Test Charts / Tire Reviews

The BEST High Mileage All Season Tires in 2026 Tested

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

Tested size: 215/55 R17
Tires tested: 5
Disciplines: 13
Test vehicle: Toyota Camry

Read the measurements, not just the rank

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

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

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Dunlop Blue Response AS	125 ft	Best	0 mph
2Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2	132 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
3Continental TrueContact Tour 54	132 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
4Michelin Defender 2	133 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
5Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive	141 ft	+16 ft	27 mph

The difference between best and worst was 12.6% (16 ft ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive would still be travelling at 27 mph when the Dunlop Blue Response AS had stopped.

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

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental TrueContact Tour 54	44.04 s	Best
2Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2	44.15 s	+0.11 s
3Dunlop Blue Response AS	44.53 s	+0.49 s
4Michelin Defender 2	44.66 s	+0.62 s
5Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive	44.77 s	+0.73 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental TrueContact Tour 54	8.5 Points	Best
2Dunlop Blue Response AS	8.4 Points	-0.10 Points
3Michelin Defender 2	8.3 Points	-0.20 Points
4Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2	8.2 Points	-0.30 Points
5Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive	8.1 Points	-0.40 Points

The difference between best and worst was 4.7% (0.4 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental TrueContact Tour 54	158 ft	Best	0 mph
2Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2	161 ft	+3 ft	11 mph
3Dunlop Blue Response AS	166 ft	+8 ft	17 mph
4Michelin Defender 2	169 ft	+11 ft	21 mph
5Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive	176 ft	+18 ft	26 mph

The difference between best and worst was 11.6% (18 ft ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive would still be travelling at 26 mph when the Continental TrueContact Tour 54 had stopped.

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

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental TrueContact Tour 54	50.32 s	Best
2Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2	50.77 s	+0.45 s
3Dunlop Blue Response AS	51.87 s	+1.55 s
4Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive	52.07 s	+1.75 s
5Michelin Defender 2	52.17 s	+1.85 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.7% (1.85 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental TrueContact Tour 54	8.4 Points	Best
2Dunlop Blue Response AS	8.3 Points	-0.10 Points
2Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2	8.3 Points	-0.10 Points
4Michelin Defender 2	8.1 Points	-0.30 Points
5Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive	7.9 Points	-0.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 6% (0.5 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Defender 2	41.4 mph	Best
2Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive	40.1 mph	-1.3 mph
3Continental TrueContact Tour 54	39.4 mph	-2.0 mph
4Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2	39.2 mph	-2.2 mph
5Dunlop Blue Response AS	37.5 mph	-3.9 mph

The difference between best and worst was 9.4% (3.9 mph).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive	48 ft	Best	0 mph
2Dunlop Blue Response AS	52 ft	+4 ft	23 mph
3Continental TrueContact Tour 54	54 ft	+6 ft	27 mph
4Michelin Defender 2	58 ft	+10 ft	33 mph
5Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2	59 ft	+11 ft	34 mph

The difference between best and worst was 22.4% (11 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2 would still be travelling at 34 mph when the Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive had stopped.

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

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive	3.55 s	Best
2Dunlop Blue Response AS	4.32 s	+0.77 s
3Continental TrueContact Tour 54	4.54 s	+0.99 s
4Michelin Defender 2	4.66 s	+1.11 s
5Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2	4.82 s	+1.27 s

The difference between best and worst was 35.8% (1.27 s).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental TrueContact Tour 54	10 Points	Best
1Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2	10 Points	Best
3Dunlop Blue Response AS	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Michelin Defender 2	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive	9 Points	-1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 10% (1 Points).

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Dunlop Blue Response AS	63.5 dB	Best
2Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2	63.8 dB	+0.30 dB
3Continental TrueContact Tour 54	63.9 dB	+0.40 dB
3Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive	63.9 dB	+0.40 dB
5Michelin Defender 2	64 dB	+0.50 dB

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

Value

Value
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	cost per 1,000 miles
1Dunlop Blue Response AS	2.24 Price/1000	Best	$10.97
2Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2	2.27 Price/1000	+0.03 Price/1000	$12.27
3Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive	2.47 Price/1000	+0.23 Price/1000	$11.11
4Continental TrueContact Tour 54	2.56 Price/1000	+0.32 Price/1000	$11.37
5Michelin Defender 2	2.62 Price/1000	+0.38 Price/1000	$13.08

The difference between best and worst was 17% (0.38 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Dunlop Blue Response AS) works out $53 cheaper than the most expensive (Michelin Defender 2).

How this is calculated

Tire life here is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, NOT measured wear - treat it as the maker's promise, not a test result.

Tire life is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, not measured wear. Assumes a typical car doing 29 mpg (rolling resistance causing 20% of fuel use), fuel at $3.60 per gallon and $80 fitting per set of four. US prices are from the time of the 2026 test; financing costs are excluded.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Continental TrueContact Tour 54	8.18 kg/t	Best	$0
2Bridgestone Turanza EverDrive	8.25 kg/t	+0.07 kg/t	$3
3Dunlop Blue Response AS	8.52 kg/t	+0.34 kg/t	$12
4Michelin Defender 2	8.71 kg/t	+0.53 kg/t	$19
5Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2	8.93 kg/t	+0.75 kg/t	$27

The difference between best and worst was 9.2% (0.75 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Goodyear Assurance MaxLife 2 uses about 7 gal ($27) more fuel than the Continental TrueContact Tour 54.

Adjust the assumptions

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

Gas/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

12,000 mi

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

$3.60/gal

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

Estimates based on typical driving conditions. Rolling resistance accounts for approximately 20% of IC vehicle fuel consumption and 25% of EV energy consumption. Actual savings vary based on driving style, vehicle weight, road conditions, and tire age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.

Test setup & methodology

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

Tire Pressures (as recorded): 35
Test Driver: Jonathan Benson

Show full testing methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 59.7 → 0.0 mph
Dry Handling: 72–79 °F
Wet Braking: 59.7 → 0.0 mph · 72–73 °F
Wet Handling: 79–82 °F
Snow Braking: 24.9 → 12.4 mph

Score Weighting

Weights express the scoring priorities, not how much each discipline actually changed the finishing order. The size of the performance gaps matters too. Category weights contribute to the overall score. Within each category, discipline weights divide that category’s share. Published finishing positions also need to be read alongside the editorial verdict.

Test	Within category	Share of overall score
Dry · 35%
Dry Braking	50%	17.5%
Dry Handling	40%	14%
Subj. Dry Handling	10%	3.5%
Wet · 40%
Wet Braking	50%	20%
Wet Handling	40%	16%
Subj. Wet Handling	5%	2%
Straight Aqua	5%	2%
Snow · 10%
Snow Braking	50%	5%
Snow Traction	50%	5%
Comfort · 10%
Subj. Comfort	50%	5%
Noise	50%	5%
Value · 5%
Value	100%	5%

Our standard methods

The conditions above are recorded for this test. The descriptions below explain our standard procedures; measurement windows and run counts can vary by test.

Dry Braking

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

Dry Handling

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

Subj. Dry Handling

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

Wet Braking

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

Wet Handling

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

Subj. Wet Handling

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

Straight Aqua

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

Snow Braking

For snow braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 50 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a groomed, compacted snow surface, measuring 45-5 km/h. I generally use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tire ever brakes on the same piece of snow twice. My standard programme is twelve runs per tire set, although the sequence can extend further if the data justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. To correct for changing snow surface conditions, I run reference tires repeatedly — typically every two candidate test sets.

Snow Traction

For snow traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a groomed snow surface with traction control active and measure speed and time using GPS telemetry. I typically use a 5–35 km/h measurement window to reduce the influence of launch transients and powertrain irregularities. I use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tire ever accelerates on the same piece of snow twice. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I complete multiple runs per tire set and average the valid results. Reference tires are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing snow surface conditions.

Subj. Comfort

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

Noise

For cabin noise assessment, I drive at controlled speeds, typically 50, 80, 100, and 120 km/h, on NVH test surfaces with defined texture characteristics. Calibrated microphones are positioned at ear height within the cabin. Measurements are taken using A-weighting, with one-third octave analysis where required to identify tonal features such as cavity resonance. Windows remain closed, ventilation is off, and ambient conditions are controlled so the data reflects the tire rather than external interference.

Rolling Resistance

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

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tire shortlist →Read the test →

More tire tests