Auto Žurnál tested 10 summer tires in size 215/55 R18 99V on a Volkswagen ID.3. The test covered wet performance (braking, handling, aquaplaning, circle tracking), dry performance (braking, handling), and economy and comfort (rolling resistance, energy consumption, noise, subjective comfort).
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
- 62.1 → 0.0 mph
The Hankook iON evo took the top spot with strong results across wet and dry disciplines, including the shortest dry braking distance (114 ft) and the fastest wet handling lap. Continental's UltraContact NXT followed in second, posting the best wet braking distance (155 ft) and leading on efficiency. At the other end, the Tomket SUV finished last with a wet braking distance of 204 ft - over 49 feet longer than the Continental - and the slowest times in both handling tests. The Imperial EcoSport SUV also received a failing grade. Among the budget options, the Barum Bravuris 6 stood out with rolling resistance and energy consumption figures that matched the premium tires.
```html
Dry
The Hankook stopped in just 114 ft, over 23 feet shorter than the last-placed Tomket at 138 ft. That gap is significant - at the point where the Hankook has come to a complete stop, the Tomket is still travelling at 25.7 mph.
Dry Braking
Dry braking in feet (62 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 114 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 121 ft | +7 ft | 20 mph | |
| 122 ft | +8 ft | 20 mph | |
| 122 ft | +8 ft | 20 mph | |
| 125 ft | +11 ft | 24 mph | |
| 126 ft | +12 ft | 24 mph | |
| 127 ft | +13 ft | 25 mph | |
| 129 ft | +15 ft | 27 mph | |
| 134 ft | +20 ft | 30 mph | |
| 138 ft | +24 ft | 33 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 20.7% (24 ft ≈ 1.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Tomket Tomket Suv would still be travelling at 33 mph when the Hankook iON Evo had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Subjective dry handling scores followed a similar order, with the Hankook again on top (7.75) and the Tomket at the bottom (5.44). The Goodyear placed second here, ahead of the Pirelli and Sava, both of which outperformed the Continental in this discipline.
Subj. Dry Handling
Subjective Dry Handling Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 7.75 Points | Best | |
| 7.44 Points | -0.31 Points | |
| 7.19 Points | -0.56 Points | |
| 7.06 Points | -0.69 Points | |
| 7 Points | -0.75 Points | |
| 6.69 Points | -1.06 Points | |
| 6.13 Points | -1.62 Points | |
| 5.81 Points | -1.94 Points | |
| 5.69 Points | -2.06 Points | |
| 5.44 Points | -2.31 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 29.8% (2.31 Points).
Wet
The Continental posted the shortest wet braking distance at 155 ft, closely followed by the Michelin at 157 ft. The Tomket needed 204 ft to stop - over 49 feet more - meaning it would still be doing 30.6 mph at the point where the Continental had already come to rest.
Wet Braking
Wet braking in feet (62 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 155 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 157 ft | +2 ft | 9 mph | |
| 159 ft | +4 ft | 14 mph | |
| 160 ft | +5 ft | 14 mph | |
| 162 ft | +7 ft | 17 mph | |
| 173 ft | +18 ft | 26 mph | |
| 173 ft | +18 ft | 26 mph | |
| 188 ft | +33 ft | 34 mph | |
| 191 ft | +36 ft | 35 mph | |
| 204 ft | +49 ft | 39 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 32% (49 ft ≈ 3.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Tomket Tomket Suv would still be travelling at 39 mph when the Continental UltraContact NXT had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
The Hankook was the fastest around the wet handling circuit at 83.6 s, with the Pirelli and Goodyear close behind. The Tomket was again last at 95.4 s, nearly 12 seconds off the pace - a large margin on an 5,981 ft track.
Wet Handling
Wet handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 83.6 s | Best | |
| 86.3 s | +2.70 s | |
| 86.4 s | +2.80 s | |
| 87 s | +3.40 s | |
| 87.1 s | +3.50 s | |
| 87.3 s | +3.70 s | |
| 89.7 s | +6.10 s | |
| 91.9 s | +8.30 s | |
| 93.2 s | +9.60 s | |
| 95.4 s | +11.80 s |
The difference between best and worst was 14.1% (11.8 s).
Wet circle tracking times were tightly grouped at the top, with the Hankook (11.49 s), Goodyear (11.59 s), and Pirelli (11.70 s) separated by just two tenths. The Kormoran was slowest at 12.55 s.
Wet Circle
Wet Circle Lap Time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 11.49 s | Best | |
| 11.59 s | +0.10 s | |
| 11.7 s | +0.21 s | |
| 11.71 s | +0.22 s | |
| 11.77 s | +0.28 s | |
| 12.1 s | +0.61 s | |
| 12.1 s | +0.61 s | |
| 12.19 s | +0.70 s | |
| 12.44 s | +0.95 s | |
| 12.55 s | +1.06 s |
The difference between best and worst was 9.2% (1.06 s).
The Hankook held on to grip longest in straight-line aquaplaning, reaching 50.6 mph before losing traction - well clear of the Tomket at 44.2 mph. The Goodyear, despite its strong showing in other wet tests, dropped to eighth here at 239 ft.
Straight Aqua
Float Speed in mph
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 50.6 mph | Best | |
| 49.1 mph | -1.5 mph | |
| 48.3 mph | -2.3 mph | |
| 46.5 mph | -4.1 mph | |
| 46.3 mph | -4.3 mph | |
| 45.7 mph | -4.9 mph | |
| 45.3 mph | -5.3 mph | |
| 45.3 mph | -5.3 mph | |
| 44.9 mph | -5.7 mph | |
| 44.2 mph | -6.4 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 12.8% (6.4 mph).
Curved aquaplaning reshuffled the order: the Sava took first place at 3.45 m/s, ahead of the Hankook. The Goodyear finished last at 2.77 m/s, suggesting its tread pattern prioritizes other wet disciplines over lateral water evacuation.
Curved Aquaplaning
Remaining lateral acceleration
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 11.3 ft/s² | Best | |
| 10.7 ft/s² | -0.6 ft/s² | |
| 10.5 ft/s² | -0.8 ft/s² | |
| 10.1 ft/s² | -1.2 ft/s² | |
| 9.9 ft/s² | -1.4 ft/s² | |
| 9.5 ft/s² | -1.8 ft/s² | |
| 9.3 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² | |
| 9.2 ft/s² | -2.1 ft/s² | |
| 9.1 ft/s² | -2.2 ft/s² | |
| 8.6 ft/s² | -2.7 ft/s² |
The difference between best and worst was 24.1% (2.7 ft/s²).
Comfort
The Hankook scored highest for subjective comfort at 7.0 points, likely helped by its built-in sound absorber foam layer. Five tires - Pirelli, Barum, Continental, Goodyear, and Michelin - all tied at 6.5, while the Kormoran came last at 5.5.
Subj. Comfort
Subjective Comfort Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 7 Points | Best | |
| 6.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 6.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 6.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 6.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 6.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 6 Points | -1.00 Points | |
| 6 Points | -1.00 Points | |
| 6 Points | -1.00 Points | |
| 5.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 21.4% (1.5 Points).
Exterior noise levels were closely bunched. The Pirelli was the quietest at both 31 mph (65.4 dB) and 50 mph (71.4 dB), while the Tomket was the loudest at 66.5 and 72.9 dB respectively - a small but measurable difference.
Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 71.4 dB | Best | |
| 71.9 dB | +0.50 dB | |
| 72.2 dB | +0.80 dB | |
| 72.3 dB | +0.90 dB | |
| 72.4 dB | +1.00 dB | |
| 72.6 dB | +1.20 dB | |
| 72.7 dB | +1.30 dB | |
| 72.7 dB | +1.30 dB | |
| 72.7 dB | +1.30 dB | |
| 72.9 dB | +1.50 dB |
All the tires in the Noise test finished less than 3% apart.
Value
The Goodyear had the lowest rolling resistance coefficient at 0.536, followed by the Continental at 0.587 and Barum at 0.600. The Imperial was the least efficient at 0.841 - roughly 57% higher than the Goodyear.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra energy / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.54 kg/t | Best | $0 | |
| 0.59 kg/t | +0.05 kg/t | $12 | |
| 0.6 kg/t | +0.06 kg/t | $14 | |
| 0.66 kg/t | +0.12 kg/t | $29 | |
| 0.67 kg/t | +0.13 kg/t | $31 | |
| 0.68 kg/t | +0.14 kg/t | $34 | |
| 0.7 kg/t | +0.16 kg/t | $39 | |
| 0.78 kg/t | +0.24 kg/t | $58 | |
| 0.79 kg/t | +0.25 kg/t | $60 | |
| 0.84 kg/t | +0.30 kg/t | $72 |
The difference between best and worst was 55.6% (0.3 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $0.15/kWh, the Imperial EcoSport SUV uses about 483 kWh ($72) more electricity than the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
Real-world energy consumption on the ID.3 at a constant 50 mph mirrored the lab results closely, with the Goodyear leading at 12.86 kWh/100 km and the Imperial last at 14.40 kWh/100 km. The Barum matched the Continental almost exactly (12.96 vs 12.95), confirming its strong efficiency showing despite being a budget tire.
Energy Consumption
Energy consumption in kW hours per 100 km
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra energy / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12.86 kWh/100km | Best | $0 | |
| 12.95 kWh/100km | +0.09 kWh/100km | $3 | |
| 12.96 kWh/100km | +0.10 kWh/100km | $3 | |
| 13.27 kWh/100km | +0.41 kWh/100km | $12 | |
| 13.34 kWh/100km | +0.48 kWh/100km | $14 | |
| 13.76 kWh/100km | +0.90 kWh/100km | $26 | |
| 13.78 kWh/100km | +0.92 kWh/100km | $27 | |
| 14.12 kWh/100km | +1.26 kWh/100km | $36 | |
| 14.21 kWh/100km | +1.35 kWh/100km | $39 | |
| 14.4 kWh/100km | +1.54 kWh/100km | $45 |
The difference between best and worst was 12% (1.54 kWh/100km). Over 12,000 miles a year at $0.15/kWh, the Imperial EcoSport SUV uses about 297 kWh ($45) more electricity than the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
Results
The Hankook iON evo topped the overall standings with strong results across almost every discipline, followed by the Continental UltraContact NXT and Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2. The Tomket SUV and Imperial EcoSport SUV finished at the bottom with significant safety deficits, particularly in braking.
Hankook iON Evo
215/55 R18 99V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 1st / 10 | 114 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 10 | 7.75 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 10 | 159 ft | +4 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 1st / 10 | 83.6 s | Best in this discipline |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 1st / 10 | 11.49 s | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 1st / 10 | 50.6 mph | Best in this discipline |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 2nd / 10 | 10.7 ft/s² | -0.6 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 1st / 10 | 7 Points | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 10 | 71.9 dB | +0.50 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 7th / 10 | 0.7 kg/t | +0.16 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 8th / 10 | 14.12 kWh/100km | +1.26 kWh/100km |
Continental UltraContact NXT
215/55 R18 99V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 10 | 121 ft | +7 ft |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 10 | 7 Points | -0.75 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 10 | 155 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 4th / 10 | 87 s | +3.40 s |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 4th / 10 | 11.71 s | +0.22 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 5th / 10 | 46.3 mph | -4.3 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 6th / 10 | 9.5 ft/s² | -1.8 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 10 | 6.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 5th / 10 | 72.4 dB | +1.00 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 2nd / 10 | 0.587 kg/t | +0.05 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 2nd / 10 | 12.95 kWh/100km | +0.09 kWh/100km |
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
215/55 R18 99V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 10 | 122 ft | +8 ft |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 10 | 7.438 Points | -0.31 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 10 | 160 ft | +5 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 10 | 86.4 s | +2.80 s |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 2nd / 10 | 11.59 s | +0.10 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 7th / 10 | 45.3 mph | -5.3 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 9th / 10 | 9.1 ft/s² | -2.2 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 10 | 6.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 3rd / 10 | 72.2 dB | +0.80 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 1st / 10 | 0.536 kg/t | Best in this discipline |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 1st / 10 | 12.86 kWh/100km | Best in this discipline |
Michelin Primacy 5
215/55 R18 99V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 6th / 10 | 126 ft | +12 ft |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 10 | 6.688 Points | -1.06 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 10 | 157 ft | +2 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 6th / 10 | 87.3 s | +3.70 s |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 6th / 10 | 12.1 s | +0.61 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 3rd / 10 | 48.3 mph | -2.3 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 10 | 10.5 ft/s² | -0.8 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 10 | 6.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 7th / 10 | 72.7 dB | +1.30 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 6th / 10 | 0.677 kg/t | +0.14 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 7th / 10 | 13.78 kWh/100km | +0.92 kWh/100km |
Pirelli Powergy
215/55 R18 99V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 4th / 10 | 122 ft | +8 ft |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 10 | 7.188 Points | -0.56 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 10 | 162 ft | +7 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 10 | 86.3 s | +2.70 s |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 3rd / 10 | 11.7 s | +0.21 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 4th / 10 | 46.5 mph | -4.1 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 8th / 10 | 9.2 ft/s² | -2.1 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 10 | 6.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 1st / 10 | 71.4 dB | Best in this discipline |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 5th / 10 | 0.667 kg/t | +0.13 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 5th / 10 | 13.34 kWh/100km | +0.48 kWh/100km |
Barum Bravuris 6
215/55 R18 99V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 8th / 10 | 129 ft | +15 ft |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 10 | 6.125 Points | -1.63 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 6th / 10 | 173 ft | +18 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 7th / 10 | 89.7 s | +6.10 s |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 6th / 10 | 12.1 s | +0.61 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 7th / 10 | 45.3 mph | -5.3 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 7th / 10 | 9.3 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 10 | 6.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 7th / 10 | 72.7 dB | +1.30 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 3rd / 10 | 0.6 kg/t | +0.06 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 3rd / 10 | 12.96 kWh/100km | +0.10 kWh/100km |
Sava Intensa SUV 2
215/55 R18 99V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 5th / 10 | 125 ft | +11 ft |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 10 | 7.063 Points | -0.69 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 7th / 10 | 173 ft | +18 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 5th / 10 | 87.1 s | +3.50 s |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 5th / 10 | 11.77 s | +0.28 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 2nd / 10 | 49.1 mph | -1.5 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 10 | 11.3 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 7th / 10 | 6 Points | -1.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 10 | 72.6 dB | +1.20 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 8th / 10 | 0.784 kg/t | +0.25 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 9th / 10 | 14.21 kWh/100km | +1.35 kWh/100km |
Kormoran Ultra High Performance
215/55 R18 99V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 7th / 10 | 127 ft | +13 ft |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 9th / 10 | 5.688 Points | -2.06 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 8th / 10 | 188 ft | +33 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 9th / 10 | 93.2 s | +9.60 s |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 10th / 10 | 12.55 s | +1.06 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 9th / 10 | 44.9 mph | -5.7 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 5th / 10 | 9.9 ft/s² | -1.4 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 10th / 10 | 5.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 4th / 10 | 72.3 dB | +0.90 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4th / 10 | 0.664 kg/t | +0.13 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 4th / 10 | 13.27 kWh/100km | +0.41 kWh/100km |
Imperial EcoSport SUV
215/55 R18 99V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 9th / 10 | 134 ft | +20 ft |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 8th / 10 | 5.813 Points | -1.94 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 9th / 10 | 191 ft | +36 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 8th / 10 | 91.9 s | +8.30 s |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 8th / 10 | 12.19 s | +0.70 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 6th / 10 | 45.7 mph | -4.9 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 4th / 10 | 10.1 ft/s² | -1.2 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 7th / 10 | 6 Points | -1.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 7th / 10 | 72.7 dB | +1.30 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 10th / 10 | 0.841 kg/t | +0.31 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 10th / 10 | 14.4 kWh/100km | +1.54 kWh/100km |
Tomket Tomket Suv
215/55 R18 95V
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 10th / 10 | 138 ft | +24 ft |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 10th / 10 | 5.438 Points | -2.31 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 10th / 10 | 204 ft | +49 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 10th / 10 | 95.4 s | +11.80 s |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 9th / 10 | 12.44 s | +0.95 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 10th / 10 | 44.2 mph | -6.4 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 10th / 10 | 8.6 ft/s² | -2.7 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 7th / 10 | 6 Points | -1.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 10th / 10 | 72.9 dB | +1.50 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 9th / 10 | 0.786 kg/t | +0.25 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 6th / 10 | 13.76 kWh/100km | +0.90 kWh/100km |
However, after a relatively short period of time — around 10,000 km — the tires started behaving completely differently. In the rain and on wet roads, they became unpredictable and, in my opinion, very dangerous. In dry corners, they also started to feel less precise.
I have never had tires that changed their behavior so much over such a short period of use. On the same car (Tesla Model 3 Performance), I previously had Michelin Pilot Sport 4S and Bridgestone Potenza Sport, and now the Hankooks. The difference in behavior as the tires wear is much more noticeable with the Hankooks.
I have now done around 40,000 km on them. They still have plenty of tread left, as they last significantly longer than the Bridgestones. However, I intend to replace them before winter because I no longer feel confident using them in wet conditions.
Regards
The Ion EVO is unfortunately tested quite rarely, but AutoBild tested it about a year ago in size 215/55 R18 (99 Y), and the PremiumContact 7 was included as well. The Ion EVO was the clear winner compared to the Continental — both in wet and dry conditions, handling, braking, and even aquaplaning tests. I recommend taking a look at the test results.
I’ve now been driving on these Hankooks for a few weeks (Polestar 2), and besides being a high-performance tire, it is also incredibly comfortable and quiet. I can recommend it without reservation.
The iON EVO does seem to be quite a special tire though.
Here is the link to the results, where both the PC7 and the iON EVO are included: https://www.tyrereviews.com/Tyre-Tests/2025-EV-Tyre-Test.htm
I have actually tested the iON but not against the PC7. It is a very good tire. Sadly there was an issue with part of the test so the full results couldn't be published yet.
Very interesting test results. I am currently thinking what my next pair of summers will be for my Ioniq 6 (225 / 55 R18). It is currently running on Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 3 EV, which have a C in wet braking and I really dislike their lack of wet grip.
When I pair this with other recent summer tire tests (yours and ADAC first of all), it seems that both the Goodyear Efficient Grip 2 and Continental Ultragrip NXT are very similar in Safety/Handling to the Michelin Primacy 5, but quite a lot better in rolling resistance.
Going from the ADAC test, Goodyear is also very comparable in wear to the Michelin. I would assume the Ultragrip to be very competitive here, but so far I have seen no data on this.
Going to the safety/handling champs, like the Continental Premium Contact 7 and Pirelli Cinturato C3, they probably slot in rolling resistance like the Imperial in this test.
For me this means I either pay a premium and go the Premium Contact 7 / Pirelli route: This would result in ~160€ more over lifetime in energy, and 20% less mileage until they need to be changed. This is roughly 50% more expensive in total over tire lifetime. Also, roughly 50 km less range per battery charge (Going just by a 2 kWh/100km increase).
If I go by the more economical prio, I would skip the Primacy 5 and go straight for Efficient Grip 2 or Ultragrip NXT. Means a lot cheaper to run and 50 km more on a single charge.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this.