Test Charts / Tire Reviews

Michelin CrossClimate 2 VS Michelin CrossClimate+

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: 205/55 R16
Tires tested: 2
Disciplines: 6

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
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	112 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin CrossClimate+	118 ft	+6 ft	18 mph

The difference between best and worst was 5.3% (6 ft ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Michelin CrossClimate+ would still be travelling at 18 mph when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 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
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	80.43 s	Best
2Michelin CrossClimate+	82.17 s	+1.74 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
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	96 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin CrossClimate+	100 ft	+4 ft	17 mph

The difference between best and worst was 4.9% (4 ft ≈ 0.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Michelin CrossClimate+ would still be travelling at 17 mph when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 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
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	49 s	Best
2Michelin CrossClimate+	49.03 s	+0.03 s

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

Snow

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	91.3 s	Best
2Michelin CrossClimate+	94 s	+2.70 s

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

Value

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	5.55 l/100km	Best	$0
2Michelin CrossClimate+	5.66 l/100km	+0.11 l/100km	$20

All the tires in the Fuel Consumption test finished less than 3% apart. Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Michelin CrossClimate+ uses about 6 gal ($20) more fuel than the Michelin CrossClimate 2.

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.

Show full testing methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 60 → 3 MPH
Wet Braking: 50 → 5 MPH

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 · 28%
Dry Braking	50%	14%
Dry Handling	50%	14%
Wet · 39%
Wet Braking	50%	19.5%
Wet Handling	50%	19.5%
Snow · 28%
Snow Handling	100%	28%
Value · 5%
Fuel Consumption	100%	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.

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.

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.

Fuel Consumption

For real-world fuel consumption testing, I use matched vehicles on the same route under stabilised conditions, comparing candidate tires with reference tires. When an oval is not used, fuel use is measured over repeated runs in both directions to minimise the influence of wind and gradient. The result is reported in liters per 100 km, and the difference in consumption between candidate and reference is attributed to the difference in rolling resistance.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tire shortlist →Read the test →

More tire tests