German publication AutoBild has tested eight summer tires in the 215/55 R18 size specifically aimed at electric vehicles. The test aimed to find tires that could achieve the difficult balance between energy efficiency (for maximum EV range) and safety performance.

AutoBild evaluated models from premium manufacturers like Continental, Goodyear and Michelin alongside offerings from mid-range brands including Falken, Firestone and Yokohama, plus budget option Goodride. Interestingly, only two tires in the test - the Hankook iON evo and Falken e.Ziex - were specifically designed as EV tires, while others were standard tires that manufacturers claim are also suitable for electric vehicles.

Test setup & methodology

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

Recorded test conditions

Wet Braking: 62.1 → 0.0 mph

Testing was conducted on a Hyundai Kona EV, with tires put through wet and dry handling, braking, and aquaplaning tests. Additionally, the publication measured rolling resistance and conducted a roll-out test to determine real-world range impact. The results showed that in extreme cases, tire choice could affect vehicle range by up to 43 miles (43 miles.)

One of the most interesting findings was that the Hankook iON evo, specifically designed for EVs, claimed the overall victory, but standard tires from Continental and Goodyear followed extremely closely behind. This suggests that the gap between dedicated EV tires and high-quality standard tires is minimal when balancing safety and efficiency needs.

Goodyear's EfficientGrip 2 SUV was awarded AutoBild's "Green Tire 2025" environmental seal due to its excellent balance of rolling resistance, longevity, and environmental characteristics.

Dry

Hankook iON evo achieved the shortest braking distance of 110 feet, with Continental close behind at 113 feet. Goodride Solmax 1 needed significantly more distance at 124 feet, showing the safety gap between premium and budget options.

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON Evo	110 ft	Best
2Continental PremiumContact 7	113 ft	+3 ft
3Michelin Primacy 4+	115 ft	+5 ft
4Falken e.Ziex	117 ft	+7 ft
5Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	118 ft	+8 ft
6Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	120 ft	+10 ft
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	120 ft	+10 ft
8Goodride Solmax 1	124 ft	+14 ft

The difference between best and worst was 12.5% (14 ft ≈ 0.9 Car Lengths).

Hankook topped the handling test with 57.7 mph average speed, followed by Continental at 57.1 mph and Goodyear at 56.6 mph. The Goodride again finished last with 54.8 mph, confirming its limited cornering abilities.

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON Evo	57.7 mph	Best
2Continental PremiumContact 7	57.1 mph	-0.6 mph
3Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	56.6 mph	-1.1 mph
4Michelin Primacy 4+	56.4 mph	-1.3 mph
5Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	56.2 mph	-1.5 mph
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	56.2 mph	-1.5 mph
7Falken e.Ziex	56.0 mph	-1.7 mph
8Goodride Solmax 1	54.8 mph	-2.9 mph

The difference between best and worst was 5% (2.9 mph).

Wet

Continental took the lead in wet conditions with a 39.4-meter stopping distance, just ahead of Hankook at 130 feet. The gap to last-place Goodride widened to 160 feet, a 23% increase that could be critical in emergency situations.

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental PremiumContact 7	129 ft	Best	0 mph
2Hankook iON Evo	130 ft	+1 ft	6 mph
3Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	137 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
4Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	138 ft	+9 ft	21 mph
5Michelin Primacy 4+	142 ft	+13 ft	24 mph
6Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	147 ft	+18 ft	28 mph
7Falken e.Ziex	150 ft	+21 ft	29 mph
8Goodride Solmax 1	160 ft	+31 ft	35 mph

The difference between best and worst was 23.6% (31 ft ≈ 2.1 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.

Hankook led wet handling with 46.2 mph, narrowly beating Continental's 46.0 mph. Goodyear maintained third position while Falken e.Ziex fell to second-last despite its EV-specific design.

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON Evo	46.2 mph	Best
2Continental PremiumContact 7	46.0 mph	-0.2 mph
3Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	45.3 mph	-0.9 mph
4Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	44.7 mph	-1.5 mph
5Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	44.4 mph	-1.8 mph
6Michelin Primacy 4+	43.9 mph	-2.3 mph
7Falken e.Ziex	43.1 mph	-3.1 mph
8Goodride Solmax 1	42.5 mph	-3.7 mph

The difference between best and worst was 8.1% (3.7 mph).

In the wet circle test, Hankook continued strong with 12.45 seconds, followed by Continental and Yokohama. Goodride again struggled with the slowest time at 13.03 seconds.

Wet Circle
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON Evo	12.45 s	Best
2Continental PremiumContact 7	12.59 s	+0.14 s
3Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	12.67 s	+0.22 s
4Falken e.Ziex	12.68 s	+0.23 s
5Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	12.7 s	+0.25 s
6Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	12.79 s	+0.34 s
7Michelin Primacy 4+	12.86 s	+0.41 s
8Goodride Solmax 1	13.03 s	+0.58 s

The difference between best and worst was 4.7% (0.58 s).

Firestone Roadhawk 2 resisted aquaplaning up to 49.8 mph, significantly better than its performance in other tests. Hankook placed second at 46.5 mph, while Yokohama lost grip earliest at 39.6 mph.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	49.8 mph	Best
2Hankook iON Evo	46.5 mph	-3.3 mph
3Falken e.Ziex	45.1 mph	-4.7 mph
4Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	44.4 mph	-5.4 mph
5Continental PremiumContact 7	43.1 mph	-6.7 mph
6Goodride Solmax 1	41.9 mph	-7.9 mph
7Michelin Primacy 4+	40.9 mph	-8.9 mph
8Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	39.6 mph	-10.2 mph

The difference between best and worst was 20.5% (10.2 mph).

Firestone maintained its aquaplaning advantage in curves with 3.02 m/s² lateral acceleration. Hankook again followed in second place, while Yokohama continued to struggle with water evacuation.

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	9.9 ft/s²	Best
2Hankook iON Evo	9.7 ft/s²	-0.2 ft/s²
3Goodride Solmax 1	9.4 ft/s²	-0.5 ft/s²
4Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	9.3 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
4Falken e.Ziex	9.3 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
6Continental PremiumContact 7	9.0 ft/s²	-0.9 ft/s²
7Michelin Primacy 4+	8.5 ft/s²	-1.4 ft/s²
8Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	8.5 ft/s²	-1.4 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 14.6% (1.4 ft/s²).

Comfort

Yokohama produced the least external noise at 68.7 dB, a key advantage for quiet EV operation. Continental and Firestone were the loudest at over 72 dB, showing their focus on grip over comfort.

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	68.7 dB	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	69.9 dB	+1.20 dB
3Hankook iON Evo	70.2 dB	+1.50 dB
4Goodride Solmax 1	70.3 dB	+1.60 dB
5Falken e.Ziex	70.9 dB	+2.20 dB
6Michelin Primacy 4+	71.2 dB	+2.50 dB
7Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	72 dB	+3.30 dB
8Continental PremiumContact 7	72.1 dB	+3.40 dB

The difference between best and worst was 4.9% (3.4 dB).

Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV leads in subjective comfort with 8 points, highlighting its balanced approach to both efficiency and ride quality. Most premium contenders like Hankook, Continental, Michelin and Falken offer respectable comfort with 7 points. The budget Goodride Solmax 1 trails significantly with just 5 points, showing where cost-cutting affects the driving experience most noticeably.

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	8 Points	Best
2Michelin Primacy 4+	7 Points	-1.00 Points
2Continental PremiumContact 7	7 Points	-1.00 Points
2Falken e.Ziex	7 Points	-1.00 Points
2Hankook iON Evo	7 Points	-1.00 Points
2Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	7 Points	-1.00 Points
7Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	6 Points	-2.00 Points
8Goodride Solmax 1	5 Points	-3.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 37.5% (3 Points).

Value

Goodyear showed the best durability with a projected 30,478 miles lifespan. Michelin placed second at 27,912 miles, while Firestone's 17,715 miles was just over half of Goodyear's life expectancy.

Wear
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	30,478 miles	Best
2Michelin Primacy 4+	27,912 miles	-2,566 miles
3Hankook iON Evo	26,794 miles	-3,684 miles
4Continental PremiumContact 7	25,408 miles	-5,070 miles
5Falken e.Ziex	22,860 miles	-7,618 miles
6Goodride Solmax 1	19,281 miles	-11,197 miles
7Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	18,815 miles	-11,663 miles
8Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	17,715 miles	-12,763 miles

The difference between best and worst was 41.9% (12,763 miles).

Budget Goodride offered the best cost efficiency at €11 per 1,000 km despite performance limitations. Goodyear combined durability with competitive pricing for second place, while premium-priced Michelin ranked last at €16.4 per 1,000 km.

Value
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	cost per 1,000 miles
1Goodride Solmax 1	11 Price/1000	Best	€26.64
2Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	12 Price/1000	+1.00 Price/1000	€26.76
3Falken e.Ziex	14.9 Price/1000	+3.90 Price/1000	€27.12
4Hankook iON Evo	15.1 Price/1000	+4.10 Price/1000	€30.63
5Continental PremiumContact 7	15.2 Price/1000	+4.20 Price/1000	€34.28
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	15.6 Price/1000	+4.60 Price/1000	€34.88
7Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	15.7 Price/1000	+4.70 Price/1000	€35.77
8Michelin Primacy 4+	16.4 Price/1000	+5.40 Price/1000	€31.41

The difference between best and worst was 49.1% (5.4 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Goodride Solmax 1) works out €228 cheaper than the most expensive (Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61).

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 2025 test; financing costs are excluded.

Falken e.Ziex recorded the lowest rolling resistance at 5.86 kg/t, followed by Michelin and Hankook. Continental had the highest at 7.66 kg/t, showing its priority on grip over efficiency.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra energy / year
1Falken e.Ziex	5.86 kg/t	Best	$0
2Michelin Primacy 4+	6.51 kg/t	+0.65 kg/t	$14
3Hankook iON Evo	6.81 kg/t	+0.95 kg/t	$21
4Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	7.15 kg/t	+1.29 kg/t	$29
5Goodride Solmax 1	7.22 kg/t	+1.36 kg/t	$30
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	7.33 kg/t	+1.47 kg/t	$33
7Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	7.58 kg/t	+1.72 kg/t	$38
8Continental PremiumContact 7	7.66 kg/t	+1.80 kg/t	$40

The difference between best and worst was 30.7% (1.8 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $0.15/kWh, the Continental PremiumContact 7 uses about 267 kWh ($40) 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.

Falken's efficiency translated to 255 miles range, 41 miles more than Continental's 214 miles. Hankook balanced performance with efficiency for second place at 237 miles, highlighting how tire choice affects EV range.

Range
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Falken e.Ziex	255 miles	Best
2Hankook iON Evo	237 miles	-18 miles
3Michelin Primacy 4+	234 miles	-21 miles
4Goodride Solmax 1	232 miles	-23 miles
5Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	232 miles	-23 miles
5Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	232 miles	-23 miles
7Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	219 miles	-36 miles
8Continental PremiumContact 7	214 miles	-41 miles

The difference between best and worst was 16% (41 miles).

Results

The Hankook iON evo, specifically designed for electric vehicles, achieved first place with outstanding wet and dry performance. It delivered excellent braking distances (130ft in wet, 110ft in dry), strong handling characteristics, and good aquaplaning resistance. With a projected lifespan of 26,794 miles and moderate rolling resistance (6.81 kg/t), it provides a good balance between safety and efficiency. The tire offered 237 miles of range in the EV test and strong cornering grip, securing an overall "exemplary" rating.

Dry100%

Wet99%

Comfort92.7%

Value85.3%

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	1^st / 8	110 ft	Best in this discipline
Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	57.7 mph	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	130 ft	+1 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	46.2 mph	Best in this discipline
Wet CircleLower is better	1^st / 8	12.45 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 8	46.5 mph	-3.3 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 8	9.7 ft/s²	-0.2 ft/s²
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 8	7 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 8	70.2 dB	+1.50 dB
WearHigher is better	3^rd / 8	26,794 miles	-3,684 miles
ValueLower is better	4^th / 8	15.1 Price/1000	+4.10 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	3^rd / 8	6.81 kg/t	+0.95 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	2^nd / 8	237 miles	-18 miles

EU Label: B/A/69
Price: 650.00

Continental's PremiumContact 7 delivered the shortest wet braking distance (129ft) and strong dry performance. Despite having the highest rolling resistance in the test (7.66 kg/t) and lowest range impact (214 miles), its safety credentials remained impressive with sharp handling characteristics and a projected lifespan of 25,408 miles. This tire secured second place with minimal difference from the winner, proving standard tires can perform effectively on EVs.

Dry98.2%

Wet97.1%

Comfort91.4%

Value79.2%

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	2^nd / 8	113 ft	+3 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 8	57.1 mph	-0.6 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	129 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 8	46.0 mph	-0.2 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	2^nd / 8	12.59 s	+0.14 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 8	43.1 mph	-6.7 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 8	9.0 ft/s²	-0.9 ft/s²
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 8	7 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 8	72.1 dB	+3.40 dB
WearHigher is better	4^th / 8	25,408 miles	-5,070 miles
ValueLower is better	5^th / 8	15.2 Price/1000	+4.20 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	8^th / 8	7.66 kg/t	+1.80 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	8^th / 8	214 miles	-41 miles

EU Label: C/A/71
Price: 620.00

The Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV achieved third place and won the "Green Tire" award for its environmental credentials. Its standout feature was exceptional longevity with a projected 30,478 miles lifespan - the highest in the test. The tire offered balanced wet (138ft braking) and dry performance with moderate rolling resistance (7.15 kg/t). Its range impact was 232 miles, placing it mid-field, but its overall combination of efficiency and safety secured its position as the most environmentally friendly option.

Dry95.9%

Wet95.2%

Comfort99.1%

Value91.1%

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	5^th / 8	118 ft	+8 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	56.6 mph	-1.1 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	138 ft	+9 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	45.3 mph	-0.9 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	6^th / 8	12.79 s	+0.34 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 8	44.4 mph	-5.4 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	4^th / 8	9.3 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	1^st / 8	8 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 8	69.9 dB	+1.20 dB
WearHigher is better	1^st / 8	30,478 miles	Best in this discipline
ValueLower is better	2^nd / 8	12 Price/1000	+1.00 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	4^th / 8	7.15 kg/t	+1.29 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	5^th / 8	232 miles	-23 miles

EU Label: B/A/70
Price: 590.00

The Michelin Primacy 4+ delivered good all-round performance with short braking distances (142ft wet, 115ft dry) and solid handling. It showed low rolling resistance (6.51 kg/t) and delivered 234 miles of range in the test. As the most expensive tire (€735), it offered strong longevity (27,912 miles) but suffered from limited aquaplaning resistance, especially in curved conditions. While not explicitly marketed as an EV tire, it performed well in efficiency metrics.

Dry96.8%

Wet92.1%

Comfort92%

Value86.1%

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	3^rd / 8	115 ft	+5 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 8	56.4 mph	-1.3 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	142 ft	+13 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 8	43.9 mph	-2.3 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	7^th / 8	12.86 s	+0.41 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 8	40.9 mph	-8.9 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	7^th / 8	8.5 ft/s²	-1.4 ft/s²
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 8	7 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 8	71.2 dB	+2.50 dB
WearHigher is better	2^nd / 8	27,912 miles	-2,566 miles
ValueLower is better	8^th / 8	16.4 Price/1000	+5.40 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 8	6.51 kg/t	+0.65 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	3^rd / 8	234 miles	-21 miles

EU Label: B/A/70
Price: 735.00

The Falken e.Ziex, specifically designed for EVs, stood out for having the lowest rolling resistance (5.86 kg/t) and provided the best range result (255 miles). It demonstrated good aquaplaning resistance but showed longer wet braking distances (150ft) compared to top performers. With average dry handling and a moderate projected lifespan of 22,860 miles, it secured a "good" overall rating with clear focus on efficiency over ultimate grip.

Dry95.7%

Wet92.5%

Comfort92.2%

Value87.3%

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	4^th / 8	117 ft	+7 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	56.0 mph	-1.7 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	150 ft	+21 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	43.1 mph	-3.1 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	4^th / 8	12.68 s	+0.23 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 8	45.1 mph	-4.7 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	4^th / 8	9.3 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 8	7 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 8	70.9 dB	+2.20 dB
WearHigher is better	5^th / 8	22,860 miles	-7,618 miles
ValueLower is better	3^rd / 8	14.9 Price/1000	+3.90 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	1^st / 8	5.86 kg/t	Best in this discipline
RangeHigher is better	1^st / 8	255 miles	Best in this discipline

EU Label: A/A/72
Price: 550.00

The Firestone Roadhawk 2 excelled in aquaplaning resistance, achieving the best performance in both straight-line (49.8 mph) and curved aquaplaning tests (3.02 m/s²). However, it showed limitations in wet braking (137ft) and overall grip. With a modest projected lifespan of 17,715 miles (the lowest in the test) and mid-range rolling resistance (7.33 kg/t), the tire's range impact was below average at 219 miles. Its performance earned a "satisfactory" rating.

Dry94.6%

Wet97.2%

Comfort91.5%

Value72.9%

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 / 8	120 ft	+10 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 8	56.2 mph	-1.5 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	137 ft	+8 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 8	44.7 mph	-1.5 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	5^th / 8	12.7 s	+0.25 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 8	49.8 mph	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 8	9.9 ft/s²	Best in this discipline
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 8	7 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 8	72 dB	+3.30 dB
WearHigher is better	8^th / 8	17,715 miles	-12,763 miles
ValueLower is better	6^th / 8	15.6 Price/1000	+4.60 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 8	7.33 kg/t	+1.47 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	7^th / 8	219 miles	-36 miles

EU Label: B/A/71
Price: 445.00

The Yokohama BluEarth-XT recorded the quietest passing noise in the test (68.7 dB at 50 mph), making it ideal for silent EVs. Its dry performance was reasonable, but wet weather capabilities showed weaknesses, particularly in aquaplaning resistance where it recorded the lowest values. With a projected lifespan of 18,815 miles and high rolling resistance (7.58 kg/t), its range impact was 232 miles. The tire received a "satisfactory" rating for its mixed performance profile.

Dry94.7%

Wet91.5%

Comfort87.5%

Value74.1%

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	6^th / 8	120 ft	+10 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 8	56.2 mph	-1.5 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	147 ft	+18 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 8	44.4 mph	-1.8 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	3^rd / 8	12.67 s	+0.22 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 8	39.6 mph	-10.2 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	8^th / 8	8.5 ft/s²	-1.4 ft/s²
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	7^th / 8	6 Points	-2.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 8	68.7 dB	Best in this discipline
WearHigher is better	7^th / 8	18,815 miles	-11,663 miles
ValueLower is better	7^th / 8	15.7 Price/1000	+4.70 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	7^th / 8	7.58 kg/t	+1.72 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	5^th / 8	232 miles	-23 miles

EU Label: C/A/68
Price: 475.00

As the budget option, the Goodride Solmax 1 showed significant compromises in safety. It recorded the longest wet braking distance (160ft) and limited handling capabilities. Its projected lifespan was 19,281 miles with moderate rolling resistance (7.22 kg/t), providing a range of 232 miles. Despite its affordable price (€340), its safety limitations resulted in a "conditionally recommended" rating, placing it last in the test.

Dry92%

Wet89.4%

Comfort80.1%

Value82%

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 / 8	124 ft	+14 ft
Dry HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 8	54.8 mph	-2.9 mph
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	160 ft	+31 ft
Wet HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 8	42.5 mph	-3.7 mph
Wet CircleLower is better	8^th / 8	13.03 s	+0.58 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 8	41.9 mph	-7.9 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 8	9.4 ft/s²	-0.5 ft/s²
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	8^th / 8	5 Points	-3.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 8	70.3 dB	+1.60 dB
WearHigher is better	6^th / 8	19,281 miles	-11,197 miles
ValueLower is better	1^st / 8	11 Price/1000	Best in this discipline
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	5^th / 8	7.22 kg/t	+1.36 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	4^th / 8	232 miles	-23 miles

EU Label: X/X/72
Price: 340.00

Discussion

12 comments

Phillip Jenkins Apr 24, 2025 archived

These are great tests and the results are very helpful. However, I have a 2020 Tesla Model Y that have 255/40R20 so it's harder or impossible to find in your test fleet. In my location of Minneapolis it's VERY common to have dedicated snows (mine are Sottozero 3) and a good All Season for the rest of the year. It turns out finding a good 3+ seasons tire in my size is not easy. I must walk thru a whole series of trade-offs to get a few remaining features I can live with. I can find a summer tire with does well dry & wet & handling & braking. But replacing that soft rubber every 25K miles? I managed nearly 30K miles out of the original Eagle F1 that came with my Model Y (they've changed that now) only because I have experience driving a 4200 pound over-powered car before. It's not the weight its the heavy foot. Taking the highway cloverleaf ramp at 55 mph when it's 90 degrees F means you rub off 1000 hwy miles in 15 seconds. Anyway, some tire testing with my tire size requirements would be immensely helpful. You do great testing! Thank you for that work.

#10086
1. Sebastien Phillip Jenkins Jul 24, 2025 archived
  
  I am in Canada and Hankook has the winter version of the iON. It's called the ION icept
  
  #10247
Benjamin Hojnik Mar 26, 2025 archived

That's a lot of difference a tire can make on the range! Is there any data on this publication at what sort of speed range tests were performed?

#10049
1. TireReviews Benjamin Hojnik Apr 11, 2025 archived
  
  I didn't see that data, sorry.
  
  #10063
2. James Benjamin Hojnik Dec 1, 2025 archived
  
  This is a great question! From what I understand, the impact of tires on range is much smaller at highway speeds. So if this test was run at highway speeds, you might see as much as 2x this impact at slower speeds, versus if this test was done at lower speeds, the impact could be as little as 1/2 of this at highway speeds
  
  #10451
  1. TireReviews James Dec 2, 2025 archived
    
    I believe Autobild usually run the tires on an oval around 80kmh but I would need to check.
    A tires impact remains relatively constant but you are correct that the aero factor squares so at higher speeds the air is a bigger issue.
    
    #10452
    1. Dima TireReviews Jun 23, 2026
      
      It's actually 100 km/h for braking tests (as stated in the original article).
      But I couldn't find the RANGE test. What is it? 410.00 km means what?
      
      #10663
      1. TireReviews Dima Jun 23, 2026
        
        We were discussing the range test, where the vehicle is driven in an oval at a constant speed, which I thought was 80. 100km/h is the braking test, which is different (and they actually measure from 80 in the wet and calculate up to 100)
        
        The 410km is the estimated ev range with that tire based on the range test.
        
        #10664
Pedro Neves Mar 20, 2025 archived

Shouldn´t the range scale be the other way around? I believe the Falken should have a 100% grade and be the 1st and the Continental 84%, being the 8th.

#10032
1. TireReviews Pedro Neves Mar 20, 2025 archived
  
  Which chart are you referring to?
  
  #10033
  1. Pedro Neves TireReviews Mar 20, 2025 archived
    
    The last one
    
    #10035
    1. TireReviews Pedro Neves Mar 20, 2025 archived
      
      Yes you are correct, nice spot. Let me fix that.
      
      #10037

Menu

Tire shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry

Wet

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test