Test source Vi Bilagare

2022 ViBilagare Eco vs Normal Tyre Test

Name: 2022 ViBilagare Eco vs Normal Tyre Test
Creator: Tyre Reviews
Published: 2022-04-15

Overall test winnerContinental Premium Contact 6

If like me you've been wondering exactly how low rolling resistance / eco / EV tyres differ from their regular counterparts, this is the test for you!The wonderful people at the Swedish publication ViBilagare have tested ten sets of tyres…

Data analyzed and reviewed byJonathan Benson

April 15, 2022 8 min read Updated January 8, 2025

Cited by Independent Institute

Tyre shortlist Read the test

Tyres tested: 10
Tested size: 205/55 R16
Disciplines: 9

At a glance

Tyre shortlist

10 Tyres tested

Published finishing positions, with the strengths and considerations from this test. Owner reviews cover other sizes and driving conditions.

Tyre shortlist

Compare selected tyres

2022 ViBilagare Eco vs Normal Tyre Test · 205/55 R16

Tyre	Continental Premium Contact 6	Nokian Hakka Blue 3	Bridgestone Turanza T005	Toyo Proxes Comfort	Michelin Primacy 4	Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	Nokian Hakka Green 3	Continental EcoContact 6	Michelin e.Primacy	Petlas Imperium PT515
Position	1^st	2^nd	3^rd	4^th	5^th	6^th	7^th	8^th	9^th	10^th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	100%	98.2%	98.5%	98.6%	98.1%	97.2%	94.6%	96.6%	97.4%	94.4%
Wet	98%	99.1%	96.5%	96.2%	96.5%	94.8%	93.6%	91.4%	88.9%	88.6%
Value	81.5%	80.4%	88%	81.2%	83.8%	88.8%	93.9%	93.5%	99.4%	79.9%
Keep researching	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results

Explore the complete results →

The full test

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 100 → 5 km/h
Wet Braking: 80 → 0 km/h

If like me you've been wondering exactly how low rolling resistance / eco / EV tyres differ from their regular counterparts, this is the test for you!

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.

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental Premium Contact 6	34.2 m	Best	0 km/h
2Toyo Proxes Comfort	35 m	+0.80 m	20 km/h
3Bridgestone Turanza T005	35.1 m	+0.90 m	21 km/h
3Nokian Hakka Blue 3	35.1 m	+0.90 m	21 km/h
5Michelin Primacy 4	35.3 m	+1.10 m	23 km/h
6Michelin e.Primacy	35.6 m	+1.40 m	26 km/h
7Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	36 m	+1.80 m	29 km/h
8Continental EcoContact 6	36.3 m	+2.10 m	31 km/h
9Nokian Hakka Green 3	37.5 m	+3.30 m	39 km/h
10Petlas Imperium PT515	37.9 m	+3.70 m	41 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 10.8% (3.7 m ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Petlas Imperium PT515 would still be travelling at 41 km/h when the Continental Premium Contact 6 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

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.

Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental Premium Contact 6	107.1 s	Best
2Bridgestone Turanza T005	107.6 s	+0.50 s
3Toyo Proxes Comfort	107.7 s	+0.60 s
4Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	107.8 s	+0.70 s
4Michelin Primacy 4	107.8 s	+0.70 s
6Continental EcoContact 6	108.3 s	+1.20 s
6Nokian Hakka Blue 3	108.3 s	+1.20 s
8Michelin e.Primacy	108.4 s	+1.30 s
9Petlas Imperium PT515	108.7 s	+1.60 s
10Nokian Hakka Green 3	109.4 s	+2.30 s

All the tyres in the Dry Handling test finished less than 3% apart.

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!

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Nokian Hakka Blue 3	28.6 m	Best	0 km/h
2Continental Premium Contact 6	29.8 m	+1.20 m	26 km/h
3Michelin Primacy 4	31.3 m	+2.70 m	38 km/h
4Toyo Proxes Comfort	31.7 m	+3.10 m	41 km/h
5Bridgestone Turanza T005	32 m	+3.40 m	42 km/h
6Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	33 m	+4.40 m	47 km/h
7Nokian Hakka Green 3	33.7 m	+5.10 m	51 km/h
8Continental EcoContact 6	34.2 m	+5.60 m	53 km/h
9Michelin e.Primacy	36.3 m	+7.70 m	60 km/h
10Petlas Imperium PT515	38.2 m	+9.60 m	65 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 33.6% (9.6 m ≈ 2.1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Petlas Imperium PT515 would still be travelling at 65 km/h when the Nokian Hakka Blue 3 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

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.

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakka Blue 3	67.9 s	Best
2Continental Premium Contact 6	68.1 s	+0.20 s
3Bridgestone Turanza T005	68.2 s	+0.30 s
4Toyo Proxes Comfort	68.7 s	+0.80 s
5Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	68.9 s	+1.00 s
6Michelin Primacy 4	69.1 s	+1.20 s
6Nokian Hakka Green 3	69.1 s	+1.20 s
8Continental EcoContact 6	71.7 s	+3.80 s
9Michelin e.Primacy	72.4 s	+4.50 s
10Petlas Imperium PT515	72.6 s	+4.70 s

The difference between best and worst was 6.9% (4.7 s).

Regular tyres led the way in both straight and curved aquaplaning, likely due to their higher starting tread depths.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Primacy 4	84.9 km/h	Best
2Bridgestone Turanza T005	81.8 km/h	-3.10 km/h
2Nokian Hakka Blue 3	81.8 km/h	-3.10 km/h
4Continental Premium Contact 6	81.2 km/h	-3.70 km/h
5Toyo Proxes Comfort	80.7 km/h	-4.20 km/h
6Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	80.4 km/h	-4.50 km/h
7Nokian Hakka Green 3	79.4 km/h	-5.50 km/h
8Petlas Imperium PT515	78.4 km/h	-6.50 km/h
9Continental EcoContact 6	77.7 km/h	-7.20 km/h
10Michelin e.Primacy	75.2 km/h	-9.70 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 11.4% (9.7 Km/H).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Turanza T005	69.8 m/sec2	Best
2Michelin Primacy 4	68.9 m/sec2	-0.90 m/sec2
3Toyo Proxes Comfort	68.7 m/sec2	-1.10 m/sec2
4Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	67.9 m/sec2	-1.90 m/sec2
5Nokian Hakka Blue 3	67.3 m/sec2	-2.50 m/sec2
5Nokian Hakka Green 3	67.3 m/sec2	-2.50 m/sec2
7Continental Premium Contact 6	67 m/sec2	-2.80 m/sec2
8Petlas Imperium PT515	66.6 m/sec2	-3.20 m/sec2
9Continental EcoContact 6	65.4 m/sec2	-4.40 m/sec2
10Michelin e.Primacy	64 m/sec2	-5.80 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 8.3% (5.8 m/sec2).

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.

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Continental EcoContact 6	5.07 l/100km	Best	£0
2Michelin e.Primacy	5.13 l/100km	+0.06 l/100km	£17
3Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	5.14 l/100km	+0.07 l/100km	£19
4Nokian Hakka Green 3	5.17 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
5Bridgestone Turanza T005	5.24 l/100km	+0.17 l/100km	£47
6Continental Premium Contact 6	5.26 l/100km	+0.19 l/100km	£52
7Michelin Primacy 4	5.29 l/100km	+0.22 l/100km	£61
8Toyo Proxes Comfort	5.41 l/100km	+0.34 l/100km	£94
9Petlas Imperium PT515	5.48 l/100km	+0.41 l/100km	£113
10Nokian Hakka Blue 3	5.49 l/100km	+0.42 l/100km	£116

The difference between best and worst was 8.3% (0.42 l/100km). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Nokian Hakka Blue 3 uses about 80 L (£116) more fuel than the Continental EcoContact 6.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.

Petrol/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

19,000 km

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

£1.45/L

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

Estimates based on typical driving conditions. Rolling resistance accounts for approximately 20% of IC vehicle fuel consumption and 25% of EV energy consumption. Actual savings vary based on driving style, vehicle weight, road conditions, and tyre age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Michelin e.Primacy	5.64 kg/t	Best	£0
2Nokian Hakka Green 3	6.29 kg/t	+0.65 kg/t	£51
3Continental EcoContact 6	6.48 kg/t	+0.84 kg/t	£66
4Bridgestone Turanza T005	7.12 kg/t	+1.48 kg/t	£116
5Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	7.15 kg/t	+1.51 kg/t	£118
6Michelin Primacy 4	7.87 kg/t	+2.23 kg/t	£174
7Toyo Proxes Comfort	8.22 kg/t	+2.58 kg/t	£202
8Nokian Hakka Blue 3	8.23 kg/t	+2.59 kg/t	£202
9Petlas Imperium PT515	8.39 kg/t	+2.75 kg/t	£215
10Continental Premium Contact 6	8.46 kg/t	+2.82 kg/t	£220

The difference between best and worst was 50% (2.82 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Continental Premium Contact 6 uses about 152 L (£220) more fuel than the Michelin e.Primacy.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.

Petrol/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

19,000 km

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

£1.45/L

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

Even with the reduced tread depth, the low rolling resistance tyres were some of the most expensive on test.

Results

Continental displays impressive braking performance on both wet and dry roads, with some of the shortest braking distances, especially in dry conditions. The lateral grip is also of the highest class on wet and dry. Steering input is quick with a good precision. When the cornering speeds eventually become too high, the "PC6" maintains a good manner that makes it easy to control in crisis situations.
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.

Dry100%

Wet98%

Value81.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (9)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	1^st / 10	34.2 m	Best in this discipline
Dry HandlingLower is better	1^st / 10	107.1 s	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 10	29.8 m	+1.20 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 10	68.1 s	+0.20 s
Wet CircleLower is better	1^st / 10	20.5 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 10	81.2 km/h	-3.70 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	7^th / 10	67 m/sec2	-2.80 m/sec2
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	10^th / 10	8.46 kg/t	+2.82 kg/t
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 10	5.26 l/100km	+0.19 l/100km

EU Label: C/A/71
UTQG: 280
Weight: 9 kgs
Tread: 7.4 mm
Price: 969.00

One of the big news of the test is the third generation Hakka Blue. Compared to its predecessor, there is a more well-balanced balance between wet/dry, where above all stability and grip level in the dry have lifted a notch.
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.

Dry98.2%

Wet99.1%

Value80.4%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (9)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 10	35.1 m	+0.90 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	6^th / 10	108.3 s	+1.20 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 10	28.6 m	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 10	67.9 s	Best in this discipline
Wet CircleLower is better	2^nd / 10	20.6 s	+0.10 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 10	81.8 km/h	-3.10 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	5^th / 10	67.3 m/sec2	-2.50 m/sec2
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	8^th / 10	8.23 kg/t	+2.59 kg/t
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	10^th / 10	5.49 l/100km	+0.42 l/100km

EU Label: C/A/67
Weight: 8.2 kgs
Tread: 7.9 mm
Price: 1069.00

Japanese Bridgestone offers an excellent mix between driving pleasure and relatively low consumption. Turanza T005 reacts quickly to steering input and can avoid sudden obstacles without significant understeer. The balance is neutral and despite quick reactions, the rear end remains steady under pressure.
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.

Dry98.5%

Wet96.5%

Value88%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (9)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 10	35.1 m	+0.90 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 10	107.6 s	+0.50 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 10	32 m	+3.40 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 10	68.2 s	+0.30 s
Wet CircleLower is better	3^rd / 10	20.7 s	+0.20 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 10	81.8 km/h	-3.10 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 10	69.8 m/sec2	Best in this discipline
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	4^th / 10	7.12 kg/t	+1.48 kg/t
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 10	5.24 l/100km	+0.17 l/100km

EU Label: B/A/71
Weight: 7.6 kgs
Tread: 7.4 mm
Price: 879.00

The new Toyo Proxes Comfort replaces the predecessor Proxes CF2 and sits in a slightly lower price range, but this is not noticeable on the performance. The Proxes Comfort is frequently placed on the upper half of the test rounds with good braking performance and high cornering grip. The behavior is impeccable with a well-balanced behavior under pressure, both on wet and dry roads. However, it is somewhat more difficult to react on sudden direction changes at higher speeds.
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.

Dry98.6%

Wet96.2%

Value81.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (9)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 10	35 m	+0.80 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 10	107.7 s	+0.60 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 10	31.7 m	+3.10 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 10	68.7 s	+0.80 s
Wet CircleLower is better	3^rd / 10	20.7 s	+0.20 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 10	80.7 km/h	-4.20 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 10	68.7 m/sec2	-1.10 m/sec2
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	7^th / 10	8.22 kg/t	+2.58 kg/t
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 10	5.41 l/100km	+0.34 l/100km

EU Label: CA/70
Weight: 8.4 kgs
Tread: 7.9 mm
Price: 779.00

Primacy 4 has a natural and nice driving feel with a linear steering response combined with good stability, it remains logical and easy to drive when balancing on the grip limit. In the evasive maneuver tests, it handles the change of load effect without issue.
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.

Dry98.1%

Wet96.5%

Value83.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (9)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	5^th / 10	35.3 m	+1.10 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	4^th / 10	107.8 s	+0.70 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 10	31.3 m	+2.70 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 10	69.1 s	+1.20 s
Wet CircleLower is better	6^th / 10	21 s	+0.50 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 10	84.9 km/h	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 10	68.9 m/sec2	-0.90 m/sec2
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 10	7.87 kg/t	+2.23 kg/t
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	7^th / 10	5.29 l/100km	+0.22 l/100km

EU Label: C/A/68
Weight: 8.9 kgs
Tread: 7.5 mm
Price: 1039.00

The wet grip is good but the driving precision leaves somewhat to be desired. It is difficult to place the car exactly where you want it under pressure. In the dry, it has a pronounced progressive steering reaction and does not handle evasive maneuvers with the same accuracy as the best. The braking distances are also average.
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.

Dry97.2%

Wet94.8%

Value88.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (9)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	7^th / 10	36 m	+1.80 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	4^th / 10	107.8 s	+0.70 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 10	33 m	+4.40 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 10	68.9 s	+1.00 s
Wet CircleLower is better	5^th / 10	20.9 s	+0.40 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 10	80.4 km/h	-4.50 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	4^th / 10	67.9 m/sec2	-1.90 m/sec2
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	5^th / 10	7.15 kg/t	+1.51 kg/t
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	3^rd / 10	5.14 l/100km	+0.07 l/100km

EU Label: B/A/69
Weight: 8.3 kgs
Tread: 8.2 mm
Price: 869.00

Nokian's new environmental tires do not have as shallow tread depth as some other eco-tires. The Finnish green tire also performs better on wet roads compared to the other two environmental options. The braking distance in the wet is not impressive, but the drivability and cornering grip are approved. The behavior is well balanced with light understeer and the driver gets good feedback when the grip limit approaches.
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.

Dry94.6%

Wet93.6%

Value93.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (9)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	9^th / 10	37.5 m	+3.30 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	10^th / 10	109.4 s	+2.30 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 10	33.7 m	+5.10 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 10	69.1 s	+1.20 s
Wet CircleLower is better	7^th / 10	21.2 s	+0.70 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 10	79.4 km/h	-5.50 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	5^th / 10	67.3 m/sec2	-2.50 m/sec2
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 10	6.29 kg/t	+0.65 kg/t
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	4^th / 10	5.17 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km

EU Label: A/B/69
Weight: 7.7 kgs
Tread: 7.9 mm
Price: 1019.00

While the sibling PremiumContact 6 becomes test winner, the EcoContact 6 finishes further down the field. The wet grip leaves a lot to be desired and often it is the rear that releases the grip first with an unwelcome slide. The stopping distance on wet roads is well over four meters longer than PremiumContact 6 at 80 km/h – a difference that grows significantly at higher speeds. With relatively low tread depth – 6.7 mm new – it aquaplanes early.
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.

Dry96.6%

Wet91.4%

Value93.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (9)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	8^th / 10	36.3 m	+2.10 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	6^th / 10	108.3 s	+1.20 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 10	34.2 m	+5.60 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	8^th / 10	71.7 s	+3.80 s
Wet CircleLower is better	8^th / 10	21.6 s	+1.10 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 10	77.7 km/h	-7.20 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	9^th / 10	65.4 m/sec2	-4.40 m/sec2
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	3^rd / 10	6.48 kg/t	+0.84 kg/t
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 10	5.07 l/100km	Best in this discipline

EU Label: A/A/71
Weight: 7.9 kgs
Tread: 6.7 mm
Price: 989.00

The Michelin ePrimacy eco-tyre is said to have a CO2-neutral manufacturing process. Although the rolling resistance was the lowest in the laboratory, it was not the most frugal when we measured actual fuel consumption. Compared to Primacy 4, e.Primacy has a slightly better steering response and sharper high-speed stability. It is noticeable that it is designed to handle heavier EV-cars, partly helped by the unusually low tread depth – only 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.

Dry97.4%

Wet88.9%

Value99.4%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (9)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	6^th / 10	35.6 m	+1.40 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	8^th / 10	108.4 s	+1.30 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	9^th / 10	36.3 m	+7.70 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	9^th / 10	72.4 s	+4.50 s
Wet CircleLower is better	9^th / 10	22 s	+1.50 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	10^th / 10	75.2 km/h	-9.70 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	10^th / 10	64 m/sec2	-5.80 m/sec2
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	1^st / 10	5.64 kg/t	Best in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 10	5.13 l/100km	+0.06 l/100km

EU Label: A/B/69
Weight: 8 kgs
Tread: 6.1 mm
Price: 1119.00

Turkish Petlas offers one of the cheapest products you can find online. But Imperium PT515 is NOT an affordable solution. This is like throwing money in the lake. The stopping distance on wet asphalt is a full 10 meters longer than the best tires from 80 km / h.
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.

Dry94.4%

Wet88.6%

Value79.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (9)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	10^th / 10	37.9 m	+3.70 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	9^th / 10	108.7 s	+1.60 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	10^th / 10	38.2 m	+9.60 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	10^th / 10	72.6 s	+4.70 s
Wet CircleLower is better	10^th / 10	22.1 s	+1.60 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 10	78.4 km/h	-6.50 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	8^th / 10	66.6 m/sec2	-3.20 m/sec2
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	9^th / 10	8.39 kg/t	+2.75 kg/t
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	9^th / 10	5.48 l/100km	+0.41 l/100km

EU Label: C/B/71
Weight: 8.9 kgs
Tread: 8.1 mm
Price: 621.00

More tyre tests

Cross-check this test

All tyre tests

Where these tyres were tested again, and how the verdict held up.

ADAC2023

2023 ADAC Summer Tyre Test

205/55 R1650 tyres tested

6 of these 10 tyres tested again

Winner there

Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2

This test’s winner finished 2^nd there

Auto Bild2021

2021 53 Summer Tyre Braking Test

205/55 R1653 tyres tested

6 of these 10 tyres tested again

Winner there

Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125

This test’s winner finished 4^th there

Auto Bild2022

2022 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test

215/55 R1721 tyres tested

5 of these 10 tyres tested again

Winner there

Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2

More tyre tests2026 Die Reifentester Summer Tyre Test - 235/55 R18 2026 AutoView Sport Tyre Test 2026 Tire Rack Streetable Track Tyre Test 2026 Auto Express Summer Tyre Test All tests: Summer Tyres

Best tyresBest UUHP Tyres Best Performance Summer Tyres Best Summer Tyres

Discussion

8 comments

PaulF Dec 21, 2022 archived

I wonder if you wear down those non-eco tyres down to eco-tyre thread depts what would consumption will look like....

#8590
1. TyreReviews PaulF Dec 28, 2022 archived
  
  A magazine did it and it ended up pretty close...
  
  #8600
Grunt007 Aug 6, 2022 archived

Why on earth is the fuel consumption test set up so clumsily?!
Driving in a continuous circle, which introduces centrifugal forces and changes the characteristics of each tyre...
Using a petrol engine, which wastes more than 75% of energy in the cooling system, is of course going to minimise the effects. They really could not find a single electric car in all of Sweden...?
With EVs, rolling resistance makes up more than half of the typical consumption.
I run an Jaguar I-Pace EV. I have switched from the OEM B label Good Years summer tyres to A label Pirelli's. (The Pirellli's are all season tyres,, which I run in winter.)
I have a clearly measured improvement in efficiency of more than 1.5kWh per 100km, or nearly 10%. 10% more range, 10% less charging time etc, that really makes a difference.
It is very encouraging to see that all manufacturers increasingly understand the importance and field gradual improvements with each new tyre released. In my opinion this 'test' does little to advance understanding or awareness as it leads to dismissing the entire notion as marketing. While the pressure shoulf IMO be to gain the tangible, real benefits without the trade-off disadvantages that speaks from this test.

#8174
1. TyreReviews Grunt007 Aug 7, 2022 archived
  
  Because fuel consumption tests are hard. Driving in a straight line introduces wind issues. We have the bench tests of the tyres so we have actual rolling resistance data of the tyres fortunately.
  And yes you're right the RR effect of a tyre on an EV is around 3x an IC. EVs still aren't usually part of test fleets yet because of the recharge time and the amount of energy used in a full test.
  
  #8177
Paolo Cavarzere Apr 23, 2022 archived

Funny to see that some brand new tyres have just 2 mm thread more than the value (4mm) some few years ago manufacturers was suggesting as limit for safe wet conditions...
I will never trade 5.6 meters on wet bracking or 10 km/h margin on aquaplaning for 0.2 l/100km... (happy to spend extea 0.36 €/100km for safety).

#8012
Pedro Neves Apr 16, 2022 archived

Finally a test like this one to break many urban and marketing myths! It's funny to see, however, how that 1% of fuel consumption increase for each 5% of rolling resistance increase rule of thumb almost goes out of the window. For instance: the Michelin e-Primacy has 13% lower RR than the Conti EC6 but has a FC 1,2% higher; the Conti PC6 has a RR 31% higher than the Conti EC6 but only wastes 3,8% more fuel, and the same Conti PC6 has a RR 7,5% higher than the Michelin P4 but has a FC 0,6% lower. Of course, comparing the results on a naked eye, in general terms, the lower the RR the lower the fuel consumption, so, I wonder if tyre weight is that important in terms of fuel consumption as rolling resistance or have they measured the RR and FC in this test in a very scientific manner or not? But then, the Bridgestone T005 has a RR 0,4% lower than the Goodyear EGP2, weighs 8,4% less but burns 2 % more fuel...
Maybe tyre aerodynamics counts just as much...

#7973
1. TyreReviews Pedro Neves Apr 18, 2022 archived
  
  Fuel consumption was measured in a driven circle, I'm not sure how accurate that is, but rolling resistance is measured on a drum and VERY accurate as it's also the EU standard for the label!
  You're right though, it's very interesting.
  
  #7978
930 Engineering Apr 15, 2022 archived

Sadly all reviews of this size are missing the Michelin Pilot Sport 4. Actually the PS4 is available in 205/55 R16 for some time (as was the PS3 before) as one of the very few UHP tyres in this 'milder' size. 'Sadly' because I supect it would be a clear winner. At the very least it likely would be on par with Conti's PremiumContact 6.

#7969

Menu

Tyre shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

EV vs Normal Tyre Test Results

Dry

Wet

Environment

Results

Cross-check this test