2021 Auto Bild 16 Inch Summer Tyre Test

I believe it's a different tyre range, a little more comfort bias. I couldn't comment on if or when it could have been updated though, sorry.

Sure would :)

I don't, but I would guess the tyres tested in this test are older than that so you should be good :)

without pattern names impossible to answer but this site should give you all the data you need :)

I've rated comfort in my recent tyre tests, but it can get quite tricky with 16" tyres as a lot feel similar

It's down to priority, I'd be interested in calculating what differences these values make in the real world too. Something I'll add to the list!

It is not really possible as even the same tyres do not achieve consistent results, excel in one test and become average or fail in the other. One can just grasp some general ideas of how the particular tyre would behave in given conditions over a series of different tests (omitting extreme results of course).

For example, in my case I get basically same long-term average fuel consumption (ca. 6,3 l per 100 km) with Nokian Weatherproof (A/B) as I used to with Goodyear Efficientgrip Performance (A/C) I had before; yet with old Bridgestone ER300 (C/E) I was over 7 (all 195/50 R15 on an old Fabia 1.4). Hankook or Falken are both A/E in my size and I would bet my fuel consumption, if I tried them, would be closer to the GY than the old ER300 and so would be Bridgestone T005 (A/B). Saying that, I am pretty sure that the difference between the best and worst in this test would be insignificant, less than 0,1 l / 100 km.

What sort of annoys me much more is the emphasis on mileage which is relevant only in just two cases - either fleet cars (in finding the cheapest 'eternal' tyres for cost-cutters) or doing more than 20K miles per year. But if you do, say, 10K which is sort of average and between November and March you need to have winter tyres on, in just four or five years you either have to throw them away with 5 mm of tread left or use dangerous tyres with plenty of tread but no grip. And, honestly, the Goodyears, excellent in the beginning, significantly lost traction after just four years, just like the Bridgestones before.

Sadly, nobody tests how tyres would behave after a few years of service because simulating it would be even more difficult to do (surface grinding, chemical substances like hydrogen peroxide exposure and strong UV radiation perhaps?)

The EU has an Excel sheet to evaluate the difference in cost, taking in account the consumption, urban vs highway, fuel price an total tyre life: https://ec.europa.eu/energy...
Energy letters have changed since then, so E in the file is the current D and F & G in the file are the current E.
The current E versus A means at least 60 % increased rolling resistance.
Based on the current UE values, the Kumho would get a D and the Bridgestone a B.
Current regulation: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/l...

I believe there was an update to the PC6 at some point in the last few years if you're questioning why the values are evolving?

Glad you're happy with your switch and I look forward to the review in the future :)

Pity you didn't go for the PS4. I have them in this size on my car for a few years (25.000 Kms) and I can assure you they are really sporty either in dry or wet and surprisingly comfortable. They really soften bumps and all sorts of road imperfections and are not particularly noisy, as well. They just don't give you some feedback from the road (steering wheel), as I would like, in the dry, but a ton of information in the wet, where they excel. They are some 15% more expensive than the Primacy 4 but wear out a lot faster, although I think I can extract some extra 15-20.000 Kms from them, so they are costly!

I also noticed the difference between the EU label and tests, and made a note to dig deeper into this when I have a little more time :)

The 89% isn't an award from AB, it's an auto calculation showing the percentage difference the tyre has to the best! 19th place is plenty damning!

First test win for the HS51 for sure, not sure about ever. I think the V70A (track tyre) might have won a test a long time ago!

Given the popularity of the size, it would make sense for Kumho to have rolled in the big update to this size first, but the question begs if it's that much of a step forward, why didn't they update the pattern name!

Yes, totally agreed! Just the example of Debica (not that it's a bad tyre) shows that safety-oriented results hold this model in the 2nd half of the stake / list, however it's budget-class price makes it finish very high.
And the Primacy I got - well, as usual doesn't excel in any category and is quite expensive, but surely in terms of braking and aquaplaning it did a lot better than higher ranked models.

Handling - well, that's always subjective and the differences in time and / or speed achieved aren't that much of a benchmark for safety as the braking distance and aquaplaning resistance. Also the differences are often smaller (e.g. speed to handle a lap higher by ~1 km/h - still above 90, while braking distance can vary by a few meters, meaning safe stop vs. goodbye). So, perhaps it might be good to add a second ranking, just based on the actual safety and put it next to the overall results. That would be nice to see :)

I did one for myself based on the results from each category and played with filters to see only safety, safety+comfort etc. A bit of fun in Excel showed me a different set of results, depending what I choose to prioritize, still using the same numbers from each category above.

As a side note - again in a German magazine, German tyres hit more points than in other tests... What a 'coincidence' ;)