Highway terrain all season tires are probably the most important category of tire I've never tested. They're one of the biggest selling segments in North America, so it was about time I gave them the same treatment every other category gets.
For this test I picked seven of the most popular HTs on sale today, all in 265/65 R18, spanning pretty much every price point you'll find at a US tire shop. There's the segment benchmark - the Michelin Defender LTX M/S2 - alongside the brand-new General Grabber HT, mid-range options from Cooper (Endeavor Plus), Firestone (Destination LE3), Kumho (Crugen HT51) and Yokohama (Geolandar HT G056), and a budget tire in the Westlake SU318 HT to find out how far cheap has come. The question I wanted to answer is the one I think most truck owners are asking: does spending more money actually mean a better tire?
The dry, wet and dirt sessions were run on a Ford Raptor at the proving ground. For snow I flew the set to northern Sweden and bolted them to a Tahoe. Every tire was then scored on dry braking and handling, wet braking, handling, straight and curved aquaplaning, snow braking, traction, handling and cornering, comfort, noise, rolling resistance, and cost per 1,000 miles based on the tread warranty. The full results are below - and as always, you can change the score weighting to match your own driving conditions to find the right HT for you.
Test setup & methodology
The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.
- Test Driver
- Jonathan Benson
Show full testing methodology
Recorded test conditions
- Dry Braking
- 62.1 → 0.0 mph
- Wet Braking
- 49.7 → 0.0 mph
- Wet Handling
- 66–70 °F
- Snow Braking
- 24.9 → 3.1 mph · 0–7 °F
- Snow Traction
- 0.0 → 12.4 mph · -6–-2 °F
- Snow Handling
- -8–-4 °F
- Snow Cornering
- 7–9 °F
- Dirt Handling
- 64–73 °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.
| Test | Within category | Share of overall score |
|---|---|---|
| Dry · 30% | ||
| Dry Braking | 60% | 18% |
| Dry Handling | 40% | 12% |
| Wet · 40% | ||
| Wet Braking | 50% | 20% |
| Wet Handling | 20% | 8% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 5% | 2% |
| Wet Circle | 10% | 4% |
| Straight Aqua | 10% | 4% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 5% | 2% |
| Off road · 5% | ||
| Dirt Handling | 50% | 2.5% |
| Subj. Dirt Handling | 50% | 2.5% |
| Snow · 10% | ||
| Snow Braking | 40% | 4% |
| Snow Traction | 20% | 2% |
| Snow Handling | 30% | 3% |
| Subj. Snow Handling | 5% | 0.5% |
| Snow Cornering | 5% | 0.5% |
| Comfort · 7.5% | ||
| Subj. Comfort | 50% | 3.75% |
| Noise | 50% | 3.75% |
| Value · 7.5% | ||
| Value | 60% | 4.5% |
| Rolling Resistance | 40% | 3% |
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.
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.
Wet Circle
For wet lateral grip testing, I use a circular track of fixed radius, typically between 30 and 50 meters, broadly aligned with ISO 4138 principles. The surface is wetted in a controlled and repeatable manner. I progressively increase speed until the maximum sustainable cornering speed is reached. I normally record multiple laps in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions to reduce the influence of camber, banking, or directional track bias. I then calculate average lateral acceleration and compare the result with the reference tire.
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.
Curved Aquaplaning
For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 meters in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.
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.
Snow Cornering
For snow cornering, I drive the test vehicle through dedicated snow cornering sections at progressively increasing speeds. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. Lateral acceleration is measured using GPS telemetry and accelerometers. Multiple runs are averaged. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly, the control tire is retested frequently to account for changing conditions.
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. Dirt Handling
I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment on a dedicated dirt course. I score steering feel, traction, stability, 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.
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
I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.
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.
Dry Braking
The General Grabber HT had the shortest dry stop at 131 feet, with the Firestone Destination LE3 just over half a meter behind. The Michelin Defender LTX M/S2 was the surprise here, slipping to seventh - though best-to-worst was less than three meters, so the spread isn't huge.
Dry Braking
Dry braking in feet (62 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 131 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 133 ft | +2 ft | 9 mph | |
| 134 ft | +3 ft | 12 mph | |
| 135 ft | +4 ft | 14 mph | |
| 136 ft | +5 ft | 16 mph | |
| 138 ft | +7 ft | 18 mph | |
| 141 ft | +10 ft | 21 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 7.4% (10 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Michelin Defender LTX MS2 would still be travelling at 21 mph when the General Grabber HT had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Dry Handling
I didn't run dry handling myself - the Raptor really wasn't the right tool for the job - so a colleague drove the laps. The Westlake SU318 HT was actually the fastest tire, with the Yokohama and Cooper tied a tenth behind, and the entire field covered just 1.1 seconds. Dry lap time was not where this test was decided.
Dry Handling
Dry handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 58.6 s | Best | |
| 59.2 s | +0.60 s | |
| 59.2 s | +0.60 s | |
| 59.3 s | +0.70 s | |
| 59.4 s | +0.80 s | |
| 59.6 s | +1.00 s | |
| 59.7 s | +1.10 s |
All the tires in the Dry Handling test finished less than 3% apart.
Wet Braking
As with dry braking, the General Grabber HT topped the chart in the wet, this time with the Cooper Endeavor Plus close behind. The Westlake and Michelin sat at the bottom of the field, both around five meters adrift of the General - for a benchmark premium tire, the Michelin's wet braking result is genuinely disappointing.
Wet Braking
Wet braking in feet (50 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 180 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 181 ft | +1 ft | 6 mph | |
| 184 ft | +4 ft | 13 mph | |
| 184 ft | +4 ft | 13 mph | |
| 192 ft | +12 ft | 21 mph | |
| 195 ft | +15 ft | 22 mph | |
| 196 ft | +16 ft | 23 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 9.1% (16 ft ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Westlake SU318 HT would still be travelling at 23 mph when the General Grabber HT had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Wet Handling
Wet handling told a clear story. The General Grabber HT and Firestone Destination LE3 were essentially tied at the top - both were fabulous to drive, with the General slightly easier thanks to a wider window of grip when sliding.
The Michelin came third with a progressive, easy-to-drive character, but it felt a touch lazy on the steering and didn't have the outright grip of the top two. The Cooper and Kumho posted nearly identical times, but I preferred the Cooper - the Kumho let go a little more abruptly, which made it harder to read at the limit. The Westlake's outright grip was actually OK for its price point, but it was the hardest tire to drive in the field: when it broke away, it broke away suddenly and without much warning. The Yokohama was the worst, and was the real surprise of the day - I was running semi-blind and within two corners had assumed I was on the budget tire. It spun up easily, slid early, and took a long time to recover. Yokohama needs to improve this tire's wet grip.
Wet Handling
Wet handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 68°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 80.41 s | Best | |
| 80.49 s | +0.08 s | |
| 82.12 s | +1.71 s | |
| 82.55 s | +2.14 s | |
| 83.15 s | +2.74 s | |
| 84.7 s | +4.29 s | |
| 87.18 s | +6.77 s |
The difference between best and worst was 8.4% (6.77 s).
Straight Aquaplaning
The General Grabber HT was first off the floats at 56.1 mph, with the Firestone, Kumho and Michelin clustered just behind. The Westlake floated earliest, with the Yokohama not far ahead of it.
Straight Aqua
Float Speed in mph
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 56.1 mph | Best | |
| 55.7 mph | -0.4 mph | |
| 55.7 mph | -0.4 mph | |
| 55.7 mph | -0.4 mph | |
| 55.3 mph | -0.8 mph | |
| 55.2 mph | -0.9 mph | |
| 54.9 mph | -1.2 mph |
All the tires in the Straight Aqua test finished less than 3% apart.
Curved Aquaplaning
A near-complete reversal of the straight aquaplaning order - the Cooper Endeavor Plus held the most lateral grip on standing water, with the Michelin and Kumho close behind. The General, dominant in straight-line aqua and wet handling, was actually last in this test, which is worth knowing if you regularly drive flooded curves.
Curved Aquaplaning
Remaining lateral acceleration
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 11.3 ft/s² | Best | |
| 11.1 ft/s² | -0.2 ft/s² | |
| 11.0 ft/s² | -0.3 ft/s² | |
| 10.6 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² | |
| 10.6 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² | |
| 10.5 ft/s² | -0.8 ft/s² | |
| 9.8 ft/s² | -1.5 ft/s² |
The difference between best and worst was 12.8% (1.5 ft/s²).
Snow Braking
The Firestone Destination LE3 just edged the Michelin to win snow braking, separated by only 0.02 of a meter. The Westlake and Kumho tied at the back, more than a meter adrift of the leaders.
Snow Braking
Snow braking in feet (25 - 3 mph) [Average Temperature 3°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 60 ft | 0 ft | 3 mph | |
| 61 ft | +1 ft | 13 mph | |
| 62 ft | +2 ft | 15 mph | |
| 63 ft | +3 ft | 18 mph | |
| 64 ft | +4 ft | 21 mph | |
| 64 ft | +4 ft | 21 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 7.1% (4 ft). From 80 mph, the Westlake SU318 HT would still be travelling at 21 mph when the Firestone Destination LE3 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Snow Traction
The Kumho Crugen HT51 was on another level here, posting a traction time 0.2 seconds clear of the Michelin in second - its straight-line acceleration on snow was unbelievable compared to anything else in the test. The Westlake was last, with the Yokohama and General both further down the field than I'd have liked to see.
Snow Traction
Snow acceleration time (0 - 12 mph) [Average Temperature -4°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 3.06 s | Best | |
| 3.26 s | +0.20 s | |
| 3.31 s | +0.25 s | |
| 3.82 s | +0.76 s | |
| 3.94 s | +0.88 s | |
| 4.13 s | +1.07 s | |
| 4.44 s | +1.38 s |
The difference between best and worst was 45.1% (1.38 s).
Snow Handling
The Michelin Defender LTX M/S2 took the snow handling lap time, with the Firestone right behind - the Firestone surprised me by running the Michelin that close, as I'd expected the Michelin to walk away with this one.
The Cooper and General were both happy in winter conditions for all-season tires, with the General slightly more chuckable past the limit. The Kumho was a strange one to drive - straight-line traction was incredible, but as soon as you arrived at a corner the front end just didn't want to turn. Straight to the scene of the accident, as I put it at the time. The Westlake was actually surprisingly grippy for its price point, with a rounded grip circle and predictable breakaway. The Yokohama was last by a clear margin and was a nervous, low-confidence tire throughout the snow programme. Worth keeping in mind these are all-season tires - if you live anywhere with serious winter, a dedicated winter tire will absolutely embarrass any of them.
Snow Handling
Snow handling time in seconds [Average Temperature -6°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 87.23 s | Best | |
| 87.72 s | +0.49 s | |
| 88.75 s | +1.52 s | |
| 89.44 s | +2.21 s | |
| 89.89 s | +2.66 s | |
| 91.19 s | +3.96 s | |
| 91.37 s | +4.14 s |
The difference between best and worst was 4.7% (4.14 s).
Snow Cornering
The Firestone, Michelin and Cooper held the highest cornering G on snow and were tightly grouped at the top. The Kumho slipped to joint last with the Westlake - exactly what its handling lap suggested, with the strong straight-line traction undone by weak lateral grip.
Snow Cornering
Average Lateral Acceleration in G [Average Temperature 8°F]
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 0.34 g | Best | |
| 0.34 g | Best | |
| 0.34 g | Best | |
| 0.33 g | -0.01 g | |
| 0.32 g | -0.02 g | |
| 0.31 g | -0.03 g | |
| 0.31 g | -0.03 g |
The difference between best and worst was 8.8% (0.03 g).
Dirt Handling
Dirt handling was tight across the board, but a few tires stood out. The Cooper Endeavor Plus posted the fastest objective lap, with the Kumho and Michelin a couple of tenths behind - though subjectively, the Michelin Defender LTX was the nicest to drive by a wide margin. It didn't have any more outright grip than the others, but the truck steered exactly as much as you asked it to and slid in a rounded, predictable way.
The General was the best of the rest subjectively, with good traction and lateral grip. The Yokohama had the most reactive steering of the field but didn't have the traction to back it up, and I caught it half-spinning a couple of times because I just couldn't read what the tire was doing underneath. The Westlake was easy to drive but plainly didn't have the grip - it was significantly down on lap time despite feeling rounded. Honestly, on reflection I don't think dirt handling is the most relevant test for a highway terrain tire - for future tests I'll be moving to a traction-focused off-road test instead.
Dirt Handling
Dirt handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 69°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 60.2 s | Best | |
| 60.44 s | +0.24 s | |
| 60.65 s | +0.45 s | |
| 60.66 s | +0.46 s | |
| 60.91 s | +0.71 s | |
| 61.53 s | +1.33 s | |
| 62.02 s | +1.82 s |
All the tires in the Dirt Handling test finished less than 3% apart.
Subjective Comfort
The General Grabber HT scored highest for ride comfort, with the Kumho and Cooper close behind, and the Westlake last. Worth flagging that comfort testing on an old Raptor is far from the cleanest data point, which is why I cross-checked it against a colleague's scores.
Subj. Comfort
Subjective Comfort Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 6.8 Points | Best | |
| 6.6 Points | -0.20 Points | |
| 6.6 Points | -0.20 Points | |
| 6.4 Points | -0.40 Points | |
| 6.3 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 6.3 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 6.1 Points | -0.70 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 10.3% (0.7 Points).
Noise
The Westlake measured quietest on the external pass-by test at 72.4 dB, with the Michelin the loudest at 75.8 dB. From inside the cabin during my own subjective drives, I honestly didn't pick out any of the tires as noticeably louder than each other - external noise figures don't always translate to what you actually hear behind the wheel.
Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 72.4 dB | Best | |
| 73 dB | +0.60 dB | |
| 74.2 dB | +1.80 dB | |
| 74.4 dB | +2.00 dB | |
| 74.9 dB | +2.50 dB | |
| 75.1 dB | +2.70 dB | |
| 75.8 dB | +3.40 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 4.7% (3.4 dB).
Value
The Westlake's low purchase price gives it a clear win on cost per 1,000 warranted miles - assuming it actually reaches its 50,000-mile warranty. The Michelin is the most expensive tire on this metric, mostly because of its high purchase price, even though it carries the longest 75,000-mile warranty in the test.
Value
Dollars/1000 miles based on mileage warranty
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | cost per 1,000 miles |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.24 Price/1000 | Best | $18.98 | |
| 2.63 Price/1000 | +0.39 Price/1000 | $15.16 | |
| 2.97 Price/1000 | +0.73 Price/1000 | $18.28 | |
| 3.01 Price/1000 | +0.77 Price/1000 | $15.88 | |
| 3.06 Price/1000 | +0.82 Price/1000 | $18.45 | |
| 3.22 Price/1000 | +0.98 Price/1000 | $20.99 | |
| 3.72 Price/1000 | +1.48 Price/1000 | $15.95 |
The difference between best and worst was 66.1% (1.48 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Kumho Crugen HT51) works out $146 cheaper than the most expensive (Yokohama Geolandar HT G056).
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
The Michelin Defender LTX M/S2 had the lowest rolling resistance of the field, with the Firestone Destination LE3 second - so the Michelin's high purchase price is partly offset by lower fuel use over the life of the tire. The Westlake has the highest rolling resistance in the test, working against its already-cheap purchase price the longer you keep it on the truck.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6.94 kg/t | Best | $0 | |
| 7.7 kg/t | +0.76 kg/t | $32 | |
| 7.93 kg/t | +0.99 kg/t | $42 | |
| 8.35 kg/t | +1.41 kg/t | $60 | |
| 8.43 kg/t | +1.49 kg/t | $63 | |
| 8.92 kg/t | +1.98 kg/t | $84 | |
| 9.33 kg/t | +2.39 kg/t | $101 |
The difference between best and worst was 34.4% (2.39 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Westlake SU318 HT uses about 28 gal ($101) more fuel than the Michelin Defender LTX MS2.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
Results
The new General Grabber HT takes the overall win on the strength of class-leading wet and dry braking and the best wet handling, narrowly ahead of an all-round Firestone Destination LE3. The Yokohama Geolandar HT G056 finishes last after struggling in the wet and the snow, and while the Westlake SU318 HT was last in most performance disciplines, its strong value score lifted it out of the bottom spot.
General Grabber HT
265/65 R18 114T
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 / 7 | 131 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 59.4 s | +0.80 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 180 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 80.41 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 8.2 Points | -0.10 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 1st / 7 | 13.95 s | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 56.1 mph | Best in this discipline |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 9.8 ft/s² | -1.5 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 62 ft | +2 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 5th / 7 | 3.94 s | +0.88 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 89.44 s | +2.21 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 8.3 Points | -0.30 Points |
| Snow CorneringHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 0.325 g | -0.02 g |
| Dirt HandlingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 60.91 s | +0.71 s |
| Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 8.2 Points | -0.30 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 6.8 Points | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 5th / 7 | 74.9 dB | +2.50 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 2.97 Price/1000 | +0.73 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 5th / 7 | 8.43 kg/t | +1.49 kg/t |
- Origin
- USA
- Weight
- 18.76 kgs
- Tread
- 9.2 mm
- Price
- 207.99
Firestone Destination LE3
265/65 R18 114T
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 / 7 | 133 ft | +2 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 59.7 s | +1.10 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 184 ft | +4 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 80.49 s | +0.08 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 8.1 Points | -0.20 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 14.06 s | +0.11 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 55.7 mph | -0.4 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 10.6 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 60 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 3.31 s | +0.25 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 87.72 s | +0.49 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 8.5 Points | -0.10 Points |
| Snow CorneringHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 0.344 g | Best in this discipline |
| Dirt HandlingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 60.66 s | +0.46 s |
| Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 7.6 Points | -0.90 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 6.3 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 4th / 7 | 74.4 dB | +2.00 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 4th / 7 | 3.01 Price/1000 | +0.77 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 7.7 kg/t | +0.76 kg/t |
- Origin
- Canada
- Weight
- 16.79 kgs
- Tread
- 7.9 mm
- Price
- 210.99
Cooper Endeavor+
265/65 R18 114T
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 / 7 | 135 ft | +4 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 59.2 s | +0.60 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 181 ft | +1 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 82.55 s | +2.14 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 8 Points | -0.30 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 14.4 s | +0.45 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 55.3 mph | -0.8 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 11.3 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 61 ft | +1 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 4th / 7 | 3.82 s | +0.76 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 88.75 s | +1.52 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 8.1 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Snow CorneringHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 0.335 g | -0.01 g |
| Dirt HandlingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 60.2 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 8.2 Points | -0.30 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 6.6 Points | -0.20 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 73 dB | +0.60 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 5th / 7 | 3.06 Price/1000 | +0.82 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4th / 7 | 8.35 kg/t | +1.41 kg/t |
- Origin
- USA
- Weight
- 16.52 kgs
- Tread
- 9.1 mm
- Price
- 198.99
Kumho Crugen HT51
265/65 R18 112T
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 / 7 | 138 ft | +7 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 59.6 s | +1.00 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 184 ft | +4 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 83.15 s | +2.74 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 7.7 Points | -0.60 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 5th / 7 | 14.59 s | +0.64 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 55.7 mph | -0.4 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 11.0 ft/s² | -0.3 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 64 ft | +4 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 1st / 7 | 3.06 s | Best in this discipline |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 89.89 s | +2.66 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 7.5 Points | -1.10 Points |
| Snow CorneringHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 0.311 g | -0.03 g |
| Dirt HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 60.44 s | +0.24 s |
| Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 7.9 Points | -0.60 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 6.6 Points | -0.20 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 7 | 75.1 dB | +2.70 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 2.63 Price/1000 | +0.39 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 7.93 kg/t | +0.99 kg/t |
- Origin
- Vietnam
- Weight
- 16.88 kgs
- Tread
- 9.4 mm
- Price
- 184.21
Michelin Defender LTX MS2
265/65 R18 116T XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 / 7 | 141 ft | +10 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 59.3 s | +0.70 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 195 ft | +15 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 82.12 s | +1.71 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 8.3 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 4th / 7 | 14.49 s | +0.54 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 55.7 mph | -0.4 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 11.1 ft/s² | -0.2 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 60 ft | 0 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 3.26 s | +0.20 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 87.23 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 8.6 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Snow CorneringHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 0.336 g | -0.01 g |
| Dirt HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 60.65 s | +0.45 s |
| Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 8.5 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 6.4 Points | -0.40 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 7th / 7 | 75.8 dB | +3.40 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 7th / 7 | 3.72 Price/1000 | +1.48 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 1st / 7 | 6.94 kg/t | Best in this discipline |
- Origin
- USA
- Weight
- 17 kgs
- Tread
- 9.7 mm
- Price
- 278.99
Westlake SU318 HT
265/65 R18 114T
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 / 7 | 136 ft | +5 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 58.6 s | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 196 ft | +16 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 84.7 s | +4.29 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 6.6 Points | -1.70 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 7th / 7 | 14.97 s | +1.02 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 54.9 mph | -1.2 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 10.6 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 64 ft | +4 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 7th / 7 | 4.44 s | +1.38 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 91.19 s | +3.96 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 7.4 Points | -1.20 Points |
| Snow CorneringHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 0.311 g | -0.03 g |
| Dirt HandlingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 62.02 s | +1.82 s |
| Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 7 Points | -1.50 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 6.1 Points | -0.70 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 1st / 7 | 72.4 dB | Best in this discipline |
| ValueLower is better | 1st / 7 | 2.24 Price/1000 | Best in this discipline |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 7th / 7 | 9.33 kg/t | +2.39 kg/t |
- Origin
- Thailand
- Weight
- 18.76 kgs
- Tread
- 8.9 mm
- Price
- 112.00
Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
265/65 R18 112T
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (19)
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 / 7 | 134 ft | +3 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 59.2 s | +0.60 s |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 192 ft | +12 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 87.18 s | +6.77 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 7.3 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 6th / 7 | 14.83 s | +0.88 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 55.2 mph | -0.9 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 10.5 ft/s² | -0.8 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 63 ft | +3 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 6th / 7 | 4.13 s | +1.07 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 91.37 s | +4.14 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 7.6 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Snow CorneringHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 0.32 g | -0.02 g |
| Dirt HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 61.53 s | +1.33 s |
| Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 8.4 Points | -0.10 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 6.3 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 74.2 dB | +1.80 dB |
| ValueLower is better | 6th / 7 | 3.22 Price/1000 | +0.98 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 6th / 7 | 8.92 kg/t | +1.98 kg/t |
- Origin
- USA
- Weight
- 17.74 kgs
- Tread
- 9.1 mm
- Price
- 225.11
This website and the YouTube channel have been immensely helpful in my decision analysis these days, such an insanely great resource of information.
In your situation and vehicle I would be curious to try the Bridgestone AT Ascent.
Especially this little guy.
Michelin Defender Ltx Platinum
I have not watched the YouTube video yet, I'm at work. But man, Michelin barely made the recommendation cutoff. Which is wild! I suspect their focus is too much on longevity.