3 categories (10 tests)
The wonderful people at the Swedish publication ViBilagare have tested ten sets of tyres in the popular 205/55 R16 size, and included "normal" AND "eco / EV" tyres from Continental, Michelin and Nokian. This means we have the Continental PremiumContact 6 vs EcoContact 6, Michelin Primacy 4 vs e.Primacy and Nokian Hakka Blue 3 vs Green 3 (these are the Nordic specific versions of the Nokian WetProof.)
Why no eco / low rolling resistance / EV tyres from Goodyear and Bridgestone? This test highlights the different approaches of certain tyre manufacturers, and while Tyre Reviews isn't sure on Bridgestones philosophy, Goodyear firmly believe that EV specific tyres aren't needed if you make all your tyres EV Ready, by focusing on low fuel consumption and excellent grip in all conditions for every tyre.
EV vs Normal Tyre Test Results
So how do the two types of tyre compare? Unfortunately, it doesn't look good for the ECO tyres. Low rolling resistance and grip, especially wet grip, are currently opposing qualities and this test highlights that. Ignoring the budget tyre, in nearly every grip tests the eco tyres were amongst the worst, with the Michelin e.Primacy stopping the VW Golf a full 5 meters behind the Primacy 4 in the wet, not too far off the budget tyre!
Aquaplaning wasn't any better for the ECO tyres as they start with reduced tread depth compared to regular tyres, which helps the rolling resistance.
How much this helps each tyres energy consumption is unknown, but the testers had Goodyear buff down their EfficientGrip Performance 2 from it's starting tread depth of 8.2mm down to the 6.1mm the Michelin e.Primacy starts with, and the rolling resistance dropped from 7.15 kg/ton to 6.62 kg/ton which put it right on the heels of the eco tyres.
Overall, ViBilagare considers the eco tyres to be too much of a compromise for the real world, the improvement the tyres bring in rolling resistance and noise levels aren't worth the considerable reduction in dry grip, wet grip, aquaplaning resistance and starting tread depth.
The Bridgestone Turanza T005 and Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 might have finished third and sixth overall in this test, but they do seem to be a good halfway house between the "normal" tyres and the EV tyres.
This is of course something Tyre Reviews will be looking into in greater detail in the future.
Dry
The Continental PremiumContact 6 aced the dry braking test, stopping the car nearly a meter ahead of the second placed Toyo.
The PremiumContact 6 also led the way around dry handling, with Bridgestone and Toyo also performing well. The eco tyres were last in both dry tests, with the Nokian Hakka Green 3 really struggling.
Wet
Wet braking was led by the Nokian Hakka Blue 3 "normal" tyre, stopping the vehicle in 28.6 meters, where it's eco brother the Hakka Green 3 took a further 5.1 meters, which was the best of the eco tyres!
The Hakka Blue 3 led wet handling too, with the other regular tyres performing well. The Hakka Green 3 had an impressive result, matching the regular Primacy 4.
Regular tyres led the way in both straight and curved aquaplaning, likely due to their higher starting tread depths.
Environment
Unusually we have both rolling resistance data from machine testing, and a real world test where ViBilagare drove the Golf in a constant circle and measured the litres per 100km reading from the car.
The two sets of results mostly correlate, but there are some small differences. While there was a 40% difference between the tyres measured on the bench, this actually only made a 7.95% difference when testing on the road. This is because tyres makeup approximately 20% of a vehicles rolling resistance.
Even with the reduced tread depth, the low rolling resistance tyres were some of the most expensive on test.
Results
- EU Label: C/A/71
- UTQG: 280
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 9 kgs
- Tread: 7.4 mm
The sportier focus comes at the expense of comfort. It rolls a little harder over bumps and the noise level is higher than the quietest tyres on test. Short stopping distances and best handling performance with only minor weak sides give a clear test victory for Continental when everything is summed up.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 1st | 34.2 M | 100% |
| Dry Handling | 1st | 107.1 s | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 2nd | 29.8 M | 95.97% |
| Wet Handling | 2nd | 68.1 s | 99.71% |
| Wet Circle | 1st | 20.5 s | 100% |
| Straight Aqua | 4th | 81.2 Km/H | 95.64% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 7th | 67 m/sec2 | 95.99% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 5th | 969 | 64.09% |
| Rolling Resistance | 10th | 8.46 kg / t | 66.67% |
| Fuel Consumption | 6th | 5.26 l/100km | 96.39% |
- EU Label: C/A/67
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 8.2 kgs
- Tread: 7.9 mm
Wet roads are still the specialty of the tyre. The stopping distance is the shortest of the test. The driving characteristics are logical and easy to control with a steady rear end, even at high cornering speeds. However, Blue 3 misses the very highest points in the aquaplaning. The rolling resistance is also relatively high.
While Blue 3 has some pattern noise on smooth asphalt, the noise level is very comfortable on a rough surface. High wet grip with improved sharpness on dry gives Nokian a second place overall.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 3rd | 35.1 M | 97.44% |
| Dry Handling | 6th | 108.3 s | 98.89% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 1st | 28.6 M | 100% |
| Wet Handling | 1st | 67.9 s | 100% |
| Wet Circle | 2nd | 20.6 s | 99.51% |
| Straight Aqua | 2nd | 81.8 Km/H | 96.35% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 5th | 67.3 m/sec2 | 96.42% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 9th | 1069 | 58.09% |
| Rolling Resistance | 8th | 8.23 kg / t | 68.53% |
| Fuel Consumption | 10th | 5.49 l/100km | 92.35% |
- EU Label: B/A/71
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 7.6 kgs
- Tread: 7.4 mm
In the dry, the Bridgestone has short braking distances and provide excellent stability at higher speeds. Even in the wet parts, it performs among the best. Compared with previous years, T005 is more at easy on water and also manages aquaplaning well.
The minus are comfort related. It is sensitive to the surface with a low-frequency sound on rough asphalt. Roll comfort is also a bit stiff over transverse road cracks. A very pleasant driving characteristics results a third place in total.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 3rd | 35.1 M | 97.44% |
| Dry Handling | 2nd | 107.6 s | 99.54% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 5th | 32 M | 89.38% |
| Wet Handling | 3rd | 68.2 s | 99.56% |
| Wet Circle | 3rd | 20.7 s | 99.03% |
| Straight Aqua | 2nd | 81.8 Km/H | 96.35% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 1st | 69.8 m/sec2 | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 4th | 879 | 70.65% |
| Rolling Resistance | 4th | 7.12 kg / t | 79.21% |
| Fuel Consumption | 5th | 5.24 l/100km | 96.76% |
- EU Label: CA/70
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 8.4 kgs
- Tread: 7.9 mm
Resistance to aquaplaning is high, especially in curves. In terms of noise, it is really quiet on smooth roads, but has a tendency to submit low frequency sound on rougher asphalt.
A high and even level without serious downsides impresses. This is an affordable tire we highly recommend.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 2nd | 35 M | 97.71% |
| Dry Handling | 3rd | 107.7 s | 99.44% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 4th | 31.7 M | 90.22% |
| Wet Handling | 4th | 68.7 s | 98.84% |
| Wet Circle | 3rd | 20.7 s | 99.03% |
| Straight Aqua | 5th | 80.7 Km/H | 95.05% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 3rd | 68.7 m/sec2 | 98.42% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 2nd | 779 | 79.72% |
| Rolling Resistance | 7th | 8.22 kg / t | 68.61% |
| Fuel Consumption | 8th | 5.41 l/100km | 93.72% |
- EU Label: C/A/68
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 8.9 kgs
- Tread: 7.5 mm
Now when the environmentally optimized e.Primacy has been launched, we note that Primacy 4 has a deeper pattern depth than previous tests and "P4" has the highest resistance to aquaplaning in this group. However, the wet grip of the rubber compound itself is not top notch. Maybe this is the compromise that comes with Michelin's pronounced focus on durability?
Furthermore, the road noise is sensitive to the surface with higher noise on rough asphalt.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 5th | 35.3 M | 96.88% |
| Dry Handling | 4th | 107.8 s | 99.35% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 3rd | 31.3 M | 91.37% |
| Wet Handling | 6th | 69.1 s | 98.26% |
| Wet Circle | 6th | 21 s | 97.62% |
| Straight Aqua | 1st | 84.9 Km/H | 100% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 2nd | 68.9 m/sec2 | 98.71% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 8th | 1039 | 59.77% |
| Rolling Resistance | 6th | 7.87 kg / t | 71.66% |
| Fuel Consumption | 7th | 5.29 l/100km | 95.84% |
- EU Label: B/A/69
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 8.3 kgs
- Tread: 8.2 mm
On the other hand, the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 has other clear merits. Comfort is high with low road noise on rough roads. Consumption is on par with eco-tires and compared to these, Goodyear has significantly better safety margins! This is a good compromise between rolling resistance and road safety.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 7th | 36 M | 95% |
| Dry Handling | 4th | 107.8 s | 99.35% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 6th | 33 M | 86.67% |
| Wet Handling | 5th | 68.9 s | 98.55% |
| Wet Circle | 5th | 20.9 s | 98.09% |
| Straight Aqua | 6th | 80.4 Km/H | 94.7% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 4th | 67.9 m/sec2 | 97.28% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 3rd | 869 | 71.46% |
| Rolling Resistance | 5th | 7.15 kg / t | 78.88% |
| Fuel Consumption | 3rd | 5.14 l/100km | 98.64% |
- EU Label: A/B/69
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 7.7 kgs
- Tread: 7.9 mm
On the other hand, Hakka Green is all the worse on dry roads with mediocre curve speeds and long stopping distances. However, it is the quietest of all on the rough road.
For an eco-tire with safety compromises, the consumption is too high. There are “normal” tires that are just as economical. Choose them instead.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 9th | 37.5 M | 91.2% |
| Dry Handling | 10th | 109.4 s | 97.9% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 7th | 33.7 M | 84.87% |
| Wet Handling | 6th | 69.1 s | 98.26% |
| Wet Circle | 7th | 21.2 s | 96.7% |
| Straight Aqua | 7th | 79.4 Km/H | 93.52% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 5th | 67.3 m/sec2 | 96.42% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 7th | 1019 | 60.94% |
| Rolling Resistance | 2nd | 6.29 kg / t | 89.67% |
| Fuel Consumption | 4th | 5.17 l/100km | 98.07% |
- EU Label: A/A/71
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 7.9 kgs
- Tread: 6.7 mm
In the dry the EcoContact 6 does not perform particularly well, it is a bit slow to react to steering input and change course. However, the high-speed stability is good.
The Continental EcoContact 6 has the lowest consumption in the test and comfort s very high. But that cannot justify a buy.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 8th | 36.3 M | 94.21% |
| Dry Handling | 6th | 108.3 s | 98.89% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 8th | 34.2 M | 83.63% |
| Wet Handling | 8th | 71.7 s | 94.7% |
| Wet Circle | 8th | 21.6 s | 94.91% |
| Straight Aqua | 9th | 77.7 Km/H | 91.52% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 9th | 65.4 m/sec2 | 93.7% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 6th | 989 | 62.79% |
| Rolling Resistance | 3rd | 6.48 kg / t | 87.04% |
| Fuel Consumption | 1st | 5.07 l/100km | 100% |
- EU Label: A/B/69
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 8 kgs
- Tread: 6.1 mm
On dry roads, the grip level is slightly less than the Michelin Primacy 4. On wet roads however, the differences are enormous with poor cornering grip, early aquaplaning and worryingly long braking distances. It is really difficult to drive on wet asphalt.
The environmental thinking went too far. In terms of points, it falls far behind.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 6th | 35.6 M | 96.07% |
| Dry Handling | 8th | 108.4 s | 98.8% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 9th | 36.3 M | 78.79% |
| Wet Handling | 9th | 72.4 s | 93.78% |
| Wet Circle | 9th | 22 s | 93.18% |
| Straight Aqua | 10th | 75.2 Km/H | 88.57% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 10th | 64 m/sec2 | 91.69% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 10th | 1119 | 55.5% |
| Rolling Resistance | 1st | 5.64 kg / t | 100% |
| Fuel Consumption | 2nd | 5.13 l/100km | 98.83% |
- EU Label: C/B/71
- 3PMSF: no
- Weight: 8.9 kgs
- Tread: 8.1 mm
In the evasive maneuver tests on dry roads, the Petlas tires can’t neutralize the lateral forces but have major problems with the load shift effect, which means that the tire skids wide and becomes difficult to control. On wet roads, it moods alternately between understeer into the curve followed by an oversteer in the middle of the turn.
Budget tires often fitted on older, cheaper cars with poorer crash safety. It is a life-threatening combination. Save money on something other than the tires.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 10th | 37.9 M | 90.24% |
| Dry Handling | 9th | 108.7 s | 98.53% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 10th | 38.2 M | 74.87% |
| Wet Handling | 10th | 72.6 s | 93.53% |
| Wet Circle | 10th | 22.1 s | 92.76% |
| Straight Aqua | 8th | 78.4 Km/H | 92.34% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 8th | 66.6 m/sec2 | 95.42% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 1st | 621 | 100% |
| Rolling Resistance | 9th | 8.39 kg / t | 67.22% |
| Fuel Consumption | 9th | 5.48 l/100km | 92.52% |