Auto Bild's 2026 summer tire test covers the 245/45 R19 size - a common fitment on upper-mid-size cars including the BMW 5 Series, Audi A6 and Mercedes S-Class - and has put 50 tires through an initial qualifying round (linked in the tire test section) before selecting the 20 shortest-stopping for the full test!
The results broadly confirm that the established premium brands remain the safest choice, with Hankook, Goodyear, Michelin and Pirelli all earning the top "exemplary" rating. The standout result, however, is Giti - a brand not typically associated with the premium tier - which scores highly enough across wet and dry tests to join that group, something the testers note in the article. This is a huge step forward for Giti, it's exciting to see how they perform in other tests and other categories across the coming months.

At the other end of the price scale, the Linglong Sport Master produces the single most impressive individual result of the entire test, recording the shortest wet braking distance of all fifty original candidates and the only sub-40-metre stop from 100 km/h in the wet. Despite that, it finishes sixteenth overall, held back by the lowest projected mileage in the finalist group - meaning buyers drawn in by its low purchase price and strong safety performance will find themselves replacing it sooner than almost any other tire here, meaning it worked out to be more expensive than many of top tyers in this test.
Dry
Hankook sets the benchmark in dry braking with the shortest stopping distance in the test, with Linglong and Nexen close behind - an impressive result given both are significantly cheaper than most rivals. The Falken and Sava are at the back of the field, though the gap between first and last is just 2.5 metres.
- Hankook Ventus Evo
- Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
- Linglong Sport Master
- Yokohama Advan Sport V107
- Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- Giti GitiSport S2 plus
- Pirelli Cinturato C3
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Michelin Pilot Sport 5
- Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- Nokian Powerproof 2
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
- Toyo Proxes Sport 2
- Kleber Dynaxer HP5
- GT Radial SportActive 2 EVO
- Maxxis Victra Sport 6
- Sava Intensa UHP 2
- Falken Azenis FK520
- Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
Hankook leads dry handling ahead of Michelin and Vredestein, with the top half of the field separated by a relatively narrow margin. Falken and Sava fall furthest behind, consistent with their weaker dry braking results - the two dry tests broadly agree on the order.
- Hankook Ventus Evo
- Michelin Pilot Sport 5
- Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- Yokohama Advan Sport V107
- Toyo Proxes Sport 2
- Maxxis Victra Sport 6
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Giti GitiSport S2 plus
- Nokian Powerproof 2
- Pirelli Cinturato C3
- Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- GT Radial SportActive 2 EVO
- Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
- Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
- Linglong Sport Master
- Sava Intensa UHP 2
- Kleber Dynaxer HP5
- Falken Azenis FK520
The subjective dry handling scores largely reflect the objective lap times, with Hankook and Michelin rated highest. Falken, Kleber and Sava receive the lowest ratings, with the test team noting imprecise or vague behaviour at the limit.
- Michelin Pilot Sport 5
- Hankook Ventus Evo
- Maxxis Victra Sport 6
- Yokohama Advan Sport V107
- Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- Toyo Proxes Sport 2
- Giti GitiSport S2 plus
- GT Radial SportActive 2 EVO
- Nokian Powerproof 2
- Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Pirelli Cinturato C3
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
- Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
- Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
- Linglong Sport Master
- Falken Azenis FK520
- Kleber Dynaxer HP5
- Sava Intensa UHP 2
Wet
Linglong produces the standout result in wet braking - the only tire in the test to stop under 40 metres from 100 km/h - despite being the cheapest finalist. Yokohama and Sava are at the back, with the full spread between best and worst reaching nearly 9 metres, a significant gap in a real-world emergency stop.
- Linglong Sport Master
- Hankook Ventus Evo
- Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
- Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- Giti GitiSport S2 plus
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Pirelli Cinturato C3
- Michelin Pilot Sport 5
- Falken Azenis FK520
- GT Radial SportActive 2 EVO
- Nokian Powerproof 2
- Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
- Maxxis Victra Sport 6
- Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
- Toyo Proxes Sport 2
- Kleber Dynaxer HP5
- Sava Intensa UHP 2
- Yokohama Advan Sport V107
Hankook leads wet handling ahead of Pirelli, which the test team identified as the strongest wet specialist in terms of lateral grip and handling response. Kleber and Maxxis are at the back, consistent with their longer wet braking distances - both show a pattern of reduced wet-weather ability across multiple tests.
- Hankook Ventus Evo
- Pirelli Cinturato C3
- Michelin Pilot Sport 5
- Giti GitiSport S2 plus
- Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- GT Radial SportActive 2 EVO
- Linglong Sport Master
- Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
- Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Yokohama Advan Sport V107
- Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
- Toyo Proxes Sport 2
- Nokian Powerproof 2
- Falken Azenis FK520
- Maxxis Victra Sport 6
- Sava Intensa UHP 2
- Kleber Dynaxer HP5
Subjective wet handling scores reflect the objective results closely, with Hankook and Pirelli rated highest. Maxxis and Sava receive the lowest ratings, with the test team specifically noting vague and imprecise wet behaviour for both - a concern given wet tests account for 40% of the overall result.
- Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- Hankook Ventus Evo
- Pirelli Cinturato C3
- Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- Giti GitiSport S2 plus
- Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Michelin Pilot Sport 5
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Linglong Sport Master
- Falken Azenis FK520
- Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
- Yokohama Advan Sport V107
- Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
- Nokian Powerproof 2
- GT Radial SportActive 2 EVO
- Toyo Proxes Sport 2
- Kleber Dynaxer HP5
- Maxxis Victra Sport 6
- Sava Intensa UHP 2
Toyo and Goodyear lead straight aquaplaning resistance, both able to sustain higher speeds before losing contact than any other tire in the test. Maxxis and Nokian are at the back of the field, though notably Toyo's strong aquaplaning result does not carry over into wet handling, where it finishes in the lower half.
- Toyo Proxes Sport 2
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Giti GitiSport S2 plus
- Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
- Yokohama Advan Sport V107
- Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
- Pirelli Cinturato C3
- Linglong Sport Master
- GT Radial SportActive 2 EVO
- Michelin Pilot Sport 5
- Falken Azenis FK520
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
- Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- Hankook Ventus Evo
- Sava Intensa UHP 2
- Nokian Powerproof 2
- Kleber Dynaxer HP5
- Maxxis Victra Sport 6
Comfort
Hankook, Goodyear, Bridgestone and Dunlop receive the highest rolling comfort ratings from the test team. Giti, GT Radial and Maxxis are rated lowest - none of these three score particularly poorly in performance tests, so the comfort result is worth noting for buyers who prioritise ride quality on poorer road surfaces.
- Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
- Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Hankook Ventus Evo
- Sava Intensa UHP 2
- Nokian Powerproof 2
- Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- Kleber Dynaxer HP5
- Pirelli Cinturato C3
- Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- Toyo Proxes Sport 2
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Falken Azenis FK520
- Michelin Pilot Sport 5
- Yokohama Advan Sport V107
- Linglong Sport Master
- Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
- Maxxis Victra Sport 6
- GT Radial SportActive 2 EVO
- Giti GitiSport S2 plus
Goodyear and Nexen are the quietest tires in the test, with Pirelli at the opposite end - the loudest of all finalists by a clear margin. The noise ranking does not follow the performance ranking closely, and several of the higher-performing tires sit in the noisier half of the field.
- Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- GT Radial SportActive 2 EVO
- Toyo Proxes Sport 2
- Nokian Powerproof 2
- Giti GitiSport S2 plus
- Maxxis Victra Sport 6
- Kleber Dynaxer HP5
- Hankook Ventus Evo
- Falken Azenis FK520
- Linglong Sport Master
- Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
- Sava Intensa UHP 2
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Yokohama Advan Sport V107
- Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
- Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- Michelin Pilot Sport 5
- Pirelli Cinturato C3
Value
Goodyear, Michelin and Continental have the best wear, but all three carry higher purchase prices. Linglong and Toyo project the shortest mileage, which is significant.
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Michelin Pilot Sport 5
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Hankook Ventus Evo
- Falken Azenis FK520
- Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
- Pirelli Cinturato C3
- Kleber Dynaxer HP5
- Nokian Powerproof 2
- Giti GitiSport S2 plus
- GT Radial SportActive 2 EVO
- Sava Intensa UHP 2
- Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
- Yokohama Advan Sport V107
- Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
- Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- Maxxis Victra Sport 6
- Toyo Proxes Sport 2
- Linglong Sport Master
Hankook offers the best cost-per-km ratio in the test, combining competitive mileage with a mid-range purchase price. Continental is the most expensive per kilometre despite its high projected mileage, reflecting its high upfront cost. The results show that purchase price alone is a poor guide to running cost.
- Hankook Ventus Evo
- GT Radial SportActive 2 EVO
- Sava Intensa UHP 2
- Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
- Giti GitiSport S2 plus
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- Kleber Dynaxer HP5
- Linglong Sport Master
- Falken Azenis FK520
- Yokohama Advan Sport V107
- Maxxis Victra Sport 6
- Nokian Powerproof 2
- Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- Michelin Pilot Sport 5
- Pirelli Cinturato C3
- Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
- Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
- Toyo Proxes Sport 2
- Continental PremiumContact 7
Kleber has the lowest rolling resistance of all twenty finalists - a meaningful result for fuel or energy costs over the life of the tire. Yokohama is the worst in this test by a notable margin, and its rolling resistance result is flagged by the test team as a primary concern, directly increasing running costs regardless of performance in other areas.
Kleber again leads in tread abrasion after 4,000 km, losing the least material of any tire in the test - consistent with its low rolling resistance and strong mileage projection. Linglong loses the most material, reinforcing the pattern seen in projected mileage. Continental and Falken also show low abrasion, supporting their higher mileage estimates.
- Kleber Dynaxer HP5
- Continental PremiumContact 7
- Falken Azenis FK520
- Pirelli Cinturato C3
- Michelin Pilot Sport 5
- Nokian Powerproof 2
- Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
- Hankook Ventus Evo
- Sava Intensa UHP 2
- Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
- Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
- Giti GitiSport S2 plus
- Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
- Toyo Proxes Sport 2
- GT Radial SportActive 2 EVO
- Yokohama Advan Sport V107
- Maxxis Victra Sport 6
- Linglong Sport Master
Results
Hankook takes the overall win on the back of leading performances in both dry tests, with Goodyear and Michelin close behind - the top three are all established premium brands, though Giti and Pirelli join them in the "exemplary" rating category
The Hankook Ventus evo takes first place overall, with the strongest dry handling score and the shortest dry braking distance in the test. Wet performance is also strong, with the fastest wet handling lap time and competitive braking. The tire offers a good cost-per-km ratio relative to its performance level. Rolling comfort is above average. The main limitation is that wet grip, while good, falls slightly short of its dry performance level.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
1st |
32.8 M |
|
|
100% |
| Dry Handling |
1st |
101.5 Km/H |
|
|
100% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
1st |
10 Points |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
2nd |
42.1 M |
39.3 M |
+2.8 M |
93.35% |
| Wet Handling |
1st |
83.6 Km/H |
|
|
100% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
1st |
8.7 Points |
|
|
100% |
| Wet Circle |
1st |
14.51 s |
|
|
100% |
| Straight Aqua |
15th |
90.4 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-4.5 Km/H |
95.26% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
12th |
3.4 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.57 m/sec2 |
85.64% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
1st |
8 Points |
|
|
100% |
| Noise |
7th |
71.8 dB |
70.6 dB |
+1.2 dB |
98.33% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
4th |
56310 KM |
63830 KM |
-7520 KM |
88.22% |
| Value |
1st |
11.01 Price/1000 |
|
|
100% |
| Rolling Resistance |
5th |
7.69 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+1.02 kg / t |
86.74% |
| Abrasion |
8th |
1470 g |
1122 g |
+348 g |
76.33% |
The Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 finishes second overall and wins the "Green Tire" award, primarily on the strength of its projected mileage - by far the highest in the test at 63,830 km. Performance across wet and dry tests is consistently high without leading in any single area. Rolling comfort is good, and pass-by noise is among the lowest recorded. The main drawback is a relatively high purchase price.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
12th |
34.5 M |
32.8 M |
+1.7 M |
95.07% |
| Dry Handling |
7th |
100.5 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-1 Km/H |
99.01% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
7th |
8 Points |
10 Points |
-2 Points |
80% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
7th |
42.9 M |
39.3 M |
+3.6 M |
91.61% |
| Wet Handling |
11th |
82.2 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-1.4 Km/H |
98.33% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
4th |
8 Points |
8.7 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.95% |
| Wet Circle |
4th |
14.68 s |
14.51 s |
+0.17 s |
98.84% |
| Straight Aqua |
2nd |
94.7 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-0.2 Km/H |
99.79% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
1st |
3.97 m/sec2 |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
1st |
8 Points |
|
|
100% |
| Noise |
2nd |
70.8 dB |
70.6 dB |
+0.2 dB |
99.72% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
1st |
63830 KM |
|
|
100% |
| Value |
6th |
12.22 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+1.21 Price/1000 |
90.1% |
| Rolling Resistance |
13th |
8.33 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+1.66 kg / t |
80.07% |
| Abrasion |
7th |
1455 g |
1122 g |
+333 g |
77.11% |
The Michelin Pilot Sport 5 takes third place with a strong dry handling score, equal to the Hankook. Wet performance is solid across braking and handling. Mileage is the second highest in the test, which helps offset the high purchase price over the tire's life. Pass-by noise is slightly elevated compared to the top finishers, and the purchase price is among the higher end of the field.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
9th |
34.4 M |
32.8 M |
+1.6 M |
95.35% |
| Dry Handling |
2nd |
101.3 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-0.2 Km/H |
99.8% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
1st |
10 Points |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
9th |
43.3 M |
39.3 M |
+4 M |
90.76% |
| Wet Handling |
3rd |
82.7 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-0.9 Km/H |
98.92% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
4th |
8 Points |
8.7 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.95% |
| Wet Circle |
9th |
14.74 s |
14.51 s |
+0.23 s |
98.44% |
| Straight Aqua |
10th |
92 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-2.9 Km/H |
96.94% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
3rd |
3.72 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.25 m/sec2 |
93.7% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7.3 Points |
8 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.25% |
| Noise |
19th |
74.3 dB |
70.6 dB |
+3.7 dB |
95.02% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
2nd |
59670 KM |
63830 KM |
-4160 KM |
93.48% |
| Value |
15th |
15.42 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+4.41 Price/1000 |
71.4% |
| Rolling Resistance |
9th |
7.97 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+1.3 kg / t |
83.69% |
| Abrasion |
5th |
1353 g |
1122 g |
+231 g |
82.93% |
The Giti GitiSport S2+ finishes fourth and is one of the more surprising results in the test. It delivers competent wet and dry performance across all tests without a clear weak area, and its purchase price is among the lower half of the finalists. Rolling resistance is slightly higher than average, which will have a small impact on fuel consumption. The result represents strong value relative to its performance level.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
6th |
34.3 M |
32.8 M |
+1.5 M |
95.63% |
| Dry Handling |
8th |
100.3 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-1.2 Km/H |
98.82% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
7th |
8 Points |
10 Points |
-2 Points |
80% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
5th |
42.5 M |
39.3 M |
+3.2 M |
92.47% |
| Wet Handling |
4th |
82.6 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-1 Km/H |
98.8% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
4th |
8 Points |
8.7 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.95% |
| Wet Circle |
6th |
14.7 s |
14.51 s |
+0.19 s |
98.71% |
| Straight Aqua |
3rd |
94.5 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-0.4 Km/H |
99.58% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
4th |
3.6 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.37 m/sec2 |
90.68% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
18th |
6.7 Points |
8 Points |
-1.3 Points |
83.75% |
| Noise |
7th |
71.8 dB |
70.6 dB |
+1.2 dB |
98.33% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
10th |
50020 KM |
63830 KM |
-13810 KM |
78.36% |
| Value |
5th |
12.2 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+1.19 Price/1000 |
90.25% |
| Rolling Resistance |
18th |
8.99 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+2.32 kg / t |
74.19% |
| Abrasion |
14th |
1713 g |
1122 g |
+591 g |
65.5% |
The Pirelli Cinturato C3 shares fourth place with an emphasis on wet performance - wet handling and lateral grip scores are among the best in the test. Dry braking is also competitive. Rolling comfort is acceptable. The notable weakness is pass-by noise, which is the highest recorded in the test. Rolling resistance is low, which benefits running costs.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
6th |
34.3 M |
32.8 M |
+1.5 M |
95.63% |
| Dry Handling |
10th |
100 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-1.5 Km/H |
98.52% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
12th |
7.3 Points |
10 Points |
-2.7 Points |
73% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
8th |
43 M |
39.3 M |
+3.7 M |
91.4% |
| Wet Handling |
2nd |
83.4 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-0.2 Km/H |
99.76% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
1st |
8.7 Points |
|
|
100% |
| Wet Circle |
3rd |
14.64 s |
14.51 s |
+0.13 s |
99.11% |
| Straight Aqua |
6th |
92.9 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-2 Km/H |
97.89% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
9th |
3.46 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.51 m/sec2 |
87.15% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7.3 Points |
8 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.25% |
| Noise |
20th |
75.2 dB |
70.6 dB |
+4.6 dB |
93.88% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
7th |
50350 KM |
63830 KM |
-13480 KM |
78.88% |
| Value |
16th |
15.69 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+4.68 Price/1000 |
70.17% |
| Rolling Resistance |
6th |
7.7 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+1.03 kg / t |
86.62% |
| Abrasion |
4th |
1320 g |
1122 g |
+198 g |
85% |
The Continental PremiumContact 7 finishes sixth with a balanced all-round profile across wet and dry tests. Wet handling and braking are both strong, and dry braking is competitive. Tread wear after 4,000 km is one of the lowest in the test, which contributes to longevity. The main downside is the highest purchase price of any tire in the test.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
6th |
34.3 M |
32.8 M |
+1.5 M |
95.63% |
| Dry Handling |
15th |
99.5 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-2 Km/H |
98.03% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
13th |
6.7 Points |
10 Points |
-3.3 Points |
67% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
6th |
42.7 M |
39.3 M |
+3.4 M |
92.04% |
| Wet Handling |
9th |
82.3 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-1.3 Km/H |
98.44% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
4th |
8 Points |
8.7 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.95% |
| Wet Circle |
7th |
14.72 s |
14.51 s |
+0.21 s |
98.57% |
| Straight Aqua |
12th |
91.5 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-3.4 Km/H |
96.42% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
9th |
3.46 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.51 m/sec2 |
87.15% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7.3 Points |
8 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.25% |
| Noise |
15th |
72.7 dB |
70.6 dB |
+2.1 dB |
97.11% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
3rd |
56350 KM |
63830 KM |
-7480 KM |
88.28% |
| Value |
20th |
17.39 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+6.38 Price/1000 |
63.31% |
| Rolling Resistance |
8th |
7.83 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+1.16 kg / t |
85.19% |
| Abrasion |
2nd |
1302 g |
1122 g |
+180 g |
86.18% |
The Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 also finishes sixth and performs particularly well in wet conditions, with good braking and handling results. Dry performance is competitive across the board. The purchase price is among the lowest in the finalist group, making it a strong value option. Rolling noise is slightly above average, which is the main comfort-related limitation.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
9th |
34.4 M |
32.8 M |
+1.6 M |
95.35% |
| Dry Handling |
10th |
100 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-1.5 Km/H |
98.52% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
7th |
8 Points |
10 Points |
-2 Points |
80% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
4th |
42.4 M |
39.3 M |
+3.1 M |
92.69% |
| Wet Handling |
4th |
82.6 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-1 Km/H |
98.8% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
1st |
8.7 Points |
|
|
100% |
| Wet Circle |
2nd |
14.6 s |
14.51 s |
+0.09 s |
99.38% |
| Straight Aqua |
14th |
91 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-3.9 Km/H |
95.89% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
11th |
3.43 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.54 m/sec2 |
86.4% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7.3 Points |
8 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.25% |
| Noise |
18th |
74.1 dB |
70.6 dB |
+3.5 dB |
95.28% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
13th |
48230 KM |
63830 KM |
-15600 KM |
75.56% |
| Value |
7th |
12.44 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+1.43 Price/1000 |
88.5% |
| Rolling Resistance |
12th |
8.15 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+1.48 kg / t |
81.84% |
| Abrasion |
11th |
1605 g |
1122 g |
+483 g |
69.91% |
The GT Radial SportActive 2 Evo finishes eighth with competitive wet and dry results and the second-lowest cost-per-km figure in the test. Wet safety margins are adequate, and dry performance is consistent. Rolling resistance is slightly higher than average, and rolling comfort is rated below the mid-field. For buyers prioritising running costs, it offers a strong case.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
16th |
35 M |
32.8 M |
+2.2 M |
93.71% |
| Dry Handling |
12th |
99.9 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-1.6 Km/H |
98.42% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
7th |
8 Points |
10 Points |
-2 Points |
80% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
11th |
43.6 M |
39.3 M |
+4.3 M |
90.14% |
| Wet Handling |
6th |
82.5 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-1.1 Km/H |
98.68% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
11th |
7.3 Points |
8.7 Points |
-1.4 Points |
83.91% |
| Wet Circle |
11th |
14.82 s |
14.51 s |
+0.31 s |
97.91% |
| Straight Aqua |
8th |
92.8 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-2.1 Km/H |
97.79% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
2nd |
3.85 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.12 m/sec2 |
96.98% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
18th |
6.7 Points |
8 Points |
-1.3 Points |
83.75% |
| Noise |
4th |
71.1 dB |
70.6 dB |
+0.5 dB |
99.3% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
11th |
49440 KM |
63830 KM |
-14390 KM |
77.46% |
| Value |
2nd |
11.12 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+0.11 Price/1000 |
99.01% |
| Rolling Resistance |
15th |
8.7 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+2.03 kg / t |
76.67% |
| Abrasion |
17th |
1791 g |
1122 g |
+669 g |
62.65% |
The Nexen N'Fera Sport finishes ninth with short braking distances in both wet and dry conditions and good overall safety margins. It qualifies as a solid mid-range choice. The noted handling weakness is a slightly delayed turn-in response, which affects steering precision. Pass-by noise is low, placing it among the quieter tires in the test.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
2nd |
33.9 M |
32.8 M |
+1.1 M |
96.76% |
| Dry Handling |
16th |
99.4 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-2.1 Km/H |
97.93% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
13th |
6.7 Points |
10 Points |
-3.3 Points |
67% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
3rd |
42.3 M |
39.3 M |
+3 M |
92.91% |
| Wet Handling |
13th |
82 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-1.6 Km/H |
98.09% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
11th |
7.3 Points |
8.7 Points |
-1.4 Points |
83.91% |
| Wet Circle |
11th |
14.82 s |
14.51 s |
+0.31 s |
97.91% |
| Straight Aqua |
6th |
92.9 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-2 Km/H |
97.89% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
13th |
3.38 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.59 m/sec2 |
85.14% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7.3 Points |
8 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.25% |
| Noise |
1st |
70.6 dB |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
14th |
47810 KM |
63830 KM |
-16020 KM |
74.9% |
| Value |
4th |
12.13 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+1.12 Price/1000 |
90.77% |
| Rolling Resistance |
10th |
8.04 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+1.37 kg / t |
82.96% |
| Abrasion |
15th |
1719 g |
1122 g |
+597 g |
65.27% |
The Vredestein Ultrac Pro also finishes ninth with its strongest performance in dry handling, where it matches the top scorers. Dry braking is short and rolling resistance is low. Projected mileage is one of the lower figures in the finalist group, which reduces its cost efficiency and is its main weakness relative to its performance level.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
5th |
34.2 M |
32.8 M |
+1.4 M |
95.91% |
| Dry Handling |
3rd |
101 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-0.5 Km/H |
99.51% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
3rd |
8.7 Points |
10 Points |
-1.3 Points |
87% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
15th |
45 M |
39.3 M |
+5.7 M |
87.33% |
| Wet Handling |
9th |
82.3 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-1.3 Km/H |
98.44% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
4th |
8 Points |
8.7 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.95% |
| Wet Circle |
5th |
14.69 s |
14.51 s |
+0.18 s |
98.77% |
| Straight Aqua |
15th |
90.4 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-4.5 Km/H |
95.26% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
17th |
3.23 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.74 m/sec2 |
81.36% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7.3 Points |
8 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.25% |
| Noise |
3rd |
71 dB |
70.6 dB |
+0.4 dB |
99.44% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
17th |
42100 KM |
63830 KM |
-21730 KM |
65.96% |
| Value |
14th |
15.2 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+4.19 Price/1000 |
72.43% |
| Rolling Resistance |
4th |
7.65 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+0.98 kg / t |
87.19% |
| Abrasion |
12th |
1617 g |
1122 g |
+495 g |
69.39% |
The Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo finishes eleventh with consistently solid dry and wet results without standing out in any individual test. Rolling comfort is rated above average. The tire is competent across conditions but is limited by a high purchase price and slightly above-average rolling resistance, both of which affect overall cost efficiency.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
12th |
34.5 M |
32.8 M |
+1.7 M |
95.07% |
| Dry Handling |
13th |
99.8 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-1.7 Km/H |
98.33% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
13th |
6.7 Points |
10 Points |
-3.3 Points |
67% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
13th |
44.1 M |
39.3 M |
+4.8 M |
89.12% |
| Wet Handling |
7th |
82.4 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-1.2 Km/H |
98.56% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
4th |
8 Points |
8.7 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.95% |
| Wet Circle |
8th |
14.73 s |
14.51 s |
+0.22 s |
98.51% |
| Straight Aqua |
13th |
91.1 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-3.8 Km/H |
96% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
6th |
3.54 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.43 m/sec2 |
89.17% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
1st |
8 Points |
|
|
100% |
| Noise |
17th |
73.8 dB |
70.6 dB |
+3.2 dB |
95.66% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
6th |
51860 KM |
63830 KM |
-11970 KM |
81.25% |
| Value |
18th |
16.39 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+5.38 Price/1000 |
67.18% |
| Rolling Resistance |
16th |
8.74 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+2.07 kg / t |
76.32% |
| Abrasion |
10th |
1533 g |
1122 g |
+411 g |
73.19% |
The Nokian Powerproof 2 also finishes eleventh with strong braking results on both wet and dry surfaces and a competitive rolling resistance figure. Dry handling is good. The overall wet performance package is rated slightly below the front-runners, which holds it back in the standings. Mileage is reasonable and cost-per-km is acceptable.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
9th |
34.4 M |
32.8 M |
+1.6 M |
95.35% |
| Dry Handling |
9th |
100.1 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-1.4 Km/H |
98.62% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
7th |
8 Points |
10 Points |
-2 Points |
80% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
12th |
44 M |
39.3 M |
+4.7 M |
89.32% |
| Wet Handling |
16th |
81.7 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-1.9 Km/H |
97.73% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
11th |
7.3 Points |
8.7 Points |
-1.4 Points |
83.91% |
| Wet Circle |
13th |
14.9 s |
14.51 s |
+0.39 s |
97.38% |
| Straight Aqua |
18th |
89.7 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-5.2 Km/H |
94.52% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
20th |
3.1 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.87 m/sec2 |
78.09% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7.3 Points |
8 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.25% |
| Noise |
6th |
71.7 dB |
70.6 dB |
+1.1 dB |
98.47% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
9th |
50080 KM |
63830 KM |
-13750 KM |
78.46% |
| Value |
13th |
15.18 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+4.17 Price/1000 |
72.53% |
| Rolling Resistance |
2nd |
7.48 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+0.81 kg / t |
89.17% |
| Abrasion |
6th |
1386 g |
1122 g |
+264 g |
80.95% |
The Dunlop Sport Maxx RT2 finishes thirteenth. Its strongest area is water dispersal and straight aquaplaning resistance, where it finishes mid-field. Dry braking is competitive and rolling comfort is rated positively. However, it loses ground in the cost tests, with higher tread wear and above-average price-per-km, which drags down the overall result.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
19th |
35.3 M |
32.8 M |
+2.5 M |
92.92% |
| Dry Handling |
14th |
99.7 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-1.8 Km/H |
98.23% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
13th |
6.7 Points |
10 Points |
-3.3 Points |
67% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
16th |
45.5 M |
39.3 M |
+6.2 M |
86.37% |
| Wet Handling |
11th |
82.2 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-1.4 Km/H |
98.33% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
11th |
7.3 Points |
8.7 Points |
-1.4 Points |
83.91% |
| Wet Circle |
15th |
14.97 s |
14.51 s |
+0.46 s |
96.93% |
| Straight Aqua |
4th |
93.2 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-1.7 Km/H |
98.21% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
8th |
3.48 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.49 m/sec2 |
87.66% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
1st |
8 Points |
|
|
100% |
| Noise |
12th |
72.4 dB |
70.6 dB |
+1.8 dB |
97.51% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
16th |
44820 KM |
63830 KM |
-19010 KM |
70.22% |
| Value |
17th |
15.84 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+4.83 Price/1000 |
69.51% |
| Rolling Resistance |
16th |
8.74 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+2.07 kg / t |
76.32% |
| Abrasion |
13th |
1656 g |
1122 g |
+534 g |
67.75% |
The Falken Azenis FK520 finishes thirteenth with competent wet braking and good dry safety reserves. Mileage per cost is reasonable. The handling characteristic noted is a vague or imprecise turn-in, which reduces driver confidence in cornering. Rolling resistance is low-to-average. It represents a mid-range option without a standout strength or major weakness.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
19th |
35.3 M |
32.8 M |
+2.5 M |
92.92% |
| Dry Handling |
20th |
98.5 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-3 Km/H |
97.04% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
18th |
5.3 Points |
10 Points |
-4.7 Points |
53% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
10th |
43.4 M |
39.3 M |
+4.1 M |
90.55% |
| Wet Handling |
17th |
81.3 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-2.3 Km/H |
97.25% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
11th |
7.3 Points |
8.7 Points |
-1.4 Points |
83.91% |
| Wet Circle |
16th |
15 s |
14.51 s |
+0.49 s |
96.73% |
| Straight Aqua |
11th |
91.6 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-3.3 Km/H |
96.52% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
16th |
3.3 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.67 m/sec2 |
83.12% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7.3 Points |
8 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.25% |
| Noise |
11th |
72 dB |
70.6 dB |
+1.4 dB |
98.06% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
5th |
52080 KM |
63830 KM |
-11750 KM |
81.59% |
| Value |
10th |
12.86 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+1.85 Price/1000 |
85.61% |
| Rolling Resistance |
7th |
7.71 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+1.04 kg / t |
86.51% |
| Abrasion |
3rd |
1305 g |
1122 g |
+183 g |
85.98% |
The Yokohama Advan Sport V107 finishes thirteenth with strong dry handling qualities and the highest straight aquaplaning resistance in the test. However, it carries the highest rolling resistance figure of all finalists, which directly increases fuel or energy consumption. It also scores weaker in wet handling relative to the top tier, and the overall cost rating is pulled down by higher running costs.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
4th |
34.1 M |
32.8 M |
+1.3 M |
96.19% |
| Dry Handling |
4th |
100.8 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-0.7 Km/H |
99.31% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
3rd |
8.7 Points |
10 Points |
-1.3 Points |
87% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
20th |
47.9 M |
39.3 M |
+8.6 M |
82.05% |
| Wet Handling |
13th |
82 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-1.6 Km/H |
98.09% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
11th |
7.3 Points |
8.7 Points |
-1.4 Points |
83.91% |
| Wet Circle |
14th |
14.95 s |
14.51 s |
+0.44 s |
97.06% |
| Straight Aqua |
5th |
93 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-1.9 Km/H |
98% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
15th |
3.31 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.66 m/sec2 |
83.38% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7.3 Points |
8 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.25% |
| Noise |
16th |
73.1 dB |
70.6 dB |
+2.5 dB |
96.58% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
15th |
45630 KM |
63830 KM |
-18200 KM |
71.49% |
| Value |
11th |
14.03 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+3.02 Price/1000 |
78.47% |
| Rolling Resistance |
20th |
10.1 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+3.43 kg / t |
66.04% |
| Abrasion |
18th |
1794 g |
1122 g |
+672 g |
62.54% |
The Linglong Sport Master finishes sixteenth - the lowest-priced tire in the finalist group - and produces the shortest wet braking distance of the entire test at 39.3 m, the only tire to stop under 40 m from 100 km/h in the wet. Dry braking is also competitive. The main limitation is mileage, which is the lowest of all twenty finalists, meaning the low purchase price advantage is partially offset by more frequent replacement.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
2nd |
33.9 M |
32.8 M |
+1.1 M |
96.76% |
| Dry Handling |
17th |
99.3 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-2.2 Km/H |
97.83% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
17th |
6 Points |
10 Points |
-4 Points |
60% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
1st |
39.3 M |
|
|
100% |
| Wet Handling |
7th |
82.4 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-1.2 Km/H |
98.56% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
4th |
8 Points |
8.7 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.95% |
| Wet Circle |
9th |
14.74 s |
14.51 s |
+0.23 s |
98.44% |
| Straight Aqua |
8th |
92.8 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-2.1 Km/H |
97.79% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
13th |
3.38 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.59 m/sec2 |
85.14% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7.3 Points |
8 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.25% |
| Noise |
12th |
72.4 dB |
70.6 dB |
+1.8 dB |
97.51% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
20th |
35570 KM |
63830 KM |
-28260 KM |
55.73% |
| Value |
9th |
12.65 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+1.64 Price/1000 |
87.04% |
| Rolling Resistance |
19th |
9.15 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+2.48 kg / t |
72.9% |
| Abrasion |
20th |
2022 g |
1122 g |
+900 g |
55.49% |
The Toyo Proxes Sport 2 finishes seventeenth with strong dry handling and the highest resistance to straight aquaplaning in the test. Dry braking is competitive. The significant weakness is a short projected mileage, one of the lowest in the group, which substantially increases cost-per-km. Wet performance is adequate but not a strength.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
14th |
34.6 M |
32.8 M |
+1.8 M |
94.8% |
| Dry Handling |
5th |
100.7 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-0.8 Km/H |
99.21% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
3rd |
8.7 Points |
10 Points |
-1.3 Points |
87% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
17th |
46.1 M |
39.3 M |
+6.8 M |
85.25% |
| Wet Handling |
15th |
81.8 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-1.8 Km/H |
97.85% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
17th |
6 Points |
8.7 Points |
-2.7 Points |
68.97% |
| Wet Circle |
18th |
15.29 s |
14.51 s |
+0.78 s |
94.9% |
| Straight Aqua |
1st |
94.9 Km/H |
|
|
100% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
7th |
3.51 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.46 m/sec2 |
88.41% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7.3 Points |
8 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.25% |
| Noise |
5th |
71.3 dB |
70.6 dB |
+0.7 dB |
99.02% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
19th |
38420 KM |
63830 KM |
-25410 KM |
60.19% |
| Value |
19th |
16.4 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+5.39 Price/1000 |
67.13% |
| Rolling Resistance |
14th |
8.61 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+1.94 kg / t |
77.47% |
| Abrasion |
16th |
1734 g |
1122 g |
+612 g |
64.71% |
The Maxxis Victra Sport 6 finishes eighteenth with competitive dry braking and a low purchase price. However, wet handling is rated as imprecise, with vague behaviour reducing confidence in wet cornering. Tread wear is high - one of the highest in the test - which contributes to an elevated cost-per-km figure and limits the value proposition of the low upfront price.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
17th |
35.1 M |
32.8 M |
+2.3 M |
93.45% |
| Dry Handling |
6th |
100.6 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-0.9 Km/H |
99.11% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
3rd |
8.7 Points |
10 Points |
-1.3 Points |
87% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
14th |
44.9 M |
39.3 M |
+5.6 M |
87.53% |
| Wet Handling |
18th |
80.7 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-2.9 Km/H |
96.53% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
19th |
5.3 Points |
8.7 Points |
-3.4 Points |
60.92% |
| Wet Circle |
20th |
15.51 s |
14.51 s |
+1 s |
93.55% |
| Straight Aqua |
20th |
89.2 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-5.7 Km/H |
93.99% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
19th |
3.16 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.81 m/sec2 |
79.6% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
18th |
6.7 Points |
8 Points |
-1.3 Points |
83.75% |
| Noise |
7th |
71.8 dB |
70.6 dB |
+1.2 dB |
98.33% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
18th |
39670 KM |
63830 KM |
-24160 KM |
62.15% |
| Value |
12th |
14.12 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+3.11 Price/1000 |
77.97% |
| Rolling Resistance |
11th |
8.08 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+1.41 kg / t |
82.55% |
| Abrasion |
19th |
1875 g |
1122 g |
+753 g |
59.84% |
The Kleber Dynaxer HP5 finishes nineteenth with the lowest rolling resistance of all twenty finalists, which translates to measurably lower fuel or energy consumption. Projected mileage is reasonable and tread wear is the lowest recorded in the test. The main limitation is wet grip, where braking distances and lateral performance are below the mid-field, requiring more caution in wet conditions.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
15th |
34.9 M |
32.8 M |
+2.1 M |
93.98% |
| Dry Handling |
19th |
98.9 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-2.6 Km/H |
97.44% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
18th |
5.3 Points |
10 Points |
-4.7 Points |
53% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
18th |
46.7 M |
39.3 M |
+7.4 M |
84.15% |
| Wet Handling |
20th |
79.4 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-4.2 Km/H |
94.98% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
17th |
6 Points |
8.7 Points |
-2.7 Points |
68.97% |
| Wet Circle |
17th |
15.28 s |
14.51 s |
+0.77 s |
94.96% |
| Straight Aqua |
19th |
89.3 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-5.6 Km/H |
94.1% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
18th |
3.18 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.79 m/sec2 |
80.1% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7.3 Points |
8 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.25% |
| Noise |
7th |
71.8 dB |
70.6 dB |
+1.2 dB |
98.33% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
8th |
50240 KM |
63830 KM |
-13590 KM |
78.71% |
| Value |
8th |
12.54 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+1.53 Price/1000 |
87.8% |
| Rolling Resistance |
1st |
6.67 kg / t |
|
|
100% |
| Abrasion |
1st |
1122 g |
|
|
100% |
The Sava Intensa UHP 2 also finishes nineteenth and shares the lowest rolling resistance with Kleber. Dry braking is adequate and tire weight is the lowest of all finalists. However, wet performance is a clear weakness - braking distances are among the longest in the final group and handling is rated as imprecise. The overall wet safety margin is the main concern for this tire.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
18th |
35.2 M |
32.8 M |
+2.4 M |
93.18% |
| Dry Handling |
18th |
99 Km/H |
101.5 Km/H |
-2.5 Km/H |
97.54% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
18th |
5.3 Points |
10 Points |
-4.7 Points |
53% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
19th |
47.1 M |
39.3 M |
+7.8 M |
83.44% |
| Wet Handling |
19th |
80.6 Km/H |
83.6 Km/H |
-3 Km/H |
96.41% |
| Subj. Wet Handling |
19th |
5.3 Points |
8.7 Points |
-3.4 Points |
60.92% |
| Wet Circle |
19th |
15.48 s |
14.51 s |
+0.97 s |
93.73% |
| Straight Aqua |
15th |
90.4 Km/H |
94.9 Km/H |
-4.5 Km/H |
95.26% |
| Curved Aquaplaning |
5th |
3.58 m/sec2 |
3.97 m/sec2 |
-0.39 m/sec2 |
90.18% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7.3 Points |
8 Points |
-0.7 Points |
91.25% |
| Noise |
14th |
72.5 dB |
70.6 dB |
+1.9 dB |
97.38% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wear |
12th |
48530 KM |
63830 KM |
-15300 KM |
76.03% |
| Value |
3rd |
11.75 Price/1000 |
11.01 Price/1000 |
+0.74 Price/1000 |
93.7% |
| Rolling Resistance |
3rd |
7.56 kg / t |
6.67 kg / t |
+0.89 kg / t |
88.23% |
| Abrasion |
9th |
1521 g |
1122 g |
+399 g |
73.77% |