|Dry Braking||▲Michelin Primacy 4: 22.24 M|
▼Nexen N Fera SU1: 24.85 M
|Wet Braking||▲Continental Premium Contact 6: 25.77 M|
▼Nexen N Fera SU1: 29.71 M
|Wet Handling||▲Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2: 39 s|
▼Nexen N Fera SU1: 41.33 s
|Straight Aqua||▲Kumho Solus HS51 Harmony Sports: 78.5 Km/H|
▼Nexen N Fera SU1: 72.5 Km/H
|Subj. Comfort||▲Michelin Primacy 4: 10 Points|
▼Sunny NA305: 01 Points
|Tyre Weight||▲Continental Premium Contact 6: 09.6 Kg|
▼Nexen N Fera SU1: 12.9 Kg
|Rolling Resistance||▲Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2: 5.50 kg / t|
▼Kumho Solus HS51 Harmony Sports: 5.87 kg / t
The unique Swedishness of the test means they don't perform dry handling, but instead the "moose test" which involves a sharp lane change at speed. Sadly, we can't database this, but you can see the results of the test in the commentary at the bottom of the page.
Other points of note is the fuel use isn't the usual rolling resistance of the tyre in kg/T, it's instead the estimated litres per 100km used by the test Volvo, and they give a subjective comfort score which looks at noise and comfort levels, rather than the usual external pass-by noise!
In the dry braking, the Michelin had an unusually big advantage over the rest of the tyres, stopping nearly a meter sooner than the second placed Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2!
Wet braking was won by the Continental PremiumContact 6. Second place was again awarded to the new Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2, with the dry braking champion, the Michelin Primacy 4, having to settle for seventh.
The new Goodyear was fastest over the relatively short wet handling lap, while the Michelin proved braking and handling results don't always match, finishing second in this test.
The Kumho and Nokian tyres had a good advantage during aquaplaning testing.
Subjectively, the Michelin had the comfort advantage, which combined internal noise and how comfortable the tyres felt when driving. The Goodyear and Pirelli were best of the rest.
These rolling resistance numbers are the estimated litres per 100km.
The best tyres on test were also the lightest.
1st: Michelin Primacy 4
No obvious flaws and good balance of characteristics, excellent wet handling, low rolling resistance, the best level of comfort.
Average resistance to aquaplaning.
Read Reviews Buy from £109.40
No obvious flaws and good balance of characteristics.
Average resistance to aquaplaning.
Read Reviews Buy from £85.80
3rd: Nokian Hakka Blue 2
No obvious flaws and good balance of characteristics, excellent resistance to aquaplaning, the best result in a moose test.
Read Reviews Buy from £138.29
Short braking distance on wet roads, very good elk test result, low fuel consumption.
Low comfort levels.
Read Reviews Buy from £99.70
4th: Pirelli CINTURATO P7
Excellent wet handling, good result in elk test, high level of comfort.
Higher fuel consumption.
Read Reviews Buy from £94.30
Short braking distance on wet roads, high resistance to aquaplaning.
The worst result in a moose test (i.e. stability during maneuvering is worse than other tires, which is a very important factor)
Read Reviews Buy from £83.40
Excellent resistance to aquaplaning.
Poor wet handling, low comfort, high rolling resistance, average result in the moose test.
Read Reviews Buy from £81.02
Good braking performance.
Poor wet handling, the worst result in the moose test.
Read Reviews Buy from £108.40
9th: Sunny NA305
Very low price, acceptable wet handling, low rolling resistance
Bad result the elk test, long braking distances on dry and wet surfaces, lowest comfort.
10th: Nexen N Fera SU1
Low rolling resistance.
With the exception of economy, the complete absence of positive aspects - you expect more from the tyre of this brand. The longest braking distance on dry and wet surfaces, poor wet handling, low comfort.
Read Reviews Buy from £67.44