second placed Michelin, which drew with the Linglong Sport Master.
Dry Braking
Dry braking in feet (62 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 116 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 122 ft | +6 ft | 18 mph | |
| 122 ft | +6 ft | 18 mph | |
| 123 ft | +7 ft | 19 mph | |
| 124 ft | +8 ft | 20 mph | |
| 124 ft | +8 ft | 20 mph | |
| 124 ft | +8 ft | 20 mph | |
| 124 ft | +8 ft | 20 mph | |
| 124 ft | +8 ft | 21 mph | |
| 124 ft | +8 ft | 21 mph | |
| 125 ft | +9 ft | 21 mph | |
| 125 ft | +9 ft | 21 mph | |
| 125 ft | +9 ft | 21 mph | |
| 126 ft | +10 ft | 22 mph | |
| 128 ft | +12 ft | 24 mph | |
| 134 ft | +18 ft | 29 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 15.5% (18 ft ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Semperit Speed Life 3 would still be travelling at 29 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.
Wet
The Continental also aced the wet braking test on both tarmac and concrete.
Wet Braking
Wet braking in feet (50 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 94 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 102 ft | +8 ft | 23 mph | |
| 107 ft | +13 ft | 28 mph | |
| 107 ft | +13 ft | 29 mph | |
| 108 ft | +14 ft | 29 mph | |
| 108 ft | +14 ft | 29 mph | |
| 108 ft | +14 ft | 30 mph | |
| 109 ft | +15 ft | 30 mph | |
| 109 ft | +15 ft | 30 mph | |
| 110 ft | +16 ft | 31 mph | |
| 112 ft | +18 ft | 32 mph | |
| 113 ft | +19 ft | 33 mph | |
| 114 ft | +20 ft | 34 mph | |
| 114 ft | +20 ft | 34 mph | |
| 115 ft | +21 ft | 34 mph | |
| 115 ft | +21 ft | 35 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 23.2% (21 ft ≈ 1.5 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Goodride Solmax 1 would still be travelling at 35 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.
Wet Braking - Concrete
Wet braking on Concrete in feet (50 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 105 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 117 ft | +12 ft | 26 mph | |
| 119 ft | +14 ft | 28 mph | |
| 119 ft | +14 ft | 28 mph | |
| 122 ft | +17 ft | 30 mph | |
| 122 ft | +17 ft | 30 mph | |
| 122 ft | +17 ft | 30 mph | |
| 123 ft | +18 ft | 30 mph | |
| 125 ft | +20 ft | 32 mph | |
| 126 ft | +21 ft | 32 mph | |
| 126 ft | +21 ft | 32 mph | |
| 128 ft | +23 ft | 34 mph | |
| 130 ft | +25 ft | 35 mph | |
| 131 ft | +26 ft | 36 mph | |
| 131 ft | +26 ft | 36 mph | |
| 132 ft | +27 ft | 36 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 25.3% (27 ft ≈ 1.8 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Goodride Solmax 1 would still be travelling at 36 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.
On average the Vredestein Ultrac was best in the deeper water of aquaplaning tests.
Straight Aqua
Float Speed in mph
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 48.8 mph | Best | |
| 48.7 mph | -0.1 mph | |
| 48.3 mph | -0.5 mph | |
| 48.3 mph | -0.5 mph | |
| 48.1 mph | -0.7 mph | |
| 48.0 mph | -0.8 mph | |
| 47.7 mph | -1.1 mph | |
| 47.7 mph | -1.1 mph | |
| 47.5 mph | -1.3 mph | |
| 46.8 mph | -2.0 mph | |
| 46.7 mph | -2.1 mph | |
| 46.5 mph | -2.3 mph | |
| 46.2 mph | -2.6 mph | |
| 46.1 mph | -2.7 mph | |
| 46.0 mph | -2.8 mph | |
| 45.9 mph | -2.9 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 6% (2.9 mph).
Curved Aquaplaning
Remaining lateral acceleration
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 11.5 ft/s² | Best | |
| 11.5 ft/s² | Best | |
| 10.8 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² | |
| 10.8 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² | |
| 10.8 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² | |
| 10.8 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² | |
| 10.5 ft/s² | -1.0 ft/s² | |
| 10.5 ft/s² | -1.0 ft/s² | |
| 10.2 ft/s² | -1.3 ft/s² | |
| 10.2 ft/s² | -1.3 ft/s² | |
| 10.2 ft/s² | -1.3 ft/s² | |
| 9.8 ft/s² | -1.7 ft/s² | |
| 9.5 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² | |
| 9.2 ft/s² | -2.3 ft/s² | |
| 9.2 ft/s² | -2.3 ft/s² | |
| 8.9 ft/s² | -2.6 ft/s² |
The difference between best and worst was 22.9% (2.6 ft/s²).
Comfort
The cheaper tires performed very well in the external noise tests with Sailun and Linglong leading the way.
Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 70 dB | Best | |
| 70.6 dB | +0.60 dB | |
| 70.7 dB | +0.70 dB | |
| 71 dB | +1.00 dB | |
| 71.3 dB | +1.30 dB | |
| 71.4 dB | +1.40 dB | |
| 71.4 dB | +1.40 dB | |
| 71.5 dB | +1.50 dB | |
| 71.6 dB | +1.60 dB | |
| 71.6 dB | +1.60 dB | |
| 71.7 dB | +1.70 dB | |
| 71.7 dB | +1.70 dB | |
| 71.7 dB | +1.70 dB | |
| 71.8 dB | +1.80 dB | |
| 71.8 dB | +1.80 dB | |
| 72.6 dB | +2.60 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 3.7% (2.6 dB).
Value
Kumho narrowly beat Goodyear to be the best wearing tires on test, and the quick stopping Continental matched the Michelin for third place.
Wear
Predicted tread life in KM
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | cost per 1,000 miles |
|---|---|---|---|
| 43,061 miles | Best | $8.23 | |
| 42,750 miles | -311 miles | $10.88 | |
| 37,469 miles | -5,592 miles | $13.41 | |
| 37,469 miles | -5,592 miles | $12.89 | |
| 34,300 miles | -8,761 miles | $11.53 | |
| 31,006 miles | -12,055 miles | $12.69 | |
| 29,764 miles | -13,297 miles | $15.79 | |
| 28,769 miles | -14,292 miles | $13.13 | |
| 27,154 miles | -15,907 miles | $16.11 | |
| 26,533 miles | -16,528 miles | $13.11 | |
| 25,352 miles | -17,709 miles | $14.40 | |
| 25,103 miles | -17,958 miles | $15.66 | |
| 23,612 miles | -19,449 miles | $13.39 | |
| 23,239 miles | -19,822 miles | $12.30 | |
| 22,121 miles | -20,940 miles | $15.73 | |
| 16,901 miles | -26,160 miles | $23.38 |
The difference between best and worst was 60.8% (26,160 miles). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Kumho Ecsta HS52) works out $379 cheaper than the most expensive (Vredestein Ultrac).
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 2024 test; financing costs are excluded.
The low wear of the Kumho paired with its reasonable purchase price it proved to be the cheapest per 1000km driven.
Value
Dollars/1000 miles based on mileage warranty
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 1.77 Price/1000 | Best | |
| 2.43 Price/1000 | +0.66 Price/1000 | |
| 2.52 Price/1000 | +0.75 Price/1000 | |
| 2.54 Price/1000 | +0.77 Price/1000 | |
| 2.77 Price/1000 | +1.00 Price/1000 | |
| 2.81 Price/1000 | +1.04 Price/1000 | |
| 2.82 Price/1000 | +1.05 Price/1000 | |
| 2.85 Price/1000 | +1.08 Price/1000 | |
| 2.89 Price/1000 | +1.12 Price/1000 | |
| 3.02 Price/1000 | +1.25 Price/1000 | |
| 3.11 Price/1000 | +1.34 Price/1000 | |
| 3.37 Price/1000 | +1.60 Price/1000 | |
| 3.42 Price/1000 | +1.65 Price/1000 | |
| 3.53 Price/1000 | +1.76 Price/1000 | |
| 3.57 Price/1000 | +1.80 Price/1000 | |
| 5.11 Price/1000 | +3.34 Price/1000 |
The difference between best and worst was 188.7% (3.34 Price/1000).
ADAC test fuel consumption by driving, not on a machine. The results were very close with three tires tying for top spot.
Fuel Consumption
Fuel consumption in Liters per 100 km
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.7 l/100km | Best | $0 | |
| 5.7 l/100km | Best | $0 | |
| 5.7 l/100km | Best | $0 | |
| 5.8 l/100km | +0.10 l/100km | $18 | |
| 5.8 l/100km | +0.10 l/100km | $18 | |
| 5.8 l/100km | +0.10 l/100km | $18 | |
| 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 6 l/100km | +0.30 l/100km | $55 |
The difference between best and worst was 5.3% (0.3 l/100km). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun uses about 15 gal ($55) more fuel than the Hankook Ventus Prime 4.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
As usual, Michelin had the lowest wearing compound which means it produced the lowest amount of environmental pollution.
Abrasion
Weight of Tire Wear Particles Lost (mg/km/t)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 48.1 mg/km/t | Best | |
| 51.9 mg/km/t | +3.80 mg/km/t | |
| 55 mg/km/t | +6.90 mg/km/t | |
| 58.7 mg/km/t | +10.60 mg/km/t | |
| 60.1 mg/km/t | +12.00 mg/km/t | |
| 67.4 mg/km/t | +19.30 mg/km/t | |
| 70.4 mg/km/t | +22.30 mg/km/t | |
| 72 mg/km/t | +23.90 mg/km/t | |
| 73 mg/km/t | +24.90 mg/km/t | |
| 73.5 mg/km/t | +25.40 mg/km/t | |
| 79.8 mg/km/t | +31.70 mg/km/t | |
| 80.8 mg/km/t | +32.70 mg/km/t | |
| 81.2 mg/km/t | +33.10 mg/km/t | |
| 82.5 mg/km/t | +34.40 mg/km/t | |
| 87.3 mg/km/t | +39.20 mg/km/t | |
| 102.7 mg/km/t | +54.60 mg/km/t |
The difference between best and worst was 113.5% (54.6 mg/km/t).
Results
Continental PremiumContact 7
215/55 R17
ADAC
Good
gut
The Continental PremiumContact 7 excels in driving safety for both dry and wet road conditions in this year's test, achieving the top marks for its excellent steering feedback, safe handling at the limit, and shortest braking distances, though it receives an average rating for aquaplaning resistance. While it demonstrates very good projected mileage and low tire wear, its environmental impact rating is slightly reduced due to its relatively high weight and average noise levels, narrowly missing a high rating in efficiency.
Dry100%
Wet96.1%
Comfort98.2%
Value82.9%
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 | 1st / 16 | 116 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 16 | 94 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 1st / 16 | 105 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 15th / 16 | 46.0 mph | -2.8 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 14th / 16 | 9.2 ft/s² | -2.3 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 5th / 16 | 71.3 dB | +1.30 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 3rd / 16 | 37,469 miles | -5,592 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 9th / 16 | 2.89 Price/1000 | +1.12 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 7th / 16 | 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 5th / 16 | 60.1 mg/km/t | +12.00 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/71
- Price
- 174.00
Michelin Primacy 4+
215/55 R17
ADAC
Good
gut
The Michelin Primacy 4+ earns a solid rating for driving safety, delivering good steering feedback and secure handling at the limit on dry roads, along with a commendable short braking distance. Its performance on wet roads is also rated positively, with good marks in braking distance measurements and handling, allowing the test vehicle to be safely and easily maneuvered. However, it just misses a high rating in aquaplaning tests. In terms of environmental impact, the Primacy 4+ secures the second-best rating in the test. Its projected mileage is rated as very good, and tire wear is minimal. Thanks to its low weight and fuel consumption, it also achieves a good rating in efficiency.
Dry94.9%
Wet89.1%
Comfort99%
Value87%
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 | 2nd / 16 | 122 ft | +6 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 16 | 102 ft | +8 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 5th / 16 | 122 ft | +17 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 10th / 16 | 46.8 mph | -2.0 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 13th / 16 | 9.5 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 3rd / 16 | 70.7 dB | +0.70 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 3rd / 16 | 37,469 miles | -5,592 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 10th / 16 | 3.02 Price/1000 | +1.25 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 4th / 16 | 5.8 l/100km | +0.10 l/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 1st / 16 | 48.1 mg/km/t | Best in this discipline |
- EU Label
- B/A/70
- Price
- 182.00
Kumho Ecsta HS52
215/55 R17
ADAC
Good
gut
The Kumho Ecsta HS52 earns a solid rating in driving safety, providing good steering feedback and secure handling at the limit on dry roads, complemented by a short braking distance. On wet roads, it impresses with its braking performance and wet handling, offering good grip and easy, secure maneuverability. However, its aquaplaning performance is rated as average. Overall, the Kumho receives a good rating for wet performance. In terms of environmental impact, the Kumho achieves only an average outcome. While it scores well in projected mileage and wear, its higher tire weight results in only average efficiency. The sustainability of this tire, produced in China/Korea, is rated as sufficient.
Dry92.9%
Wet88.7%
Comfort96.4%
Value96.4%
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 | 12th / 16 | 125 ft | +9 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 16 | 108 ft | +14 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 2nd / 16 | 117 ft | +12 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 16th / 16 | 45.9 mph | -2.9 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 12th / 16 | 9.8 ft/s² | -1.7 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 16th / 16 | 72.6 dB | +2.60 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 1st / 16 | 43,061 miles | Best in this discipline |
| ValueLower is better | 1st / 16 | 1.77 Price/1000 | Best in this discipline |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 7th / 16 | 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 3rd / 16 | 55 mg/km/t | +6.90 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/72
- Price
- 123.00
Debica Presto UHP2
215/55 R17
The Debica Presto UHP 2 is rated as good on dry roads but achieves only an average rating in wet conditions and overall driving safety. On dry roads, it provides just average steering feedback, making it challenging for drivers to immediately find the necessary steering angle for curves. However, its handling at the limit and braking distance are still rated as good, barely earning a good rating for dry performance. On wet roads, the Debica Presto UHP 2 does not surpass an average rating. While its aquaplaning resistance receives good marks, its braking performance and handling are deemed average. The tire offers a moderate level of grip and satisfactorily combines longitudinal and lateral forces. In terms of environmental impact, the Presto UHP 2 narrowly misses a higher rating. Its projected mileage and wear are rated as nearly good. Additionally, its fuel consumption and low weight contribute to a good efficiency rating.
Dry93.4%
Wet87.7%
Comfort97.8%
Value71.6%
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 | 9th / 16 | 124 ft | +8 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 13th / 16 | 114 ft | +20 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 8th / 16 | 123 ft | +18 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 6th / 16 | 48.0 mph | -0.8 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 16 | 10.8 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 9th / 16 | 71.6 dB | +1.60 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 10th / 16 | 26,533 miles | -16,528 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 6th / 16 | 2.81 Price/1000 | +1.04 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 7th / 16 | 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 12th / 16 | 80.8 mg/km/t | +32.70 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/71
- Price
- 120.00
Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
215/55 R17
The Dunlop Sport Maxx RT2 receives a just satisfactory rating in driving safety. On dry roads, it provides good steering feedback, precise control, and secure handling at the limit, along with a short braking distance, earning a solid good rating for dry performance. However, on wet roads, the Sport Maxx RT2 narrowly misses achieving more than a satisfactory rating. While it performs well in aquaplaning tests with good marks, it only achieves satisfactory results in braking distance measurements and wet handling. The tire offers a medium level of grip and combines longitudinal and lateral forces satisfactorily. In terms of environmental impact, the Dunlop Sport Maxx RT2 just falls short of a good rating. Its projected mileage and wear are rated as nearly good, as are its weight and fuel consumption. However, due to slightly higher rolling noise and just satisfactory sustainability, it narrowly misses a good evaluation.
Dry94.4%
Wet88.2%
Comfort97.5%
Value69.4%
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 | 4th / 16 | 123 ft | +7 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 12th / 16 | 113 ft | +19 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 9th / 16 | 125 ft | +20 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 3rd / 16 | 48.3 mph | -0.5 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 16 | 11.5 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 14th / 16 | 71.8 dB | +1.80 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 27,154 miles | -15,907 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 15th / 16 | 3.57 Price/1000 | +1.80 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 7th / 16 | 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 11th / 16 | 79.8 mg/km/t | +31.70 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/70
- Price
- 156.00
Bridgestone Turanza 6
215/55 R17
The new Bridgestone Turanza 6 achieves only a satisfactory rating in driving safety due to minor weaknesses on both dry and wet roads. On dry roads, it fails to provide the necessary steering feedback, making it somewhat difficult for drivers to accurately adjust the steering angle for curves as required for a good rating. Its handling at the limit is also rated as just satisfactory, although it does secure a good rating for its braking distance. On wet surfaces, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 shows slight weaknesses, with its wet performance also deemed satisfactory within the test group. While it receives good marks in aquaplaning tests, these are not enough to offset its satisfactory performance in braking distance measurements and wet handling ability, where it offers a medium level of grip and suboptimal combination of longitudinal and lateral forces. In terms of environmental impact, the new Bridgestone Turanza 6 achieves a clearly good result. Its projected mileage and wear are rated as good, and it also records a good efficiency rating. However, it falls short of receiving good ratings in external noise and sustainability.
Dry93.2%
Wet85.6%
Comfort98%
Value73.4%
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 | 11th / 16 | 125 ft | +9 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 13th / 16 | 114 ft | +20 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 14th / 16 | 131 ft | +26 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 1st / 16 | 48.8 mph | Best in this discipline |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 7th / 16 | 10.5 ft/s² | -1.0 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 16 | 71.4 dB | +1.40 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 7th / 16 | 29,764 miles | -13,297 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 14th / 16 | 3.53 Price/1000 | +1.76 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 1st / 16 | 5.7 l/100km | Best in this discipline |
| AbrasionLower is better | 9th / 16 | 73 mg/km/t | +24.90 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- B/A/70
- Price
- 169.00
Fulda SportControl 2
215/55 R17
The Fulda SportControl 2 achieves a good rating on dry roads but does not surpass a satisfactory rating in wet conditions, impacting its overall safety rating. On dry roads, it provides satisfactory steering feedback but is considered safe at the limit, with its braking distance rated clearly good compared to the test field. However, on wet surfaces, the SportControl 2 misses a good rating, showing strength in aquaplaning resistance but only achieving satisfactory results in wet braking and handling, offering a medium level of grip and suboptimal combination of longitudinal and lateral forces. In terms of environmental impact, the SportControl 2 narrowly misses a good rating, with its projected mileage and wear assessed as just satisfactory. However, its efficiency is rated as good due to low weight and fuel consumption.
Dry93.7%
Wet86.8%
Comfort97.6%
Value68%
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 | 7th / 16 | 124 ft | +8 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 15th / 16 | 115 ft | +21 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 10th / 16 | 126 ft | +21 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 4th / 16 | 48.3 mph | -0.5 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 16 | 10.8 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 11th / 16 | 71.7 dB | +1.70 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 12th / 16 | 25,103 miles | -17,958 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 13th / 16 | 3.42 Price/1000 | +1.65 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 7th / 16 | 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 14th / 16 | 82.5 mg/km/t | +34.40 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/71
- Price
- 138.00
Hankook Ventus Prime 4
215/55 R17
The Hankook Ventus Prime4 achieves only a satisfactory rating, primarily due to its wet performance. On dry roads, it provides satisfactory steering feedback and is considered safe at the limit, with its braking distance rated as good compared to other tires in the test. However, on wet roads, the Ventus Prime4 narrowly misses a good rating in braking distance measurements and clearly falls short in wet handling, offering a medium level of grip and suboptimal integration of longitudinal and lateral forces. Its aquaplaning resistance is also rated as just satisfactory. In terms of environmental impact, the Ventus Prime4 receives a good rating, with both its projected mileage and wear rated as good. Its weight is considered good for efficiency, and it nearly achieves a very good rating in fuel consumption.
Dry92.9%
Wet84.8%
Comfort97.8%
Value80.5%
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 | 12th / 16 | 125 ft | +9 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 16 | 108 ft | +14 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 12th / 16 | 128 ft | +23 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 13th / 16 | 46.2 mph | -2.6 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 16th / 16 | 8.9 ft/s² | -2.6 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 9th / 16 | 71.6 dB | +1.60 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 6th / 16 | 31,006 miles | -12,055 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 5th / 16 | 2.77 Price/1000 | +1.00 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 1st / 16 | 5.7 l/100km | Best in this discipline |
| AbrasionLower is better | 4th / 16 | 58.7 mg/km/t | +10.60 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- B/A/69
- Price
- 138.00
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
215/55 R17
The Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 only achieves a satisfactory rating, with its dry performance being the limiting factor. On dry surfaces, it provides just adequate steering feedback and does not exceed a satisfactory rating in handling at the limit. The insufficient steering feedback makes it challenging to accurately adjust the steering angle for curves, leading to a tendency for the test vehicle to oversteer during sudden evasion maneuvers. However, the tire does achieve a clearly good rating in braking distance. Overall, its dry performance does not surpass a satisfactory outcome. On wet roads, the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 narrowly misses a good rating in braking and aquaplaning but secures a good grade in wet handling due to its controllability. In terms of environmental impact, it falls just short of an excellent evaluation but still impresses with a very high projected mileage in the wear test, low wear, low tire weight, and low fuel consumption.
Dry93.4%
Wet86.8%
Comfort98.6%
Value92.1%
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 | 9th / 16 | 124 ft | +8 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 9th / 16 | 109 ft | +15 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 10th / 16 | 126 ft | +21 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 12th / 16 | 46.5 mph | -2.3 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 10.2 ft/s² | -1.3 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 4th / 16 | 71 dB | +1.00 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 2nd / 16 | 42,750 miles | -311 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 2nd / 16 | 2.43 Price/1000 | +0.66 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 4th / 16 | 5.8 l/100km | +0.10 l/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 2nd / 16 | 51.9 mg/km/t | +3.80 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- B/A/70
- Price
- 167.00
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
215/55 R17
The Falken Ziex ZE 310 EcoRun achieves only a satisfactory overall result, primarily due to its dry performance. On dry surfaces, it fails to provide precise steering feedback, making it difficult for drivers to adjust the steering angle for curves accurately, which precludes a good rating. Its handling at the limit is also rated as just satisfactory, though it does receive a good rating for its braking distance. In wet conditions, the Falken Ziex ZE 310 EcoRun performs better, securing good ratings in braking distance measurements and aquaplaning resistance, but narrowly misses a good rating in handling. While the vehicle can be safely driven on the course, increased grip and precision would improve its performance. Environmentally, the Falken Ziex ZE 310 EcoRun only achieves a satisfactory rating. It scores well for projected mileage and wear, but its status as the heaviest tire in the test leads to only an adequate rating in that criterion. Its fuel consumption is barely rated as good, and sustainability, particularly for tires produced in Turkey, is deemed adequate.
Dry93.9%
Wet90.4%
Comfort98%
Value74%
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 | 5th / 16 | 124 ft | +8 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 16 | 107 ft | +13 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 3rd / 16 | 119 ft | +14 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 5th / 16 | 48.1 mph | -0.7 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 16 | 10.8 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 16 | 71.4 dB | +1.40 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 8th / 16 | 28,769 miles | -14,292 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 8th / 16 | 2.85 Price/1000 | +1.08 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 16th / 16 | 6 l/100km | +0.30 l/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 8th / 16 | 72 mg/km/t | +23.90 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/69
- Price
- 132.00
Nexen N Fera Primus
215/55 R17
The Nexen N'Fera Primus receives a satisfactory rating in driving safety, failing to achieve a good rating in both dry and wet conditions. On dry roads, it provides barely satisfactory steering feedback and does not surpass a satisfactory rating in handling at the limit. A lack of precise steering feedback makes it challenging to accurately adjust the steering angle for curves, leading to a tendency for the vehicle to oversteer during sudden evasion maneuvers. However, the tire achieves a clearly good rating in braking distance. On wet surfaces, the N'Fera Primus secures good ratings in braking distance measurements and lateral aquaplaning but only achieves satisfactory results in longitudinal aquaplaning and handling, preventing a good overall rating in wet performance. Environmentally, the Nexen narrowly misses a good rating, with its projected mileage, noise, and sustainability rated as just satisfactory, while its wear and efficiency are rated as good.
Dry92.2%
Wet88.4%
Comfort97.6%
Value70.8%
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 | 14th / 16 | 126 ft | +10 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 7th / 16 | 108 ft | +14 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 6th / 16 | 122 ft | +17 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 11th / 16 | 46.7 mph | -2.1 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 7th / 16 | 10.5 ft/s² | -1.0 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 11th / 16 | 71.7 dB | +1.70 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 11th / 16 | 25,352 miles | -17,709 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 11th / 16 | 3.11 Price/1000 | +1.34 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 7th / 16 | 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 10th / 16 | 73.5 mg/km/t | +25.40 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- B/B/70
- Price
- 127.00
Goodride Solmax 1
215/55 R17
The Goodride Solmax 1 achieves only a satisfactory rating in this year's summer tire test, primarily due to its performance on wet roads. On dry surfaces, it fails to provide sufficiently accurate steering feedback, making it challenging for drivers to adjust the steering angle for curves as needed for a good rating. Its handling at the limit is also rated as just satisfactory, although it scores a clearly good rating in braking distance. On wet surfaces, the Solmax 1 receives clear satisfactory ratings in braking distance and barely satisfactory in wet handling, demonstrating a relatively weak grip level and moderate ability to combine longitudinal and lateral forces. However, its aquaplaning resistance is rated as good. Environmentally, the Goodride Solmax 1 has a satisfactory impact, with both its projected mileage and wear rated as satisfactory. In terms of efficiency, it achieves a good rating due to low fuel consumption and a comparatively reasonable weight. However, the sustainability of this tire, produced in China, is considered adequate.
Dry91%
Wet85.2%
Comfort97.9%
Value65.5%
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 | 15th / 16 | 128 ft | +12 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 16th / 16 | 115 ft | +21 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 16th / 16 | 132 ft | +27 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 8th / 16 | 47.7 mph | -1.1 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 16 | 10.8 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 8th / 16 | 71.5 dB | +1.50 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 15th / 16 | 22,121 miles | -20,940 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 12th / 16 | 3.37 Price/1000 | +1.60 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 7th / 16 | 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 15th / 16 | 87.3 mg/km/t | +39.20 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/72
- Price
- 120.00
Sailun Atrezzo ZSR2
215/55 R17
The Sailun Atrezzo ZSR2 achieves only a satisfactory rating in driving safety, providing just adequate steering feedback on dry roads and not exceeding a satisfactory rating in handling at the limit. The insufficient feedback affects the ability to accurately adjust the steering for curves, leading to a tendency for the vehicle to oversteer during sudden maneuvers. However, it does receive a clearly good rating in braking distance. Overall, its performance on dry roads is rated as satisfactory. On wet surfaces, the Sailun narrowly misses a good rating in both braking and aquaplaning, with only its wet handling performance being rated as just good. Thus, it achieves an overall satisfactory rating on wet roads. Environmentally, the Sailun also receives a satisfactory rating, with both its projected mileage and wear deemed satisfactory, albeit the latter just barely. It scores a good rating in efficiency due to low fuel consumption and a relatively low weight. However, the sustainability of this tire, produced in China, is rated as adequate.
Dry93.9%
Wet86.4%
Comfort100%
Value70.5%
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 | 5th / 16 | 124 ft | +8 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 16 | 107 ft | +13 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 15th / 16 | 131 ft | +26 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 47.5 mph | -1.3 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 10.2 ft/s² | -1.3 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 1st / 16 | 70 dB | Best in this discipline |
| WearHigher is better | 13th / 16 | 23,612 miles | -19,449 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 7th / 16 | 2.82 Price/1000 | +1.05 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 1st / 16 | 5.7 l/100km | Best in this discipline |
| AbrasionLower is better | 13th / 16 | 81.2 mg/km/t | +33.10 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- B/A/69
- Price
- 107.00
Semperit Speed Life 3
215/55 R17
The Semperit Speed-Life 3 receives a borderline satisfactory rating in driving safety, with only adequate steering feedback on dry roads and a similar rating in handling at the limit, leading to a tendency for the vehicle to oversteer during sudden maneuvers. Its braking performance is satisfactory, which just suffices for an overall satisfactory rating for its dry road properties. On wet roads, the Semperit Speed-Life 3 narrowly misses a good rating, achieving only satisfactory results in braking distance measurements and lateral aquaplaning. Despite good ratings in longitudinal aquaplaning and handling, it does not achieve a good overall wet performance rating. Environmentally, the Speed-Life 3 performs well, with a very good rating in projected mileage and good ratings in wear and efficiency. However, its noise level and sustainability receive satisfactory ratings.
Dry86.6%
Wet86%
Comfort97.6%
Value81.3%
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 | 16th / 16 | 134 ft | +18 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 10th / 16 | 110 ft | +16 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 13th / 16 | 130 ft | +25 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 7th / 16 | 47.7 mph | -1.1 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 9th / 16 | 10.2 ft/s² | -1.3 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 11th / 16 | 71.7 dB | +1.70 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 5th / 16 | 34,300 miles | -8,761 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 3rd / 16 | 2.52 Price/1000 | +0.75 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 4th / 16 | 5.8 l/100km | +0.10 l/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 6th / 16 | 67.4 mg/km/t | +19.30 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- C/B/72
- Price
- 139.00
Linglong Sport Master
215/55 R17
The Linglong Sport Master receives an overall satisfactory rating in driving safety. On dry roads, it provides only sufficient steering feedback and achieves an adequate rating in handling at the limit, with a tendency to oversteer during sudden evasive maneuvers and a slow stabilization time. Its braking performance on dry roads is also rated as satisfactory. In wet conditions, although the Sport Master achieves a good rating in braking distances, it only manages a satisfactory rating for aquaplaning resistance and handling, offering medium grip and suboptimal integration of longitudinal and lateral forces, leading to a satisfactory wet performance rating. Environmentally, the Linglong has a satisfactory impact, with satisfactory predicted mileage and good wear. Its efficiency is rated as good due to low fuel consumption and relatively low weight, but its sustainability, particularly for the tire produced in China, is considered adequate.
Dry94.9%
Wet86.2%
Comfort99.2%
Value72.7%
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 | 2nd / 16 | 122 ft | +6 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 8th / 16 | 109 ft | +15 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 7th / 16 | 122 ft | +17 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 14th / 16 | 46.1 mph | -2.7 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 14th / 16 | 9.2 ft/s² | -2.3 ft/s² |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 16 | 70.6 dB | +0.60 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 14th / 16 | 23,239 miles | -19,822 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 4th / 16 | 2.54 Price/1000 | +0.77 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 7th / 16 | 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 7th / 16 | 70.4 mg/km/t | +22.30 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/69
- Price
- 95.00
Vredestein Ultrac
215/55 R17
The Vredestein Ultrac is rated as good in driving safety. It provides good steering feedback and secure handling at the limit on dry roads, along with a short braking distance. On wet roads, its properties are also considered good, including in braking distance measurements and aquaplaning resistance, although it narrowly misses a good rating in handling. The tire offers a medium level of grip but needs to better combine longitudinal and lateral forces for a higher rating. In terms of environmental impact, the Vredestein Ultrac is rated as merely adequate overall due to its low projected mileage. It receives a satisfactory rating for wear but is praised for its efficiency, attributed to its low weight and fuel consumption.
Dry93.7%
Wet90.1%
Comfort97.5%
Value56.5%
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 | 7th / 16 | 124 ft | +8 ft |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 11th / 16 | 112 ft | +18 ft |
| Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better | 3rd / 16 | 119 ft | +14 ft |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 2nd / 16 | 48.7 mph | -0.1 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 16 | 11.5 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 14th / 16 | 71.8 dB | +1.80 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 16th / 16 | 16,901 miles | -26,160 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 16th / 16 | 5.11 Price/1000 | +3.34 Price/1000 |
| Fuel ConsumptionLower is better | 7th / 16 | 5.9 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 16th / 16 | 102.7 mg/km/t | +54.60 mg/km/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/69
- Price
- 139.00
Curious what you think Jonathan.
I have a RWD Tesla Model 3 in Canada. I have dedicated winter tires I'll be using when temperatures drop. So I figured summer touring tires make sense over an all season touring tire.
The OE Michelin Primacy MXM4s that came with the car are near worn out and I was not blown away by their life despite proper rotation, pressures etc (though I've never owned an EV before and maybe this is the norm).
The shop I've historically dealt with (hopefully unintentionally) mislead me saying the Westlake Z007 (North American equivalent to the Goodride Solmax 1) is just using a one generation old Yokohama design which from what I researched is not the case.
Do you think that a dedicated cheap summer touring (like that Goodride) will at least perform comparably in summer (or near enough) to the Michelin all season touring (MXM4)?
I know what you say about cheap tires... Looking at the performance rankings these tires are not the best, but not horrendouse either. Not something I'd buy again, but they are already mounted and balanced.
I'm deciding whether it's worth making a big deal of it from my local shop and or selling these and buying something else.
Thanks for your input.
In the dry it's like to out perform the MXM4. Wet is a good question, I would hope the Michelin would still have the advantage but I wouldn't really want to be on either of them.
Thanks for the feedback. It's interesting quite how bad the MXM4s seem to sacrifice performance (in both wet and dry) just to cut down rolling resistance. Combine that with low tread life, it seems like a pretty bad tire for the money unless you're trying to eek every last kilometer out of an EVs charge.
Coming into finding your guys' work, I just assumed all season = good in summer and nordic winter = good in winter. I never knew how much difference there was between budget and premium brands, and even between tire types.
It's interesting I found a Tire Rack article showing Cross Climate 2's massively outperforming the MXM4 in both dry and wet handling and breaking. I'm sure in snow it'd be a complete bloodbath (though I have dedicated nordic winter tires anyways).
Then you guys did an all season shootout where a mid tier Kumho summer tire stomped on the Cross Climate 2s in the dry and wet.
So these Goodrides are worse than the Kumho on that test, but at least are hopefully better than the MXM4s I'm coming from.
Shows how important buying the right type of tires is when cheap Goodride summer tires are likely going to outperform (at least in summer conditions) the expensive OEM Michelin tires that have to do everything, while having low rolling resistance.
I'm going to see if the shop will swap them out for the Goodyear or Michelin UUHP summers on test here.
The Goodrides look to perform bad in the wet to a point I don't want to risk my family's safety. And hilariously it's cost per KM is worse than the Goodyear or Michelins because they wear so poor.
Thanks for the help!
The Turanza 6 is farther down than I had expected given how well the all season version has performed in testing…
The AS and summer are totally different tires, they just share the same name. IT seems Bridgestone have given up some grip when aiming for wear, which is a natural trade.