Menu
Continental Premium Contact 5 View Gallery (1)
165-235/55-70 R14-17 77 sizes 2012

Continental Premium Contact 5

The Continental Premium Contact 5 is a Premium Touring Summer tire designed to be fitted to Passenger Cars.

8.0
Tire Reviews Score Based on Professional Tests & User Reviews
High Confidence View Breakdown
Dry Grip
87%
Wet Grip
83%
Road Feedback
76%
Handling
77%
Wear
58%
Comfort
79%
Buy again
65%
118 Reviews
75% Average
1,411,188 miles driven
36 Tests (avg: 4th)
Continental Premium Contact 5

Continental Premium Contact 5

Summer Premium
BETA
8 / 10
Based on Professional Tests & User Reviews · High Confidence · Updated 23 Feb 2026

The Tire Reviews Score is the most comprehensive tire scoring system available. It aggregates professional test data from multiple independent publications, user reviews, and consistency analysis using Bayesian statistical methods, weighted normalisation, and recency-adjusted scoring to produce a single, reliable performance rating.

Learn more about our methodology
Wet
80.1
2x / 15 tests
Comfort
72
0.32x / 7 tests
Value
71.3
0.42x / 9 tests
Dry
70.9
1.8x / 11 tests
Snow
40
0.13x / 2 tests

Cross-category scores are derived metrics that combine data from multiple test disciplines to evaluate real-world performance characteristics.

Braking
74.2
11 tests
Handling
71
13 tests
Score Components
Professional Tests
Weight: 80%
Tests: 36
Publications: 10
Period: 2012 - 2021
User Reviews
Weight: 15%
Reviews: 118
Avg Rating: 74.9%
Min Required: 5
Consistency
Weight: 5%
Score Std Dev: 0.45
History Points: 10
Methodology & Configuration
Scoring Process
  1. Collect Test Data: Gather results from professional tire tests across multiple publications. Minimum 1 test(s) required.
  2. Normalize Positions: Convert test positions to percentile scores using exponential weighting (factor: 1.2).
  3. Apply Recency Weighting: More recent tests are weighted higher with a decay rate of 0.95.
  4. Incorporate User Reviews: Factor in user review data (minimum 5 reviews). Weight: 15%.
  5. Bayesian Smoothing: Apply Bayesian prior (score: 7, weight: 1.5) to prevent extreme scores with limited data.
  6. Calculate Final Score: Combine all components using normalization factor of 1.1. Max score with limited data: 9.5.
Component Weights
Test Data
80%
User Reviews
15%
Consistency
5%
All Configuration Parameters
ParameterValueDescription
safety_weight 0.7 Weight multiplier for safety-related metrics
performance_weight 0.55 Weight multiplier for performance metrics
comfort_weight 0.4 Weight multiplier for comfort metrics
value_weight 0.45 Weight multiplier for value-for-money metrics
user_reviews_weight 0.15 How much user reviews contribute to the final score
test_data_weight 0.8 How much professional test data contributes to the final score
consistency_weight 0.05 How much score consistency contributes to the final score
recency_decay_rate 0.95 Rate at which older test results lose influence (higher = slower decay)
min_test_count 1 Minimum number of professional tests required
min_review_count 5 Minimum number of user reviews required
score_version 1.9 Current version of the scoring algorithm
score_normalization_factor 1.1 Factor used to normalize raw scores to the 0-10 scale
confidence_factor_weight 0.2 How much data confidence affects the final score
position_penalty_weight 0.2 Penalty applied for poor test positions
gap_penalty_threshold 12 Score gap (%) that triggers additional penalties
min_metrics_count 2 Minimum number of test metrics needed per test
limited_data_threshold 2 Number of tests below which data is considered limited
single_test_penalty 0.75 Score multiplier when only one test is available
critical_metric_penalty 0.7 Penalty for poor performance on critical safety metrics
critical_metric_threshold 70 Score below which a critical metric penalty applies
position_exponential_factor 1.2 Exponent used to amplify position-based scoring
position_exponential_threshold 0.9 Position percentile below which exponential scoring applies
gap_multiplier_critical 3 Multiplier for critical gap penalties
max_category_weight 2 Maximum weight any single category can have
max_score_limited_data 9.5 Score cap when data is limited
bayesian_prior_weight 1.5 Weight of the Bayesian prior in smoothing
bayesian_prior_score 7 Prior score used for Bayesian smoothing
evidence_test_multiplier 1.9 Multiplier for test evidence in confidence calculation
evidence_metric_divisor 3 Divisor for metric count in evidence calculation
evidence_review_divisor 10 Divisor for review count in evidence calculation
combined_penalty_floor 0.2
Data Sources
TestPublicationDateSizePositionMetrics
2021 Sport Auto Summer Tire Test Sport Auto 2021 195/55 R16 5/11 9 metrics
2019 AMS Summer SUV Tire Test Auto Motor Und Sport 2019 215/55 R17 7/11 10 metrics
2019 ADAC Summer Tire Test - 185/65 R15 ADAC 2019 185/65 R15 9/16 0 metrics
2018 AMS All Season Tire Test Auto Motor Und Sport 2018 225/45 R16 6/9 10 metrics
2018 New and Worn Summer Tire Test Auto Navigator 2018 205/55 R16 7/17 5 metrics
2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tire Test Auto Bild 2018 195/65 R15 2/20 10 metrics
2018 AutoBild Summer Tire Overview Auto Bild 2018 195/65 R15 5/47 0 metrics
2018 ADAC Summer Tire Test - 175/65 R14 ADAC 2018 175/65 R14 9/14 0 metrics
2018 ADAC Summer Tire Test - 205/55 R16 ADAC 2018 205/55 R16 3/16 0 metrics
2017 Auto Express Summer Tire Test Auto Express 2017 205/55 R16 1/11 0 metrics
2017 ACE SUV Summer Tire Test ACE 2017 215/60 R17 1/11 0 metrics
2017 AZ Summer Tire Test Auto Express 2017 215/55 R17 2/10 0 metrics
2017 ADAC 195/65 R15 Summer Tire Test ADAC 2017 195/65 R15 3/16 0 metrics
2016 AutoBild Summer Tire Test Auto Bild 2016 205/55 R16 3/15 0 metrics
2016 Market Overview - Braking Test Auto Bild 2016 205/55 R16 8/50 0 metrics
2016 ADAC Tire Test - 185/65 R15 ADAC 2016 185/65 R15 2/16 0 metrics
2015 Auto Bild 215/55 R16 Technical Tire Test Auto Bild 2015 215/55 R16 4/10 0 metrics
2015 Auto Bild Top 18 Summer Tire Test Auto Bild 2015 185/60 R15 1/18 0 metrics
2015 Test World Summer Tire Test Test World 2015 205/55 R16 1/15 0 metrics
2015 Market Overview - Braking Test Auto Bild 2015 185/60 R15 2/52 0 metrics
2015 European Tire Test 185/60R14 ADAC 2015 185/60 R14 1/16 0 metrics
2015 European Tire Test 205/55 R16 ADAC 2015 205/55 R16 3/19 0 metrics
2015 ACE Summer Touring Tire Test ACE 2015 205/55 R16 2/12 0 metrics
2014 Auto Express Summer Tire Test Auto Express 2014 205/55 R16 5/10 0 metrics
2014 Auto Review Summer Tire Test - 205/55 R16 Auto Review 2014 205/55 R16 1/16 0 metrics
2014 AMS Summer Tire Test - 205/55 R16 Auto Motor Und Sport 2014 205/55 R16 1/11 0 metrics
2014 ADAC 195/65 R15 Summer Tire Test ADAC 2014 195/65 R15 13/17 0 metrics
2014 Test World Summer Tire Test Test World 2014 205/55 R16 1/16 0 metrics
2013 Test World Summer Tire Test Test World 2013 205/55 R16 2/13 0 metrics
2013 Auto Zeitung Summer Tire Test Auto Zeitung 2013 215/55 R16 3/12 0 metrics
2013 54 Tire Braking Test 2013 195/65 R15 6/54 0 metrics
2013 European Summer Touring Tire Test ADAC 2013 185/60 R15 2/19 0 metrics
2013 ACE Summer Touring Tire Test ACE 2013 195/65 R15 4/16 0 metrics
2012 Autoreview Touring Tire Test Auto Review 2012 205/55 R16 4/9 0 metrics
2012 European Summer Tire Test - 205/55 R16 ADAC 2012 205/55 R16 1/14 0 metrics
2012 ACE Touring Summer Tire Test ACE 2012 205/55 R16 1/14 0 metrics
36
Tests
4th
Average
1st
Best
13th
Worst
Latest Tire Test Results
5th/11
Safe handling balance in the dry and wet.
Long dry braking, average rolling resistance.
Good.
7th/11
Short wet braking, high aquaplaning resistance.
Long dry braking, high levels of understeer in the dry.
Good in the dry and wet.
High wear.
Size Fuel Wet Noise
14 inch
185/70 R 14 88 H C B 70
165/70 R 14 81 T D A 70
185/70 R 14 88 H C A 70
185/70 R 14 88 H C A 70
15 inch
185/65 R 15 88 H B B 70
185/65 R 15 88 H C B 70
185/65 R 15 88 H C A 70
195/65 R 15 91 H C A 71
185/65 R 15 88 H C A 70
195/65 R 15 91 H C A 71
16 inch
205/55 R 16 91 W C B 71
205/60 R 16 92 H C A 71
215/60 R 16 99 V XL C A 72
215/60 R 16 99 H XL C A 72
215/60 R 16 95 V C A 71
205/60 R 16 96 V XL C A 72
205/55 R 16 94 V XL C A 71
205/55 R 16 94 V XL C A 71
215/60 R 16 95 H C A 71
205/55 R 16 91 H B B 71
205/55 R 16 91 V D A 71
205/55 R 16 91 H B B 71
205/55 R 16 91 H C A 71
205/60 R 16 92 H C B 71
205/55 R 16 91 V C A 71
215/70 R 16 100 H C B 71
205/60 R 16 96 V XL B B 72
205/60 R 16 96 V XL C A 72
205/60R16 96 V XL C A 72
205/60R16 96 V XL C A 72
17 inch
215/55 R 17 94 V C A 71
215/55 R 17 94 V C A 71
215/55 R 17 94 V C A 71
215/55 R 17 94 V C A 71
215/55 R 17 94 W C A 71
215/55 R 17 94 W C A 71
235/65 R 17 104 V C B 71
225/60 R 17 99 H C A 71
215/55 R 17 94 V C A 71
215/55 R 17 94 W D A 71
225/60 R 17 99 V C A 71
215/55 R 17 94 V C A 71
235/65 R 17 104 V B B 71
225/60 R 17 99 H C A 71
235/65R17 104 V C B 71
View All Sizes and EU Label Scores for the Continental Premium Contact 5 >>

Questions and Answers for the Continental Premium Contact 5

Ask a question
May 26, 2018

Why does the Continental Premium Contact 5 have a different tire label rating in the size 195/50r15 when compared to more popular/conventional sizes? Is this an indication that in the less popular size 195/50r15 continental are supplying the last generation tire? I recall that the previous generation tire did not rate so well in Autoexpress's 2016 summer tire test.

The tire manufacturers update their patterns in staged rollouts. Like you suggest, it's most likely the fact the 195/50 R15 is a low volume size and hasn't had the latest updates the more popular sizes have had.
September 2, 2018

Just noticed on my Premcontact 5's that there are several "TWI" and "x" markings on the circumference of the sidewall. These mark the levels of the 1.6 mm TWI bars and another higher bar respectively. I am now down to the "higher" bar and have around 2.5 mm of tread left. Can't find info as to what these secondary "x" markings signify but seems to be a secondary TWI perhaps set at 2.6 mm or even 3 mm. Anyone know about this and what the depth is??

I don't know officially but I know Continental do recommend changing tires at 3mm due to the reduction in aquaplaning resistance so it would make sense it's somewhere around this depth.
November 4, 2018

Is there any difference between Continental Premium Contact 5 205/55/16 91V and 205/55/16 91H ? Also why's there more than one 205/55/16 91V tire for the same manufacturer ?

There might be some construction differences in order for the V rated tire to have the higher rating. Sometimes there is more than one option due to OE specific fitments or an updated version of the tire with a newer part number.
Ask a question

We will never publish or share your email address

captcha

To verify you are human please type the word you see in the box below.

Size Price Range  
Available in 1 tire sizes - View all.

Review Summary

Based on 100 user reviews

Most drivers rate the Continental Premium Contact 5 highly for strong wet and dry grip, safe braking, and good comfort/noise, making it a confidence-inspiring all-rounder. However, many report fast tread wear and some note reduced performance/noise as the tire ages, with a minority citing poor wet grip on certain OE fitments. Overall sentiment is positive given the high share of strong-scoring reviews.

Strengths
  • Wet grip
  • Dry grip
  • Braking performance
  • Comfort/ride quality
  • Low noise (when new)
  • Handling stability
Areas for Improvement
  • Fast tread wear
  • Performance drop/noise increase as they wear
  • Soft sidewalls/low feedback

Top 3 Continental Premium Contact 5 Reviews

Given 90% while driving a Toyota Auris (205/55 R16) on for 80,000 miles
In one word, perfect tire. I will buy 7 versions of the same series. I am very satisfied...
April 22, 2025
Given 94% while driving a Renault Sandero Life 1.0 (185/65 R15) on a combination of roads for 70,000 average miles
Excelent tires! they give excellent control feeling.
Also they have 110.000kms and still have for 10.000kms more.
October 27, 2024
Given 54% while driving a Volkswagen jetta 1.6 (205/55 R16) on a combination of roads for 5,000 average miles
Wet and Dry grip is not noticeable, very well made tire for the price. Too much negative understeer and swinging on the road. Feels like I'm driving on an air bubble, won't buy this ture again.
February 20, 2024

How would you rate the Continental Premium Contact 5?

Click a star to start your review

Latest Continental Premium Contact 5 Reviews

Given 93% while driving a BMW 325i (205/55 R16) on mostly town for 10,000 spirited miles
+: 1)Komfort 1)Soft 2)Road Grip 3)Braking distances 4)All is well in the wet 5)A little better for premium. //// -: 1)Noisy 2)Easy to cut 3)swinging 4)easily deformed 5)no choice R17-R18
September 1, 2022
Given 61% while driving a Renault Clio II 1.2 16v (175/65 R14) on a combination of roads for 20,000 average miles
Driven for 33.000km and down to 4mm. Progressive tire in the dry not so in the wet.
April 18, 2022
Given 46% while driving a Kia Motors Stonic (205/55 R17) on a combination of roads for 2,500 easy going miles
Original Equipment on all Kia Stonic models since 2017. Mine is a 2021 Stonic with a mild hybrid engine, but I mostly drive on Eco mode so acceleration is very gentle even with a heavy foot. I have done just under 2,500 miles with these and they reminded me immediately of the old Bridgestone RE040 I had as OE on my Mazda RX-8 over 16 years ago now... really precise and quick to respond in the dry and when up to temperature (track days were fun) but a deadly on cold and wet tarmac. The OW Conti Premium Contact 5 lose grip suddenly under braking, without warning. The ABS in particular struggles to keep them from skidding even at low speeds. They feel skittish in all but the driest of conditions. The ride is also uncomfortable compared to softer compound tires, as you would expect from a tire that was probably not really meant for this car, yet it's original equipment. I am so unhappy with them that I have already purchased a suitable replacement thanks to reviews from other Stonic owners.
November 25, 2021
Given 77% while driving a Honda CRV (255/65 R17) on mostly motorways for 12,000 average miles
These are great tires and made me feel safe and comfortable driving in any weather conditions here in Western Australia. Driving in the heavy winter rain is often challenging, and the summer sun makes the tarmac extremely hot and tough on any rubber. If it wasn't for the minimal mileage - 12,000miles (18,000km) and they are done - I would undoubtedly fit them again on my CR-V. My next set will be again a Continental, but I will test a set of UltraContact UC6.
September 24, 2021
Given 94% while driving a Opel Astra G (195/60 R15 H) on a combination of roads for 40,000 spirited miles
I am already at the second set of CPC5, I took the first set in 2015 and they lasted 4 years and about 40k km. I have never been disappointed by them regardless of the road and abuse :) I recommend them with confidence to those who want to go on a well-established model that offers you security and a smile on your face when necessary.
February 28, 2021
Given 74% while driving a Nissan Juke (215/55 R17 V) on a combination of roads for 50 average miles
2nd set of conti`s i bought for this car. I choose with conti seal because my Nissan doesn´t have a spare tire. Very strong tires, good for SUV. You forget the price you paid on the first emergency brake...
January 31, 2021
Given 41% while driving a Kia Motors Stonic (205/55 R17) on mostly motorways for 25,000 average miles
This is a review after 25kkm and 2 years of usage. I feel that after front had worn down to 5mm (4,8mm to be exact) and rear to 7mm (6,6mm to be exact) I can submit a good mid-life review. I believe these tires will be rotated next year and worn down to 3mm. I'll provide and end-use unless they get trashed before that. Short version of this review? These are the worst summer tires I have ever used. Period. They are worse than 8-year old 5mm used Fulda's I bought second-hand in 2009. They offered poor grip even when they were new, but with time their grip is getting even worse. These tires had been the factory fit for Kia Stonic. Maybe normal non-OEM are better but with a brand like Continental this should not be. Driving in wet conditions is straight-on dangerous. I am keeping extra distance, and get skidding on basically most cornering. Braking? Forget about it. I never, ever had a car that had constantly had ABS go off. Even with very, very worn used old tires! And I am driving less intensively in Stonic then with other cars - just because I know the grip is so lacking and the car is outrageously noisy at higher speeds (engine noise). In dry conditions these tires provide adequate grip only with sun-heated asphalt. With September colder weather the dry grip deteriorated - at 13 degrees Celsius in the morning. Basically I will have to rotate to winter tires sooner than later, since I believe with colder weather their dry grip will be even worse. Wear? Wear is outrageous. My driving style should bring the tires to wear down way slower. I have managed to get 110kkm out of Pirelli Cinturato P4 to 2,5-3mm thread and 60kkm out of Bridgestone ER300 to 4,5-5,5mm thread. Getting the mentioned wear in Continental tires is outrageous given that the Stonic has less HP and weight than other cars I used with the mentioned above tires. I drive mostly highways with little braking and stable speed to get the best mileage. I'd expect to be on the 6,5-7 mm at this level. I provide good notes for handling and comfort. They are not noisy and in general the handling is OK. They are predictable when skidding, but honestly this might be the Kia TC kicking in - I see the light flicker every single day I drive this car. Because of poor grip I do sometimes feel that the car is floating like a hovercraft with wet braking.
September 3, 2020
Given 77% while driving a Honda Civic 1.8 5 door (225/45 R17) on mostly motorways for 21,000 easy going miles
Overall happy with the tires. Good grip in dry, excellent in the wet. Handling ok. Seem to be a bit more noisy when driving in the dry. Used all year on different types of roads, mostly motorways at moderate speed. Once, sometimes twice a year we drive on the German autobahn(2-4k miles) and only then the speeds are a bit higher. The pair at the front is worn down to the markers after 21k miles, the pair at the rear will last a bit longer. Firestones tz300 lasted 32k miles, however, weren't as good in the wet as the continentals.
January 16, 2020
Given 87% while driving a Toyota (195/65 R15) on a combination of roads for 0 average miles
Excellent frame Dry and wet grip High stability rate Comfort and quiet control No gravel No Gasoline I have driver 50,000 km Its flaw is increased ductility
December 31, 2019
Given 66% while driving a Vauxhall Insignia CDTI SRI 160 (215/55 R17 V) on a combination of roads for 5,000 average miles
Bought this premium range tire and what a mistake. These tire are forever slipping in dry or wet conditions in dry weather handling is ok handling is sloppy as side walls are softer to reduce rolling resistance. In rain it's fairly similar but you get a kick of under steer and forever fighting it much preferred the set of Avon zv7's that came with the motor when i purchased it
December 11, 2019
Given 57% while driving a Kia Motors Stonic (205/55 R17) on a combination of roads for 0 easy going miles
Tires fitted from car manufacturer. 13000 km so far, basic tire. They don' t justify the "premium" (I imagine only the price is premium). Very good in dry conditions. Stong tire without damages. On the other hand they are noisy and in wet conditions not a trustworthy tire. ABS is energised very soon in rainny conditions. Slippery and no good in turns (wet). I think the most accurate review will be on 30000km
December 3, 2019
Given 46% while driving a Peugeot 307 (205/55 R16 V) on mostly town for 11,000 average miles
Had them on for approximately 15.000km for four years on mostly city driving. They were always inflated to 2,4bars all around as recommended by the vehicle manufacturer

They came down to 3,8mm of tread with no particular harsh driving or load for that matter.

I replaced them mainly due to comfort issues.

The pros:
- excellent grip in the dry
- excellent grip in the wet
- predictable handling
- normal price for a premium manufacturer

The cons:
- feedback, the steering wheel felt like it was sitting on an air bubble, regardless of road conditions.
- comfort, as after two years and about 7.500km they became rock solid, with no impact on grip, though
- aquaplanning, they were simply adequate, no exciting moments here
- wear, I guess there is a price to pay for excellent grip and here it comes. It's APPALING. Be prepared to see
rubber vanishing into thin air even with a mild driving style.

Conclusion : I wouldn't recommend them, mainly because of extremely high wear and lack of comfort
November 20, 2019
Rate the Continental Premium Contact 5