Menu

Test source ADAC

2026 ADAC Summer Tire Test

Overall test winnerContinental PremiumContact 7

The ADAC tire tests are always my favorite tire tests, while they don't release all the data they generate; they do provide excellent notes with their tests, and most importantly they are the most independent tire testing team in the…

Data analyzed and reviewed byJonathan Benson
10 min read
Tire shortlist Read the test
2026 ADAC Summer Tyre Test
225/50 R17 / 2026 View full image
2026 ADAC Summer Tyre Test
Tires tested
16
Tested size
225/50 R17
Test vehicle
Audi A4
Disciplines
8

At a glance

Tire shortlist

16 Tires tested

Published finishing positions, with the strengths and considerations from this test. Owner reviews cover other sizes and driving conditions.

1st

Continental PremiumContact 7

+The Continental PremiumContact 7 is the safest tire in the test on both wet and dry roads. It shares the shortest stop on wet asphalt, is second best on wet concrete and joint best for aquaplaning both straight and in bends, and on dry roads it steers precisely and stays easy to control at the limit. It also shares the lowest fuel consumption.

−Dry braking is only sixth best and its rolling noise is slightly above average. Predicted mileage is joint sixth, behind the longest-lasting tires in the test.

71 owner reviews Test Results
2nd

Pirelli Cinturato C3

+The Pirelli Cinturato C3 shares the best straight-line aquaplaning result, is fourth for dry braking and in the top five for braking on both wet surfaces, with good wet handling. It stays safe and easy to control on dry roads, and its predicted mileage is the fourth highest in the test.

−Steering feedback and precision on dry roads are a little short of the best, it is one of the noisier tires, and its fuel consumption is in the bottom five.

19 owner reviews Test Results
3rd

Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2

+The Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 has the highest predicted mileage in the test and the second-lowest abrasion. It is balanced and stable at the limit, stops fourth shortest on wet asphalt and is among the more economical tires on fuel.

−Dry braking is in the bottom five and dry-road feedback is only moderate. Straight-line aquaplaning resistance is below average and its wet handling is a little short of the best.

129 owner reviews Test Results
4th

Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN

+The Firestone Roadhawk 2 Enliten is fifth for dry braking and joint third for aquaplaning in bends, and it has decent grip on dry roads with acceptable wet handling.

−Wet braking is its weak point: second longest on asphalt and in the bottom half on concrete. Steering on dry roads lacks precision, and its predicted mileage, abrasion and fuel consumption are all in the bottom half.

11 owner reviews Test Results
5th

Falken ZIEX ZE320

+The Falken Ziex ZE320 has the shortest dry braking distance in the test and is fifth best both for wet braking on concrete and for abrasion. It is also one of the lightest tires and handles well in the wet.

−Steering precision on dry roads is modest and the tire is sensitive to heat. It is in the bottom four for aquaplaning in both tests, its wet braking on asphalt is in the bottom five, and predicted mileage is below average.

17 owner reviews Test Results
6th

Bridgestone Turanza 6

+The Bridgestone Turanza 6 has the third-highest predicted mileage and the third-lowest abrasion in the test, and it is among the more economical tires on fuel. It is also light and joint sixth for straight-line aquaplaning.

−Steering is imprecise and the tire is sensitive to heat on both wet and dry roads, so it understeers or oversteers early. Dry braking is the third longest in the test and wet braking on both surfaces is in the bottom half.

73 owner reviews Test Results
7th

Michelin Primacy 5

+The Michelin Primacy 5 has the best environmental record in the test: the lowest abrasion, the second-highest predicted mileage and the joint-lowest fuel consumption. It is also light, and its wet braking on asphalt is sixth best.

−Steering is imprecise and the tire is sensitive to heat on wet and dry roads, which costs it handling marks. Dry braking is in the bottom five and aquaplaning resistance in bends is below average.

62 owner reviews Test Results
8th

Maxxis Premitra HP6

+The Maxxis Premitra HP6 is joint sixth for wet braking on concrete and seventh for abrasion, and it is light with reasonable fuel consumption.

−Steering precision and grip at the limit on dry roads are modest, its wet handling is only fair, and it is second from last for aquaplaning in bends and third from last in a straight line. Predicted mileage is below average.

3 owner reviews Test Results
9th

Kumho Ecsta HS52

+The Kumho Ecsta HS52 is strong in the wet, third shortest for braking on both asphalt and concrete with good wet handling, and fifth for straight-line aquaplaning. Its predicted mileage is around the middle of the field.

−Steering feedback and precision on dry roads are only adequate, and aquaplaning resistance in bends is in the bottom four. It is heavy, its fuel consumption is the second highest in the test and its abrasion is above average.

30 owner reviews Test Results
10th

BFGoodrich Advantage

+The BFGoodrich Advantage has good steering feedback and stability on dry roads, the fifth-highest predicted mileage in the test and joint fifth place for aquaplaning in bends.

−Braking is long on both surfaces: second longest in the dry and in the bottom four on both wet surfaces. Wet handling is only fair, with early understeer or oversteer, and it is one of the heavier tires.

16 owner reviews Test Results
11th

Hankook Ventus Prime 4

+The Hankook Ventus Prime 4 shares the lowest fuel consumption in the test, has good dry grip and handling at the limit, and its predicted mileage and abrasion are both in the top six.

−It has the longest dry braking distance in the test and is last for straight-line aquaplaning. Wet braking is in the bottom four on asphalt and second longest on concrete, and the tire is relatively heavy and noisy.

97 owner reviews Test Results
12th

Vredestein Ultrac+

+The Vredestein Ultrac plus is third best for straight-line aquaplaning and joint fifth in bends, its wet handling is reasonable and it is a light tire.

−Steering precision on dry roads is only fair and wet braking is in the bottom half on both surfaces. Its predicted mileage is the third lowest and its abrasion the third highest in the test.

8 owner reviews Test Results
13th

Greentrac Quest X

+The Greentrac Quest X shares the best result for aquaplaning in bends, and its dry braking, predicted mileage and abrasion are all around the middle of the field.

−It has the longest wet braking distance in the test on both asphalt and concrete, and its wet handling is only fair. On dry roads an elastic feel at the rear axle blunts feedback and precision, and it is one of the heavier tires.

Read owner reviews Test Results
14th

Lassa Revola

+The Lassa Revola stops third shortest on dry roads, its wet braking and wet handling are mid-field or better, and it is a light tire.

−Dry handling is poor: grip fades as the tire heats up, steering feedback is minimal and the car oversteers in emergency maneuvers. Aquaplaning resistance is average at best and predicted mileage is in the bottom four.

13 owner reviews Test Results
15th

Leao Nova Force Acro

+The Leao Nova-Force Acro is seventh for dry braking and its fuel consumption is among the lower figures in the test.

−On dry roads it loses grip as it heats up, the steering is slow and elastic, and it oversteers and is hard to control at the limit. It is last for aquaplaning in bends and second from last in a straight line, and its predicted mileage is the second lowest with the second-highest abrasion.

2 owner reviews Test Results
16th

Linglong Sport Master

+The Linglong Sport Master is the best tire in the wet: it shares the shortest wet stop on asphalt, stops shortest on concrete by a clear margin and handles well in the wet. It is also second shortest for dry braking and fourth for straight-line aquaplaning.

−Dry handling is very poor: grip fades as the tire heats up, the steering is slow and elastic, and the car oversteers in evasive maneuvers. It has the lowest predicted mileage, the highest abrasion and the highest fuel consumption in the test, and it is heavy.

14 owner reviews Test Results

Tire shortlist

Compare selected tires

2026 ADAC Summer Tire Test · 225/50 R17

TireContinental PremiumContact 7Pirelli Cinturato C3Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITENFalken ZIEX ZE320Bridgestone Turanza 6Michelin Primacy 5Maxxis Premitra HP6Kumho Ecsta HS52BFGoodrich AdvantageHankook Ventus Prime 4Vredestein Ultrac+Greentrac Quest XLassa RevolaLeao Nova Force AcroLinglong Sport Master
Position1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th8th9th10th11th12th13th14th15th16th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry96.9%98.3%93.4%97.1%100%93.1%93.4%94.7%95%92.9%92.4%96%93.7%98.6%96.3%99.1%
Wet97.4%93%91.4%87.5%87.4%87.6%89.1%87.5%92.9%86.3%84.9%88.8%82.4%88.7%85.3%98.6%
Value85.7%83.7%95.9%72.9%79.3%93%98.8%77.7%77.2%82.2%84.1%69.3%76.1%74.2%67.7%60.2%
Keep researchingRead owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results		Read owner reviews
Test Results

Explore the complete results →

The full test

The evidence behind the verdict

The ADAC tire tests are always my favorite tire tests, while they sadly don't release all the data they generate; they do provide excellent notes with their tests, and most importantly they are the most independent tire testing team in the world meaning there is no manufacturer involvement in any way, which is rare in the world of tire testing. 

For the 2026 Summer Test ADAC tested 16 tires in the dry/wet noise comfort value and, most importantly, tread life to find out exactly which tire is best for you. They tested the popular 225/50R17 tire size using an Audi A4 but this is a premium touring tire size that is available in which fits many vehicles. 

I highly recommend following the link below, especially if you're German is strong and watching their tire test video. It is excellent, but below is my summary of the test. 

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

If you follow tire testing regularly, the top 3 of this test will come as no surprise to you. It is the Continental Premium Contact 7, closely followed by the Pirelli Cinturato C3 and the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2,

The blend of dry and wet grip and the wear results meant these three tires were the only three tires to receive the very difficult to get good recommendation from ADAC. The next ten were satisfactory and the bottom three were only rated as adequate. 

I think the most interesting aspect of this test was the dual nature of the LingLong Sportmaster and how hard ADAC were on the tire. It was the best tire in wet braking as we've seen recently in the autobild 50 set Summer Shootout. It was, however, by far the worst in the wear test, with poor environmental factors and poor dry handling performance.

This highlights how far Chinese manufacturers have come. Beating premium tires in wet braking is an achievement in itself but they're still unable to mass produce a tire at a reasonable cost that is as rounded or as well balanced as a premium tire. 

Dry

The Falken ZIEX ZE320 was the best in dry braking, closely followed by the LingLong Sportmaster. The delta between the best and worst was less than 10 ft, with the Ventus Prime 4 finishing in last place.

Dry Braking

Dry braking in feet (62 - 0 mph)

Lower is better ↓
Position / TireResultGap to bestResidual speed
1Falken ZIEX ZE320
 111 ft Best 0 mph
2Linglong Sport Master
 112 ft +1 ft 7 mph
3Lassa Revola
 113 ft +2 ft 10 mph
4Pirelli Cinturato C3
 113 ft +2 ft 11 mph
5Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
 115 ft +4 ft 14 mph
6Continental PremiumContact 7
 115 ft +4 ft 14 mph
7Leao Nova Force Acro
 115 ft +4 ft 15 mph
8Vredestein Ultrac+
 116 ft +5 ft 16 mph
9Kumho Ecsta HS52
 117 ft +6 ft 18 mph
10Maxxis Premitra HP6
 117 ft +6 ft 18 mph
11Greentrac Quest X
 119 ft +8 ft 20 mph
12Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
 119 ft +8 ft 21 mph
12Michelin Primacy 5
 119 ft +8 ft 21 mph
14Bridgestone Turanza 6
 119 ft +8 ft 21 mph
15BFGoodrich Advantage
 120 ft +9 ft 21 mph
16Hankook Ventus Prime 4
 120 ft +9 ft 22 mph

The difference between best and worst was 8.3% (9 ft ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Hankook Ventus Prime 4 would still be travelling at 22 mph when the Falken ZIEX ZE320 had stopped.

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

When braking from highway speeds the difference would be nearly 16 ft, which is about 1.1 car lengths.

Wet

As always the delta in wet braking was much larger, with a difference of nearly 26 ft. The LingLong tied with the Continental at the top of the table, and the BF Goodrich, Firestone, and GreenTrac propped up the base of the table.

Wet Braking

Wet braking in feet (50 - 0 mph)

Lower is better ↓
Position / TireResultGap to bestResidual speed
1Linglong Sport Master
 99 ft Best 0 mph
1Continental PremiumContact 7
 99 ft Best 0 mph
3Kumho Ecsta HS52
 102 ft +3 ft 14 mph
4Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
 103 ft +4 ft 16 mph
5Pirelli Cinturato C3
 104 ft +5 ft 18 mph
6Michelin Primacy 5
 107 ft +8 ft 23 mph
7Lassa Revola
 108 ft +9 ft 23 mph
8Leao Nova Force Acro
 108 ft +9 ft 24 mph
9Maxxis Premitra HP6
 110 ft +11 ft 25 mph
10Bridgestone Turanza 6
 111 ft +12 ft 26 mph
11Vredestein Ultrac+
 111 ft +12 ft 27 mph
12Falken ZIEX ZE320
 113 ft +14 ft 28 mph
13BFGoodrich Advantage
 113 ft +14 ft 29 mph
13Hankook Ventus Prime 4
 113 ft +14 ft 29 mph
15Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
 115 ft +16 ft 30 mph
16Greentrac Quest X
 124 ft +25 ft 36 mph

The difference between best and worst was 25.9% (25 ft ≈ 1.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Greentrac Quest X would still be travelling at 36 mph when the Linglong Sport Master had stopped.

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

This means that from highway speeds the calculated difference is over 66 ft, which means that when you are stopped on the LingLong or Continental, you will still be traveling 37 mph on the worst.

The wet braking results on concrete were broadly similar.

Wet Braking - Concrete

Wet braking on Concrete in feet (50 - 0 mph)

Lower is better ↓
Position / TireResultGap to bestResidual speed
1Linglong Sport Master
 106 ft Best 0 mph
2Continental PremiumContact 7
 115 ft +9 ft 22 mph
3Kumho Ecsta HS52
 118 ft +12 ft 25 mph
4Pirelli Cinturato C3
 122 ft +16 ft 29 mph
5Falken ZIEX ZE320
 124 ft +18 ft 30 mph
6Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
 125 ft +19 ft 31 mph
6Maxxis Premitra HP6
 125 ft +19 ft 31 mph
8Michelin Primacy 5
 127 ft +21 ft 33 mph
9Lassa Revola
 129 ft +23 ft 34 mph
10Vredestein Ultrac+
 130 ft +24 ft 34 mph
11Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
 132 ft +26 ft 35 mph
12Bridgestone Turanza 6
 132 ft +26 ft 35 mph
13Leao Nova Force Acro
 134 ft +28 ft 37 mph
14BFGoodrich Advantage
 136 ft +30 ft 38 mph
15Hankook Ventus Prime 4
 138 ft +32 ft 39 mph
16Greentrac Quest X
 146 ft +40 ft 42 mph

The difference between best and worst was 37.8% (40 ft ≈ 2.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Greentrac Quest X would still be travelling at 42 mph when the Linglong Sport Master had stopped.

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

 ADAC do publish straight and curved aquaplaning results. You can see the curved aquaplaning results on the results table tab above. Generally there wasn't a huge delta between the best and the worst 

Straight Aqua

Float Speed in mph

Higher is better ↑
Position / TireResultGap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7
 49.5 mph Best
1Pirelli Cinturato C3
 49.5 mph Best
3Vredestein Ultrac+
 49.3 mph -0.2 mph
4Linglong Sport Master
 48.8 mph -0.7 mph
5Kumho Ecsta HS52
 48.0 mph -1.5 mph
6Bridgestone Turanza 6
 48.0 mph -1.5 mph
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
 48.0 mph -1.5 mph
8Lassa Revola
 47.6 mph -1.9 mph
9Michelin Primacy 5
 47.5 mph -2.0 mph
10BFGoodrich Advantage
 47.3 mph -2.2 mph
11Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
 47.0 mph -2.5 mph
11Greentrac Quest X
 47.0 mph -2.5 mph
13Falken ZIEX ZE320
 46.7 mph -2.8 mph
14Maxxis Premitra HP6
 46.6 mph -2.9 mph
15Leao Nova Force Acro
 45.8 mph -3.7 mph
16Hankook Ventus Prime 4
 45.3 mph -4.2 mph

The difference between best and worst was 8.5% (4.2 mph).

Value

The wear test was the gold standard wear test performed on the road in a convoy, unlike other publications which use a machine. In this test the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 was the best, over doubling the expected tread life to 1.6 mm compared to the bottom two tires.

As usual Michelin are strong in wear, and what I'm assuming is a revised Turanza 6 is also very strong in tread life. The Pirelli Cinturato C3 finishing in fourth place was a nice surprise too given how well this tire grips.

 Sadly ADAC did not publish the purchase price of the tires so we can't work out costs per 100 km driven.

Wear

Predicted tread life in KM

Higher is better ↑
Position / TireResultGap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
 35,915 miles Best
2Michelin Primacy 5
 34,797 miles -1,118 miles
3Bridgestone Turanza 6
 34,548 miles -1,367 miles
4Pirelli Cinturato C3
 30,199 miles -5,716 miles
5BFGoodrich Advantage
 29,018 miles -6,897 miles
6Hankook Ventus Prime 4
 27,775 miles -8,140 miles
6Continental PremiumContact 7
 27,775 miles -8,140 miles
8Kumho Ecsta HS52
 26,843 miles -9,072 miles
9Greentrac Quest X
 23,736 miles -12,179 miles
10Falken ZIEX ZE320
 23,301 miles -12,614 miles
11Maxxis Premitra HP6
 23,115 miles -12,800 miles
12Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
 22,804 miles -13,111 miles
13Lassa Revola
 22,432 miles -13,483 miles
14Vredestein Ultrac+
 19,014 miles -16,901 miles
15Leao Nova Force Acro
 17,212 miles -18,703 miles
16Linglong Sport Master
 16,218 miles -19,697 miles

The difference between best and worst was 54.8% (19,697 miles).

ADAC do not release rolling resistance levels. Instead they drive the tires on an oval to get the average liters per 100 km. Usually this test is only separated by 0.1 or 0.2 liters per 100 km and in this case it's 0.6, showing just what a compromise the LingLong has to get that wet grip.

Fuel Consumption

Fuel consumption in Liters per 100 km

Lower is better ↓
Position / TireResultGap to bestExtra fuel / year
1Hankook Ventus Prime 4
 5.4 l/100km Best $0
1Continental PremiumContact 7
 5.4 l/100km Best $0
1Michelin Primacy 5
 5.4 l/100km Best $0
4Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
 5.5 l/100km +0.10 l/100km $18
4Leao Nova Force Acro
 5.5 l/100km +0.10 l/100km $18
4Bridgestone Turanza 6
 5.5 l/100km +0.10 l/100km $18
7BFGoodrich Advantage
 5.6 l/100km +0.20 l/100km $37
7Falken ZIEX ZE320
 5.6 l/100km +0.20 l/100km $37
7Vredestein Ultrac+
 5.6 l/100km +0.20 l/100km $37
7Maxxis Premitra HP6
 5.6 l/100km +0.20 l/100km $37
7Lassa Revola
 5.6 l/100km +0.20 l/100km $37
12Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
 5.7 l/100km +0.30 l/100km $55
12Pirelli Cinturato C3
 5.7 l/100km +0.30 l/100km $55
12Greentrac Quest X
 5.7 l/100km +0.30 l/100km $55
15Kumho Ecsta HS52
 5.8 l/100km +0.40 l/100km $73
16Linglong Sport Master
 6 l/100km +0.60 l/100km $110

The difference between best and worst was 11.1% (0.6 l/100km). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Linglong Sport Master uses about 31 gal ($110) more fuel than the Hankook Ventus Prime 4.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.

12,000 mi
$3.60/gal
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.

Abrasion is the measure of particulate matter, measured in milligrams per kilometer per ton. Michelin always aces this test and once again it had a big advantage, emitting over half the tire particulates the LingLong produces, which is a big difference for the environment. 

Abrasion

Weight of Tire Wear Particles Lost (mg/km/t)

Lower is better ↓
Position / TireResultGap to best
1Michelin Primacy 5
 54 mg/km/t Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
 62 mg/km/t +8.00 mg/km/t
3Bridgestone Turanza 6
 66 mg/km/t +12.00 mg/km/t
4Continental PremiumContact 7
 69 mg/km/t +15.00 mg/km/t
5Falken ZIEX ZE320
 71 mg/km/t +17.00 mg/km/t
6Hankook Ventus Prime 4
 75 mg/km/t +21.00 mg/km/t
7Maxxis Premitra HP6
 76 mg/km/t +22.00 mg/km/t
8Pirelli Cinturato C3
 79 mg/km/t +25.00 mg/km/t
9BFGoodrich Advantage
 83 mg/km/t +29.00 mg/km/t
9Greentrac Quest X
 83 mg/km/t +29.00 mg/km/t
11Lassa Revola
 89 mg/km/t +35.00 mg/km/t
12Kumho Ecsta HS52
 91 mg/km/t +37.00 mg/km/t
13Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
 95 mg/km/t +41.00 mg/km/t
14Vredestein Ultrac+
 97 mg/km/t +43.00 mg/km/t
15Leao Nova Force Acro
 100 mg/km/t +46.00 mg/km/t
16Linglong Sport Master
 131 mg/km/t +77.00 mg/km/t

The difference between best and worst was 142.6% (77 mg/km/t).

Results

1st

Continental PremiumContact 7

225/50 R17 98Y XL
Continental PremiumContact 7
ADAC Good Gut
The PremiumContact 7 was the clear test winner. ADAC praise its “balanced” performance: it offers the best safety on dry and wet roads, high reserves in the limit range and short braking distances, while also delivering high efficiency and long life. It gives a precise steering response and high grip on dry pavement, making the car easy to control even at the limit. On wet roads it delivers very short braking distances and secure, easily controlled handling; aquaplaning behavior is judged good in both directions. The environmental balance is also good thanks to high predicted mileage, low abrasion and good efficiency, although the rolling noise is slightly above average.
Dry96.9%
Wet97.4%
Value85.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better6th / 16115 ft+4 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better1st / 1699 ftBest in this discipline
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better2nd / 16115 ft+9 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better1st / 1649.5 mphBest in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better1st / 1612.1 ft/s²Best in this discipline
WearHigher is better6th / 1627,775 miles-8,140 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better1st / 165.4 l/100kmBest in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better4th / 1669 mg/km/t+15.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
C/A/72
Origin
Germany/Portugal
Weight
9.3 kgs
2nd

Pirelli Cinturato C3

225/50 R17 98Y XL
Pirelli Cinturato C3
ADAC Good Gut
Pirelli’s Cinturato (C3) finishes just behind Continental. According to the test report, it secures a good rating for both safety and environmental balance, earning a clear recommendation. On dry roads the tire has slight steering-feedback and precision weaknesses but remains safe and easily controllable due to high grip, and its braking distance from 62 mph is rated very good. On wet surfaces it offers short braking distances, good handling and strong aquaplaning resistance. The environmental assessment is also good thanks to high predicted mileage, low abrasion and good efficiency. Strengths cited include good driving safety, high mileage and low wear, though the tire is relatively noisy.
Dry98.3%
Wet93%
Value83.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better4th / 16113 ft+2 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better5th / 16104 ft+5 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better4th / 16122 ft+16 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better1st / 1649.5 mphBest in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better3rd / 1611.8 ft/s²-0.3 ft/s²
WearHigher is better4th / 1630,199 miles-5,716 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better12th / 165.7 l/100km+0.30 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better8th / 1679 mg/km/t+25.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
B/A/70
Origin
Romania
Weight
9.7 kgs
3rd

Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2

225/50 R17 98W XL
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
ADAC Good Gut
Goodyear’s EfficientGrip Performance 2 earns a good overall rating, trailing the top two mainly because of minor dynamic weaknesses. The summary explains that dry-road feedback and braking distances are only moderate, though the tire maintains high grip and remains stable at the limit. Wet-road performance is “just good” with weaknesses in aquaplaning and handling. The tire’s environmental balance is very good: it has very high predicted mileage, low abrasion and good efficiency. ADAC lists its strengths as a balanced tire with good safety, very high mileage and low wear, with minor weaknesses in aquaplaning and wet handling.
Dry93.4%
Wet91.4%
Value95.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better12th / 16119 ft+8 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better4th / 16103 ft+4 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better6th / 16125 ft+19 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better11th / 1647.0 mph-2.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better7th / 1611.2 ft/s²-0.9 ft/s²
WearHigher is better1st / 1635,915 milesBest in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better4th / 165.5 l/100km+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better2nd / 1662 mg/km/t+8.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
B/A/70
Origin
Poland
Weight
9.3 kgs
4th

Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN

225/50 R17 98Y XL
Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
The Roadhawk 2 scores “good” for driving safety but only fair in the environmental balance. The tire offers decent grip but imprecise steering on dry roads; braking is short yet overall precision is lacking. Wet performance is barely good: braking distances and longitudinal aquaplaning are weak, though handling remains acceptable. Predicted mileage and abrasion are only satisfactory, though efficiency is rated good. Consequently, ADAC sees it as a conditionally recommendable tire with some safety and efficiency advantages but notable weaknesses in dry precision, wet braking and longevity.
Dry97.1%
Wet87.5%
Value72.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better5th / 16115 ft+4 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better15th / 16115 ft+16 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better11th / 16132 ft+26 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better6th / 1648.0 mph-1.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better3rd / 1611.8 ft/s²-0.3 ft/s²
WearHigher is better12th / 1622,804 miles-13,111 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better12th / 165.7 l/100km+0.30 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better13th / 1695 mg/km/t+41.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
B/A/71
Origin
Hungary
Weight
9.9 kgs
5th

Falken ZIEX ZE320

225/50 R17 98W XL
Falken ZIEX ZE320
The Ziex ZE320 narrowly misses a good safety rating. The summary notes modest steering precision on dry roads and sensitivity to heat, although it has the shortest dry-braking distance in the test. On wet roads it performs well in braking and handling but only fairly in aquaplaning. Environmental performance is “fair” because of mediocre mileage, but low wear, low weight and low fuel consumption contribute to good efficiency. Strengths include very short dry braking, good wet-road performance, low abrasion and very low weight, while weaknesses include deficits on dry roads, susceptibility to aquaplaning and only satisfactory mileage.
Dry100%
Wet87.4%
Value79.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better1st / 16111 ftBest in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better12th / 16113 ft+14 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better5th / 16124 ft+18 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better13th / 1646.7 mph-2.8 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better14th / 1610.2 ft/s²-1.9 ft/s²
WearHigher is better10th / 1623,301 miles-12,614 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better7th / 165.6 l/100km+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better5th / 1671 mg/km/t+17.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
C/A/68
Origin
Turkey
Weight
9.0 kgs
6th

Bridgestone Turanza 6

225/50 R17 98Y XL
Bridgestone Turanza 6
Bridgestone’s Turanza 6 does not achieve a good safety rating because of imprecise steering and heat sensitivity on both dry and wet roads; it tends to under- or oversteer early despite good braking. Nonetheless, its environmental performance is good, featuring very high predicted mileage, low abrasion, low weight and low fuel consumption. Therefore the tire is recommended primarily for drivers who prioritize longevity and efficiency over sporty handling.
Dry93.1%
Wet87.6%
Value93%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better14th / 16119 ft+8 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better10th / 16111 ft+12 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better12th / 16132 ft+26 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better6th / 1648.0 mph-1.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better7th / 1611.2 ft/s²-0.9 ft/s²
WearHigher is better3rd / 1634,548 miles-1,367 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better4th / 165.5 l/100km+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better3rd / 1666 mg/km/t+12.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
B/A/70
Origin
Poland
Weight
9.9 kgs
7th

Michelin Primacy 5

225/50 R17 98W XL
Michelin Primacy 5
The Primacy 5 also misses a good safety rating. The summary describes imprecise steering and thermal sensitivity on dry and wet roads, although braking on both surfaces is good. Its environmental rating is the best in the test: the tire offers very high predicted mileage, the lowest abrasion and low weight, and it achieves the lowest fuel consumption among all candidates. Consequently, ADAC gives only a conditional recommendation, noting good braking and excellent efficiency but shortcomings in overall handling.
Dry93.4%
Wet89.1%
Value98.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better12th / 16119 ft+8 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better6th / 16107 ft+8 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better8th / 16127 ft+21 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better9th / 1647.5 mph-2.0 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better11th / 1610.8 ft/s²-1.3 ft/s²
WearHigher is better2nd / 1634,797 miles-1,118 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better1st / 165.4 l/100kmBest in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better1st / 1654 mg/km/tBest in this discipline
EU Label
B/A/70
Origin
Germany
Weight
9.2 kgs
8th

Maxxis Premitra HP6

225/50 R17 98W XL
Maxxis Premitra HP6
Maxxis’s Premitra HP6 receives only fair ratings in safety and environmental categories. The tire provides short braking distances on dry and wet roads but displays modest steering precision and grip at the limit on dry pavement. Wet-road performance is only fair. Environmentally, its predicted mileage is low, though weight and fuel consumption are favorable. ADAC highlights short braking, low abrasion and low fuel consumption as strengths, but notes handling weaknesses on both dry and wet surfaces and low mileage.
Dry94.7%
Wet87.5%
Value77.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better10th / 16117 ft+6 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better9th / 16110 ft+11 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better6th / 16125 ft+19 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better14th / 1646.6 mph-2.9 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better15th / 169.8 ft/s²-2.3 ft/s²
WearHigher is better11th / 1623,115 miles-12,800 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better7th / 165.6 l/100km+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better7th / 1676 mg/km/t+22.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
C/A/72
Origin
China
Weight
10.0 kgs
9th

Kumho Ecsta HS52

225/50 R17 98W XL
Kumho Ecsta HS52
The updated Ecsta HS52 scores well on wet roads but only fair overall because of weak dry-road performance and increased weight. According to the summary, dry-road steering feedback and precision are merely adequate; wet grip and braking are good. Environmental performance is fair due to high abrasion and heavy weight, despite good predicted mileage and efficiency. ADAC lists short dry braking, good wet handling and good mileage as strengths, but notes deficits in dry handling, aquaplaning behavior and slightly elevated abrasion and weight.
Dry95%
Wet92.9%
Value77.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better9th / 16117 ft+6 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better3rd / 16102 ft+3 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better3rd / 16118 ft+12 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better5th / 1648.0 mph-1.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better13th / 1610.5 ft/s²-1.6 ft/s²
WearHigher is better8th / 1626,843 miles-9,072 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better15th / 165.8 l/100km+0.40 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better12th / 1691 mg/km/t+37.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
C/A/72
Origin
Korea
Weight
10.8 kgs
10th

BFGoodrich Advantage

225/50 R17 98Y XL
BFGoodrich Advantage
BFGoodrich’s Advantage fails to achieve a good rating mainly because of poor wet performance and higher wear. Dry-road steering feedback and stability are good, but braking distances are long. On wet roads, braking, aquaplaning and handling are only fair or sufficient, leading to early under- or oversteer. Predicted mileage and efficiency are good, but abrasion is slightly elevated. ADAC therefore gives a conditional recommendation, praising the dry-road handling and high mileage but cautioning about wet-road weaknesses and above-average weight.
Dry92.9%
Wet86.3%
Value82.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better15th / 16120 ft+9 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better13th / 16113 ft+14 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better14th / 16136 ft+30 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better10th / 1647.3 mph-2.2 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better5th / 1611.5 ft/s²-0.6 ft/s²
WearHigher is better5th / 1629,018 miles-6,897 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better7th / 165.6 l/100km+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better9th / 1683 mg/km/t+29.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
C/A/70
Origin
Poland
Weight
10.0 kgs
11th

Hankook Ventus Prime 4

225/50 R17 98W XL
Hankook Ventus Prime 4
The Ventus Prime4 narrowly misses a good safety rating due to weak wet performance. The summary notes slightly indirect steering on dry roads but good grip. Wet braking, aquaplaning and handling are only fair or sufficient, which leads to early under- or oversteer. The environmental rating is just good thanks to high predicted mileage and low abrasion, although the tire is relatively heavy and noisy. Strengths include good handling at the limit on dry roads, high mileage and low fuel consumption; weaknesses include comfort issues on dry roads, wet-performance deficits and slightly increased weight.
Dry92.4%
Wet84.9%
Value84.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better16th / 16120 ft+9 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better13th / 16113 ft+14 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better15th / 16138 ft+32 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better16th / 1645.3 mph-4.2 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better7th / 1611.2 ft/s²-0.9 ft/s²
WearHigher is better6th / 1627,775 miles-8,140 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better1st / 165.4 l/100kmBest in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better6th / 1675 mg/km/t+21.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
B/A/69
Origin
Korea/Hungary
Weight
10.0 kgs
12th

Vredestein Ultrac+

225/50 R17 98Y XL
Vredestein Ultrac+
Vredestein’s Ultrac+ fails to achieve a good rating in both safety and environmental categories. Dry-road steering feedback and precision are only fair; dry braking is good. On wet roads the tire performs reasonably in aquaplaning and handling but not in braking. The environmental rating is fair due to low mileage and high abrasion, though weight and fuel consumption are low. ADAC notes short dry braking, good aquaplaning and wet handling, low weight and fuel consumption as strengths, but poor dry handling, slight wet-braking weakness, low mileage and high abrasion as weaknesses.
Dry96%
Wet88.8%
Value69.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better8th / 16116 ft+5 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better11th / 16111 ft+12 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better10th / 16130 ft+24 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better3rd / 1649.3 mph-0.2 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better5th / 1611.5 ft/s²-0.6 ft/s²
WearHigher is better14th / 1619,014 miles-16,901 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better7th / 165.6 l/100km+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better14th / 1697 mg/km/t+43.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
C/A/69
Origin
Hungary
Weight
9.7 kgs
13th

Greentrac Quest X

225/50 R17 98Y XL
Greentrac Quest X
The Chinese Greentrac Quest-X receives a conditional recommendation. The summary criticises its wet-road performance: wet braking is the worst in the test, and aquaplaning behavior and handling are only fair. Dry-road feedback and precision are also not very good due to an elastic rear axle, though braking is good. Environmental performance is fair because of moderate mileage, slightly high abrasion and high weight, although fuel consumption is low. Strengths include short dry braking, good cross-aquaplaning and low fuel consumption, while weaknesses comprise deficits in dry handling, wet performance and moderate mileage with slightly high abrasion.
Dry93.7%
Wet82.4%
Value76.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better11th / 16119 ft+8 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better16th / 16124 ft+25 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better16th / 16146 ft+40 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better11th / 1647.0 mph-2.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better1st / 1612.1 ft/s²Best in this discipline
WearHigher is better9th / 1623,736 miles-12,179 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better12th / 165.7 l/100km+0.30 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better9th / 1683 mg/km/t+29.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
C/A/70
Origin
China
Weight
11.0 kgs
14th

Lassa Revola

225/50 R17 98Y XL
Lassa Revola
The Turkish-made Lassa Revola is rated “not recommendable.” The summary states that it barely reaches a satisfactory score in safety: dry-road performance is poor, with the tire losing grip as temperature rises, offering only minimal steering feedback and making it hard to control the vehicle; it tends to oversteer in emergency maneuvers. Wet performance is somewhat better, with average braking and above-average handling, though aquaplaning resistance is only average. The environmental rating is only “befriedigend” due to average mileage and abrasion; efficiency is good thanks to low weight and fuel consumption. Strengths include very short dry braking, good wet performance, low weight and low fuel consumption, but the tire is very weak on dry roads, has aquaplaning weaknesses and only satisfactory mileage and abrasion.
Dry98.6%
Wet88.7%
Value74.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better3rd / 16113 ft+2 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better7th / 16108 ft+9 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better9th / 16129 ft+23 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better8th / 1647.6 mph-1.9 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better11th / 1610.8 ft/s²-1.3 ft/s²
WearHigher is better13th / 1622,432 miles-13,483 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better7th / 165.6 l/100km+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better11th / 1689 mg/km/t+35.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
B/A/71
Origin
Turkey
Weight
9.7 kgs
15th

Leao Nova Force Acro

225/50 R17 98Y XL
Leao Nova Force Acro
Leao’s Nova-Force Acro, a sub-brand of Linglong, receives a “not recommendable” verdict. It fails to achieve even a satisfactory rating in safety because of very weak dry performance; the tire loses grip as temperature rises, provides delayed steering response and feels elastic, making it difficult to hit the correct steering angle. At the limit it tends to oversteer and proves hard to control. Wet-road performance is merely adequate; braking and aquaplaning behavior are average, and handling is only sufficient. The environmental rating is also only adequate due to very low predicted mileage, high abrasion and high weight; efficiency is saved only by modest fuel consumption. ADAC notes that the tire’s only strengths are a very short dry-braking distance and low fuel consumption, while weaknesses include very poor performance on both dry and wet surfaces, low mileage, high abrasion and above-average weight.
Dry96.3%
Wet85.3%
Value67.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better7th / 16115 ft+4 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better8th / 16108 ft+9 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better13th / 16134 ft+28 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better15th / 1645.8 mph-3.7 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better16th / 169.5 ft/s²-2.6 ft/s²
WearHigher is better15th / 1617,212 miles-18,703 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better4th / 165.5 l/100km+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better15th / 16100 mg/km/t+46.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
C/A/72
Origin
China
Weight
10.2 kgs
16th

Linglong Sport Master

225/50 R17 98Y XL
Linglong Sport Master
The Linglong Sport Master scores the lowest overall. Although it delivers the best wet-road performance in the test - very short wet braking distances, excellent wet handling and good longitudinal aquaplaning behavior - its dry-road performance is very poor. As temperature rises the tire loses grip, steering response becomes delayed and elastic, and the car tends to oversteer in evasive maneuvers. The tire therefore earns only a sufficient rating for safety and is not recommended. The environmental balance is also weak: extremely high abrasion, very low predicted mileage, high weight and high fuel consumption lead to an “ausreichend” rating. Strengths are limited to the very short dry-braking distance and the best wet performance in the test, whereas weaknesses include very poor dry performance, low mileage, high wear, high weight and high fuel consumption.
Dry99.1%
Wet98.6%
Value60.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (8)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

TestPosition in disciplineResultGap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better2nd / 16112 ft+1 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better1st / 1699 ftBest in this discipline
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better1st / 16106 ftBest in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better4th / 1648.8 mph-0.7 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better7th / 1611.2 ft/s²-0.9 ft/s²
WearHigher is better16th / 1616,218 miles-19,697 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better16th / 166 l/100km+0.60 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better16th / 16131 mg/km/t+77.00 mg/km/t
EU Label
C/A/69
Origin
Serbia
Weight
10.6 kgs

More tire tests

Cross-check this test

All tire tests

Where these tires were tested again, and how the verdict held up.

More tire tests2026 AutoView Sport Tire Test2026 Tire Rack Streetable Track Tire TestMichelin Range Test - CrossClimate 3, 3 Sport, Primacy 5, Pilot Sport 5 and Cup 2The BEST Streetable Track Tires in 2026 TestedAll tests: Summer Tires
Best tiresBest UUHP TiresBest Performance Summer TiresBest Summer Tires

Discussion

7 comments
  1. Jim archived

    I gotta agree with others , weird ranking and based almost solely on abrasion and fuel efficiency. Kumho is obviously better than the Maxxis in terms of safety when looking at the results, but finishes after the maxxis anyway. That's just one observation.

    #10549
  2. Antonis Loukas archived

    The final ranking is a joke... The best wet braking, the second best dry braking and 4th place on wet aquaplaning, equals to last place... Maybe Ling long (and the sister brand Leao) didn't send them a cheque... I am wearing these tires from September of 2024 and have already done around 20k km (205/55R16). I cannot say that my tires are going to fall off on 26k km (additional 6k km than those i've already have...). I am very happy with performance both on wet and dry surfaces. For my tires size, the difference between ling long and continental were 160 euros for all 4 tires... It no wonder that german products keep receiving the middle finger from Chinese ones, no matter if we are talking about tires or cars...

    #10547
  3. fuji1978 archived

    I’m honestly disappointed with the overall ADAC test results. It’s hard to ignore the feeling that a small group of “chosen” manufacturers is systematically favored, while tires that are objectively very strong in real-world conditions are pushed down the rankings.

    Seeing a tire in 4th place that doesn’t even come close to Falken or Vredestein in wet grip and aquaplaning resistance really raises questions. It feels like progressive eco-politics has started to outweigh common sense, where rolling resistance and “green scores” matter more than actual safety and cost efficiency.

    The top three tires cost €150-160 per piece, while Falken or Vredestein are roughly €40 cheaper per tire. That’s €160 saved per set - so the obvious question is: how many extra kilometers can I drive for that money?

    For me, aquaplaning resistance in heavy rain is far more important than saving a few grams of CO₂ in a lab test. I drive on real roads, not perfect German asphalt, and definitely not in a spreadsheet.

    ADAC tests may look nice on paper, but maybe it’s time for a hard reset - and a reminder that safety, realism, and value for money should come before ideology.

    #10542
    1. Petr fuji1978 archived

      It's not about "chosen" brands, it's the eco-cancer. Think about it. The only thing that holds you on the road is the tire so it has to be SAFE and only SAFE, everything else is absolutely irrelevant. It does not have to do a million miles but it has to stay safe over a period of time, say, for at least six, seven years. Unfortunately, no currently produced tire lasts as long without losing most of its original safety performance. Only fleet cars can do such high mileages in range of three or (max.) four years which is the time summer tires (at least Goodyear) deteriorate to such extent that they become dangerous (cracked, no traction). Nokian lasts a bit longer, cca five years.

      Before somenone starts arguing with me, try real life - emergency braking in a smaller car without ABS first. Try new set of tires and then try four year old ones of the same type. You will never ever buy eco tires again.

      #10545
      1. Petr Petr archived

        Oops. The first sentence should have ended with "it's the eco-cancer and testers' emphasis on it".

        #10548
    1. TireReviews homes archived

      How did I miss that. I must be getting hard of sight.

      #10539
Rate your tires

My tires

Saved in this browser on this site. No account needed. Clearing browser data removes your choices.

Vehicle and size

Check the size, load and speed ratings on your vehicle. Saving a size does not confirm fitment.

Saved tires

Save tires from a tire page, test or comparison to keep them here.

Select 2–8 saved tires. Ranked comparisons require at least two shared tests.