Menu

The Best Touring Tires for 2025 Tested

Jonathan Benson
Tested and written by Jonathan Benson
8 min read
Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Testing Methodology
    1. Categories Tested
  3. Dry
  4. Wet
  5. Comfort
  6. Value
  7. Results
  8. Pirelli Cinturato C3
  9. Continental PremiumContact 7
  10. Vredestein Ultrac
  11. Falken ZIEX ZE320
  12. Michelin Primacy 4+
  13. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
  14. Goodtrip GR 66

There's a new comfort bias summer tire to market, the Pirelli Cinturato C3! To see how good the new tire really is, I've tested it against some of its key rivals from Michelin and Continental. I've also added some new tires I've not tested before. 

As usual, all the tires in this test will be tested in the dry and wet, and I'll be assessing the comfort, noise, and rolling resistance (energy use) of the tires to give you a complete overview of which tire is best.

Testing Methodology

Test Driver
Jonathan Benson
Tire Size
225/50 R17
Test Location
Professional Proving Ground
Test Year
2025
Tires Tested
7
Show full testing methodology Hide methodology

Every tire is tested using calibrated instrumented measurement and structured subjective assessment. Reference tires are retested throughout each session to correct for changing conditions, ensuring fair, repeatable comparisons. Multiple reference sets are used where needed so that control tire wear does not affect accuracy.

We use professional-grade testing equipment including GPS data loggers, accelerometers, and calibrated microphones. All tires are broken in and conditioned before testing begins. For full details on our equipment, preparation process, and calibration procedures, see our complete testing methodology.

Categories Tested

Dry Braking

For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tires are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.

Dry Handling

For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.

Subj. Dry Handling

Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated dry handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tire before evaluating each candidate.

Wet Braking

For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tire performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tires repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.

Wet Handling

For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.

Subj. Wet Handling

Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tire before evaluating each candidate.

Straight Aqua

To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tire set and average the valid results.

Curved Aquaplaning

For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 metres in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.

Subj. Comfort

To assess comfort, I drive on a wide range of road surfaces (often dedicated comfort tracks at test facilities) at speeds from 50 to 120 km/h, including smooth motorway, coarse surfaces, expansion joints, broken pavement, and sharp-edged obstacles. I evaluate primary ride quality, secondary ride quality, impact harshness, seat-transmitted vibration, and the tire's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tire.

Noise

I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.

Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tire is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.

Standards: UNECE Regulation 117 ISO 13325 ISO 28580 UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6

Dry

Dry handling was very close! As always for the dry I'm not just testing outright lap time, as that is probably less interesting for this category of tire, but we're digging deep into things like steering precision and predictability, things which impact your life on the road with these tires.

The Firestone was lovely and predictable driving around, light steering, but as you sped up the rear got saturated quickly.

The Vredestein felt pretty bouncy, the steering wasn't precise and the softness of the tire meant the rear took time to stabilise when turning which isn't a feeling I enjoy, it means you're guessing where the car is going. Otherwise, great grip.

The Falken felt more sporty, and was very stable, this new falken continues to perform well.

The top three were pretty difficult to pick from, which were the Conti, Michelin and Pirelli. The Conti had the quickest steering but did feel a touch elastic in this size, whereas the Michelin and Pirelli both felt very stable, rounded, mature and had excellent grip.

Subjectively it was very hard to pick a favorite between Michelin and Pirelli, but as the Pirelli was faster around the lap, it won.

Dry Handling

Spread: 1.86 s (2.2%)|Avg: 86.21 s
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    85.54 s
  2. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    85.61 s
  3. Continental PremiumContact 7
    85.73 s
  4. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    86.22 s
  5. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    86.43 s
  6. Vredestein Ultrac
    86.57 s
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    87.40 s

The Pirelli Cinturato C3 needed just 34.13 meters to stop from 100 km/h, while the Goodtrip GR 66 took nearly 3 meters longer at 37.09 meters.

Dry Braking

Spread: 2.96 M (8.7%)|Avg: 35.00 M
Dry braking in meters (100 - 5 km/h) (Lower is better)
  1. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    34.13 M
  2. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    34.21 M
  3. Vredestein Ultrac
    34.43 M
  4. Continental PremiumContact 7
    34.65 M
  5. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    35.22 M
  6. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    35.27 M
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    37.09 M

Wet

It's been a while since I wet tested in a RWD car, and while safety systems have come a long way, it is a nice reminder how important tires are. 

The Goodtrip must have been named ironically as you wouldn't have a good trip in the wet. To be fair to it, it's not the worst cheap tire I've ever used, but it certainly doesn't compare to the rest.

Next up was the Michelin Primacy 4+, as usual this was classic Michelin, super safe feeling with plenty of understeer. The French tire is now a little down on grip, showing its age as one of the oldest tires in this test.

The top 5 were separated by less than 3% which is crazy close on such a complicated track. While all the times were close, as usual, the grip was delivered in varying ways.

The Firestone was an easy tire to drive, the rear felt very planted and it posted a good time, it didn't feel special but it wasn't particularly bad in any way either.

Next up was the Continental, and we're now 1.8% away from the best so these is a very tight group.

I usually love Continental in subjective handling, but in this size and this vehicle it didn't really gel for me. Still loads of grip, but the rear was a little behind the front, and the front had high levels of understeer. But again, we're within 2% of the best.

Third and second was the new Pirelli and the Vredestein Ultrac. The Pirelli felt like one of the best on this vehicle with nice steering and a solid balance, whereas the Vredestein felt a little sluggish in comparison but like always, the Ultrac had buckets of grip.

Finally, the new Falken posted the fastest time by the smallest of margins. It felt very similar to the vredestein, as in a little sluggish compared to the Pirelli, but loads of grip and no issue with the deeper water on the track.

Wet Handling

Spread: 11.54 s (11%)|Avg: 108.56 s
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    105.18 s
  2. Vredestein Ultrac
    106.28 s
  3. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    106.63 s
  4. Continental PremiumContact 7
    107.14 s
  5. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    108.05 s
  6. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    109.92 s
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    116.72 s

A very close handling test, so let's see if braking is can spread things out!

The Continental PremiumContact 7 showed its wet weather ability by stopping in just 24.61 meters from 80 km/h. The Goodtrip GR 66 needed an extra 9.4 meters to stop, taking 34 meters in total - a significant safety gap between best and worst.

Wet Braking

Spread: 9.39 M (38.2%)|Avg: 27.08 M
Wet braking in meters (80 - 5 km/h) (Lower is better)
  1. Continental PremiumContact 7
    24.61 M
  2. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    24.96 M
  3. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    25.47 M
  4. Vredestein Ultrac
    25.79 M
  5. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    27.16 M
  6. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    27.57 M
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    34.00 M

The Continental PremiumContact 7 maintained grip up to 98.1 km/h before aquaplaning, while the Goodtrip GR 66 lost control at just 88.2 km/h. 

Straight Aqua

Spread: 9.90 Km/H (10.1%)|Avg: 94.64 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
  1. Continental PremiumContact 7
    98.10 Km/H
  2. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    97.70 Km/H
  3. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    95.70 Km/H
  4. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    95.50 Km/H
  5. Vredestein Ultrac
    95.20 Km/H
  6. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    92.10 Km/H
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    88.20 Km/H

The Pirelli Cinturato C3 generated the most grip in curved aquaplaning with 2.6 m/s², while the Falken could only manage 2.27 m/s². Unlike other wet tests, the Goodtrip wasn't the worst performer here.

Curved Aquaplaning

Spread: 0.33 m/sec2 (12.7%)|Avg: 2.48 m/sec2
Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)
  1. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    2.60 m/sec2
  2. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    2.58 m/sec2
  3. Continental PremiumContact 7
    2.57 m/sec2
  4. Vredestein Ultrac
    2.55 m/sec2
  5. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    2.47 m/sec2
  6. Goodtrip GR 66
    2.35 m/sec2
  7. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    2.27 m/sec2

Comfort

The Michelin Primacy 4+ led the comfort ratings with a perfect 10/10 score. The Goodtrip GR 66 scored lowest at 7/10, feeling somewhat firm in all impact conditions.

Subj. Comfort

Spread: 3.00 Points (30%)|Avg: 8.93 Points
Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)
  1. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    10.00 Points
  2. Vredestein Ultrac
    9.50 Points
  3. Continental PremiumContact 7
    9.50 Points
  4. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    9.00 Points
  5. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    9.00 Points
  6. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    8.50 Points
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    7.00 Points

The Vredestein Ultrac was the quietest tire tested at 70.9 dB, while the Continental PremiumContact 7 was the loudest at 73.2 dB.

Noise

Spread: 2.30 dB (3.2%)|Avg: 71.96 dB
External noise in dB (Lower is better)
  1. Vredestein Ultrac
    70.90 dB
  2. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    71.10 dB
  3. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    71.20 dB
  4. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    71.90 dB
  5. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    72.60 dB
  6. Goodtrip GR 66
    72.80 dB
  7. Continental PremiumContact 7
    73.20 dB

Value

The Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN had the lowest rolling resistance at 7.3 kg/t, while the Goodtrip GR 66 was least efficient at 7.9 kg/t. A close group overall.

Rolling Resistance

Spread: 0.63 kg / t (8.6%)|Avg: 7.68 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
  1. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    7.31 kg / t
  2. Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
    7.57 kg / t
  3. Pirelli Cinturato C3
    7.70 kg / t
  4. Continental PremiumContact 7
    7.72 kg / t
  5. Falken ZIEX ZE320
    7.77 kg / t
  6. Vredestein Ultrac
    7.78 kg / t
  7. Goodtrip GR 66
    7.94 kg / t

Results

1st

Pirelli Cinturato C3

225/50 R17 98Y
Pirelli Cinturato C3
  • Rim Protection: Small
  • Weight: 9.15 kgs
  • Tread: 7 mm
  • Price: 157.89
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 1st 34.13 M 100%
Dry Handling 2nd 85.61 s 85.54 s +0.07 s 99.92%
Subj. Dry Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 2nd 24.96 M 24.61 M +0.35 M 98.6%
Wet Handling 3rd 106.63 s 105.18 s +1.45 s 98.64%
Subj. Wet Handling 4th 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Straight Aqua 3rd 95.7 Km/H 98.1 Km/H -2.4 Km/H 97.55%
Curved Aquaplaning 1st 2.6 m/sec2 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 4th 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Noise 4th 71.9 dB 70.9 dB +1 dB 98.61%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 3rd 7.7 kg / t 7.31 kg / t +0.39 kg / t 94.94%
Test Winner 2025 Summer Test Pirelli Cinturato C3
1st

Continental PremiumContact 7

225/50 R17 98Y
Continental PremiumContact 7
  • Rim Protection: Good
  • Weight: 9.25 kgs
  • Tread: 7.6 mm
  • Price: 128.59
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 4th 34.65 M 34.13 M +0.52 M 98.5%
Dry Handling 3rd 85.73 s 85.54 s +0.19 s 99.78%
Subj. Dry Handling 3rd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 1st 24.61 M 100%
Wet Handling 4th 107.14 s 105.18 s +1.96 s 98.17%
Subj. Wet Handling 5th 9.25 Points 10 Points -0.75 Points 92.5%
Straight Aqua 1st 98.1 Km/H 100%
Curved Aquaplaning 3rd 2.57 m/sec2 2.6 m/sec2 -0.03 m/sec2 98.85%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 2nd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Noise 7th 73.2 dB 70.9 dB +2.3 dB 96.86%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 4th 7.72 kg / t 7.31 kg / t +0.41 kg / t 94.69%
Test Winner 2025 Summer Test Continental PremiumContact 7
3rd

Vredestein Ultrac

225/50 R17 98Y
Vredestein Ultrac
  • Rim Protection: Small
  • Weight: 9.7 kgs
  • Tread: 6.8 mm
  • Price: 117.19
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 3rd 34.43 M 34.13 M +0.3 M 99.13%
Dry Handling 6th 86.57 s 85.54 s +1.03 s 98.81%
Subj. Dry Handling 5th 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 4th 25.79 M 24.61 M +1.18 M 95.42%
Wet Handling 2nd 106.28 s 105.18 s +1.1 s 98.96%
Subj. Wet Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Straight Aqua 5th 95.2 Km/H 98.1 Km/H -2.9 Km/H 97.04%
Curved Aquaplaning 4th 2.55 m/sec2 2.6 m/sec2 -0.05 m/sec2 98.08%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 2nd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Noise 1st 70.9 dB 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 6th 7.78 kg / t 7.31 kg / t +0.47 kg / t 93.96%
Highly Recommended 2025 Summer Test Vredestein Ultrac
3rd

Falken ZIEX ZE320

225/50 R17 98W
Falken ZIEX ZE320
  • Rim Protection: Good
  • Weight: 9.25 kgs
  • Tread: 6.8 mm
  • Price: 129.69
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 2nd 34.21 M 34.13 M +0.08 M 99.77%
Dry Handling 1st 85.54 s 100%
Subj. Dry Handling 3rd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 3rd 25.47 M 24.61 M +0.86 M 96.62%
Wet Handling 1st 105.18 s 100%
Subj. Wet Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Straight Aqua 4th 95.5 Km/H 98.1 Km/H -2.6 Km/H 97.35%
Curved Aquaplaning 7th 2.27 m/sec2 2.6 m/sec2 -0.33 m/sec2 87.31%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 4th 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Noise 3rd 71.2 dB 70.9 dB +0.3 dB 99.58%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 5th 7.77 kg / t 7.31 kg / t +0.46 kg / t 94.08%
Highly Recommended 2025 Summer Test Falken ZIEX ZE320
5th

Michelin Primacy 4+

225/50 R17 98Y
Michelin Primacy 4 Plus
  • Rim Protection: Small
  • Weight: 9.7 kgs
  • Tread: 6.6 mm
  • Price: 149.19
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 5th 35.22 M 34.13 M +1.09 M 96.91%
Dry Handling 5th 86.43 s 85.54 s +0.89 s 98.97%
Subj. Dry Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 5th 27.16 M 24.61 M +2.55 M 90.61%
Wet Handling 6th 109.92 s 105.18 s +4.74 s 95.69%
Subj. Wet Handling 6th 8.75 Points 10 Points -1.25 Points 87.5%
Straight Aqua 2nd 97.7 Km/H 98.1 Km/H -0.4 Km/H 99.59%
Curved Aquaplaning 2nd 2.58 m/sec2 2.6 m/sec2 -0.02 m/sec2 99.23%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 1st 10 Points 100%
Noise 2nd 71.1 dB 70.9 dB +0.2 dB 99.72%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 2nd 7.57 kg / t 7.31 kg / t +0.26 kg / t 96.57%
Recommended 2025 Summer Test Michelin Primacy 4+
6th

Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN

225/50 R17 98Y
Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
  • Rim Protection: Good
  • Weight: 10.1 kgs
  • Tread: 7.5 mm
  • Price: 104.09
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 6th 35.27 M 34.13 M +1.14 M 96.77%
Dry Handling 4th 86.22 s 85.54 s +0.68 s 99.21%
Subj. Dry Handling 6th 8.5 Points 10 Points -1.5 Points 85%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 6th 27.57 M 24.61 M +2.96 M 89.26%
Wet Handling 5th 108.05 s 105.18 s +2.87 s 97.34%
Subj. Wet Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Straight Aqua 6th 92.1 Km/H 98.1 Km/H -6 Km/H 93.88%
Curved Aquaplaning 5th 2.47 m/sec2 2.6 m/sec2 -0.13 m/sec2 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 6th 8.5 Points 10 Points -1.5 Points 85%
Noise 5th 72.6 dB 70.9 dB +1.7 dB 97.66%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 1st 7.31 kg / t 100%
Satisfactory 2025 Summer Test Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
7th

Goodtrip GR 66

225/50 R17 98W
Goodtrip GR 66
  • Rim Protection: Good
  • Weight: 10.4 kgs
  • Tread: 7.3 mm
  • Price: 62.89
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 7th 37.09 M 34.13 M +2.96 M 92.02%
Dry Handling 7th 87.4 s 85.54 s +1.86 s 97.87%
Subj. Dry Handling 7th 6 Points 10 Points -4 Points 60%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 7th 34 M 24.61 M +9.39 M 72.38%
Wet Handling 7th 116.72 s 105.18 s +11.54 s 90.11%
Subj. Wet Handling 7th 8 Points 10 Points -2 Points 80%
Straight Aqua 7th 88.2 Km/H 98.1 Km/H -9.9 Km/H 89.91%
Curved Aquaplaning 6th 2.35 m/sec2 2.6 m/sec2 -0.25 m/sec2 90.38%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 7th 7 Points 10 Points -3 Points 70%
Noise 6th 72.8 dB 70.9 dB +1.9 dB 97.39%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 7th 7.94 kg / t 7.31 kg / t +0.63 kg / t 92.07%

comments powered by Disqus