The Auto Bild 2024 summer tire test for electric vehicles (EVs) in the 235/55 R19 size aimed to compare the performance of standard and specialized EV tires to determine if EV-specific tires offer significant advantages over their conventional counterparts. The test included eight tire models: the Continental PremiumContact 7, Falken e.Ziex [ev specific], Hankook iON evo SUV [ev specific], Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV, Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6, GT Radial SportActive 2 EV [ev specific], Bridgestone Potenza Sport, and Goodride ZuperEco Z-107.

Test setup & methodology

The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 62.1 → 0.0 mph
Wet Braking: 62.1 → 0.0 mph

Interestingly, Michelin decided not to officially enter their EV-specific tire, the Pilot Sport EV, or their e-Primacy model in the test, opting instead for the Pilot Sport 4 SUV from their sports tire segment. Despite this, the discontinued Pilot Sport EV was still tested alongside the other contenders, providing an opportunity to compare its performance against both standard and EV-specific tires.

The tires were evaluated on a Kia EV6 electric vehicle across three main categories: Wet Performance (40% weightage), Dry Performance (40% weightage), and Cost (20% weightage). Wet Performance tests included aquaplaning, curved aquaplaning, handling, steering response, and braking. Dry Performance assessed handling, braking, rolling comfort, and pass-by noise. The Cost category considered mileage, price per mileage, rolling resistance, and electricity consumption.

In the final results, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV emerged as the overall winner, receiving an "Exemplary" rating. The Continental PremiumContact 7 and Hankook iON evo SUV tied for second place, also with "Exemplary" ratings. The Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 followed closely in fourth place. The test demonstrated that while specialized EV tires like the Hankook iON evo SUV can offer benefits, high-quality standard tires such as those from Continental and Michelin can also provide excellent performance on electric vehicles.

As for the Michelin Pilot Sport EV, although it wasn't officially part of the test, its performance in the measured categories suggests it would have likely placed in the lower half of the rankings. The tire struggled in wet conditions, placing 7th in braking and 8th in both aquaplaning tests. It fared slightly better in dry handling, securing 6th place. However, without complete data across all test criteria, it's difficult to determine its exact position in the final order.

The Auto Bild 2024 summer tire test for EVs showcases the importance of considering a balance of safety, performance, and efficiency when selecting tires for electric vehicles. While EV-specific tires can offer some advantages, the test proves that high-quality standard tires can also rise to the challenge of providing excellent performance on these technologically advanced vehicles.

Dry

The Hankook iON evo SUV showcased the best dry braking performance, stopping just short of the Continental PremiumContact 7. The GT Radial SportActive 2 EV and Goodride ZuperEco Z-107 required the longest distances to come to a halt.

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Hankook iON evo SUV	108 ft	Best	0 mph
2Continental PremiumContact 7	109 ft	+1 ft	6 mph
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	111 ft	+3 ft	13 mph
4Bridgestone Potenza Sport	112 ft	+4 ft	14 mph
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	112 ft	+4 ft	14 mph
6Falken e.Ziex	114 ft	+6 ft	18 mph
7Michelin Pilot Sport EV	115 ft	+7 ft	19 mph
8Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco	122 ft	+14 ft	27 mph
9GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV	124 ft	+16 ft	29 mph

The difference between best and worst was 14.8% (16 ft ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV would still be travelling at 29 mph when the Hankook iON evo SUV had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Continental PremiumContact 7 demonstrated the most agile and precise handling on dry roads, closely followed by the Michelin's Pilot Sport 4 SUV and Bridgestone Potenza Sport. The Goodride ZuperEco Z-107 and GT Radial SportActive 2 EV struggled to keep up with the leaders in this discipline.

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	44.3 mph	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	44.1 mph	-0.2 mph
3Bridgestone Potenza Sport	43.9 mph	-0.4 mph
4Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	43.7 mph	-0.6 mph
5Hankook iON evo SUV	43.6 mph	-0.7 mph
6Michelin Pilot Sport EV	43.6 mph	-0.7 mph
7Falken e.Ziex	43.2 mph	-1.1 mph
8GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV	42.0 mph	-2.3 mph
9Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco	41.7 mph	-2.6 mph

The difference between best and worst was 5.9% (2.6 mph).

Wet

In wet braking tests, the Continental PremiumContact 7 outperformed the competition, with the Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 and Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV not far behind. The Goodride ZuperEco Z-107 had the longest braking distance on wet surfaces.

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental PremiumContact 7	124 ft	Best	0 mph
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	128 ft	+4 ft	15 mph
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	129 ft	+5 ft	16 mph
4Bridgestone Potenza Sport	129 ft	+5 ft	17 mph
4Hankook iON evo SUV	129 ft	+5 ft	17 mph
6Falken e.Ziex	139 ft	+15 ft	27 mph
7Michelin Pilot Sport EV	142 ft	+18 ft	29 mph
8GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV	151 ft	+27 ft	34 mph
9Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco	158 ft	+34 ft	37 mph

The difference between best and worst was 27.6% (34 ft ≈ 2.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco would still be travelling at 37 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.

The Bridgestone Potenza Sport and Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV displayed the best handling characteristics on wet roads, while the Goodride ZuperEco Z-107 was again last.

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport	36.8 mph	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	36.4 mph	-0.4 mph
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	36.2 mph	-0.6 mph
4Continental PremiumContact 7	35.8 mph	-1.0 mph
5Hankook iON evo SUV	35.5 mph	-1.3 mph
6Falken e.Ziex	35.0 mph	-1.8 mph
7Michelin Pilot Sport EV	34.9 mph	-1.9 mph
8GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV	34.3 mph	-2.5 mph
9Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco	33.7 mph	-3.1 mph

The difference between best and worst was 8.3% (3.1 mph).

The Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV had the highest resistance to aquaplaning in straight-line conditions, with most tires performing similarly well. The Falken e.Ziex was the first to lose grip on the water-covered surface.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	59.3 mph	Best
2Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco	58.8 mph	-0.5 mph
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	58.8 mph	-0.5 mph
4Bridgestone Potenza Sport	58.7 mph	-0.6 mph
4Hankook iON evo SUV	58.7 mph	-0.6 mph
6GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV	58.5 mph	-0.8 mph
7Continental PremiumContact 7	58.0 mph	-1.3 mph
8Michelin Pilot Sport EV	57.9 mph	-1.4 mph
9Falken e.Ziex	57.2 mph	-2.1 mph

The difference between best and worst was 3.6% (2.1 mph).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco	10.8 ft/s²	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	10.7 ft/s²	-0.1 ft/s²
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	10.7 ft/s²	-0.1 ft/s²
4Bridgestone Potenza Sport	10.6 ft/s²	-0.2 ft/s²
5Hankook iON evo SUV	9.8 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
6Continental PremiumContact 7	9.7 ft/s²	-1.1 ft/s²
7Falken e.Ziex	9.6 ft/s²	-1.2 ft/s²
8Michelin Pilot Sport EV	8.9 ft/s²	-1.9 ft/s²
9GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV	8.7 ft/s²	-2.1 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 19.5% (2.1 ft/s²).

Comfort

The Hankook iON evo SUV proved to be the quietest tire, whereas the Bridgestone Potenza Sport produced the most noise.

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON evo SUV	68.6 dB	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	70 dB	+1.40 dB
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	70 dB	+1.40 dB
4Falken e.Ziex	70.2 dB	+1.60 dB
5Continental PremiumContact 7	70.3 dB	+1.70 dB
6Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco	70.5 dB	+1.90 dB
6GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV	70.5 dB	+1.90 dB
8Bridgestone Potenza Sport	71.2 dB	+2.60 dB
9Michelin Pilot Sport EV	71.3 dB	+2.70 dB

The difference between best and worst was 3.9% (2.7 dB).

Value

The Continental PremiumContact 7 demonstrated the lowest wear rate, promising the highest mileage. The Bridgestone Potenza Sport had the highest wear, just half of the Continental.

Wear
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	22,919 miles	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	22,285 miles	-634 miles
3Hankook iON evo SUV	22,180 miles	-739 miles
4GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV	21,689 miles	-1,230 miles
5Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	20,515 miles	-2,404 miles
6Falken e.Ziex	17,010 miles	-5,909 miles
7Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco	16,873 miles	-6,046 miles
8Bridgestone Potenza Sport	11,514 miles	-11,405 miles

The difference between best and worst was 49.8% (11,405 miles).

The rolling resistance and energy consumption tests yielded intriguing results, particularly for the Bridgestone Potenza Sport and GT Radial SportActive 2 EV tires. In the rolling resistance test, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport had the highest rolling resistance, while the GT Radial SportActive 2 EV performed well, ranking second only to the Falken e.Ziex.

However, the real-world efficiency test revealed a different picture. The GT Radial SportActive 2 EV, despite its low rolling resistance in the lab test, consumed the most energy during real-world testing. This discrepancy highlights the importance of conducting both laboratory and real-world assessments to gain a comprehensive understanding of a tire's performance.

The article does not provide specific theories to explain this discrepancy, but it is possible that other factors, such as the tire's construction, compound, or interaction with the road surface, may have contributed to the GT Radial SportActive 2 EV's higher energy consumption in real-world conditions.

Value
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	cost per 1,000 miles
1Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco	14.55 Price/1000	Best	€36.58
2Hankook iON evo SUV	19.33 Price/1000	+4.78 Price/1000	€39.82
3GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV	19.48 Price/1000	+4.93 Price/1000	€37.17
4Continental PremiumContact 7	20.2 Price/1000	+5.65 Price/1000	€40.11
5Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	21.05 Price/1000	+6.50 Price/1000	€45.47
6Falken e.Ziex	23.01 Price/1000	+8.46 Price/1000	€41.15
7Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	23.42 Price/1000	+8.87 Price/1000	€51.02
8Bridgestone Potenza Sport	38.32 Price/1000	+23.77 Price/1000	€82.57

The difference between best and worst was 163.4% (23.77 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco) works out €1,150 cheaper than the most expensive (Bridgestone Potenza Sport).

How this is calculated

Assumes a typical EV using 18 kWh/100km (with rolling resistance causing 25% of energy use), electricity at €0.32 per kWh and €70 fitting per set of four. Purchase prices are from the time of the 2024 test; financing costs are excluded.

Energy Consumption
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra energy / year
1Falken e.Ziex	18.28 kWh/100km	Best	$0
2Continental PremiumContact 7	18.46 kWh/100km	+0.18 kWh/100km	$5
3Hankook iON evo SUV	18.83 kWh/100km	+0.55 kWh/100km	$16
4Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	19.17 kWh/100km	+0.89 kWh/100km	$26
5Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco	19.88 kWh/100km	+1.60 kWh/100km	$46
6Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	20.02 kWh/100km	+1.74 kWh/100km	$50
7Bridgestone Potenza Sport	20.66 kWh/100km	+2.38 kWh/100km	$69
8GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV	20.82 kWh/100km	+2.54 kWh/100km	$74

The difference between best and worst was 13.9% (2.54 kWh/100km). Over 12,000 miles a year at $0.15/kWh, the GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV uses about 491 kWh ($74) more electricity than the Falken e.Ziex.

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.

The Continental PremiumContact 7 produced the least amount of tire abrasion, suggesting a more environmentally friendly performance. The Bridgestone Potenza Sport had the highest abrasion rate, which may lead to increased tire particulate emissions.

Abrasion
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	1069 g	Best
2Hankook iON evo SUV	1141 g	+72.00 g
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	1211 g	+142.00 g
3Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco	1211 g	+142.00 g
5GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV	1222 g	+153.00 g
6Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	1234 g	+165.00 g
7Falken e.Ziex	1244 g	+175.00 g
8Bridgestone Potenza Sport	2093 g	+1,024.00 g

The difference between best and worst was 95.8% (1,024 g).

Results

Dry98.1%

Wet98.5%

Comfort98%

Value83.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

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 / 9	112 ft	+4 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 9	44.1 mph	-0.2 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 9	129 ft	+5 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 9	36.4 mph	-0.4 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	3^rd / 9	12.93 s	+0.05 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 9	59.3 mph	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 9	10.7 ft/s²	-0.1 ft/s²
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 9	70 dB	+1.40 dB
WearHigher is better	2^nd / 8	22,285 miles	-634 miles
ValueLower is better	7^th / 8	23.42 Price/1000	+8.87 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	8^th / 9	7.99 kg/t	+2.44 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	4^th / 8	19.17 kWh/100km	+0.89 kWh/100km
AbrasionLower is better	3^rd / 8	1211 g	+142.00 g

EU Label: C/A/72
Weight: 12.95 kgs
Price: 840.00

Dry99.7%

Wet98%

Comfort97.6%

Value91.4%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

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 / 9	109 ft	+1 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 9	44.3 mph	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 9	124 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 9	35.8 mph	-1.0 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	1^st / 9	12.88 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 9	58.0 mph	-1.3 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 9	9.7 ft/s²	-1.1 ft/s²
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 9	70.3 dB	+1.70 dB
WearHigher is better	1^st / 8	22,919 miles	Best in this discipline
ValueLower is better	4^th / 8	20.2 Price/1000	+5.65 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	4^th / 9	6.64 kg/t	+1.09 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 8	18.46 kWh/100km	+0.18 kWh/100km
AbrasionLower is better	1^st / 8	1069 g	Best in this discipline

EU Label: C/A/72
Weight: 11.95 kgs
Price: 745.00

Dry99.2%

Wet96.4%

Comfort100%

Value89.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

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 / 9	108 ft	Best in this discipline
Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 9	43.6 mph	-0.7 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 9	129 ft	+5 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 9	35.5 mph	-1.3 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	6^th / 9	13.11 s	+0.23 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 9	58.7 mph	-0.6 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	5^th / 9	9.8 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 9	68.6 dB	Best in this discipline
WearHigher is better	3^rd / 8	22,180 miles	-739 miles
ValueLower is better	2^nd / 8	19.33 Price/1000	+4.78 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	5^th / 9	6.88 kg/t	+1.33 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	3^rd / 8	18.83 kWh/100km	+0.55 kWh/100km
AbrasionLower is better	2^nd / 8	1141 g	+72.00 g

EU Label: A/A/69
Weight: 13.35 kgs
Price: 690.00

Dry98%

Wet98.3%

Comfort98%

Value82.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

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 / 9	111 ft	+3 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 9	43.7 mph	-0.6 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 9	128 ft	+4 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 9	36.2 mph	-0.6 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	5^th / 9	13.01 s	+0.13 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 9	58.8 mph	-0.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 9	10.7 ft/s²	-0.1 ft/s²
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 9	70 dB	+1.40 dB
WearHigher is better	5^th / 8	20,515 miles	-2,404 miles
ValueLower is better	5^th / 8	21.05 Price/1000	+6.50 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 9	7.51 kg/t	+1.96 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 8	20.02 kWh/100km	+1.74 kWh/100km
AbrasionLower is better	6^th / 8	1234 g	+165.00 g

EU Label: B/A/69
Weight: 13.08 kgs
Price: 695.00

Dry96.4%

Wet93.3%

Comfort97.7%

Value85.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

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 / 9	114 ft	+6 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 9	43.2 mph	-1.1 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 9	139 ft	+15 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 9	35.0 mph	-1.8 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	7^th / 9	13.39 s	+0.51 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 9	57.2 mph	-2.1 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	7^th / 9	9.6 ft/s²	-1.2 ft/s²
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 9	70.2 dB	+1.60 dB
WearHigher is better	6^th / 8	17,010 miles	-5,909 miles
ValueLower is better	6^th / 8	23.01 Price/1000	+8.46 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	1^st / 9	5.55 kg/t	Best in this discipline
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 8	18.28 kWh/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	7^th / 8	1244 g	+175.00 g

EU Label: A/A/69
Weight: 11.79 kgs
Price: 630.00

Dry90.9%

Wet90.1%

Comfort97.3%

Value87.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

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	9^th / 9	124 ft	+16 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 9	42.0 mph	-2.3 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 9	151 ft	+27 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 9	34.3 mph	-2.5 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	8^th / 9	13.45 s	+0.57 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 9	58.5 mph	-0.8 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	9^th / 9	8.7 ft/s²	-2.1 ft/s²
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 9	70.5 dB	+1.90 dB
WearHigher is better	4^th / 8	21,689 miles	-1,230 miles
ValueLower is better	3^rd / 8	19.48 Price/1000	+4.93 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 9	6.17 kg/t	+0.62 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 8	20.82 kWh/100km	+2.54 kWh/100km
AbrasionLower is better	5^th / 8	1222 g	+153.00 g

EU Label: A/A/69
Weight: 12.89 kgs
Price: 680.00

Dry98.1%

Wet98.6%

Comfort96.4%

Value59.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

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 / 9	112 ft	+4 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 9	43.9 mph	-0.4 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 9	129 ft	+5 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 9	36.8 mph	Best in this discipline
Wet CircleLower is better	1^st / 9	12.88 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 9	58.7 mph	-0.6 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	4^th / 9	10.6 ft/s²	-0.2 ft/s²
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 9	71.2 dB	+2.60 dB
WearHigher is better	8^th / 8	11,514 miles	-11,405 miles
ValueLower is better	8^th / 8	38.32 Price/1000	+23.77 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	9^th / 9	9.1 kg/t	+3.55 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	7^th / 8	20.66 kWh/100km	+2.38 kWh/100km
AbrasionLower is better	8^th / 8	2093 g	+1,024.00 g

EU Label: C/A/72
Weight: 13.48 kgs
Price: 710.00

Dry91.4%

Wet90.1%

Comfort97.3%

Value84.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

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	8^th / 9	122 ft	+14 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	9^th / 9	41.7 mph	-2.6 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	9^th / 9	158 ft	+34 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	9^th / 9	33.7 mph	-3.1 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	9^th / 9	13.95 s	+1.07 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 9	58.8 mph	-0.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 9	10.8 ft/s²	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 9	70.5 dB	+1.90 dB
WearHigher is better	7^th / 8	16,873 miles	-6,046 miles
ValueLower is better	1^st / 8	14.55 Price/1000	Best in this discipline
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	7^th / 9	7.71 kg/t	+2.16 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 8	19.88 kWh/100km	+1.60 kWh/100km
AbrasionLower is better	3^rd / 8	1211 g	+142.00 g

EU Label: C/B/72
Weight: 13.10 kgs
Price: 395.00

Dry96.3%

Wet93%

Comfort96.2%

Value18.6%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (9)

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 / 9	115 ft	+7 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 9	43.6 mph	-0.7 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 9	142 ft	+18 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 9	34.9 mph	-1.9 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	4^th / 9	12.95 s	+0.07 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 9	57.9 mph	-1.4 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	8^th / 9	8.9 ft/s²	-1.9 ft/s²
NoiseLower is better	9^th / 9	71.3 dB	+2.70 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	3^rd / 9	6.55 kg/t	+1.00 kg/t

Discussion

2 comments

Morten KA Apr 8, 2025 archived

In your test, the Continental tire has lower rolling resistance than the Hankook. But according to the EU tire marking, the Continental tire is a C tire and the Hankook is an A tire. How can that be?

#10054
1. TireReviews Morten KA Apr 11, 2025 archived
  
  I don't know the answer (this isn't my test) however tire manufacturers are allowed to downgrade label scores if they want to for marketing reasons.
  
  #10060

Menu

Tire shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry

Wet

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test