Test Charts / Tire Reviews

Best HT All Season Tires for 2026 Tested!

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

Tested size: 265/65 R18
Tires tested: 7
Disciplines: 19
Test vehicle: Ford Raptor SVT / Taheo

Read the measurements, not just the rank

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

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

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1General Grabber HT	131 ft	Best	0 mph
2Firestone Destination LE3	133 ft	+2 ft	9 mph
3Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	134 ft	+3 ft	12 mph
4Cooper Endeavor Plus	135 ft	+4 ft	14 mph
5Westlake SU318 HT	136 ft	+5 ft	16 mph
6Kumho Crugen HT51	138 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
7Michelin Defender LTX MS2	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
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Westlake SU318 HT	58.6 s	Best
2Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	59.2 s	+0.60 s
2Cooper Endeavor Plus	59.2 s	+0.60 s
4Michelin Defender LTX MS2	59.3 s	+0.70 s
5General Grabber HT	59.4 s	+0.80 s
6Kumho Crugen HT51	59.6 s	+1.00 s
7Firestone Destination LE3	59.7 s	+1.10 s

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

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1General Grabber HT	180 ft	Best	0 mph
2Cooper Endeavor Plus	181 ft	+1 ft	6 mph
3Firestone Destination LE3	184 ft	+4 ft	13 mph
4Kumho Crugen HT51	184 ft	+4 ft	13 mph
5Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	192 ft	+12 ft	21 mph
6Michelin Defender LTX MS2	195 ft	+15 ft	22 mph
7Westlake SU318 HT	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
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HT	80.41 s	Best
2Firestone Destination LE3	80.49 s	+0.08 s
3Michelin Defender LTX MS2	82.12 s	+1.71 s
4Cooper Endeavor Plus	82.55 s	+2.14 s
5Kumho Crugen HT51	83.15 s	+2.74 s
6Westlake SU318 HT	84.7 s	+4.29 s
7Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	87.18 s	+6.77 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.4% (6.77 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Defender LTX MS2	8.3 Points	Best
2General Grabber HT	8.2 Points	-0.10 Points
3Firestone Destination LE3	8.1 Points	-0.20 Points
4Cooper Endeavor Plus	8 Points	-0.30 Points
5Kumho Crugen HT51	7.7 Points	-0.60 Points
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	7.3 Points	-1.00 Points
7Westlake SU318 HT	6.6 Points	-1.70 Points

The difference between best and worst was 20.5% (1.7 Points).

Wet Circle
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HT	13.95 s	Best
2Firestone Destination LE3	14.06 s	+0.11 s
3Cooper Endeavor Plus	14.4 s	+0.45 s
4Michelin Defender LTX MS2	14.49 s	+0.54 s
5Kumho Crugen HT51	14.59 s	+0.64 s
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	14.83 s	+0.88 s
7Westlake SU318 HT	14.97 s	+1.02 s

The difference between best and worst was 7.3% (1.02 s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HT	56.1 mph	Best
2Firestone Destination LE3	55.7 mph	-0.4 mph
3Kumho Crugen HT51	55.7 mph	-0.4 mph
3Michelin Defender LTX MS2	55.7 mph	-0.4 mph
5Cooper Endeavor Plus	55.3 mph	-0.8 mph
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	55.2 mph	-0.9 mph
7Westlake SU318 HT	54.9 mph	-1.2 mph

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

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Cooper Endeavor Plus	11.3 ft/s²	Best
2Michelin Defender LTX MS2	11.1 ft/s²	-0.2 ft/s²
3Kumho Crugen HT51	11.0 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
4Firestone Destination LE3	10.6 ft/s²	-0.7 ft/s²
5Westlake SU318 HT	10.6 ft/s²	-0.7 ft/s²
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	10.5 ft/s²	-0.8 ft/s²
7General Grabber HT	9.8 ft/s²	-1.5 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 12.8% (1.5 ft/s²).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Firestone Destination LE3	60 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Defender LTX MS2	60 ft	0 ft	3 mph
3Cooper Endeavor Plus	61 ft	+1 ft	13 mph
4General Grabber HT	62 ft	+2 ft	15 mph
5Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	63 ft	+3 ft	18 mph
6Kumho Crugen HT51	64 ft	+4 ft	21 mph
6Westlake SU318 HT	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
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Kumho Crugen HT51	3.06 s	Best
2Michelin Defender LTX MS2	3.26 s	+0.20 s
3Firestone Destination LE3	3.31 s	+0.25 s
4Cooper Endeavor Plus	3.82 s	+0.76 s
5General Grabber HT	3.94 s	+0.88 s
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	4.13 s	+1.07 s
7Westlake SU318 HT	4.44 s	+1.38 s

The difference between best and worst was 45.1% (1.38 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Defender LTX MS2	87.23 s	Best
2Firestone Destination LE3	87.72 s	+0.49 s
3Cooper Endeavor Plus	88.75 s	+1.52 s
4General Grabber HT	89.44 s	+2.21 s
5Kumho Crugen HT51	89.89 s	+2.66 s
6Westlake SU318 HT	91.19 s	+3.96 s
7Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	91.37 s	+4.14 s

The difference between best and worst was 4.7% (4.14 s).

Subj. Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Defender LTX MS2	8.6 Points	Best
2Firestone Destination LE3	8.5 Points	-0.10 Points
3General Grabber HT	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
4Cooper Endeavor Plus	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
5Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	7.6 Points	-1.00 Points
6Kumho Crugen HT51	7.5 Points	-1.10 Points
7Westlake SU318 HT	7.4 Points	-1.20 Points

The difference between best and worst was 14% (1.2 Points).

Snow Cornering
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Firestone Destination LE3	0.34 g	Best
1Michelin Defender LTX MS2	0.34 g	Best
1Cooper Endeavor Plus	0.34 g	Best
4General Grabber HT	0.33 g	-0.01 g
5Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	0.32 g	-0.02 g
6Kumho Crugen HT51	0.31 g	-0.03 g
6Westlake SU318 HT	0.31 g	-0.03 g

The difference between best and worst was 8.8% (0.03 g).

Off road

Dirt Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Cooper Endeavor Plus	60.2 s	Best
2Kumho Crugen HT51	60.44 s	+0.24 s
3Michelin Defender LTX MS2	60.65 s	+0.45 s
4Firestone Destination LE3	60.66 s	+0.46 s
5General Grabber HT	60.91 s	+0.71 s
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	61.53 s	+1.33 s
7Westlake SU318 HT	62.02 s	+1.82 s

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

Subj. Dirt Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Defender LTX MS2	8.5 Points	Best
2Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	8.4 Points	-0.10 Points
3Cooper Endeavor Plus	8.2 Points	-0.30 Points
3General Grabber HT	8.2 Points	-0.30 Points
5Kumho Crugen HT51	7.9 Points	-0.60 Points
6Firestone Destination LE3	7.6 Points	-0.90 Points
7Westlake SU318 HT	7 Points	-1.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 17.6% (1.5 Points).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HT	6.8 Points	Best
2Kumho Crugen HT51	6.6 Points	-0.20 Points
2Cooper Endeavor Plus	6.6 Points	-0.20 Points
4Michelin Defender LTX MS2	6.4 Points	-0.40 Points
5Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	6.3 Points	-0.50 Points
5Firestone Destination LE3	6.3 Points	-0.50 Points
7Westlake SU318 HT	6.1 Points	-0.70 Points

The difference between best and worst was 10.3% (0.7 Points).

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Westlake SU318 HT	72.4 dB	Best
2Cooper Endeavor Plus	73 dB	+0.60 dB
3Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	74.2 dB	+1.80 dB
4Firestone Destination LE3	74.4 dB	+2.00 dB
5General Grabber HT	74.9 dB	+2.50 dB
6Kumho Crugen HT51	75.1 dB	+2.70 dB
7Michelin Defender LTX MS2	75.8 dB	+3.40 dB

The difference between best and worst was 4.7% (3.4 dB).

Value

Value
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	cost per 1,000 miles
1Westlake SU318 HT	2.24 Price/1000	Best	$18.98
2Kumho Crugen HT51	2.63 Price/1000	+0.39 Price/1000	$15.16
3General Grabber HT	2.97 Price/1000	+0.73 Price/1000	$18.28
4Firestone Destination LE3	3.01 Price/1000	+0.77 Price/1000	$15.88
5Cooper Endeavor Plus	3.06 Price/1000	+0.82 Price/1000	$18.45
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	3.22 Price/1000	+0.98 Price/1000	$20.99
7Michelin Defender LTX MS2	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
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Michelin Defender LTX MS2	6.94 kg/t	Best	$0
2Firestone Destination LE3	7.7 kg/t	+0.76 kg/t	$32
3Kumho Crugen HT51	7.93 kg/t	+0.99 kg/t	$42
4Cooper Endeavor Plus	8.35 kg/t	+1.41 kg/t	$60
5General Grabber HT	8.43 kg/t	+1.49 kg/t	$63
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	8.92 kg/t	+1.98 kg/t	$84
7Westlake SU318 HT	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. These calculators use the full test field, independently of your tire selection above.

Gas/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

12,000 mi

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

$3.60/gal

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

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

Test setup & methodology

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

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.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tire shortlist →Read the test →

More tire tests