Menu

Test Charts / Tire Reviews

All Season vs All Terrain Tires Tested: Do You Actually Need an All Terrain?

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
265/70 R17
Tires tested
2
Disciplines
17
Test vehicle
Ford Ranger Raptor

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

2

Dry Braking

Dry braking in feet (62 - 6 mph) [Average Temperature 60°F]

Lower is better ↓
Dry Braking
TireResultGap to bestResidual speed
132 ft Best 0 mph
134 ft +2 ft 11 mph
RefReference All Terrain Avg
147 ft +15 ft 26 mph

The difference between best and worst was 11.4% (15 ft ≈ 1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT would still be travelling at 11 mph when the Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3 had stopped.

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

Subj. Dry Handling

Subjective Dry Handling Score

Higher is better ↑
Subj. Dry Handling
TireResultGap to best
11 Points Best
9.75 Points -1.25 Points
RefReference All Terrain Avg
9.32 Points -1.68 Points

The difference between best and worst was 15.3% (1.68 Points).

Wet

4

Wet Braking

Wet braking in feet (50 - 6 mph) [Average Temperature 56°F]

Lower is better ↓
Wet Braking
TireResultGap to bestResidual speed
110 ft Best 0 mph
117 ft +7 ft 20 mph
RefReference All Terrain Avg
133 ft +23 ft 34 mph

The difference between best and worst was 21.4% (23 ft ≈ 1.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT would still be travelling at 20 mph when the Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3 had stopped.

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

Wet Handling

Wet handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 52°F]

Lower is better ↓
Wet Handling
TireResultGap to best
117.67 s Best
119.98 s +2.31 s
RefReference All Terrain Avg
128.15 s +10.48 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.9% (10.48 s).

Subj. Wet Handling

Subjective Wet Handling Score

Higher is better ↑
Subj. Wet Handling
TireResultGap to best
8.9 Points Best
8.4 Points -0.50 Points
RefReference All Terrain Avg
7.9 Points -1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 11.2% (1 Points).

Straight Aqua

Float Speed in mph

Higher is better ↑
Straight Aqua
TireResultGap to best
63.5 mph Best
63.1 mph -0.4 mph
RefReference All Terrain Avg
62.6 mph -0.9 mph

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

Snow

4

Snow Braking

Snow braking in feet (19 - 6 mph) [Average Temperature 23°F]

Lower is better ↓
Snow Braking
TireResultGap to bestResidual speed
44 ft Best 0 mph
RefReference All Terrain Avg
46 ft +2 ft 17 mph
48 ft +4 ft 24 mph

The difference between best and worst was 10.1% (4 ft). From 80 mph, the Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3 would still be travelling at 24 mph when the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT had stopped.

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

Snow Traction

Snow acceleration time (3 - 22 mph) [Average Temperature 23°F]

Lower is better ↓
Snow Traction
TireResultGap to best
5.26 s Best
5.37 s +0.11 s
RefReference All Terrain Avg
5.99 s +0.73 s

The difference between best and worst was 13.9% (0.73 s).

Snow Handling

Snow handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 28°F]

Lower is better ↓
Snow Handling
TireResultGap to best
81.64 s Best
81.91 s +0.27 s
RefReference All Terrain Avg
83.37 s +1.73 s

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

Subj. Snow Handling

Subjective Snow Handling Score

Higher is better ↑
Subj. Snow Handling
TireResultGap to best
8.7 Points Best
RefReference All Terrain Avg
8.29 Points -0.41 Points
8.2 Points -0.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 5.7% (0.5 Points).

Off road

2

Dirt Handling

Dirt handling time in seconds

Lower is better ↓
Dirt Handling
TireResultGap to best
80.13 s Best
80.9 s +0.77 s

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

Sand Drag

Time over 82 ft from a standstill in sand

Lower is better ↓
Sand Drag
TireResultGap to best
6.25 s Best
6.31 s +0.06 s

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

Comfort

3

Subj. Comfort

Subjective Comfort Score

Higher is better ↑
Subj. Comfort
TireResultGap to best
11 Points Best
9.5 Points -1.50 Points
RefReference All Terrain Avg
8.89 Points -2.11 Points

The difference between best and worst was 19.2% (2.11 Points).

Subj. Noise

Subjective in car noise levels

Higher is better ↑
Subj. Noise
TireResultGap to best
10 Points Best
9 Points -1.00 Points
RefReference All Terrain Avg
8.36 Points -1.64 Points

The difference between best and worst was 16.4% (1.64 Points).

Noise

Internal noise in dB

Lower is better ↓
Noise
TireResultGap to best
52.79 dB Best
54.95 dB +2.16 dB
RefReference All Terrain Avg
55.56 dB +2.77 dB

The difference between best and worst was 5.2% (2.77 dB).

Value

2

Value

Dollars/1000 miles based on mileage warranty

Lower is better ↓
Value
TireResultGap to bestcost per 1,000 miles
3.41 Price/1000 Best $14.77
RefReference All Terrain Avg
5.23 Price/1000 +1.82 Price/1000 $26.01
5.39 Price/1000 +1.98 Price/1000 $26.30

The difference between best and worst was 58.1% (1.98 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3) works out $288 cheaper than the most expensive (Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT).

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

Rolling resistance in kg t

Lower is better ↓
Rolling Resistance
TireResultGap to bestExtra fuel / year
8.2 kg/t Best $0
9.3 kg/t +1.10 kg/t $39
RefReference All Terrain Avg
9.4 kg/t +1.20 kg/t $43

The difference between best and worst was 14.6% (1.2 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT uses about 11 gal ($39) more fuel than the Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3.

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.

12,000 mi
$3.60/gal
Estimates based on typical driving conditions. Rolling resistance accounts for approximately 20% of IC vehicle fuel consumption and 25% of EV energy consumption. Actual savings vary based on driving style, vehicle weight, road conditions, and tire age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.

Test setup & methodology

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

Show full testing methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking
62.1 → 6.2 mph · 57–63 °F
Wet Braking
49.7 → 6.2 mph · 54–59 °F
Wet Handling
50–54 °F
Snow Braking
18.6 → 6.2 mph · 21–25 °F
Snow Traction
3.1 → 21.7 mph · 21–25 °F
Snow Handling
27–28 °F

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.

TestWithin categoryShare of overall score
Dry · 30%
Dry Braking75%22.5%
Subj. Dry Handling25%7.5%
Wet · 35%
Wet Braking50%17.5%
Wet Handling30%10.5%
Subj. Wet Handling10%3.5%
Straight Aqua10%3.5%
Off road · 12.5%
Dirt Handling50%6.25%
Sand Drag50%6.25%
Snow · 10%
Snow Braking35%3.5%
Snow Traction35%3.5%
Snow Handling20%2%
Subj. Snow Handling10%1%
Comfort · 10%
Subj. Comfort50%5%
Subj. Noise25%2.5%
Noise25%2.5%
Value · 2.5%
Value100%2.5%

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.

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.

Snow Handling

For snow handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated snow handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tires are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly than asphalt, control runs are carried out more frequently — typically every two candidate test sets.

Subj. Snow Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated snow handling circuit. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tires are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I score steering precision, turn-in behavior, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence on snow 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.

Dirt Handling

For dirt handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated dirt handling course with ESC typically disabled. I complete multiple timed laps per tire set, excluding laps affected by driver error or environmental inconsistency. Because natural surfaces are inherently variable, I place particular emphasis on repeat runs, careful reference tracking, and averaged results. The control tire is retested at regular intervals.

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.

Subj. Noise

For subjective noise assessment, I drive at constant speeds across multiple surface types with the windows closed, ventilation off, and audio system off. I assess overall noise level, tonal quality, cavity boom, pattern noise, broadband roar, and sensitivity to both speed and road texture. Each tire is rated on a 1–10 scale and supported by written observations on noise character and annoyance.

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.

Rate your tires

My tires

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

Vehicle and size

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

Saved tires

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

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