There's a new tire on the market aiming to be the best of the best performance summer tires. The Pirelli P Zero PZ5 is designed to take on the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S, Continental SportContact 7, Bridgestone Potenza Sport, Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 and more, but can the latest UUHP summer tire on the market really move the game on in both handling AND grip? There's only one way to find out - testing!
To find out if the new PZ5 is as good as Pirelli claim, I have tested it against all the tires mentioned above, and the Falken Azenis FK520 and a budget tire. I've put all seven sets of tires through dry and wet testing, and I've looked into the noise, comfort and rolling resistance levels of each set of tires to ensure you have all the information needed to make the correct purchase decision.
Have a read of the data, and any questions please let me know in the comments at the end of the page.
Testing Methodology
Test Driver
Jonathan Benson
Tire Size
225/40 R18
Test Location
Professional Proving Ground
Test Year
2025
Tires Tested
7
Show full testing methodologyHide methodology
Every tire is tested using calibrated instrumented measurement and structured subjective assessment. Reference tires are retested throughout each session to correct for changing conditions, ensuring fair, repeatable comparisons. Multiple reference sets are used where needed so that control tire wear does not affect accuracy.
We use professional-grade testing equipment including GPS data loggers, accelerometers, and calibrated microphones. All tires are broken in and conditioned before testing begins. For full details on our equipment, preparation process, and calibration procedures, see our complete testing methodology.
Categories Tested
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 analyse 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 behaviour 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
Objective data is only part of the picture, so 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 behaviour, 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 analyse 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 behaviour 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
Objective data is only part of the picture, so 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 behaviour, 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.
Curved Aquaplaning
For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 metres in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.
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.
Noise
I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.
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.
While you might not personally think wet grip is your highest priority, that's why you can go to the tire reviews website to change the final score weighting to get the best tire for you, wet performance is key to both safety, and winning tests, which is why tire manufacturers focus a lot of their effort on it.
Well, at least most tire manufacturers, The budget brand in this test named itself sunny, and I can only assume it's because they only care about sunny days, because you don't have any grip when it's raining. The sunny was in no way sporty, the only tire to give me scare myself levels of oversteer in this mk8 gti, which generally never wants to oversteer anymore (sad face) and the steering was rubbish and elasticity.
The rest of the tires, given the group, you should know were good. In fact, I'd argue the rest of the tires were great, but some more great than others.
Michelin and goodyear were paired up, just half a second apart. The Michelin, as usual, didn't feel overly sporty and you could watch your delta time bleed away in the long corners due to the understeer in the tire, but otherwise it was stable and safe. This is now the oldest of the group, and it shows, I'm excited to get the next version to aftermarket, whenever that will be, as I know they're improving it greatly.
The Goodyear once again worked very well with the GTI, but surprisingly, like the Michelin, you could feel the step down in grip compared to the best of the test. Also like the Michelin it is one of the older tires in the test, so while the goodyear was still fun, it's no longer the very best.
Then you had what I'm calling a double surprise, the Falken and Continental. Since driving, I've looked at other tests of the FK520 it's not been this good in the wet, but today it very much was, verified by a second driver who I asked to run the field. The Falken wasn't the most sporty but it was incredibly grippy, incredibly stable and very easy to drive fast. Excellent job on the 520, a big step up from the 510 it replaces.
The Continental was great as usual, fast, but I found a little bit too much understeer to really attack compared to the best. A very nice tire as always, but there's some new boys in town.
The newest tire in this test, the Pirelli P Zero PZ5 was fantastic. It felt like the big brother of the Goodyear, which is a tire I always loved the handling ok. Great steering, lovely balance, noticeably more grip than all the tires behind it, where I was bleeding time to reference with the Michelin I was gaining it with the Pirelli, honestly it felt like no tire could be faster or better suited to the car, it was a fantastic experience.
That was, until I drove the Potenza Sport. In all my years of tire testing I have never had an experience like that. It felt like I was playing a computer game, suddenly everything was digital and the fact the track was wet meant nothing, I could take massive liberties I could only dream of before. If a tire company ever put a full wet race compound into a road tire, this is what I imagine it would feel like.
Wet Handling
Spread: 22.89 s (23%)|Avg: 105.42 s
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Bridgestone Potenza Sport
99.34 s
Pirelli P Zero PZ5
101.91 s
Continental SportContact 7
102.51 s
Falken Azenis FK520
102.90 s
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
104.29 s
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
104.77 s
Sunny NA305
122.23 s
You'd be happy with any of them in wet braking, apart from of course, the sunny. The Pirelli jumped up to best, but there was only 3.8% covering the top six which is a very close result. In the deeper water of aquaplaning, the Goodyear was the best overall, and the Pirelli again did a great job.
Wet Braking
Spread: 8.94 M (39.8%)|Avg: 24.11 M
Wet braking in meters (80 - 5 km/h) (Lower is better)
Pirelli P Zero PZ5
22.48 M
Falken Azenis FK520
22.57 M
Bridgestone Potenza Sport
22.80 M
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
23.08 M
Continental SportContact 7
23.09 M
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
23.33 M
Sunny NA305
31.42 M
On average the Goodyear and Pirelli were the best in the deeper water of the aquaplaning tests, with the budget tire performing surprisingly badly in what is usually an easy test.
Straight Aqua
Spread: 3.10 Km/H (4.1%)|Avg: 73.89 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
Falken Azenis FK520
75.50 Km/H
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
75.20 Km/H
Pirelli P Zero PZ5
74.00 Km/H
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
73.50 Km/H
Bridgestone Potenza Sport
73.30 Km/H
Continental SportContact 7
73.30 Km/H
Sunny NA305
72.40 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
Spread: 0.62 m/sec2 (19.7%)|Avg: 2.92 m/sec2
Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
3.15 m/sec2
Pirelli P Zero PZ5
3.14 m/sec2
Bridgestone Potenza Sport
3.00 m/sec2
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
2.96 m/sec2
Falken Azenis FK520
2.95 m/sec2
Continental SportContact 7
2.69 m/sec2
Sunny NA305
2.53 m/sec2
Dry
For the budget Sunny tire, I can be brief - it wasn't good. With significant understeer, poor rear stability, and slow lap times, let's move on to tires you might actually consider.
The Falken FK520 felt solid in sublimit situations like lane changes, making it predictable and safe but not particularly exciting. It delivered good grip with a nice safe balance, just without the sporty character some drivers might want.
The Michelin Pilot Sport 4S and Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 were both excellent. The Michelin featured slightly lighter steering than the Goodyear, especially in sublimit handling, with everything happening predictably. In this size, it performed very well with only a small desire for more front axle bite. The Goodyear, one of my favorites, did everything well. While perhaps slightly behind the Michelin in sublimit scenarios, at the limit it felt connected - you were truly one with the vehicle, with every expected behavior materializing exactly as anticipated.
The final three tires - Continental SportContact 7, Bridgestone Potenza Sport, and Pirelli P Zero PZ5 - were the best of the test, all wonderful but with subtle differences. The Continental offered monumental grip and precise steering in sublimit driving, but lacked a touch of stability when really pushing in corners. The Bridgestone had incredible grip and steering response, but its drawback was slightly reduced feedback at corner entry and mid-corner when modulating throttle to tuck the nose. The Pirelli felt a bit light in the steering sublimit, but once into the corner, it dug in beautifully with predictable, lovely handling characteristics.
The lap times between these top three were virtually identical - the first laps of the Pirelli and Bridgestone were identical, though the Bridgestone lost slightly more time on the second lap. The gap is so small that subjective preference becomes more important than timing differences. All three were amazing in their own ways, with slightly different personalities but equivalent overall performance.
The quality of modern performance tires is simply outstanding - there's never been a better time to be a tire enthusiast with such high performance across the board.
Dry Handling
Spread: 4.53 s (5.5%)|Avg: 82.94 s
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Pirelli P Zero PZ5
81.83 s
Bridgestone Potenza Sport
81.84 s
Continental SportContact 7
81.96 s
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
82.47 s
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
82.82 s
Falken Azenis FK520
83.33 s
Sunny NA305
86.36 s
The Continental edged out the Pirelli in dry braking by just 0.4%, in another incredibly close braking test, in fact there once again less than 4% covering the top 6, highlighting just how close this test is.
Dry Braking
Spread: 5.71 M (17.2%)|Avg: 34.44 M
Dry braking in meters (100 - 5 km/h) (Lower is better)
Continental SportContact 7
33.11 M
Pirelli P Zero PZ5
33.25 M
Falken Azenis FK520
33.67 M
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
33.74 M
Bridgestone Potenza Sport
34.20 M
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
34.26 M
Sunny NA305
38.82 M
Comfort
The quietest tire on test was the Goodyear, very closely followed by the Falken. Then Pirelli and Continental did well, Bridgestone was fine and the Michelin and Sunny finished just over 2db louder than the Goodyear. Not insignificant, but also not huge considering this is an external noise measurement. I didn't notice anything in the car.
For comfort, Pirelli, Conti and Michelin had a small lead over Falken and Goodyear, with the Bridgestone, as usual, just a little firmer than the rest.
Subj. Comfort
Spread: 1.50 Points (15%)|Avg: 9.57 Points
Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
10.00 Points
Continental SportContact 7
10.00 Points
Pirelli P Zero PZ5
10.00 Points
Sunny NA305
9.50 Points
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
9.50 Points
Falken Azenis FK520
9.50 Points
Bridgestone Potenza Sport
8.50 Points
Noise
Spread: 2.50 dB (3.5%)|Avg: 72.67 dB
External noise in dB (Lower is better)
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
71.20 dB
Falken Azenis FK520
71.70 dB
Pirelli P Zero PZ5
72.20 dB
Continental SportContact 7
73.10 dB
Bridgestone Potenza Sport
73.30 dB
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
73.50 dB
Sunny NA305
73.70 dB
Value
The budget Sunny had the lowest rolling resistance which is neat. Anyway. Of the tires that actually had grip the Goodyear and Michelin had the lowest energy use, however the Continental, Pirelli and Falken were so close I would in NO WAY base my purchase decision on energy use. Apart from the Bridgestone, it was 30% worse than the best in a shockingly high result.
Best in the dry overall, blended wet braking, handling and deeper water aquaplaning tests extremely well, excellent comfort, good rolling resistance.
Steering a little light in the 18" size.
The newest tire in the test has turned out to be the best tire in this test!
The new Pirelli P Zero PZ5 was the best overall in the dry, even if the steering was a touch lighter at the very limit, joint best in the wet, scoring well in both the shallow and deep water tests, and had excellent comfort, though the margins were small. Its rolling resistance was higher than the Goodyear, Michelin and Continental, but it would be an insignificant amount in the real world. Great job Pirelli, the new PZ5 is now leading the UUHP / max performance segment.
Excellent in the dry with the shortest dry braking, good in wet braking and handling, excellent noise and comfort, good rolling resistance.
Average aquaplaning performance, front / rear balance not as ideal in the 18" size.
The Continental SportContact 7 was once again right at the front of yet another test, having huge amounts of grip in the dry, excellent comfort, and nice quick steering. In this 18" size on the Golf it wasn't quite as well balanced around the limit as I remember the 19" fitment, but even with average aquaplaning performance it's still right at the front in the overall results, so another fantastic option.
Well rounded tire in the dry and wet, excellent comfort, safe handling balance, low rolling resistance.
Understeer at the limit.
The Michelin Pilot Sport 4S is another really well rounded tire, super safe and dynamic, especially sub limit where the steering is really nice. At the limit it still isn't quite the sportiest of the bunch, but if you're not going on track a lot, it's a really difficult tire to not recommend.
Excellent in the dry with best balance, good in the wet with excellent aquaplaning resistance, lowest noise, low rolling resistance.
A tiny bit behind in braking.
The Goodyear, as always, is a super nice tire to drive, it didn't quite match the best in braking, but in handling, comfort, noise and rolling resistance, it was there. I really like this tire, and of all the top four it's usually the cheapest. It's really fantastic.
Good grip in the dry and wet, good aquaplaning resistance, low noise, safe handling balance.
Felt more like a sports touring tire than an ultra high performance product.
The Falken Azenis FK520 performed well in the grip tests, was low noise, and the best in straight aquaplaning. It did struggle a little more in curved aquaplaning and wasn't at the very top in comfort, but I'd definitely call it a solid, safe tire. The main drawback for me is that it's not a very dynamic tire, so while you have good grip it's not much fun using it, so if you consider yourself a driver, keep that in mind, but for an everyday application it offers good value.
Rolling resistance so high it can no longer be produced in the EU, lower levels of comfort than the best in test, high wear on track.
The Bridgestone potenza sport might have been amazing in the wet, and as always a nice handling tire, but the rolling resistance level of this tire was not just awkwardly high, but it is now being legislated out of production in the EU thanks to new label targets, making this test of it a little redundant.
Also as we've seen plenty before, the outer shoulder of this tire did not hold up well to track work, so I hope any update they make to improve the rolling resistance will address this issue too.
I really like the Potenza Sport as a fast road tire as it steers so nicely. If they can fix the rolling resistance and track wear without changing the sporty nature of the tire it could easily end up as one of my favourite tires.
It will be no surprise that the budget Sunny NA305 finished in last place, and was the worst in everything bar NVH and rolling resistance, and it wasn't just a little bit worse, 40% off in wet braking is tragic. When braking from motorway speeds, where you'd be stopped on the Pirelli, you'd still be doing 70 km/h on the sunny. That's bad. Think about hitting a stationary car at 70 km/h!.
