Test Charts / Tire Reviews

HT vs AT vs MT Tires Tested: What's the Best Type of Tire for Your SUV or Pickup?

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

Tested size: 265/70 R17
Tires tested: 4
Disciplines: 15
Test vehicle: Ford F-150 Raptor

Read the measurements, not just the rank

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

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

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HTS60	151 ft	Best
2General Grabber APT	157 ft	+6 ft
3General Grabber X3	158 ft	+7 ft
4General Grabber ATx	159 ft	+8 ft

The difference between best and worst was 5.4% (8 ft ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths).

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber APT	100.84 s	Best
2General Grabber HTS60	100.98 s	+0.14 s
3General Grabber ATx	102.32 s	+1.48 s
RefReference MT Mud Terrain	102.5 s	+1.66 s
4General Grabber X3	103.63 s	+2.79 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HTS60	10 Points	Best
2General Grabber APT	9.8 Points	-0.20 Points
3General Grabber ATx	8 Points	-2.00 Points
RefReference MT Mud Terrain	7.9 Points	-2.10 Points
4General Grabber X3	7.2 Points	-2.80 Points

The difference between best and worst was 28% (2.8 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HTS60	195 ft	Best
RefReference MT Mud Terrain	207 ft	+12 ft
2General Grabber APT	211 ft	+16 ft
3General Grabber X3	213 ft	+18 ft
4General Grabber ATx	216 ft	+21 ft

The difference between best and worst was 10.8% (21 ft ≈ 1.4 Car Lengths).

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HTS60	82.2 s	Best
2General Grabber APT	85.2 s	+3.00 s
3General Grabber ATx	85.9 s	+3.70 s
RefReference MT Mud Terrain	86 s	+3.80 s
4General Grabber X3	86.6 s	+4.40 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.4% (4.4 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HTS60	10 Points	Best
2General Grabber APT	9 Points	-1.00 Points
3General Grabber ATx	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
4General Grabber X3	8 Points	-2.00 Points
RefReference MT Mud Terrain	8 Points	-2.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 20% (2 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber X3	65.3 mph	Best
2General Grabber APT	57.7 mph	-7.6 mph
3General Grabber HTS60	55.4 mph	-9.9 mph
4General Grabber ATx	53.5 mph	-11.8 mph

The difference between best and worst was 18.1% (11.8 mph).

Off road

Gravel Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefReference MT Mud Terrain	60.8 s	-0.12 s
1General Grabber X3	60.92 s	Best
2General Grabber ATx	61.12 s	+0.20 s
3General Grabber APT	62.26 s	+1.34 s
4General Grabber HTS60	62.78 s	+1.86 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.3% (1.98 s).

Subj. Gravel Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber X3	10 Points	Best
RefReference MT Mud Terrain	10 Points	0.00 Points
2General Grabber ATx	9.8 Points	-0.20 Points
3General Grabber APT	9.2 Points	-0.80 Points
4General Grabber HTS60	8 Points	-2.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 20% (2 Points).

Dirt Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber ATx	52.62 s	Best
RefReference MT Mud Terrain	52.75 s	+0.13 s
2General Grabber APT	52.93 s	+0.31 s
3General Grabber HTS60	53.55 s	+0.93 s
4General Grabber X3	54.14 s	+1.52 s

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

Subj. Dirt Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber ATx	10 Points	Best
2General Grabber APT	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3General Grabber HTS60	9 Points	-1.00 Points
RefReference MT Mud Terrain	8 Points	-2.00 Points
4General Grabber X3	7.5 Points	-2.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 25% (2.5 Points).

Mud Performance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber X3	199 %	Best
2General Grabber ATx	149 %	-50.00 %
3General Grabber APT	119 %	-80.00 %
4General Grabber HTS60	100 %	-99.00 %

The difference between best and worst was 49.7% (99 %).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HTS60	10 Points	Best
2General Grabber APT	9.8 Points	-0.20 Points
3General Grabber ATx	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4General Grabber X3	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
RefReference MT Mud Terrain	8 Points	-2.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 20% (2 Points).

Tire Weight
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HTS60	165.8 lb	Best
2General Grabber ATx	171.3 lb	+5.5 lb
3General Grabber APT	172.4 lb	+6.6 lb
4General Grabber X3	235.5 lb	+69.7 lb
RefReference MT Mud Terrain	306.4 lb	+140.6 lb

The difference between best and worst was 84.8% (140.6 lb).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1General Grabber HTS60	9 kg/t	Best	$0
2General Grabber APT	9.9 kg/t	+0.90 kg/t	$29
3General Grabber ATx	10.3 kg/t	+1.30 kg/t	$42
4General Grabber X3	11.5 kg/t	+2.50 kg/t	$82
RefReference MT Mud Terrain	12 kg/t	+3.00 kg/t	$98

The difference between best and worst was 33.3% (3 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the General Grabber X3 uses about 23 gal ($82) more fuel than the General Grabber HTS60.

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

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 · 36%
Dry Braking	46%	16.56%
Dry Handling	45%	16.2%
Subj. Dry Handling	9%	3.24%
Wet · 50%
Wet Braking	40%	20%
Wet Handling	40%	20%
Subj. Wet Handling	10%	5%
Straight Aqua	10%	5%
Comfort · 7%
Subj. Comfort	83%	5.81%
Tire Weight	17%	1.19%
Value · 7%
Rolling Resistance	100%	7%

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.

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.

Gravel Handling

For gravel handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated gravel 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 throughout the session.

Subj. Gravel Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment on a dedicated gravel 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.

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.

Mud Performance

To assess mud performance, I use a dedicated off-road mud section that is actively watered and maintained to a defined condition. The test focuses on the tire's ability to generate forward traction through the section under controlled conditions. Performance is measured using acceleration time, distance covered, or both, depending on the specific format of the programme. Multiple runs are completed and averaged, with the mud section refreshed as necessary to maintain consistency.

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.

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