Testing in 225/45 R17, the GTU test is the first test to include the new Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3, Dunlop Sport Maxx RT2, Falken Azenis FK510, Toyo Proxes T1 Sport+ and GT Radial SportActive amongst the fourteen tyres tested! Sadly, the new Michelin Pilot Sport 4 was absent from the test, but we can't have everything at once.
How did the new tyres perform?
There will be some disappointed faces at Goodyear Dunlop, as the aging Continental Sport Contact 5 once again won the test. It beat the second placed Goodyear in the wet largely thanks to exceptional wet braking, it proved to be slightly stronger in the dry, and matched the comfort and noise results. The only area the new Goodyear beat the Continental was rolling resistance, where both the new Goodyear and Dunlop provided extremely impressive rolling resistance scores. The Dunlop almost matched the Goodyear test for test, and the Pirelli P Zero exactly matched the Dunlop to finish joint third.
As disappointed as Goodyear and Dunlop might feel, the results across the top four tests were extremely close and could easily change order in a different test size, or using a different vehicle, there's hope yet that someone will take the challenge to Continental!
Falken will be happy in fourth, with the new Azenis FK510 finishing "best of the rest", beating the well respected Nokian zLine to fifth place, and finishing well ahead of its direct new rival, the Toyo T1 Sport+ which could only manage tenth overall. The Falken looks to be a bit of a performance bargin, as at 300 euros per set, they're one of the cheapest tyres on test.
Amongst the established tyres there was little to report. Bridgestone narrowly beat Michelin, but both companies submitted premium touring tyres which compared to the ultra high performance tyres submitted by the top four brands seems a little curious.
GT Radial was the best of the Chinese brands, but with a set of the new Sport Active now costing 315 euros compared to the Linglong at 220 euros, the extra cost of the tyre struggles to justify the small improvement in performance.
Price vs Performance
The other point GTU felt it needed to make was the price / performance trade still present when tyre shopping. The test winning Continental were priced at 390 euros per set, and while the Westlake tyres were nearly half the price at 210 euros, they also scored zero points in wet braking and were deemed too dangerous to use on the road.
Results
Continental Sport Contact 5
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 86 |
| Wet | 146 |
| Comfort | 8 |
| Rolling Resistance | 14 |
| Noise | 10 |
Total: 264
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 83 |
| Wet | 134 |
| Comfort | 8 |
| Rolling Resistance | 19 |
| Noise | 10 |
Total: 254
Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 80 |
| Wet | 133 |
| Comfort | 8 |
| Rolling Resistance | 19 |
| Noise | 9 |
Total: 249
Pirelli P Zero
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 85 |
| Wet | 133 |
| Comfort | 8 |
| Rolling Resistance | 16 |
| Noise | 10 |
Total: 252
Falken Azenis FK510
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 82 |
| Wet | 114 |
| Comfort | 8 |
| Rolling Resistance | 16 |
| Noise | 10 |
Total: 230
Nokian zLine
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 70 |
| Wet | 119 |
| Comfort | 7 |
| Rolling Resistance | 22 |
| Noise | 9 |
Total: 227
Bridgestone Turanza T001
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 78 |
| Wet | 109 |
| Comfort | 7 |
| Rolling Resistance | 19 |
| Noise | 8 |
Total: 221
Michelin Primacy 3
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 86 |
| Wet | 84 |
| Comfort | 8 |
| Rolling Resistance | 25 |
| Noise | 9 |
Total: 212
Hankook Ventus S1 evo2
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 75 |
| Wet | 102 |
| Comfort | 8 |
| Rolling Resistance | 17 |
| Noise | 10 |
Total: 212
Toyo Proxes T1 Sport+
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 68 |
| Wet | 105 |
| Comfort | 9 |
| Rolling Resistance | 13 |
| Noise | 10 |
Total: 205
Yokohama Advan Sport V105
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 83 |
| Wet | 93 |
| Comfort | 9 |
| Rolling Resistance | 13 |
| Noise | 10 |
Total: 208
GT Radial SportActive
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 59 |
| Wet | 78 |
| Comfort | 7 |
| Rolling Resistance | 19 |
| Noise | 9 |
Total: 172
Linglong Green Max
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 59 |
| Wet | 73 |
| Comfort | 8 |
| Rolling Resistance | 20 |
| Noise | 10 |
Total: 170
Westlake Sport SA37
225/45 R17
All discipline results (5)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry | 58 |
| Wet | 70 |
| Comfort | 8 |
| Rolling Resistance | 13 |
| Noise | 10 |
Total: 159
2 questions. First, is there a comparison test that includes the Uniroyal Rain Sport 3? And, secondly, why did you mix and match load rating? a 91 against a 94 is not comparing like for like. Side wall strength has a direct impact on several of the factors, especially slalom performance and comfort.
Question 1 - http://www.tyrereviews.co.u...
Question 2 - This test was performed by GTU, not TyreReviews. We're unsure of the load rating of the tyres tested, usually you try and match them but sometimes due to availability you are forced to either test an alternative load rating or drop the tyre from the test.
There is a problem with this test results or TUV's test that u've shared before. because in TUV's test rolling resistance of conti was 101 and asymmetric was 100. So TUV's test says that conti has slightly better performance on rolling resistance. But this test says opposit of that. In Both test tyre size were exactly the same. So what is the reason of that differance?
Als u may have made a mistake about results. Because i found sumamary of results and it shows that conti has 133 and goodyear has 134 point in dry surfaces. Michelin also has a big 143 point as the best tyre in dry surfaces.
Also in wet road conti has 146 and goodyear has 134 points and these values also not seems like yours.
here is the link of results; http://www.tyrepress.com/20...
The Conti Sport Contact 5 might win the test here, but users say it wears out too fast. I suppose it depends on what you want from a tyre, but I think I would settle with the Goodyear or Dunlop and have much longer tyre life. Tyres are too expensive to be changing every few thousand miles.
Yeah, Conti is known for test-optimized tyres, most are amazed if they mount a new Conti. But many ppl say after 2-3 years the Conti lose the grip very fast.
I was also disappointed by my last Conti, the Premium Contact. After one summer with less than 14000km it was at it´s end.
Actually I use P Zero which is also not the long life tyre, but it´s grip in the wet is insane. My next tyres maybe F1 Asym.3, Dunlop RT2 or Michelin PS4. I hope someone test the Michelin soon.
We rate the PS4, though haven't objectively tested it yet.
http://www.tyrereviews.co.u...
I know, but I would like more info and a compare with tyres like the new Dunlop and Goodyear ;)
"The Conti Sport Contact 5 might win the test here, but users say it wears out too fast."
I've also seen users complain that the the Assy 2s and the Dunlop RTs wear out too fast; that's one of the problems with user reviews they are a bit variable depending on lots of unknown factors. In this case, one of the things is that they may have asked 'for the best tyre' expecting a good wearing tyre, and have got a tyre with good grip instead.
The difference 84 Primacy 3 and around 130 points in wet is big?
What noticeable differences are?
Txs
Hi Joe,
The full datasheet can be found here:
http://www.gtue.de/sixcms/m...
Sadly it doesn't share the full data, but it looked like the Primacy 3 struggled particularly under wet braking, scoring less than half the score of the winning Continental.
Hmm ,onestly you belive that the Primacy is such a poor in the wet?:)in 2015 adac is the best in wet breaking
It's certainly a surprising result!
I wonder how Michelin could get those results in the ADAC-test. The Primacy-tyres were in the past not the best in wet because it was optimized for a long tyre life.
And it´s like a physical law, a tyre which have soft rubber is often good in wet but don´t last very long
I have now nokian line this is also a harder rubber than conti,Gy or other:)
Dunno the summer-tyres from Nokian, but the WR D3 was a bit soft and lost some rubber after not that much driving
Here some results in wet-braking 100-0 (the most other test-magazines only make the dry-braking 100-0, the wet-braking 80-0)
Conti: 49,1m
Goodyear: 52m (2nd)
Michelin:57,7m
Westlake: 66,9m (last)
I think you show wrong picture of the Yokohama, the V105 looks different
http://www.yokohama.de/adva...
You are of course correct :) It's late and we're rushing, there will be a fresh edit in the morning but we've updated the article with the correct tyre, not the Advan Sport!
Thanks again!
No prob ;)
It´s a shame that Yokohama new design looks like million other tyres (like Michelin PS4, Nexen N8000, Toyo Proxes T1 sport). In the past I really liked Yokohama designs like A008P, A008, Parada, A510, A539, AVS 102 etc.
But most tyres were really bad in the wet, especially braking and aquaplaning