Menu

2026 Summer ECO Tire Test

Jonathan Benson
Data analyzed and reviewed by Jonathan Benson
8 min read
Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Dry
  3. Wet
  4. Comfort
  5. Value
  6. Results
  7. Dunlop Blue Response TG
  8. Vredestein Ultrac plus
  9. Michelin Primacy 5
  10. Falken e.Ziex
  11. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
  12. Continental EcoContact 6
  13. Cooper Summer
  14. Giti GitiSynergyH2

Auto motor und sport tested eight summer tires in size 195/55 R 16, a common fitment for small cars such as the VW Polo, Hyundai i20, Fiat 500, and Renault Clio, including several electric models like the Hyundai Inster and Fiat 500e. Testing covered wet performance (braking, handling, aquaplaning), dry performance (braking, handling, steering response, comfort), and environmental factors (rolling resistance, noise). The test used both a conventional Hyundai i20 and a battery-electric Hyundai Inster, with a separate EV-focused rating that weighted efficiency more heavily.

The Dunlop Blue Response TG - a newly developed tire from Sumitomo/Falken following their acquisition of the Dunlop brand - took a clear overall win with the only "outstanding" rating, finishing first in most wet and dry tests. At the other end, the Giti Synergy H2 finished last despite carrying an A/A/A EU label (the best possible in all three categories), with the testers concluding that the label ratings were far more optimistic than the actual measured performance. The Continental EcoContact 6 highlighted the core trade-off in this test: it delivered the lowest rolling resistance and longest EV range by a wide margin, but paid for it with the worst wet braking distance - sliding 6.4 metres further than the Dunlop on wet surfaces.

Test Publication:
Sport Auto
195/55 R16 8 tires 4 categories
Test Publication:
Sport Auto
Read the original test at Sport Auto →
Test Size: 195/55 R16
Tires Tested: 8 tires
Test Categories:
4 categories (10 tests)
Similar Tests
Sport Auto is not affiliated with, and does not endorse, Tire Reviews. This is independent editorial coverage of their published test.

Dry

The Dunlop stopped shortest at 34.9 metres from 100 km/h, with the Falken close behind at 35.5 metres. The spread is relatively tight - only 2.6 metres separates best from worst - but the Cooper trailed the field at 37.5 metres, a result the testers described as borderline.

Dry Braking

Dry braking in meters (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Dunlop Blue Response TG
    100 %
  2. Falken e.Ziex
    98 %
  3. Continental EcoContact 6
    96 %
  4. Vredestein Ultrac plus
    96 %
  5. Giti GitiSynergyH2
    96 %
  6. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    95 %
  7. Michelin Primacy 5
    94 %
  8. Cooper Summer
    93 %

Handling lap times on the 1900-metre dry track were closely bunched, with just 1.0 km/h covering the entire field. The Dunlop was fastest, followed by the Giti and Continental in a dead heat. Vredestein was slowest on the clock, though the testers noted that lap times only tell part of the story - subjective scores for steering precision and limit behaviour varied more widely, with the Dunlop, Continental, and Michelin rated highest for driving feel.

Dry Handling

Dry Handling Average Speed (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Dunlop Blue Response TG
    100 %
  2. Continental EcoContact 6
    100 %
  3. Giti GitiSynergyH2
    100 %
  4. Falken e.Ziex
    100 %
  5. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    99 %
  6. Michelin Primacy 5
    99 %
  7. Cooper Summer
    99 %
  8. Vredestein Ultrac plus
    99 %

Wet

Wet braking showed the largest performance gaps in the entire test. The Vredestein stopped first at 35.5 metres from 80 km/h, with the Dunlop just one metre behind. At the other end, the Giti needed 43.8 metres - over 8 metres further, which the testers called unacceptably long. The Continental, despite being the efficiency leader, also struggled here at 42.9 metres, paying for its low rolling resistance with an 18% longer braking distance than the Dunlop.

Wet Braking

Wet braking in meters (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Vredestein Ultrac plus
    100 %
  2. Dunlop Blue Response TG
    97 %
  3. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    92 %
  4. Michelin Primacy 5
    91 %
  5. Falken e.Ziex
    86 %
  6. Cooper Summer
    86 %
  7. Continental EcoContact 6
    83 %
  8. Giti GitiSynergyH2
    81 %

The Dunlop led wet handling on the 1823-metre circuit at 55.8 km/h, with Firestone and Vredestein close behind. The Continental was slowest at 52.4 km/h - consistent with its weak wet braking - and the Giti also struggled near the bottom. The efficiency-focused tires clearly lost ground when grip mattered most.

Wet Handling

Wet Handling Average Speed (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Dunlop Blue Response TG
    100 %
  2. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    99 %
  3. Vredestein Ultrac plus
    99 %
  4. Michelin Primacy 5
    98 %
  5. Falken e.Ziex
    97 %
  6. Cooper Summer
    97 %
  7. Giti GitiSynergyH2
    95 %
  8. Continental EcoContact 6
    94 %

Lateral grip on the wet 100-metre circle followed a similar pattern, with the Dunlop recording the highest cornering force and the Continental the lowest. The gap between them - 0.33 m/s² - is significant for a standardised circle test and reinforces the trade-off between rolling resistance and wet grip seen throughout this test.

Wet Circle

Lateral wet grip in m/s squared (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Dunlop Blue Response TG
    100 %
  2. Vredestein Ultrac plus
    98 %
  3. Falken e.Ziex
    98 %
  4. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    97 %
  5. Cooper Summer
    97 %
  6. Giti GitiSynergyH2
    96 %
  7. Michelin Primacy 5
    96 %
  8. Continental EcoContact 6
    96 %

The Dunlop and Michelin were nearly identical for straight-line aquaplaning resistance, floating up at 92.2 and 92.1 km/h respectively. The Continental was weakest at 81.8 km/h - over 10 km/h behind the leaders. The testers observed that low-rolling-resistance tires tended to aquaplane earlier, which aligns with the broader trend in this test.

Straight Aqua

Float Speed in Km/H (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Dunlop Blue Response TG
    100 %
  2. Michelin Primacy 5
    100 %
  3. Vredestein Ultrac plus
    99 %
  4. Cooper Summer
    98 %
  5. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    97 %
  6. Falken e.Ziex
    96 %
  7. Giti GitiSynergyH2
    91 %
  8. Continental EcoContact 6
    89 %

Curved aquaplaning reversed some of the usual order: the Firestone posted the best lateral grip before float at 4.78 m/s², while the Continental was again last at 3.20 m/s². The Dunlop, dominant in most other wet tests, was mid-pack here at 4.28 m/s².

Curved Aquaplaning

Remaining lateral acceleration (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    100 %
  2. Michelin Primacy 5
    92 %
  3. Cooper Summer
    92 %
  4. Dunlop Blue Response TG
    90 %
  5. Vredestein Ultrac plus
    83 %
  6. Falken e.Ziex
    81 %
  7. Giti GitiSynergyH2
    74 %
  8. Continental EcoContact 6
    67 %

Comfort

Pass-by noise at 80 km/h ranged from 68.7 dB(A) for the Dunlop to 71.9 dB(A) for the Cooper - a 3.2 dB(A) spread. The testers noted that the standard ECE exterior noise measurement does not capture low-speed rolling noise below 60 km/h, which is particularly relevant for city driving. For interior noise at low speeds, the Falken was rated the quietest, while the Vredestein and Firestone scored lowest subjectively.

Noise

External noise in dB (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Dunlop Blue Response TG
    100 %
  2. Continental EcoContact 6
    100 %
  3. Michelin Primacy 5
    100 %
  4. Vredestein Ultrac plus
    99 %
  5. Giti GitiSynergyH2
    99 %
  6. Falken e.Ziex
    98 %
  7. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    96 %
  8. Cooper Summer
    96 %

Value

Lab-measured rolling resistance ranged from 5.8 kg/t for the Continental to 8.4 kg/t for the Dunlop - a 45% difference. The Giti, despite carrying an A label for rolling resistance, measured 6.6 kg/t and was beaten by the Continental. This test highlights the fundamental engineering trade-off: the three tires with the lowest rolling resistance (Continental, Giti, Falken) all had the weakest wet braking performance.

Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance in kg t (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Continental EcoContact 6
    100 %
  2. Giti GitiSynergyH2
    88 %
  3. Falken e.Ziex
    84 %
  4. Michelin Primacy 5
    81 %
  5. Cooper Summer
    75 %
  6. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    70 %
  7. Vredestein Ultrac plus
    70 %
  8. Dunlop Blue Response TG
    69 %

Real-world energy consumption was measured on the Hyundai Inster over a 10 km urban circuit kept below 60 km/h to isolate tire effects from aerodynamic drag. The Continental used 9.9 kWh/100km while the Dunlop used 11.1 kWh/100km - a difference of over 10%, translating to 39 km of extra range for the Continental. The results correlated closely with the lab rolling resistance figures.

Energy Consumption

Energy consumption in kW hours per 100 km (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Continental EcoContact 6
    100 %
  2. Giti GitiSynergyH2
    98 %
  3. Falken e.Ziex
    97 %
  4. Michelin Primacy 5
    95 %
  5. Cooper Summer
    94 %
  6. Vredestein Ultrac plus
    91 %
  7. Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
    90 %
  8. Dunlop Blue Response TG
    89 %

Results

The Dunlop Blue Response TG took a clear win with the only "outstanding" rating, dominating wet and dry grip but finishing last for efficiency. The Vredestein Ultrac+ and Michelin Primacy 5 followed in second and third. The Giti Synergy H2 finished last overall, its A/A/A EU label not reflected in the measured results.

1st

Dunlop Blue Response TG

195/55 R16 91V
Dunlop Blue Response TG
  • EU Label: C/A/70
  • Origin: Turkey
  • Weight: 7.8 kgs
  • Tread: 7.1 mm
  • Price: 110.00
Test # %
Dry Braking 1st 100%
Dry Handling 1st 100%
Test # %
Wet Braking 2nd 97.26%
Wet Handling 1st 100%
Wet Circle 1st 100%
Straight Aqua 1st 100%
Curved Aquaplaning 4th 89.54%
Test # %
Noise 1st 100%
Test # %
Rolling Resistance 8th 69.05%
Energy Consumption 8th 89.19%
2nd

Vredestein Ultrac plus

195/55 R16 87V
Vredestein Ultrac plus
  • EU Label: C/A/69
  • Origin: Hungary
  • Weight: 7.6 kgs
  • Tread: 6.4 mm
  • Price: 110.00
Test # %
Dry Braking 3rd 96.14%
Dry Handling 8th 99.07%
Test # %
Wet Braking 1st 100%
Wet Handling 3rd 98.57%
Wet Circle 2nd 97.73%
Straight Aqua 3rd 99.13%
Curved Aquaplaning 5th 82.85%
Test # %
Noise 4th 98.99%
Test # %
Rolling Resistance 6th 69.88%
Energy Consumption 6th 90.83%
3rd

Michelin Primacy 5

195/55 R16 87V
Michelin Primacy 5
  • EU Label: C/A/70
  • Origin: Germany
  • Weight: 7.8 kgs
  • Tread: 6.8 mm
  • Price: 135.00
Test # %
Dry Braking 7th 94.07%
Dry Handling 6th 99.16%
Test # %
Wet Braking 4th 91.49%
Wet Handling 4th 98.03%
Wet Circle 7th 96.09%
Straight Aqua 2nd 99.89%
Curved Aquaplaning 2nd 92.26%
Test # %
Noise 3rd 99.57%
Test # %
Rolling Resistance 4th 80.56%
Energy Consumption 4th 95.19%
4th

Falken e.Ziex

195/55 R16 91V
Falken e.Ziex
  • EU Label: B/A/71
  • Origin: Turkey
  • Weight: 7.2 kgs
  • Tread: 6.2 mm
  • Price: 110.00
Test # %
Dry Braking 2nd 98.31%
Dry Handling 4th 99.72%
Test # %
Wet Braking 5th 85.75%
Wet Handling 5th 96.95%
Wet Circle 3rd 97.6%
Straight Aqua 6th 95.88%
Curved Aquaplaning 6th 80.96%
Test # %
Noise 6th 98.14%
Test # %
Rolling Resistance 3rd 84.06%
Energy Consumption 3rd 97.06%
4th

Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN

195/55 R16 87H
Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
  • EU Label: C/A/70
  • Origin: Italy
  • Weight: 7.7 kgs
  • Tread: 6.7 mm
  • Price: 106.00
Test # %
Dry Braking 6th 95.36%
Dry Handling 5th 99.26%
Test # %
Wet Braking 3rd 92.21%
Wet Handling 2nd 98.75%
Wet Circle 4th 97.22%
Straight Aqua 5th 97.18%
Curved Aquaplaning 1st 100%
Test # %
Noise 7th 96.08%
Test # %
Rolling Resistance 6th 69.88%
Energy Consumption 7th 90%
6th

Continental EcoContact 6

195/55 R16 87V
Continental EcoContact 6
  • EU Label: A/B/71
  • Origin: France
  • Weight: 7.4 kgs
  • Tread: 5.8 mm
  • Price: 129.00
Test # %
Dry Braking 3rd 96.14%
Dry Handling 2nd 99.81%
Test # %
Wet Braking 7th 82.75%
Wet Handling 8th 93.91%
Wet Circle 8th 95.83%
Straight Aqua 8th 88.72%
Curved Aquaplaning 8th 66.95%
Test # %
Noise 2nd 99.71%
Test # %
Rolling Resistance 1st 100%
Energy Consumption 1st 100%
7th

Cooper Summer

195/55 R16 91V
Cooper Summer
  • EU Label: C/A/71
  • Origin: France
  • Weight: 7.7 kgs
  • Tread: 7.4 mm
  • Price: 100.00
Test # %
Dry Braking 8th 93.07%
Dry Handling 6th 99.16%
Test # %
Wet Braking 6th 85.54%
Wet Handling 5th 96.95%
Wet Circle 5th 96.97%
Straight Aqua 4th 98.37%
Curved Aquaplaning 3rd 91.84%
Test # %
Noise 8th 95.55%
Test # %
Rolling Resistance 5th 75.32%
Energy Consumption 5th 94.29%
8th

Giti GitiSynergyH2

195/55 R16 91V
Giti GitiSynergyH2
  • EU Label: A/A/69
  • Origin: China
  • Weight: 7.5 kgs
  • Tread: 6.2 mm
  • Price: 110.00
Test # %
Dry Braking 5th 95.88%
Dry Handling 2nd 99.81%
Test # %
Wet Braking 8th 81.05%
Wet Handling 7th 94.98%
Wet Circle 6th 96.34%
Straight Aqua 7th 91.11%
Curved Aquaplaning 7th 74.48%
Test # %
Noise 5th 98.85%
Test # %
Rolling Resistance 2nd 87.88%
Energy Consumption 2nd 98.02%

Discussion

  1. No comments yet — be the first.
Rate your tires