In this test I'll be comparing 7 of the most popular ultra high performance all season tires to find out which tire is best for you.
If you've read any of my previous all season tests, you'll be happy to know that six of the tires in this test I've never tested before, and they include the brand new Pirelli P Zero AS 3 Plus and the brand new Falken Azenis FK460AS. The tire I have tested before is one of the benchmarks of the segment, the Continental ExtremeContact DWS06+, so if you want to, you'll have a cross reference points to compare the tires in this test to the tires in the previous tests.
As always I'll be digging into the dry, wet, comfort and noise performance of the tires, then in a later test I'll be looking at the snow performance, to give you a really complete overview of the tires performances.
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 · 40% | ||
| Dry Braking | 50% | 20% |
| Dry Handling | 45% | 18% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 5% | 2% |
| Wet · 45% | ||
| Wet Braking | 50% | 22.5% |
| Wet Handling | 45% | 20.25% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 5% | 2.25% |
| Comfort · 10% | ||
| Subj. Comfort | 50% | 5% |
| Subj. Noise | 50% | 5% |
| Value · 5% | ||
| Value | 100% | 5% |
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.
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.
Subj. Noise
For subjective noise assessment, I drive at constant speeds across multiple surface types with the windows closed, ventilation off, and audio system off. I assess overall noise level, tonal quality, cavity boom, pattern noise, broadband roar, and sensitivity to both speed and road texture. Each tire is rated on a 1–10 scale and supported by written observations on noise character and annoyance.
Wear
I do not conduct tread wear testing myself; where wear is included in a programme, it is carried out by a contracted specialist test provider using either an on-road convoy method or an accelerated machine-based method. In convoy wear testing, multiple vehicles run a defined public-road route over an extended distance, with tread depth measured at intervals and tires rotated methodically to reduce positional and vehicle-specific effects. In accelerated machine wear testing, the tire is run on a specialized roadwheel or rough-surfaced drum system designed to simulate real-world wear under controlled load, speed, alignment, and force inputs. I then use the contracted provider's measured wear rate relative to the reference tire to estimate projected tread life.
Wet
Starting with the wet performance of the tires, this is arguably the most important aspect of the tires they're meant for year round use in areas get mild to moderate winters. In short, they'll see a lot of wet running, and wet is where the good tires separate themselves from the bad.
In last place was the Atlas Force UHP, which I believe is made by Linglong, a chinese company. This tire is the cheapest tire here, and might be sold as an all season tire, but it looks like a very summer bias tread pattern, so we will have to see how it does in the snow testing, but in the wet, it was both the slowest and my least favorite subjectively. It wasn't a total disaster, even on this 717bhp hellcat with all the driver aids turned off, however it did have noticably less grip laterally, even without seeing the lap times, and once it started sliding it took longer to recover.
Next up was the group of BFGoodrich, General and Vredestein, all in the 49 second bracket and while their lap times were close, they did feel fairly different to each other.
The BFGoodrich felt good when turning, but it didn't seem to stop or accelerate very easily, and was one of the tires more upset by the deeper pockets of water on track, and the General was a similar story, feeling slightly more sporty, but these are tiny differences, and again seemed to get upset by the deeper water.
The Vredestein on the other hand was a different feeling tire, it felt softer, more sluggish to turn, and offered less feedback than the previous two tires, but had zero issues with standing water. It was incredibly easy to be consistent driving it, two of the three laps I drove were identical and the last was two one hundredths of a second slower. Quite a result, but of the 7 tires, in the wet, it felt the least like a UHP tire and more like a touring tire.
Next up nearly a second ahead, which is a lot of time on this short lap was the new Falken. This tire felt good to steer, but it could have given me a little more detail at the limit through the steering wheel. Lots of grip, good quick steering but lacking the final few percent of detail at the limit. Good tire though and had good traction out of the corners. For an all season tire in the wet with a 717bhp RWD vehicle.
The second fastest lap time was posted by new Pirelli, feeling pretty similar to the new Falken. Perhaps not quite as direct to steer, but excellent grip and very good traction and brakes. As good as everything was with the Pirelli, I did find myself prone to making small mistakes when driving it, but I couldn't really tell you why, I think possibly a little detail missing on the front axle, and a slightly longer than ideal time for it to recover. But I'm really moaning over tiny details, you'll be happy with this tire.
And finally, the Continental, it's not a new tire, but it's still the best around wet handling. There were small amounts of hydroplaning, but the grip was immense, it turned really nicely, and was just an enjoyable all round experience.
Wet Handling
Wet handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 47.38 s | Best | |
| 47.83 s | +0.45 s | |
| 48.24 s | +0.86 s | |
| 49.14 s | +1.76 s | |
| 49.41 s | +2.03 s | |
| 49.66 s | +2.28 s | |
| 50.24 s | +2.86 s |
The difference between best and worst was 6% (2.86 s).
As for the wet braking test, I was happy to find out there was a pretty decent correlation between wet braking and wet handling, which is always nice as it's not always the way. In percentage terms, the falken edged even closer to the Pirelli and Continental, with the rest of the pack slipping slightly further back, so we're seeing a bit of a separation between the top 3 and the rest.
Wet Braking
Wet braking in feet
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 153 ft | Best | |
| 154 ft | +1 ft | |
| 155 ft | +2 ft | |
| 162 ft | +9 ft | |
| 166 ft | +13 ft | |
| 168 ft | +15 ft | |
| 172 ft | +19 ft |
The difference between best and worst was 12% (19 ft ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths).
Dry
The soft handling of the Vredestein in the wet was magnified in the dry, the tire just didn't appreciate going quickly and had lots of noisy understeer. It was also the worst in dry braking.
The General posted exactly the same time, and while it felt a little tighter than the Vredestein, it also felt a little imprecise on this Challenger.
Then came the BFGoodrich and the Atlas. Both felt more sporty, with the BFG just having a little more understeer, but as we know understeer is safe. The Atlas was a surprise, punching well above its weight in dry handling, but given it looks like a summer pattern, perhaps this all makes sense.
The final trio of tires were once again the Falken, Continental and Pirelli, in that order. Like in the wet, the Falken just needed a little more detail at the limit through the steering, the Continental felt great, and the Pirelli remained as fun as it's predecessor in the dry, and posted the best time overall.
Dry Handling
Dry handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 42.14 s | Best | |
| 42.27 s | +0.13 s | |
| 42.52 s | +0.38 s | |
| 42.75 s | +0.61 s | |
| 42.76 s | +0.62 s | |
| 43.17 s | +1.03 s | |
| 43.17 s | +1.03 s |
All the tires in the Dry Handling test finished less than 3% apart.
The Continental proved to be the best at stopping the car, with the Falken a close second and the new Pirelli third.
Dry Braking
Dry braking in feet
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 113 ft | Best | |
| 114 ft | +1 ft | |
| 115 ft | +2 ft | |
| 116 ft | +3 ft | |
| 118 ft | +5 ft | |
| 121 ft | +8 ft | |
| 125 ft | +12 ft |
The difference between best and worst was 10.7% (12 ft ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths).
Environment
Subj. Comfort
Subjective Comfort Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 100 Points | Best | |
| 98 Points | -2.00 Points | |
| 98 Points | -2.00 Points | |
| 98 Points | -2.00 Points | |
| 95 Points | -5.00 Points | |
| 95 Points | -5.00 Points | |
| 95 Points | -5.00 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 5% (5 Points).
Subj. Noise
Subjective in car noise levels
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 100 Points | Best | |
| 98 Points | -2.00 Points | |
| 98 Points | -2.00 Points | |
| 98 Points | -2.00 Points | |
| 98 Points | -2.00 Points | |
| 98 Points | -2.00 Points | |
| 95 Points | -5.00 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 5% (5 Points).
Price / Warranty
The Continental was the most expensive tire on test, with the Atlas being the cheapest.
The tires broadly offered a similar tread life warranty.
Wear
Predicted tread life in KM
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | cost per 1,000 miles |
|---|---|---|---|
| 31,069 miles | Best | $21.60 | |
| 31,069 miles | Best | $24.56 | |
| 31,069 miles | Best | $21.84 | |
| 31,069 miles | Best | $21.76 | |
| 31,069 miles | Best | $23.80 | |
| 27,962 miles | -3,107 miles | $25.78 | |
| 24,855 miles | -6,214 miles | $17.08 |
The difference between best and worst was 20% (6,214 miles). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Atlas Force UHP) works out $218 cheaper than the most expensive (BFGoodrich g Force COMP 2 AS Plus).
How this is calculated
Tire life here is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, NOT measured wear - treat it as the maker's promise, not a test result.
Tire life is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, not measured wear. Assumes $80 fitting per set of four. US prices are from the time of the 2023 test; financing costs are excluded.
Using the purchase price and warranty, we can work out a cost per 1,000 miles driven.
Value
Dollars/1000 miles based on mileage warranty
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 3.77 Price/1000 | Best | |
| 5 Price/1000 | +1.23 Price/1000 | |
| 5.04 Price/1000 | +1.27 Price/1000 | |
| 5.06 Price/1000 | +1.29 Price/1000 | |
| 5.55 Price/1000 | +1.78 Price/1000 | |
| 5.74 Price/1000 | +1.97 Price/1000 | |
| 6 Price/1000 | +2.23 Price/1000 |
The difference between best and worst was 59.2% (2.23 Price/1000).
Results
For the overall results I've been debating whether to include the treadwear warranty against the price to factor in a price per mile value figure, as while a tread wear warranty isn't a true wear test, in theory the tires should get there.
For these results I have, but there's a link below to the results page so you can play with it yourself and see what results you get.
Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 PLUS
275/40 R20 106Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (10)
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 / 7 | 113 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 42.27 s | +0.13 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 154 ft | +1 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 47.38 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 100 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 95 Points | -5.00 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 95 Points | -5.00 Points |
| WearHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 31,069 miles | Best in this discipline |
| ValueLower is better | 6th / 7 | 5.74 Price/1000 | +1.97 Price/1000 |
- UTQG
- 560 A A
- Weight
- 13.2 kgs
- Tread
- 7.15 mm
- Price
- 286.99
Pirelli P Zero AS+ 3
275/40 R20 106Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (10)
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 / 7 | 115 ft | +2 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 42.14 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 100 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 153 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 47.83 s | +0.45 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| WearHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 31,069 miles | Best in this discipline |
| ValueLower is better | 5th / 7 | 5.55 Price/1000 | +1.78 Price/1000 |
- UTQG
- 560 AA A
- Weight
- 14.21 kgs
- Tread
- 7.82 mm
- Price
- 277.60
Falken Azenis FK460 AS
275/40 R20 106Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (10)
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 / 7 | 114 ft | +1 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 42.52 s | +0.38 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 95 Points | -5.00 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 155 ft | +2 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 48.24 s | +0.86 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 95 Points | -5.00 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| WearHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 31,069 miles | Best in this discipline |
| ValueLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 5.04 Price/1000 | +1.27 Price/1000 |
- UTQG
- 500 A A
- Weight
- 15.12 kgs
- Tread
- 7.54 mm
- Price
- 252.00
Atlas Force UHP
275/40 R20 106Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (10)
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 / 7 | 116 ft | +3 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 42.76 s | +0.62 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 168 ft | +15 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 50.24 s | +2.86 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 92 Points | -8.00 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| WearHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 24,855 miles | -6,214 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 1st / 7 | 3.77 Price/1000 | Best in this discipline |
- UTQG
- 520 AA A
- Weight
- 14.52 kgs
- Tread
- 8.02 mm
- Price
- 150.99
Vredestein Hypertrac All Season
275/40 R20 106Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (10)
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 / 7 | 125 ft | +12 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 43.17 s | +1.03 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 92 Points | -8.00 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 162 ft | +9 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 49.14 s | +1.76 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 95 Points | -5.00 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 100 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 100 Points | Best in this discipline |
| WearHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 31,069 miles | Best in this discipline |
| ValueLower is better | 4th / 7 | 5.06 Price/1000 | +1.29 Price/1000 |
- UTQG
- 500 AA A
- Weight
- 14.02 kgs
- Tread
- 7.89 mm
- Price
- 253.13
General G Max AS 05
275/40 R20 106Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (10)
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 / 7 | 121 ft | +8 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 43.17 s | +1.03 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 92 Points | -8.00 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 166 ft | +13 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 49.66 s | +2.28 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| WearHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 31,069 miles | Best in this discipline |
| ValueLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 5 Price/1000 | +1.23 Price/1000 |
- UTQG
- 500 A A
- Weight
- 14.01 kgs
- Tread
- 7.8 mm
- Price
- 249.99
BFGoodrich g Force COMP 2 AS+
275/40 R20 106Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (10)
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 / 7 | 118 ft | +5 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 42.75 s | +0.61 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 172 ft | +19 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 49.41 s | +2.03 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 95 Points | -5.00 Points |
| Subj. NoiseHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 98 Points | -2.00 Points |
| WearHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 27,962 miles | -3,107 miles |
| ValueLower is better | 7th / 7 | 6 Price/1000 | +2.23 Price/1000 |
- UTQG
- 400 A A
- Weight
- 15.66 kgs
- Tread
- 7.16 mm
- Price
- 269.99
It's so much work and data. On the one hand we are thankful you did something.
But, not really. I know you maintain that you cannot control the weather. But, it's not applicable. And, IMO the ambient temperature of the wet road test was not even measured or disclosed. Also, based on your short-sleeve shirt, it was too high to be of any real-world use, since it's still a very safe situation to be driving on warm roads. Given that you are testing all-season tires, IMO this research was not useful. You should have done the test at 5am or something, or gone to a different location, waited until it was closer to January, etc.
Why did you leave out the Michelin Pilot Sport All Season 4 to compare to Pirelli pZero AS Plus 3 and Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 PLUS ???
This is a while back but I think it was explained in the comments of the video?
Legit question. This test is wackasaurus without the Michelins. They won YOUR previous ’22-’23 UHP all season tire test. Giving attitude to someone pointing out the obvious flaw in your test is weak sauce.
It was not meant as attitude, I couldn't remember if I'd explained it in the video, hence the question mark.
Roger that. I mentioned the Michelin cuz you’re the top G for tire comparisons and I depend on your reviews.
So, when does a premium All Season tire become a UHP All Season Tire? Who defines whether a tire is Premium, UHP or is it defined by the characteristics of the tire by the testers rather than the manufacturers :-)
Given this new generation of All season tires, and the fact that you can't buy the Michelin Pilot Sport all Season in Europe :-( , are any of these new all season tires UHP ? Would be great to have the Premium/UHP/UUHP classification of each tire included in the next test
Sorry Jonathan that may mean more work for you !
It's actually quite simple, UHP all season tires are an american product which aren't three peak marked, so can't be sold in europe mostly because europeans expect anything called all season to be 3peak marked.
No one has really released anything like a US uhp all season, falken and dunlop both have sporty all seasons which are three peak marked, but what is needed to make a tire three peak means they are no where near as performance as a UHP all season.
Great to know, Thank you
I am south UK based where we rarely get snow but am looking for an all season tire that I could use to go up into the Alps where I would need the 3PMSF potentially in bad weather or chains. I am still debating which All Season tire is best for on my Audi S4 Avant. All the tests suggest that the Michelin Crossclimate 2 is still the best all round tire even when you reduce snow percentage. I had been debating the Continental AllSeasonContact 2 (due out in my sizes later this year allegedly). The state of the roads here in the UK is so bad now that I am actually dropping down rim size from 19" 245/35 R19 to 18" 245/40 R18 as the potholes are dreadful and the extra 1/2" tire wall should help the ride quality and protect the rims. The debate is, is the MCC2 the best all Season tire for UK incremental weather or do I just wait on the Michelin Pilot Sport S 5 and pop all season tires on my 19" wheels for when I do into the Alps :-) Thoughts and opinions greatly appreciated.
You'll be waiting a while for the S5! My next all season test with the new conti, bridgestone, pirelli etc will be out in a few weeks, that might help.
Thank you so much Jonathan, I am eagerly awaiting your review as all your tests are excellent and I love your passion for tires. Looking at the reviews and extrapolating it would look like the Continental SportContact 7 is still going to outperform the MPS S5 anyway. Following on from your earlier reviews I have put the SportContact 7s on my wife's Audi S3 and it is absolutely superb. The Audi S4 is going to be used for long distance touring over the next 3 to 4 years so I am sorely tempted just to stick the SportContact 7s on that as well and if/when we go into the Alps address that problem when I come to it as it will only be for 1-2 months max. Having said that the new Bridgestone Turanza allseason 6 does look like it could be the perfect tire for UK wet weather where Snow is a rarity :-) Trust me when I say that I will not be buying new tires until I have read your next All Season tire review :-D