Alfa Romeo 156 2.0 TS Veloce Tires

On this page you will find the best real world tire reviews from owners of the Alfa Romeo 156 2.0 TS Veloce.

Do you Drive a Alfa Romeo 156 2.0 TS Veloce? Why not add your own tire review and help other owners pick the right tire! After all, who knows what the best tire for a 156 2.0 TS Veloce better than the owners?

Tire Reviewed Dry Grip Wet Grip Feedback Handling Wear Comfort
Bridgestone Turanza T001 Evo (6) 92% 88% 88% 88% 80% 94%
Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125 (103) 89% 82% 80% 79% 81% 80%
Bridgestone Adrenalin RE002 (107) 90% 82% 82% 80% 77% 77%
Dunlop SP Sport Fast Response (103) 88% 84% 84% 77% 76% 80%
Avon ZV5 (111) 84% 79% 78% 78% 72% 78%
Avon ZV7 (109) 84% 80% 74% 73% 66% 79%
Pirelli CINTURATO P7 (172) 83% 73% 73% 75% 70% 73%
Continental Premium Contact 2 (197) 84% 77% 76% 73% 62% 73%
Yokohama BluEarth AE50 (34) 74% 68% 68% 69% 61% 68%
Nankang NS2 (211) 76% 58% 65% 62% 73% 62%
Accelera Alpha (128) 65% 44% 53% 49% 69% 57%
Linglong L688 (29) 43% 24% 32% 30% 53% 37%

Alfa Romeo 156 2.0 TS Veloce Tire Review Highlights

Writing about the Yokohama BluEarth AE50 given 73% (225-40-18-)
Driving on a combination of roads for 5000 average miles
Tire is set more towards economy than performance but still offers good handling. I was surprised how well it copes in the wet conditions I am driving on coilovers and after replacing the Pirelli P7s I was very much surprised how comfy they are.
tire reviewed on 2020-04-30 13:12:28
Writing about the Bridgestone Turanza T001 Evo given 70% (205-55-16-V)
Driving on a combination of roads for 20000 average miles
I went with the T001Evos because at the time they were a good price. The only branded tire of note which was cheaper was Avon ZV7. (Hankook, Pirelli and loads of supposedly mid range tires were more.)

These Bridgestones have lasted 20k so far but only 5k on the front. Comparitively, I have found better wearing tires as I seem to wear tires quickly in the winter months. That must be a sign that I can get close to their limits. They are quiet, comfortable and stable and have performed largely well. I didn't go for the T005s as the T001 Evos are quieter. They ride nicely so could be a good choice for those who value comfort highly.

Outright cornering grip is ok and feedback is ok when it is remembered they are touring tires. I find they lack bite into corners but strangely this subjectively improves with speed.

What I have found now they are just below 4mm tread depth on the front is that they trigger the ABS when even lightly check braking on smooth asphalt when there is a film of water. I hadn't noticed any great aquaplaning issues going straight or cornering but they are notably poor whilst braking. My point here is that over their lifetime, these tires which are A rated for wet braking simply do not perform how their rating suggests. This has been something I've long noted in regards to how new European tire labelling can be very misleading. To put this in some context, I've noted another family car which has 195/65R15 Yokohama C-Drive 2 tires which are C rated are definitely superior in this respect (they also have 3.5mm of tread depth).

Right now, I have noted the Bridgestone's weak point and drive accordingly but it does mean I won't take the chance of running them right down simply because under certain conditions they will render the brakes ineffective.

It is a shame because I like Bridgestones for my motorbike but I concede Bridgestone were noted for having wet performance issues which were addressed with the T005s.

A way around this could be to move the tires to the rear again but this could have safety implications (worn tires are subjectively better in the dry, new tires subjectively better in the wet- which is why I fit new pairs to the rear).

In short they are good but have a glaring shortcoming which is not typical of the rounded performance of tires from a Premium manufacturer. They still may be a good buy providing people are aware and act accordingly AND the purchase price is towards the low end of the mid-range scale. All said and done, I think they are still considerably better than most low cost tires which typically have major performance issues when worn.
tire reviewed on 2018-12-19 16:53:14
Writing about the Avon ZV7 given 78% (205-55-16-V)
Driving on a combination of roads for 16000 miles
These are a decent tire which wear well. Ride quality is a plus point also as is low noise but they are less good over rougher surfaces. I also found wet grip and wet roadholding to be decent if uninspiring.

The AV7s do have negative points as well though. The tire slip angles seem high which manifest as a generally unreactive and imprecise, albeit less so, tire. Similarly, dry roadholding is not great (but not terrible either) and it is not hard to have the ZV7s squeal with even somewhat enthusiastic use.

Issues aside; these are a performance per £ bargain. They are a forgiving enough tire and therefore safe which provide decent enough feedback. They do what is intended. That is; the ZV7 is an impressive touring tire which has no sporting pretentions. It is absolutely safe, wears well and is quiet and smooth and performs subjectively better in the wet. All this for a tenner more than a cheap and nasty alternative mean the ZV7 is a good tire which I suspect people will like more than professional test scores suggest.
tire reviewed on 2018-07-16 05:14:20
Writing about the Pirelli CINTURATO P7 given 90% (205-55-16-V)
Driving on a combination of roads for 17000 average miles
This is an end of life review in addition to previous. In short these Pirellis are grippy, smooth, controllable and wear very well. The recent snow is what prompted me to change (this time for Bridgestone Turanza T001 Evo) after 17000 miles on the front only with 2.5mm of tread remaining. It would have been better if I'd realised an auto centre had set the geometry correctly (for sports suspension).

I like the green credentials- light weight, less materials in construction yet a strong carcass means low unsprung weight so good ride quality yet they still grip. Braking, aquaplaning resistance and cornering are all commendable aspects for these hard wearing Cinturatos which come with 9mm of tread when new. Indeed, due to the unusually deep tread, I wish I'd fitted them to the less stressed rear wheels when new as that would pay huge dividends in tire life.

I'm trying marginally quieter tires this time which are still very lightweight but not so light that the carcass deforms and shoulder wear results (Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance). Look for tire weights on Amazon under product details as a guide. However, I have found I greatly like these Pirellis and I would heartily recommend them as a vice free touring tire. They are a refreshing change to the rather short lived, harsh and noisy tires Continental have offered for far too long now. The Pirellis also work very well for the enthusiastic driver and stand up to punishment well. The only negative aspect is slightly blunted steering response but otherwise they really are very good indeed and I say if you are considering them just give them a try. There is nothing to lose.
tire reviewed on 2018-01-21 13:14:04
Writing about the Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125 given 86% (225-45-17-)
Driving on a combination of roads for 22000 spirited miles
I decided to try these as I previously had a complete set of Ventus Prime 2 K115 and the promise of being a little more sporting was appealing. Both the 2s and 3s are good tires IMO when it is remembered they are touring tires and not track biased in any way.

The first thing anyone will notice is noise and comfort. Surprisingly, the 3s are actually a set backwards. The 2s are noticeably quieter and round off road imperfections more effectively. In this department, both are superior to the heavy Conti Premium Contact 2s. The Kook 2s are almost as good as the lightweight Pirelli P7 Cinturatos with regard to comfort which on my other 156.

Next is response and feedback. The Ventus Prime 3s are a small improvement over the 2s in this respect. The 2s are obviously aimed more for comfort. The 3s are similar to the Pirellis but not as good as the Contis which need less lock to get round bends. The 2s are adequate but not inspiring.

Handling. I thought I'd have more to say given the crazy angles I've put the 156s round bends but they appear to be safe and manageable. Perhaps that is in itself great praise. Contrast that with the Contis which become messy, inaccurate and totally lack adjustability and either of the Kooks really do shape up to look controllable in extremis. They are perhaps not as good as the Pirellis though. The only criticism I have for the 3s is that cold weather does drop off a little (as it does with all summer tires). In this area, for once, the Contis make sense. However, the good handling means it is easily manageable and the reduction is in no way concerning.

Wear. I'd say the 3s have it. I can't be sure but now the 3s have less than 3mm and over 20k miles (a first for me) I think the 3s are a particularly durable tire. My impressions of the 2s wear I though wear was on the high side but I didn't mind. I did mind having to rub loads of tire black into the tiny sidewall ribs of the 2s though... Another thing about these tires, notably the 3s is how well they preserve the grip and handling characteristics when they are worn. Budget tires cannot do this and become terrible (a set of Vredestein Sportrac 3s became decidedly psychotic- yet were winning tire tests). They may not be up to Michelin Pilot levels in this respect but they do perform convincingly even when worn so can go right to the 1.6mm.

In short, either variant is recommended. The 2s are quieter and more comfortably and the 3s feel a little more sporting even though there is not much difference in outright grip.
tire reviewed on 2017-09-08 23:31:25
Writing about the Bridgestone Adrenalin RE002 given 69% (205-55-16-V)
Driving on a combination of roads for 10000 spirited miles
I was able to buy these without going to a specialist supplier. My impressions of these suggest that selling them mainstream may have been a mistake. Irrespective, I wanted to try them for myself so I ended up with a complete set. A deer wrote my car off before they were totally done though.

They have a nice crisp steering response and good feedback. Cornering grip was very good but less so in the wet. I found them to generally behave very well with no upsets. Breakaway and recovery was always easily managed and for that they can be recommended.

They have shortcomings though. When new, the tread depth was only just above 6mm (sporting tire). Aquaplaning resistance was very poor though. Indeed, I used them in snow once. It gave new meaning to 'absolutely no grip'. They are very heavy so transmit every bump into the cabin and even tiny road imperfections could clearly be detected. Wear was not good and I'd sum them up as not good for a daily driver. For a toy they're not bad but I believe there are better options available which don't have anything like the RE002's drawbacks.

Not a bad tire but it should have been marketed more accurately and having mainstream autocentres fitting them as a mainstream performance tire certainly had it's drawbacks and I imagine some damage was done to the Bridgestone brand name for that reason.
tire reviewed on 2017-09-06 21:48:59
Writing about the Pirelli CINTURATO P7 given 90% (205-55-16-V)
Driving on for 5000 spirited miles
. Grip, handling, ride and noise are all very good. Although I've only had them on for just over 2 months, I've covered 5000 miles. So far, life seems good. Even allowing for wear, they are much better than the Continental Premium Contact 2 tires they replaced. The Contis never had the grip, even when almost new that the Pirellis have. The Pirellis ride way smoother and are very noticeably quieter. They are predictable when pushed which the Contis never were. These Pirellis have always been light which is why they reduce unsprung weight which helps ride quality immensely.

I cannot comment on low temperature performance as yet but they are not as true tracking as the Continental tires and even cruising, the Pirellis need a little more steering lock in bends. The plus side of that is that when the limit is approached, there is still plenty of scope for line and attitude adjustment. In any case, even if and when performance does tail off when these Pirellis are worn, it should still hopefully be quite acceptable.

I really like these tires as they ride so smoothly and quietly yet they still manage to perform very well indeed. I find them quieter than the nose rating of 71dB suggests but that will vary car to car. Aquaplaning resistance has been exceptional but they are still new so again, I cannot comment what they are like when worn. How much performance tails off varies greatly over a tire's life and I hope these Pirellis are well enough developed to avoid the shocking tail off which is common to so many budget tires.
tire reviewed on 2017-09-06 08:24:55
Writing about the Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125 given 81% (205-55-16-V)
Driving on a combination of roads for 20000 spirited miles
I've found these to be a well balanced touring tire which I can recommend. Tire life is good and although they have been on the front and rear, there is still over 3mm on them after 20000 miles of sometimes very spirited progress.

For a touring tire, grip is about as good as can be reasonably expected which is less than that of a sports focused tire for obvious reasons. However, last winter I found the cold weather performance to suffer more than the Continental Premium Contact 2 tires at the other end. The Hankooks are not terrible in this respect but not as good as some. However, they remained stable, predictable and controllable so there was never cause for alarm.

Although they tend to have fairly large slip angles (not as true tracking as some tires), grip and tire life seems notably good. In short, not quite up to Pirelli P7 Cinturatos but they are cheaper and only slightly not as good.
Definitely good value for money and a good performing tire which is only slightly let down by its aquaplaning resistance. Good in all other respects.
tire reviewed on 2017-09-06 02:08:37
Writing about the Continental Premium Contact 2 given 64% (205-55-16-V)
Driving on a combination of roads for 20000 miles
In short, I've found better options out there. Although these are now an old tire, I still see them being offered and even fitted to some 16 plate cars as OE fitment. I'm not sure why as I've found these to be quite noisy and impart a certain sharpness to the ride which both Hankoik Ventus Prime 3 K125 and more notably Pirelli P7 Cinturato tires seem to round off a lot better.

For a touring tire, the Contis are impressively reactive and require less steering lock than many others. However, the negative side is that at the limit they lose grip suddenly and there is little scope for adjustment to the line. Used as such, they make the handling untidy at best and certainly less stable than others. I think these tires demonstrate German engineering ethos in that they are generally well rounded up to about 8 tenths but after that the shortcomings become apparent.

Tire life seems good. They were on the car for 20000 miles in both rear and front positions. Resistance to aquaplaning is quite good as is damp and cold weather cornering. As such, these older mid-performing tires may still make sense if they are discounted sufficiently.
tire reviewed on 2017-09-06 01:44:48
Writing about the Accelera Alpha given 31% (205-50-16-V)
Driving on a combination of roads for 5000 spirited miles
Once again, I bought a car which the previous owner tried to ruin by fitting very poor tires. These may not be the worst tires I've ever tried but in comparison to my other Alfa 156 which runs Pirelli P7 Cinturato tires, these are truly poor.

The biggest issue is that until the front tires wore down enough, the rear was unstable in both wet and dry conditions. Many of the suspension arms were new, the others good and even playing with the suspension geometry offered no improvement. The car runs straight and true but these tires are just so poor. It is hard to gauge grip as feedback is poor and breakaway and recovery is not very controllable, enjoyable or recommended. Traction and braking are notably poor aspects.

Ride comfort and noise is not great and slightly worse than the Continental Premium Contact 2 tires which were previously on the other 156. All tires went out of balance and have been rebalanced with quite a lot of balance weights which I usually take as a sign of poor construction.

Wear is irrelevant but I'd say quite poor. In any case, the tires' reduction in already poor performance means I just won't take the chance to wear these right down to the same level I would with premium brands or decent mid range tires like Hankook.

My advice is either pay more for Hankook or Pirelli touring tires or just simply save money and buy cheaper and better Rovelo tires which I can honestly say are superior to these.
tire reviewed on 2017-09-06 01:27:28
Writing about the Bridgestone Adrenalin RE002 given NAN% (225-40-18-)
Driving on a combination of roads for 12000 spirited miles
Yes, would buy again ( and will ), very good dry & wet grip.
Steering response likewise, I never tried a road tire with
that kind of traction, that*s for sure !
I drive a Alfa 156 SuperTurismo lookalike / Dan
tire reviewed on 2016-12-05 06:40:14
Writing about the Avon ZV5 given 44% (225-55-16-W)
Driving on mostly country roads for 300 average miles
These tires lasted just 3,000 miles on the back of a front wheel drive car. They were not cheap so I contacted Avon who has the most brilliant customer service. Within 24 hours they had arranged for me to have a 4 ZZ3 fitted free of charge.

The tire didn't work for me but Avon looked after me so well. They sent a rep down to the tire place to collect the tires and be sure the fresh ones were fitted FOC. Only 2 were worn but they replaced 4.

I doubt the result would have been the same if they were a Eastern European or Asian manufacturer.
tire reviewed on 2013-01-05 12:10:07
Drive this car? Why not add your own tire review and help other owners pick the right tire