For the first of three tire review summer tire tests this year, I've tested 12 sets of tires in 225/45/17 using a Volkswagen Golf GTI.
All 12 sets of tires were purchased in the open market anonymously. As always, they have been tested in the dry, wet, noise, comfort, and rolling resistance tests to find out exactly which tire is best for your own driving needs.
Test setup & methodology
The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.
- Tire Pressures (as recorded)
- 35
- Test Driver
- Jonathan Benson
Show full testing methodology
Recorded test conditions
- Dry Braking
- 62.1 → 0.0 mph
- Dry Handling
- 63–82 °F
- Wet Braking
- 49.7 → 0.0 mph
- Wet Handling
- 61–70 °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 · 35% | ||
| Dry Braking | 45% | 15.75% |
| Dry Handling | 45% | 15.75% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 10% | 3.5% |
| Wet · 50% | ||
| Wet Braking | 40% | 20% |
| Wet Handling | 30% | 15% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 10% | 5% |
| Wet Circle | 5% | 2.5% |
| Straight Aqua | 10% | 5% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 5% | 2.5% |
| Comfort · 5% | ||
| Subj. Comfort | 50% | 2.5% |
| Noise | 50% | 2.5% |
| Value · 10% | ||
| Rolling Resistance | 100% | 10% |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wet
The slowest tire in the wet was the Davanti, in a group of its own, significantly behind every other tire including the other cheap ones. It was difficult to drive, had no bite, and you really couldn't get it into or out of corners. One to avoid!
Next up were the Bridgestone and Goodride with similar lap times, though the Bridgestone was much nicer subjectively - lovely and predictable with a stable front axle. The Goodride, while posting a similar time, just wasn't as understandable and was the only tire where I almost fell off the track. Good Ride is not yet a good ride, but last time I tested it, it was a terrible ride, so they're improving.
The Kleber and Vredestein were a step up in grip and both actually quite nice to drive. The Kleber almost felt sporty, which surprised me - as a Michelin sub-brand they've always taken on the Michelin ethos of safe, boring understeer. But while it still felt safe, it actually turned really nicely.
The Debica was an odd one. On its first lap it felt like a cheap tire, sliding at the back and difficult to get into corners. But once it had some heat in it, the second lap was significantly better - nearly a full second quicker, which is unusual as my delta between laps is normally about a tenth. On the road, especially in cooler conditions around 15 degrees, I think the lap time is probably over-promising what you'll get on the street.
The Michelin Primacy 5 was absolutely classic Michelin - understeer-y, very safe and easy to control. As always with the Primacy range, Michelin go for total life performance and excellent tread life, and I think that often hurts them in the wet because it's never the best tire in the wet. Once again it was just average in this group, but average and safe and very Michelin.
The Maxxis Premitra HP6 continued its recent strong wet form. My one quibble was that it was a little bit peaky around the limits of grip - you'd be turning and suddenly wouldn't get much notice about the breakaway. It took a little longer than average to recover, but its actual grip was excellent.
The Kumho Ecsta Sport did a very good job, finishing fourth in lap time. Subjectively, and this is a compliment, it didn't give me anything to worry about. I just got round the lap and thought "good job, no nasty surprises," which is one of the higher compliments I can pay a tire.
However, the Hankook, Pirelli and Continental were in a bubble of their own, showing that the Hankook can definitely mix with the big boys. The Hankook was incredible - I finally felt like I was attacking the surface and the car was going where I wanted it to. The Pirelli was even better, about half a second quicker with slightly sharper steering response, though its window between grip and no grip was narrower than the Hankook's, which is where it falls back slightly subjectively. The Continental Premium Contact 7 was a blend of the two - maybe not quite as direct as the Pirelli, but with a wide sliding window, making it the best all-rounder. These three tires are incredible. The Kumho did pretty well too, but anything below the top four could do with more grip to really be excellent in the wet.
Wet Handling
Wet handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 65°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 67.7 s | Best | |
| 68.09 s | +0.39 s | |
| 68.69 s | +0.99 s | |
| 70.46 s | +2.76 s | |
| 71.1 s | +3.40 s | |
| 71.35 s | +3.65 s | |
| 71.59 s | +3.89 s | |
| 71.86 s | +4.16 s | |
| 72.07 s | +4.37 s | |
| 72.17 s | +4.47 s | |
| 72.65 s | +4.95 s | |
RefReference UHP All Season |
75.98 s | +8.28 s |
| 79.87 s | +12.17 s |
The difference between best and worst was 18% (12.17 s).
The top four in wet braking were the same as the top four in wet handling, just in a slightly different order, which happens when everything is this close at the top. I also ran a wet circle test, which further confirms the top four.
Wet Braking
Wet braking in feet (50 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 91 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 91 ft | 0 ft | 2 mph | |
| 91 ft | 0 ft | 4 mph | |
| 93 ft | +2 ft | 13 mph | |
| 96 ft | +5 ft | 18 mph | |
| 97 ft | +6 ft | 20 mph | |
| 97 ft | +6 ft | 20 mph | |
| 97 ft | +6 ft | 20 mph | |
| 98 ft | +7 ft | 21 mph | |
| 99 ft | +8 ft | 23 mph | |
| 99 ft | +8 ft | 23 mph | |
| 112 ft | +21 ft | 35 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 23.9% (21 ft ≈ 1.5 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Davanti Protoura Sport would still be travelling at 35 mph when the Hankook Ventus Evo had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
In the deeper water of the aquaplaning test, the Hankook, Michelin and Continental all performed excellently, with a shout out to Debica, winning curved aquaplaning.
Straight Aqua
Float Speed in mph
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 49.0 mph | Best | |
| 47.8 mph | -1.2 mph | |
| 47.8 mph | -1.2 mph | |
| 46.8 mph | -2.2 mph | |
| 46.8 mph | -2.2 mph | |
| 46.5 mph | -2.5 mph | |
| 46.3 mph | -2.7 mph | |
| 45.6 mph | -3.4 mph | |
| 45.3 mph | -3.7 mph | |
| 44.9 mph | -4.1 mph | |
| 44.4 mph | -4.6 mph | |
| 43.5 mph | -5.5 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 11.1% (5.5 mph).
Curved Aquaplaning
Remaining lateral acceleration
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 12.9 ft/s² | Best | |
| 12.6 ft/s² | -0.3 ft/s² | |
| 12.6 ft/s² | -0.3 ft/s² | |
| 12.3 ft/s² | -0.6 ft/s² | |
| 12.2 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² | |
| 12.1 ft/s² | -0.8 ft/s² | |
| 11.8 ft/s² | -1.1 ft/s² | |
| 11.8 ft/s² | -1.1 ft/s² | |
| 11.8 ft/s² | -1.1 ft/s² | |
| 11.2 ft/s² | -1.7 ft/s² | |
| 11.1 ft/s² | -1.8 ft/s² | |
| 10.9 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² |
The difference between best and worst was 15.3% (2 ft/s²).
Dry
In the dry handling test, the Goodride and Davanti were bad. The Goodride should have been faster but I made a mistake, usually I exclude these laps but it was so tricky to drive subjectively I thought it was ok to keep in.
Then you have the Bridgestone to Debica group, all fine grip, but not really suited to being on track. For this class of tire, braking and comfort is more important than dry handling, but the Debica was impressive for its pricepoint being lovely and easy to drive. If you don't know, Debica is a goodyear subbrand, I wonder if there's some old asymmetric technology in it.
The first to 5th place split by 1%.
The Maxxis was the real surprise, it didn't have the most grip as proven by the braking data, but it was the most drivable so ended up the fastest. This is the Tire Reviews top tip I know some of you are here for, if you want a cheaper 17" road tire that is fun on track, this might be the new product.
It's no surprise that Pirelli, Kumho, Conti and Hankook were all excellent. I'd like to give a nod to kumho. I've seen this tire tested a lot, and it's a really nice tire subjectively, as is the Hankook, both slightly ahead of the Pirelli dynamically, which itself was ahead of the Continental.
Dry Handling
Dry handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 73°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 72.83 s | Best | |
| 72.97 s | +0.14 s | |
| 73.15 s | +0.32 s | |
| 73.29 s | +0.46 s | |
| 73.48 s | +0.65 s | |
| 73.67 s | +0.84 s | |
| 74.52 s | +1.69 s | |
| 74.56 s | +1.73 s | |
| 74.83 s | +2.00 s | |
| 74.91 s | +2.08 s | |
RefReference UHP All Season |
74.95 s | +2.12 s |
| 75.45 s | +2.62 s | |
| 76.16 s | +3.33 s |
The difference between best and worst was 4.6% (3.33 s).
Pirelli led dry braking, Continental was a close second, with Kumho 3rd. Interestingly, the Maxxis, which did well in the dry handling test, only placed ninth in dry braking, 7% behind the best.
Dry Braking
Dry braking in feet (62 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 117 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 118 ft | +1 ft | 7 mph | |
| 122 ft | +5 ft | 15 mph | |
| 122 ft | +5 ft | 16 mph | |
| 123 ft | +6 ft | 17 mph | |
| 125 ft | +8 ft | 19 mph | |
| 126 ft | +9 ft | 21 mph | |
| 126 ft | +9 ft | 21 mph | |
| 127 ft | +10 ft | 22 mph | |
| 127 ft | +10 ft | 23 mph | |
| 129 ft | +12 ft | 24 mph | |
| 139 ft | +22 ft | 32 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 18.9% (22 ft ≈ 1.5 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Davanti Protoura Sport would still be travelling at 32 mph when the Pirelli Cinturato C3 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Comfort
Sadly, I didn't have the time to dig into the subjective comfort levels of the tires too much. I just did one quick lap of the comfort lanes before going off to handling. However, a colleague ran the test a few days earlier, so I'm using his scoring.
Overall, if comfort is your focus, the Michelin Primacy 5 and the Debica are good choices, though the Continental is also strong in comfort, if not a little noisier in the EU label external noise test. Basically, as always, they are all incredibly close. On my brief run around the comfort course, I found it difficult to notice many differences, even on the firm GTI suspension. Comfort amongst tires is definitely getting closer.
The only two that really struggled in comfort were the Goodride and the Davanti, but ironically they had the lowest external noise levels, so if noise is your thing, they are the ones to buy. But hopefully by now you have seen enough data to know not to buy them.
Subj. Comfort
Subjective Comfort Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 7.1 Points | Best | |
RefReference UHP All Season |
7 Points | -0.10 Points |
| 6.9 Points | -0.20 Points | |
| 6.9 Points | -0.20 Points | |
| 6.9 Points | -0.20 Points | |
| 6.6 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 6.6 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 6.6 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 6.5 Points | -0.60 Points | |
| 6.4 Points | -0.70 Points | |
| 6.1 Points | -1.00 Points | |
| 5.9 Points | -1.20 Points | |
| 5.6 Points | -1.50 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 21.1% (1.5 Points).
Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 70.6 dB | Best | |
| 70.7 dB | +0.10 dB | |
| 70.7 dB | +0.10 dB | |
| 70.9 dB | +0.30 dB | |
| 71 dB | +0.40 dB | |
| 72.3 dB | +1.70 dB | |
| 72.3 dB | +1.70 dB | |
RefReference UHP All Season |
72.3 dB | +1.70 dB |
| 72.6 dB | +2.00 dB | |
| 72.8 dB | +2.20 dB | |
| 73.1 dB | +2.50 dB | |
| 73.9 dB | +3.30 dB | |
| 74.1 dB | +3.50 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 5% (3.5 dB).
Value
The rolling resistance levels, or energy use of the tires were interesting. For some reason, Bridgestone had a 10% lead over the next best tire, which was the Michelin Primacy 5, and that in itself was nearly 10% better than the average of the rest of the tires. There are clearly some different opinions on the levels of rolling resistance these tires should have, and that does explain the Bridgestone's relatively weak wet grip, as low rolling resistance and good wet grip are opposing performance qualities.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6.46 kg/t | Best | $0 | |
| 7.12 kg/t | +0.66 kg/t | $30 | |
| 7.69 kg/t | +1.23 kg/t | $56 | |
| 7.73 kg/t | +1.27 kg/t | $58 | |
| 7.81 kg/t | +1.35 kg/t | $61 | |
| 8.14 kg/t | +1.68 kg/t | $76 | |
| 8.16 kg/t | +1.70 kg/t | $77 | |
| 8.27 kg/t | +1.81 kg/t | $82 | |
| 8.29 kg/t | +1.83 kg/t | $83 | |
| 8.43 kg/t | +1.97 kg/t | $90 | |
| 8.84 kg/t | +2.38 kg/t | $108 | |
| 8.95 kg/t | +2.49 kg/t | $113 | |
RefReference UHP All Season |
9.56 kg/t | +3.10 kg/t | $141 |
The difference between best and worst was 48% (3.1 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Goodride Solmax 1 uses about 31 gal ($113) more fuel than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
Results
I've used the standard score weighting I've always used for this category of tires to keep it fair and consistent, but as always, you can go to the 'Results Table' tab and adjust the score weighting for your own driving needs eg if you would prefer a more comfort bias results set or lower rolling resistance etc, you can go and do that. I've actually improved this functionality a lot in the past few months. It is well worth checking out.
Pirelli Cinturato C3
225/45 R17 94Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (12)
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 / 12 | 117 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 12 | 72.97 s | +0.14 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 12 | 8.4 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 12 | 91 ft | 0 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 12 | 68.09 s | +0.39 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 12 | 8.6 Points | -0.10 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 2nd / 12 | 12.09 s | +0.25 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 3rd / 12 | 47.8 mph | -1.2 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 10th / 12 | 11.2 ft/s² | -1.7 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 5th / 12 | 6.6 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 12th / 12 | 74.1 dB | +3.50 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 8th / 12 | 8.27 kg/t | +1.81 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/71
- Production
- 5124(6), 5224(2)
- Origin
- Romania
- Shore
- 66
- Weight
- 9.45 kgs
- Tread
- 7.2 mm
Continental PremiumContact 7
225/45 R17 94Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (12)
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 / 12 | 118 ft | +1 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 4th / 12 | 73.29 s | +0.46 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 12 | 8.2 Points | -0.20 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 12 | 91 ft | 0 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 1st / 12 | 67.7 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 12 | 8.6 Points | -0.10 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 1st / 12 | 11.84 s | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 6th / 12 | 46.5 mph | -2.5 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 2nd / 12 | 12.6 ft/s² | -0.3 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 12 | 6.9 Points | -0.20 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 10th / 12 | 73.1 dB | +2.50 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 10th / 12 | 8.43 kg/t | +1.97 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/72
- Production
- 4824(4), 4724(3), 1724(1)
- Origin
- Portugal
- Shore
- 72
- Weight
- 9.25 kgs
- Tread
- 8 mm
Hankook Ventus Evo
225/45 R17 94Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (12)
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 / 12 | 122 ft | +5 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 5th / 12 | 73.48 s | +0.65 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 12 | 8.4 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 12 | 91 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 12 | 68.69 s | +0.99 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 12 | 8.7 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 3rd / 12 | 12.18 s | +0.34 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 1st / 12 | 49.0 mph | Best in this discipline |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 12 | 12.6 ft/s² | -0.3 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 8th / 12 | 6.5 Points | -0.60 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 12 | 70.7 dB | +0.10 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 11th / 12 | 8.84 kg/t | +2.38 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/70
- Production
- 5024(8)
- Origin
- Korea
- UTQG
- 340 AA A
- Shore
- 73
- Weight
- 10.11 kgs
- Tread
- 7.7 mm
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
225/45 R17 94Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (12)
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 / 12 | 122 ft | +5 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 12 | 73.15 s | +0.32 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 12 | 8.4 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 12 | 93 ft | +2 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 4th / 12 | 70.46 s | +2.76 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 12 | 8.3 Points | -0.40 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 4th / 12 | 12.22 s | +0.38 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 11th / 12 | 44.4 mph | -4.6 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 12th / 12 | 10.9 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 10th / 12 | 6.1 Points | -1.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 12 | 72.3 dB | +1.70 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 6th / 12 | 8.14 kg/t | +1.68 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/72
- Production
- 0925(8)
- Origin
- Korea
- UTQG
- 320 AA A
- Shore
- 71
- Weight
- 9.88 kgs
- Tread
- 7.3 mm
Bridgestone Turanza 6
225/45 R17 94Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (12)
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 / 12 | 123 ft | +6 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 10th / 12 | 74.91 s | +2.08 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 9th / 12 | 8 Points | -0.40 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 6th / 12 | 97 ft | +6 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 11th / 12 | 72.65 s | +4.95 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 8th / 12 | 7.4 Points | -1.30 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 10th / 12 | 12.74 s | +0.90 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 10th / 12 | 44.9 mph | -4.1 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 7th / 12 | 11.8 ft/s² | -1.1 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 5th / 12 | 6.6 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 9th / 12 | 72.8 dB | +2.20 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 1st / 12 | 6.46 kg/t | Best in this discipline |
- EU Label
- B/A/70
- Production
- 0425(5), 0525(3)
- Origin
- Poland
- UTQG
- 320 A A
- Shore
- 65
- Weight
- 8.86 kgs
- Tread
- 7.3 mm
Michelin Primacy 5
225/45 R17 94W XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (12)
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 / 12 | 126 ft | +9 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 8th / 12 | 74.56 s | +1.73 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 12 | 8.2 Points | -0.20 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 9th / 12 | 98 ft | +7 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 6th / 12 | 71.35 s | +3.65 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 12 | 7.9 Points | -0.80 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 11th / 12 | 12.91 s | +1.07 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 2nd / 12 | 47.8 mph | -1.2 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 5th / 12 | 12.2 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 12 | 6.9 Points | -0.20 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 4th / 12 | 70.9 dB | +0.30 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 2nd / 12 | 7.12 kg/t | +0.66 kg/t |
- EU Label
- B/A/70
- Production
- 0425(5), 0525(3)
- Origin
- Germany
- UTQG
- 420 A A
- Shore
- 66
- Weight
- 9 kgs
- Tread
- 7 mm
Kleber Dynaxer HP5
225/45 R17 94Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (12)
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 / 12 | 125 ft | +8 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 9th / 12 | 74.83 s | +2.00 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 8th / 12 | 8.1 Points | -0.30 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 12 | 96 ft | +5 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 9th / 12 | 72.07 s | +4.37 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 12 | 8.2 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 8th / 12 | 12.72 s | +0.88 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 8th / 12 | 45.6 mph | -3.4 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 7th / 12 | 11.8 ft/s² | -1.1 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 12 | 6.9 Points | -0.20 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 12 | 72.3 dB | +1.70 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 5th / 12 | 7.81 kg/t | +1.35 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/70
- Production
- 0425(6), 0325(2)
- Origin
- Poland
- Shore
- 70
- Weight
- 8.76 kgs
- Tread
- 6.8 mm
Maxxis Premitra HP6
225/45 R17 94W XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (12)
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 / 12 | 127 ft | +10 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 1st / 12 | 72.83 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 12 | 8.4 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 7th / 12 | 97 ft | +6 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 5th / 12 | 71.1 s | +3.40 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 11th / 12 | 6.3 Points | -2.40 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 5th / 12 | 12.5 s | +0.66 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 7th / 12 | 46.3 mph | -2.7 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 6th / 12 | 12.1 ft/s² | -0.8 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 5th / 12 | 6.6 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 11th / 12 | 73.9 dB | +3.30 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 3rd / 12 | 7.69 kg/t | +1.23 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/72
- Production
- 4524(8)
- Origin
- China
- UTQG
- 340 A A
- Shore
- 76
- Weight
- 9.41 kgs
- Tread
- 7.3 mm
Debica Presto UHP2
225/45 R17 94Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (12)
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 / 12 | 126 ft | +9 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 6th / 12 | 73.67 s | +0.84 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 12 | 8.3 Points | -0.10 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 11th / 12 | 99 ft | +8 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 7th / 12 | 71.59 s | +3.89 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 9th / 12 | 7.2 Points | -1.50 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 6th / 12 | 12.52 s | +0.68 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 5th / 12 | 46.8 mph | -2.2 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 12 | 12.9 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 1st / 12 | 7.1 Points | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 5th / 12 | 71 dB | +0.40 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 9th / 12 | 8.29 kg/t | +1.83 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/B/71
- Production
- 1825(5), 1725(3)
- Origin
- Poland
- UTQG
- 280 AA A
- Shore
- 76
- Weight
- 8.94 kgs
- Tread
- 8 mm
Vredestein Ultrac+
225/45 R17 94Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (12)
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 | 11th / 12 | 129 ft | +12 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 7th / 12 | 74.52 s | +1.69 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 10th / 12 | 7.5 Points | -0.90 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 10th / 12 | 99 ft | +8 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 8th / 12 | 71.86 s | +4.16 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 12 | 7.8 Points | -0.90 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 8th / 12 | 12.72 s | +0.88 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 4th / 12 | 46.8 mph | -2.2 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 4th / 12 | 12.3 ft/s² | -0.6 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 9th / 12 | 6.4 Points | -0.70 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 8th / 12 | 72.6 dB | +2.00 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4th / 12 | 7.73 kg/t | +1.27 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/69
- Production
- 1925(8)
- Origin
- Hungary
- UTQG
- 280 AA A
- Shore
- 71
- Weight
- 9.01 kgs
- Tread
- 7.4 mm
Goodride Solmax 1
225/45 R17 94Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (12)
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 / 12 | 127 ft | +10 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 12th / 12 | 76.16 s | +3.33 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 12th / 12 | 6 Points | -2.40 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 7th / 12 | 97 ft | +6 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 10th / 12 | 72.17 s | +4.47 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 10th / 12 | 6.7 Points | -2.00 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 7th / 12 | 12.56 s | +0.72 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 9th / 12 | 45.3 mph | -3.7 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 7th / 12 | 11.8 ft/s² | -1.1 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 11th / 12 | 5.9 Points | -1.20 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 12 | 70.7 dB | +0.10 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 12th / 12 | 8.95 kg/t | +2.49 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/72
- Production
- 0425(7), 0325(1)
- Origin
- China
- UTQG
- 360 A A
- Shore
- 71
- Weight
- 9.54 kgs
- Tread
- 7.4 mm
Davanti Protoura Sport
225/45 R17 94Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (12)
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 | 12th / 12 | 139 ft | +22 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 11th / 12 | 75.45 s | +2.62 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 11th / 12 | 6.6 Points | -1.80 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 12th / 12 | 112 ft | +21 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 12th / 12 | 79.87 s | +12.17 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 11th / 12 | 6.3 Points | -2.40 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 12th / 12 | 13.93 s | +2.09 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 12th / 12 | 43.5 mph | -5.5 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 11th / 12 | 11.1 ft/s² | -1.8 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 12th / 12 | 5.6 Points | -1.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 1st / 12 | 70.6 dB | Best in this discipline |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 7th / 12 | 8.16 kg/t | +1.70 kg/t |
- EU Label
- D/B/70
- Production
- 4224(6), 3624(2)
- Origin
- China
- UTQG
- 400 A A
- Shore
- 72
- Weight
- 9.93 kgs
- Tread
- 6.6 mm
Reference UHP All Season
225/45 R17 94W XL
All discipline results (7)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 74.95 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 8.2 Points |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 75.98 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 6.3 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 7 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 72.3 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 9.56 kg/t |
As always, excellent test.
Is it intentional to have mixed max performance and touring segments?
It’s too bad that the Asy6 wasn’t available as it’s a good bridge between the 2 segments.
I see in the results charts that the Hankook has top marks in both subjective handlings, while in the video, you seem to say that the Pirelli has a better dynamic feeling, despite being a touring tire. Which one would you actually prefer?
In the other sizes, the Continental seems to have a better dynamic behavior vs the Pirelli (cf. https://www.tyrereviews.com/Compare/PremiumContact-7-VS-Cinturato-C3.htm ), but you say otherwise here, and as it is the more expensive option, I ruled it out.
I’ve dug into the comparisons on the website for the Hankook vs the others (GY F1 Asy 6, PS5, Potenza Sport Evo, and also the CPC7 despite your test), and the Hankook seems to win almost always on the braking and handling. This is the only test in which the Hankook and the Pirelli are confronted, so I’m struggling to decide.
No Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 or F1 AS6? Why so?
He said in the video that he couldn’t get the AS6 in time for the test, which is really a shame.
Which Hankook model did you use in the test??
1. Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 2 K117
2. Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 2 K117B HRS
3. Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 3 K127
4.Hankook Ventus evo K137
5. Hankook Ventus V12 Evo 2 K120
The same as is listed, the Hankook Ventus Evo
It’s the K137A, actually, AKA the S1 Evo 4.
The summer tire test I was waiting for, very useful for choosing the right tires for my roads and driving style.
Is the reference UHP All Season the Michelin CrossClimate 3 Sport? Would’ve been nice to see it compared with the others in dry and wet braking too.
No it's actually an American UHP all season tire, I should really get that deleted from the results as it was just used for evolution benchmarking.
In the Youtube video and in some tire comparisons there's a reference to a wet circle test but it doesn't show in this article.
Try the "test charts" link at the top and it should be in there!
Got it! Thanks!
Really interesting test, what really surprises me is the diffrent category of tires from each brand and how similar they perform. For example I would expect the Michelin pilot sport 5 to be compared to the Hankook Evo, not the primacy 5 that is a direct competitor of the Ventus Prime 4. Same with Pirelli, Kumho etc where some had their UHP offers and others their touring. Big one missing here is the Falken (either FK520 or ZE320).
What is really surprising is that the performance of UHP and touring tires both in comfort and wet/dry is really mixed between the two categories, with no clear distinctions between the two. I'd expect the uhp tires to strugle a bit in the comfort segment and the tourings in grip.
Good job as always looking forward for the next tests. Thanks for all the great work and data you provide to us!
One of the better comparisons i've seen. Detailed and transparent. Well done.