Continental Winter Contact TS 850 P SUV - Test Results

Test Statistics

8

Tests Completed

3^rd

Average Position

1^st

Best Result

7^th

Worst Result

Performance Analysis

Continental Winter Contact TS 850 P SUV - Official Image

The Continental Winter Contact TS 850 P SUV delivers consistently strong winter performance with an average overall position of 3 across eight tests, including a win (2016 AMS) and multiple podiums. Its standout traits are wet grip, snow capability, and efficiency, frequently placing top 3 in wet braking/handling and snow disciplines, paired with class-leading rolling resistance. Dry braking is the most recurrent shortfall, and aquaplaning resistance and price competitiveness can lag, particularly in certain sizes. Overall, it remains a balanced, safe winter SUV tire with proven all-round capability and efficiency, punctuated by a few discipline-specific weaknesses.

Performance Strengths

Wet Weather Performance Strong Details
• 3rd place wet braking in 2021 AZ (+2.4% from best)
• 2nd place wet braking in 2018 Auto Bild (+3.5% from best)
• 3rd place wet handling in 2021 AZ (+0.4% from best)
• 4th place wet handling in 2018 AZ (+3% from best)
Snow Performance Strong Details
• 1st place snow braking in 2018 Auto Bild
• 2nd place snow handling in 2021 AZ (+0.7% from best)
• 2nd place snow traction in 2018 AZ (+3.3% from best)
• Top-3 overall winter results in 2016 AMS (1/10), 2015 Auto Bild (3/8), 2018 Auto Bild (3/11)
Efficiency / Rolling Resistance Strong Details
• 1st place rolling resistance in 2021 AZ (7.3 kg/t)
• 1st place rolling resistance in 2018 AZ (7.03 kg/t)
• 2nd place rolling resistance in 2018 Auto Bild (+0.4% from best)
• Article: "lowest fuel use" noted in 2018 AZ and 2021 AZ
Overall Consistency / Awards Strong Details
• Overall 1st in 2016 AMS (1/10)
• Overall 2nd in 2016 AutoBild 4x4 (2/8)
• Overall 2nd in 2018 AZ (2/9)
• Average overall position 3 across 8 tests
Dry Handling Moderate Details
• 3rd place dry handling in 2021 AZ (+1.4% from best)
• Competitive dry handling speed in 2018 Auto Bild (8/11, +3.3% from best) despite weak braking

Performance Weaknesses

Dry Braking Strong Details
• 7th place dry braking in 2021 AZ (+4.2% from best)
• 6th place dry braking in 2018 AZ (+3.4% from best)
• 9th place dry braking in 2018 Auto Bild (+22% from best)
Aquaplaning Resistance Moderate Details
• 8th place straight aquaplaning in 2021 AZ (+10.4% from best)
• 11th place straight aquaplaning in 2018 Auto Bild (+13.7% from best)
• 2nd place in 2018 AZ shows variability across sizes
Value / Price Competitiveness Strong Details
• 9th place price in 2021 AZ (+47.4% from best)
• 8th place price in 2018 AZ (+140.7% from best)
• 6th place price in 2018 Auto Bild (+80% from best)
Noise/Comfort Moderate Details
• 7th place noise in 2021 AZ (+4.3% from best)
• 7th place noise in 2018 Auto Bild (+3.7% from best)
Size-Specific Variability Moderate Details
• Overall 7/16 in 2017 ADAC 215/65 R16 vs. 1/10 in 2016 AMS 215/60 R17
• Aquaplaning swings from 2nd (2018 AZ) to last (2018 Auto Bild)