Test Charts / Motor

2025 Motor Low Rolling Resistance (AA) Tire Test

Compare each discipline in the tested size. See the measured result, position and gap to the best tire, then read the verdict for the trade-offs behind the finishing order.

Tested size: 205/55 R16
Tires tested: 7
Disciplines: 11

Read the measurements, not just the rank

Lower is better for braking distances and lap times; higher is better for subjective scores and aquaplaning speed. Bars start at zero. Read the gap alongside the position: adjacent tires can be separated by very different margins.

Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tires does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin e.Primacy	118 ft	Best
2Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	119 ft	+1 ft
3Continental UltraContact NXT	120 ft	+2 ft
4Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	122 ft	+4 ft
5Nexen N Blue S	123 ft	+5 ft
6Bridgestone Turanza T005	124 ft	+6 ft
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	130 ft	+12 ft

The difference between best and worst was 9.4% (12 ft ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths).

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental UltraContact NXT	52.5 s	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	52.8 s	+0.30 s
3Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	52.9 s	+0.40 s
4Bridgestone Turanza T005	53 s	+0.50 s
5Nexen N Blue S	53.2 s	+0.70 s
6Michelin e.Primacy	53.4 s	+0.90 s
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	53.6 s	+1.10 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental UltraContact NXT	7.1 Points	Best
2Bridgestone Turanza T005	6.9 Points	-0.20 Points
3Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	6.7 Points	-0.40 Points
4Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	6.5 Points	-0.60 Points
5Michelin e.Primacy	6.3 Points	-0.80 Points
6Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	6 Points	-1.10 Points
7Nexen N Blue S	5.7 Points	-1.40 Points

The difference between best and worst was 19.7% (1.4 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental UltraContact NXT	165 ft	Best	0 mph
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	168 ft	+3 ft	11 mph
3Michelin e.Primacy	170 ft	+5 ft	14 mph
4Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	177 ft	+12 ft	21 mph
5Nexen N Blue S	177 ft	+12 ft	21 mph
6Bridgestone Turanza T005	178 ft	+13 ft	22 mph
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	225 ft	+60 ft	42 mph

The difference between best and worst was 36.9% (60 ft ≈ 4.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Prinx XLAB Comfort EV would still be travelling at 42 mph when the Continental UltraContact NXT had stopped.

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

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental UltraContact NXT	84.6 s	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	85 s	+0.40 s
3Michelin e.Primacy	85.5 s	+0.90 s
4Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	86.1 s	+1.50 s
5Nexen N Blue S	86.5 s	+1.90 s
6Bridgestone Turanza T005	86.9 s	+2.30 s
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	94 s	+9.40 s

The difference between best and worst was 11.1% (9.4 s).

Wet Circle
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental UltraContact NXT	1.9 mph	Best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	1.9 mph	Best
3Bridgestone Turanza T005	1.8 mph	-0.1 mph
4Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	1.8 mph	-0.1 mph
5Michelin e.Primacy	1.8 mph	-0.1 mph
5Nexen N Blue S	1.8 mph	-0.1 mph
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	1.7 mph	-0.2 mph

The difference between best and worst was 9.5% (0.2 mph).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nexen N Blue S	47.7 mph	Best
2Bridgestone Turanza T005	46.3 mph	-1.4 mph
3Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	46.2 mph	-1.5 mph
4Continental UltraContact NXT	46.0 mph	-1.7 mph
5Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	45.8 mph	-1.9 mph
6Michelin e.Primacy	44.4 mph	-3.3 mph
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	44.2 mph	-3.5 mph

The difference between best and worst was 7.3% (3.5 mph).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Turanza T005	9.8 ft/s²	Best
2Nexen N Blue S	9.5 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
3Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	9.1 ft/s²	-0.7 ft/s²
4Continental UltraContact NXT	9.0 ft/s²	-0.8 ft/s²
5Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	8.9 ft/s²	-0.9 ft/s²
6Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	8.4 ft/s²	-1.4 ft/s²
7Michelin e.Primacy	7.5 ft/s²	-2.3 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 23.5% (2.3 ft/s²).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	7 Points	Best
1Michelin e.Primacy	7 Points	Best
1Continental UltraContact NXT	7 Points	Best
4Bridgestone Turanza T005	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Nexen N Blue S	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	6 Points	-1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 14.3% (1 Points).

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	63.4 dB	Best
2Continental UltraContact NXT	63.8 dB	+0.40 dB
3Michelin e.Primacy	63.9 dB	+0.50 dB
4Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	64.1 dB	+0.70 dB
5Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	65 dB	+1.60 dB
6Nexen N Blue S	65.2 dB	+1.80 dB
7Bridgestone Turanza T005	66.8 dB	+3.40 dB

The difference between best and worst was 5.4% (3.4 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Michelin e.Primacy	5.48 kg/t	Best	$0
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	5.61 kg/t	+0.13 kg/t	$7
3Nexen N Blue S	6.04 kg/t	+0.56 kg/t	$30
4Bridgestone Turanza T005	6.08 kg/t	+0.60 kg/t	$32
5Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	6.35 kg/t	+0.87 kg/t	$47
6Continental UltraContact NXT	6.58 kg/t	+1.10 kg/t	$59
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	6.81 kg/t	+1.33 kg/t	$71

The difference between best and worst was 24.3% (1.33 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Prinx XLAB Comfort EV uses about 20 gal ($71) more fuel than the Michelin e.Primacy.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions. These calculators use the full test field, independently of your tire selection above.

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.