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.
Test setup & methodology
The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.
Show full testing methodology
Recorded test conditions
- Dry Braking
- 62.1 → 3.1 mph
- Wet Braking
- 49.7 → 3.1 mph
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 · 35% | ||
| Dry Braking | 50% | 17.5% |
| Dry Handling | 40% | 14% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 10% | 3.5% |
| Wet · 40% | ||
| Wet Braking | 40% | 16% |
| Wet Handling | 30% | 12% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 10% | 4% |
| Straight Aqua | 10% | 4% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 10% | 4% |
| Comfort · 10% | ||
| Subj. Comfort | 50% | 5% |
| Noise | 50% | 5% |
| Value · 15% | ||
| Rolling Resistance | 100% | 15% |
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.
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 meters 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.
Wet
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
Wet handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 99.34 s | Best | |
| 101.91 s | +2.57 s | |
| 102.51 s | +3.17 s | |
| 102.9 s | +3.56 s | |
| 104.29 s | +4.95 s | |
| 104.77 s | +5.43 s | |
| 122.23 s | +22.89 s |
The difference between best and worst was 23% (22.89 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
Wet braking in feet (50 - 3 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 74 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 74 ft | 0 ft | 5 mph | |
| 75 ft | +1 ft | 9 mph | |
| 76 ft | +2 ft | 13 mph | |
| 76 ft | +2 ft | 13 mph | |
| 77 ft | +3 ft | 15 mph | |
| 103 ft | +29 ft | 43 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 39.8% (29 ft ≈ 2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Sunny NA305 would still be travelling at 43 mph when the Pirelli P Zero PZ5 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
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
Float Speed in mph
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 46.9 mph | Best | |
| 46.7 mph | -0.2 mph | |
| 46.0 mph | -0.9 mph | |
| 45.7 mph | -1.2 mph | |
| 45.5 mph | -1.4 mph | |
| 45.5 mph | -1.4 mph | |
| 45.0 mph | -1.9 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 4.1% (1.9 mph).
Curved Aquaplaning
Remaining lateral acceleration
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 10.3 ft/s² | Best | |
| 10.3 ft/s² | 0.0 ft/s² | |
| 9.8 ft/s² | -0.5 ft/s² | |
| 9.7 ft/s² | -0.6 ft/s² | |
| 9.7 ft/s² | -0.6 ft/s² | |
| 8.8 ft/s² | -1.5 ft/s² | |
| 8.3 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² |
The difference between best and worst was 19.7% (2 ft/s²).
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
Dry handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 81.83 s | Best | |
| 81.84 s | +0.01 s | |
| 81.96 s | +0.13 s | |
| 82.47 s | +0.64 s | |
| 82.82 s | +0.99 s | |
| 83.33 s | +1.50 s | |
| 86.36 s | +4.53 s |
The difference between best and worst was 5.5% (4.53 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
Dry braking in feet (62 - 3 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 109 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 109 ft | 0 ft | 5 mph | |
| 110 ft | +1 ft | 10 mph | |
| 111 ft | +2 ft | 11 mph | |
| 112 ft | +3 ft | 14 mph | |
| 112 ft | +3 ft | 15 mph | |
| 127 ft | +18 ft | 31 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 17.2% (18 ft ≈ 1.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Sunny NA305 would still be travelling at 31 mph when the Continental SportContact 7 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
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
Subjective Comfort Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Points | Best | |
| 10 Points | Best | |
| 10 Points | Best | |
| 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 15% (1.5 Points).
Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 71.2 dB | Best | |
| 71.7 dB | +0.50 dB | |
| 72.2 dB | +1.00 dB | |
| 73.1 dB | +1.90 dB | |
| 73.3 dB | +2.10 dB | |
| 73.5 dB | +2.30 dB | |
| 73.7 dB | +2.50 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 3.5% (2.5 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.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8.2 kg/t | Best | $0 | |
| 8.7 kg/t | +0.50 kg/t | $18 | |
| 8.7 kg/t | +0.50 kg/t | $18 | |
| 8.8 kg/t | +0.60 kg/t | $22 | |
| 8.9 kg/t | +0.70 kg/t | $25 | |
| 8.9 kg/t | +0.70 kg/t | $25 | |
| 10.7 kg/t | +2.50 kg/t | $90 |
The difference between best and worst was 30.5% (2.5 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport uses about 25 gal ($90) more fuel than the Sunny NA305.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
Results
Best Performance Tires For 2025Watch the full video of this test on YouTube Watch on YouTube
Pirelli P Zero PZ5
225/40 R18 92Y XL
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.
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 | 109 ft | 0 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 81.83 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 74 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 101.91 s | +2.57 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 46.0 mph | -0.9 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 10.3 ft/s² | 0.0 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 72.2 dB | +1.00 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 5th / 7 | 8.9 kg/t | +0.70 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/70
- Rim Protection
- Large
- Weight
- 9.4 kgs
- Tread
- 7.1 mm
Continental SportContact 7
225/40 R18 92Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 | 109 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 81.955 s | +0.13 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 76 ft | +2 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 102.51 s | +3.17 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 45.5 mph | -1.4 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 8.8 ft/s² | -1.5 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 4th / 7 | 73.1 dB | +1.90 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4th / 7 | 8.8 kg/t | +0.60 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/72
- Rim Protection
- Large
- Weight
- 9.55 kgs
- Tread
- 6.8 mm
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
225/40 R18 92Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 | 111 ft | +2 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 82.82 s | +0.99 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 76 ft | +2 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 104.77 s | +5.43 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 45.7 mph | -1.2 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9.7 ft/s² | -0.6 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 7 | 73.5 dB | +2.30 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 8.7 kg/t | +0.50 kg/t |
- EU Label
- D/A/72
- Rim Protection
- Small
- Weight
- 9.55 kgs
- Tread
- 7.3 mm
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
225/40 R18 92Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 | 112 ft | +3 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 82.47 s | +0.64 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 77 ft | +3 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 104.29 s | +4.95 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 46.7 mph | -0.2 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10.3 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 1st / 7 | 71.2 dB | Best in this discipline |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 8.7 kg/t | +0.50 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/70
- Rim Protection
- Large
- Weight
- 9.15 kgs
- Tread
- 7 mm
Falken Azenis FK520
225/40 R18 92Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 | 110 ft | +1 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 83.325 s | +1.50 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 74 ft | 0 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 102.9 s | +3.56 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 46.9 mph | Best in this discipline |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 9.7 ft/s² | -0.6 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 71.7 dB | +0.50 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 5th / 7 | 8.9 kg/t | +0.70 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/A/70
- Rim Protection
- Large
- Weight
- 10 kgs
- Tread
- 7.4 mm
Bridgestone Potenza Sport
225/40 R18 92Y XL
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 favorite tires.
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 | 112 ft | +3 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 81.84 s | +0.01 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 75 ft | +1 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 99.34 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 45.5 mph | -1.4 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 9.8 ft/s² | -0.5 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 5th / 7 | 73.3 dB | +2.10 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 7th / 7 | 10.7 kg/t | +2.50 kg/t |
- EU Label
- D/A/72
- Rim Protection
- Massive
- Weight
- 10.1 kgs
- Tread
- 6.8 mm
Sunny NA305
225/40 R18 92W XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 | 127 ft | +18 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 86.36 s | +4.53 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 8 Points | -2.00 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 103 ft | +29 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 122.23 s | +22.89 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 7 Points | -3.00 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 45.0 mph | -1.9 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 8.3 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 7th / 7 | 73.7 dB | +2.50 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 1st / 7 | 8.2 kg/t | Best in this discipline |
- EU Label
- C/B/72
- Rim Protection
- None
- Weight
- 8.7 kgs
- Tread
- 6.4 mm
If any of them is clearly superior in terms of the balance between grip (dry and wet), durability, and comfort.
I would prefer to choose the best tire. Which one would you honestly recommend as the best option, and why?
For context on my priorities: I lean more towards grip and steering response than outright comfort or maximum tire life — I'd happily trade some longevity or ride comfort for sharper handling and better dry/wet grip.
To help with the opinion, I live in Portugal.
Thanks for the help.
If you really want improved handling, the Yokohama ADVAN V107 is a solid choice but you'll give up some wet grip. Goodyear Eagle F1 Super Sport is the other one to look into too.
I understand that the differences between the top tires are small. The reason I'm still looking is that, even with the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S, I feel the car has a slight "floating" or body movement during fast direction changes and high-speed corners. It doesn't feel as planted as I remember it being with the original Pirelli P Zero MO tires that came from the factory.
Do you think this could simply be due to the softer sidewalls of the PS4S, or would a tire like the Continental SportContact 7 or the new P Zero PZ5 provide a noticeably more stable and direct steering feel on a W176 Mercedes? Or i need to buy when available Pzero Mo(92y)?
I am from Romania and I drive a Renault Megane Sedan IV from 2024. The car has the 1.3 TCe petrol engine and delivers 140 hp to the front wheels. While it may not seem like it at first glance, the car handles unbelievably well, probably due to the low weight (1340 kg / 2954 pounds) and low center of gravity.
The reason I am telling you this is because I love driving as hard as possible on the romanian mountain roads {I know, it's not safe but I can't help it :) }. Right now, I run the car on the original s**t Continental Ecocontact 6 tires. They are heavily used and need changing, but I am uncertain as to what new tires to get.
For me, money is not a problem if I can pursue maximum performance, but unfortunately for my required tire size (205/50 R17) my choices are pretty limited. The only good option for my needs that I found are the Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 tires.
What are your opinions regarding the tire I mentioned? Do you think the sidewall is stiff enough to provide me a nice sporty driving experience? In the end, I would love to hear what tires you recommend for my 205/50 R17 tire size needs. I do not care about comfort, cost, noise, etc. I only care about sporty performance, more specifically, dry performance, as I don't like pushing the car in wet conditions.
Any response will be immensely appreciated! If you have any sort of questions for me, I will gladly answer.
Can you guys help me out? All opinions are welcome!
I’m currently really doubting between the Continental SportContact 7 and the Pirelli P Zero PZ5.
I drive an Alfa Romeo Giulietta QV, which has been modified to make it more sporty and engaging to drive.
I’m looking for the most sporty tires in size 225/40 R18, where fun on normal public roads is the main priority. Think of pushing hard through roundabouts, sharp turn-in on highway exits and entries, that kind of driving.
I live in the Netherlands, so wet performance does matter, but dry performance and overall driving feel are more important to me.
Which tires would you choose?
Tricky choice. If steering is your thing, get the Bridgestone Potenza Sport EVO.
Unfortunately I can't get the Bridgestone where I live, so I'm kinda 'stuck' with the choice between the PZ5 and the SC7.
I prefer the PZ5
I’m currently deciding between the Pirelli P Zero 5 and the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 for my Golf 8 GTE (Netherlands, typical mild summer climate). I have the stock bridgestone potenza S0005 now (225 40 R18 )
Maybe someone could help me choose :D
Pirelli for handling, Michelin for Comfort
Missed this review last year, maybe because I don´t want to buy some summer tires ;)
I need to replace my BMW OE CSC6, my favorite at the moment is the Pirelli, but still thinking also about Goodyear.
Maybe you have a review with new models somewhere in the pipeline ;) ?
There is a new review coming out. Not much has changed.
- The PZ5 is excellent
- The Goodyear is excellent
- The Sport Contact 7 is excellent
- The Potenza Sport Evo is excellent
All good.
The PS5 not?
Bridgestone LM005 and Conti OE CSC7 disappointed me, so no tire from these 2 brands.
Have also to take a look at winter tires 225/45R17 at end of year, but maybe new models will be announced before next winter.
Hi Jonathan. Do you have a rough ETA for the next summer test? Will you have the new Hankook Ventus Evo in test also?
Marchish, and no, I have the Evo Z.
Thanks for the continuing great content on Tire Reviews. Such a good source of impartial advice. Any news on when the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tire will be replaced? The Pilot Sport 5 S has very limited tire sizes (none in my car's tire dimensions) and the 4S has been out ages now.... Seems strange the 5 S didn't get rolled out to more sizes and strange that a proper replacement for all 4S tire sizes has taken so long.. Any views on why that is? Maybe now the 4S isn't topping every group test Michelin will hurry up!
I've not heard anything, so no time soon is my assumption.
Hi Tire Reviews team!
I am running a 2022 Crorolla Touring Sport Hybrid - GR Sport spec with 18" rims fitted with this exact tire size. What would be in your opinion the best tire to choose if I wanted improved handling and reduced in cabin noise? Currently running fk520 on the front and t005 on the back. Not particularly happy with either...
Many thanks!!
PZ5 is always a good answer, Pilot Sport 4S or even Pilot Sport 5 if you prefer more comfort over handling.
Thank you very much!
Dear Tire Reviews Team,
I’d like to propose that you consider adding RIM PROTECTION as a highlighted feature in your tire reviews. While it doesn’t necessarily need to be tested exhaustively, it’s a feature that I, along with many other customers, truly value. Not all tire manufacturers provide rim protection, but it makes a significant difference to those of us who care about preserving our rims from damage caused by curbs.
Personally, I would not consider purchasing a tire that doesn’t offer rim protection, and I believe many others share this sentiment. Including it in your reviews could help guide us in making more informed decisions.
Thank you for considering this suggestion, and I look forward to seeing this feature in future reviews!
Best regards,
Mauro
Rim protection level is actually in this test, it is below the photo of the tire in the overall results.
Thanks, I love it that it is back again in your tests.
Just a question, the PZ5 here have a "good" protection, the R have a "medium", is there a big difference?
https://www.tyrereviews.com/Tyre-Tests/The-BEST-Performance-Summer-Tyres-for-2026-Tested.htm
"Given that I experience significant wear on the outer sidewalls of the tire during road use, which of these tires performs better in this regard? Does it feature a stiffer sidewall, and would that help reduce this type of wear?"
It's fun to read the articles and find all the puns, like here the one at the "value" section : "The budget Sunny had the lowest rolling resistance which is neat. Anyway. Of the tires that actually had grip [...]". Also, the rim protection note on the Potenza : "Rim Protection: Damn boi".
Keep the fun, Johnathan!
Kumho Ecsta Sport (S) PS72 missing - this Tire got really good reviews / tests already
For an xdrive BMW i went to square 19x9J setup 255/35r19 all around. But I can't decide SC7 or PZ5 or 4S* I care about only performance. Summer there is between 15C-42C
sc7
This weekend bought and mounted the new Pirelli P Zero PZ5 (245 45 R19). I went on the highway, the ride was pretty smooth overall, but I noticed at speeds in excess of 180 Km/h, the steering felt a bit wobbly. It was not the case with the old Conti Sport 6, or the winter GoodYear Ultragrip. They are a bit overinflated and they say they have a mould-release layer that it takes 300-500 km to wear off. Now I'm a bit unsure if I chose right over the ContiSport7.
Reset the pressures and let them bed in a little and report back. Generally new tires always feel a little less precise than worn tires as tread depth is a huge factor, but they certainly shouldn't feel worse than a winter (unless the winter tire is very worn)
You shouldnt be in that high speed after fresh sets of tires.. rubber compartment needs time to settle to your car.
Hi John, Great site and reviews, all the info you could possibly need on your site is there. And amazing to see how well Pirelli is performing. I find it difficult to choose between the Asym6 and the Cinturato C3 in 245/45 R19. Currently I run the Premiumcontact 6, love the steering feel but a little less noise, a bit more comfort and better rolling make it perfect. Would I loose much steering precision with the Pirelli C3 compared to the Conti's or Goodyears? Thanks!
Hey Mate. The Asy6 is the best tire you can get if you want a magically perfect tire which has very good feedback, feeling as well. I would put Asy6 on everything except for weekend cars (SC7 for that minor extra feedback...but of course its worse a bit in every other aspect)
Thanks, fittet Asym6 last week and youre right. Exactly what I was looking for. More comfort, very quiet and still very response and capable. Cheers
Hi John. How do you think these tires, asym6 in particular, would cope with slightly mildly snowy conditions that one might encounter in South east England I.e not much below freezing? This would be on an AWD car. I just made it through one winter fairly easily with bridgestone Potenza s001’s and have been wondering if I really need an all season.
Awesome review as always!
Weird that how different the PS4s, SC7, Potenza Sport results are from year to year, and size to size(and of course the source of the test). Sometimes the SC7 kills everything, and sometimes its barely make it to a top3 result (dry lap time for example)
I totally agree, that nowadays UUHP tires are just awesome, and its just a taste question, what you choose. IMO the best thing is the Asy6. its like a comfi tourer tire which somehow grips and handles like magic :D But for a pure weekend car, i would still go with the SC7 (or supersport2 or PS5s if they ever released...) But to be honest never a Pirelli.... my experience, and every close carenthusiast friend of mine have horrible experience with them. Basically they are only good for 1 or maybe 2 seasons and then the classleading grip, etc is gone.... :(
Hi Robert - your description of the Asym6, is that based your reading of the reviews or your personal experience?
Experience. I had an Asy5. It was meh, okay, compromise to be okay in everything, but nothing exceptional. I bought the Asy6 as still.. maybe the best compromise. But gosh this tire is crazygood. It feels like the best possible equipment in every situation, except snow :D (I have a review here, on a merc CLS)
Great review as always! I was wondering if there are any comparison tests out there between the Continental ExtremeContact Sport 02 and the SportContact 7? I'm curious to know how they stack up against each other. Would it be safe to assume they'd rank similarly in a direct comparison? Also, if you have any insights into the key differences between the two, I'd love to hear them! Thanks!
Generally better wet grip, lower rolling resistance and higher levels of wear for the european tire.
Are any other test/news/tires coming out this spring? Or is this for the season, can I buy new summer tires already?
No, i believe they're all on the site now.
Hi John, amazing review, as always! I have been going back and forth between fitting summers or all seasons to my car in the UK. I have narrowed it down to the GYF1ASM6 and all season Bridgestone T6AS. I understand the trade offs in performance due to your great reviews. One key question I have - out of the two, which has better noise and comfort? I want a quiet tire and comfortable ride (size 235/40/18 on a golf r estate) and it might swing the decision for me. Your reviews compare these characteristics for each tire within their segment but really curious how the compare to each other.
Many thanks, and looking forward to the latest all season test coming out soon!
My assumption would be the Bridgestone would have the edge though I expect it would be very close.
Hi John, thank you for the quick reply, really appreciate it!
When can we expect the European all season test to be published? Really looking forward to it!
My first is out in a few weeks, then the big one at the end of September (ish)
Why the Goodyear Asymmetric 6 and not the Supersport?
A good question. The supersport while fun, is a very old tire, and the asymmetric 6 is better and offered in a much wider range of sizes so relevant to more people. I'm waiting for the supersport 2, whenever that might be.
Hi John, amazing review!
How's the Pirelli on track? Does it wear a lot or can it bear light track days?
I think I did 6 laps on all of them and it looked the same as the Michelin and Conti, which were both way better than the Bridgestone
Why are you not mentioning Goodyear F1 Asym6 for the track?
Is it just my feeling or is most people avoiding Asym6 for the track?
Goodyear looked the same as the michelin and conti if I recall. People do use them on track.