For the 2019 Auto Express summer tyre test, the UK based magazine have tested eight SUV tyres in the popular 235/50 R18 size.
As always, we'll leave the Auto Express website to go into all the detail, and just make a brief summary below.
The Test of Surprises
The biggest surprise result from the test was... everything! Nokian and Falken took first and second place respectively with the new Nokian PowerProof, and the Falken FK510. Both tyres proved to have a balanced blend of performances, with no major weakness in any area.
Third place was joint awarded to the new Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 and the older cousin, the Dunlop SportMaxx RT2 SUV, while the usual test winning Continental Premium Contact 6 could only manage fifth place overall, struggling with wet grip.
The Hankook Ventus S1 Evo2 SUV seemed to have issues with dry grip, relegating it to sixth, and the final premium brand, Michelin, struggled in the wet, tying last with Cooper.
Is this a turning point for the Falken and Nokian brands, or is this just an oddity of the SUV size and VW Tiguan test vehicle? As this is the last of the major summer tyre tests for 2019, 2020 will certainly be an interesting year for tyre testing!
Results
Nokian PowerProof
235/50 R18
All discipline results (1)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Overall | 100 |
Total: 100
Falken FK510 SUV
235/50 R18
All discipline results (1)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Overall | 99.8 |
Total: 99.8
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5
235/50 R18
All discipline results (1)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Overall | 99.5 |
Total: 99.5
Dunlop Sport Maxx RT 2 SUV
235/50 R18
All discipline results (1)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Overall | 99.5 |
Total: 99.5
Continental Premium Contact 6
235/50 R18
All discipline results (1)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Overall | 99.1 |
Total: 99.1
Hankook Ventus S1 evo2 SUV
235/50 R18
All discipline results (1)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Overall | 99 |
Total: 99
Cooper Zeon 4XS Sport
235/50 R18
All discipline results (1)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Overall | 98.3 |
Total: 98.3
Michelin Primacy 4
235/50 R18
All discipline results (1)
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Overall | 98.3 |
Total: 98.3
Thanks so much for posting the reviews and (even more so) for your commentary. I have a question regarding all season tyres for my car - a Ford Galaxy which takes 245 45 R19s! This leaves me with a choice of two - the Bridgestone A005 (new) or the Vredestein Quatrac Pro (newer).
AutoBild did a test recently in which the Vredestein Quatrac 5 came top, and in a big size too - in as much as tyres vary between sizes!
My question is which would you recommend? I live in the south of England, do a winter road trip to middle Europe for a week or two most years. I was nailed on for the Bridgestone until I saw that test and figured the Pro might be better in the snow that the 5 - but then again the 5 in the video on YouTube came across as better than it tested.
Thanks!
https://www.autobild.de/artikel/ganzjahresreifen-test-2019-235-55-r-19-14754871.html
Wow, I'm not sure how I missed that test. In the big size I'd probably look at the Vred as they have a long history of making all season and winter in big sizes
What of the Evo test? (And I repeat an earlier communication to you that it would be helpful to contact the Australian magazines Motor & Wheels & seek permission to republish their results (just published over the last few months). If nothing else, it allows wider access to info on some tyres which are not European lines.)
Evo should be live on Monday, and I'll get back on the Australian plan when I'm back in the UK! I did find one Aus test which had the Goodyear Eagle F1 Supersport in, but the testing metholody wasn't up to European standards so decided not to summarise it
The test you mention is by Motor. Their stablemate Wheels also does a test (of the "Premium" class). Finally, a further online-available-only test is done by the same entity. So, contact ought to be simplified.
I have challenged various aspects of their methodology & scoring protocols over the years & received some (albeit inadequate) replies to those that were published.
My suggestion would be to republish the tests but annotate that with methodological reservations (as you've done with other magazine tests).