2022 ViBilagare Eco vs Normal Tyre Test

Dry BrakingContinental Premium Contact 6: 34.2 MPetlas Imperium PT515: 37.9 M
Dry HandlingContinental Premium Contact 6: 107.1 sNokian Hakka Green 3: 109.4 s
Wet BrakingNokian Hakka Blue 3: 28.6 MPetlas Imperium PT515: 38.2 M
Wet HandlingNokian Hakka Blue 3: 67.9 sPetlas Imperium PT515: 72.6 s
Wet CircleContinental Premium Contact 6: 20.5 sPetlas Imperium PT515: 22.1 s
Straight AquaMichelin Primacy 4: 84.9 Km/HMichelin e.Primacy: 75.2 Km/H
Curved AquaplaningBridgestone Turanza T005: 69.8 m/sec2Michelin e.Primacy: 64 m/sec2
PricePetlas Imperium PT515: 0621 Michelin e.Primacy: 1119
Rolling ResistanceMichelin e.Primacy: 5.64 kg / tContinental Premium Contact 6: 8.46 kg / t
Fuel ConsumptionContinental EcoContact 6: 5.07 l/100kmNokian Hakka Blue 3: 5.49 l/100km
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.

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

View Results as a single table and adjust the score weighting

1st: Continental Premium Contact 6

Continental Premium Contact 6
  • 205/55 R16 91V
  • EU Label: C/A/71
  • UTQG: 280
  • Weight: 9kgs
  • Tread: 7.4mm
Test#Difference%
Dry Braking1st100%
Dry Handling1st100%
Wet Braking2nd+1.2 M95.97%
Wet Handling2nd+0.2 s99.71%
Wet Circle1st100%
Straight Aqua4th-3.7 Km/H95.64%
Curved Aquaplaning7th-2.8 m/sec295.99%
Price5th+348 64.09%
Rolling Resistance10th+2.82 kg / t66.67%
Fuel Consumption6th+0.19 l/100km96.39%
Short braking distances and high cornering grip. Safe driving characteristics.
Slightly lower comfort level.
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.

Read Reviews    Buy from £68.99

2nd: Nokian Hakka Blue 3

Nokian Hakka Blue 3
  • 205/55 R16 94V
  • EU Label: C/A/67
  • Weight: 8.2kgs
  • Tread: 7.9mm
Test#Difference%
Dry Braking3rd+0.9 M97.44%
Dry Handling6th+1.2 s98.89%
Wet Braking1st100%
Wet Handling1st100%
Wet Circle2nd+0.1 s99.51%
Straight Aqua2nd-3.1 Km/H96.35%
Curved Aquaplaning5th-2.5 m/sec296.42%
Price9th+448 58.09%
Rolling Resistance8th+2.59 kg / t68.53%
Fuel Consumption10th+0.42 l/100km92.35%
High wet grip, easy to control on the grip limit. Quiet on the rough road.
Relatively high consumption.
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.

Read Reviews

3rd: Bridgestone Turanza T005

Bridgestone Turanza T005
  • 205/55 R16 91W
  • EU Label: B/A/71
  • Weight: 7.6kgs
  • Tread: 7.4mm
Test#Difference%
Dry Braking3rd+0.9 M97.44%
Dry Handling2nd+0.5 s99.54%
Wet Braking5th+3.4 M89.38%
Wet Handling3rd+0.3 s99.56%
Wet Circle3rd+0.2 s99.03%
Straight Aqua2nd-3.1 Km/H96.35%
Curved Aquaplaning1st100%
Price4th+258 70.65%
Rolling Resistance4th+1.48 kg / t79.21%
Fuel Consumption5th+0.17 l/100km96.76%
Rapid steering reactions, high driving pleasure.
Rolls hard over bumps, road noise.
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.

Read Reviews    Buy from £57.19

4th: Toyo Proxes Comfort

Toyo Proxes Comfort
  • 205/55 R16 91H
  • EU Label: CA/70
  • Weight: 8.4kgs
  • Tread: 7.9mm
Test#Difference%
Dry Braking2nd+0.8 M97.71%
Dry Handling3rd+0.6 s99.44%
Wet Braking4th+3.1 M90.22%
Wet Handling4th+0.8 s98.84%
Wet Circle3rd+0.2 s99.03%
Straight Aqua5th-4.2 Km/H95.05%
Curved Aquaplaning3rd-1.1 m/sec298.42%
Price2nd+158 79.72%
Rolling Resistance7th+2.58 kg / t68.61%
Fuel Consumption8th+0.34 l/100km93.72%
High grip level overall, good curved aquaplaning ability.
Relatively high fuel consumption.
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.

Read Reviews    Buy from £48.26

5th: Michelin Primacy 4

Michelin Primacy 4
  • 205/55 R16 91V
  • EU Label: C/A/68
  • Weight: 8.9kgs
  • Tread: 7.5mm
Test#Difference%
Dry Braking5th+1.1 M96.88%
Dry Handling4th+0.7 s99.35%
Wet Braking3rd+2.7 M91.37%
Wet Handling6th+1.2 s98.26%
Wet Circle6th+0.5 s97.62%
Straight Aqua1st100%
Curved Aquaplaning2nd-0.9 m/sec298.71%
Price8th+418 59.77%
Rolling Resistance6th+2.23 kg / t71.66%
Fuel Consumption7th+0.22 l/100km95.84%
Logical and easy to drive. Good aquaplaning resistance.
Side grip on wet road. Sound comfort.
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.

Read Reviews    Buy from £69.69

6th: Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2

Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
  • 205/55 R16 91V
  • EU Label: B/A/69
  • Weight: 8.3kgs
  • Tread: 8.2mm
Test#Difference%
Dry Braking7th+1.8 M95%
Dry Handling4th+0.7 s99.35%
Wet Braking6th+4.4 M86.67%
Wet Handling5th+1 s98.55%
Wet Circle5th+0.4 s98.09%
Straight Aqua6th-4.5 Km/H94.7%
Curved Aquaplaning4th-1.9 m/sec297.28%
Price3rd+248 71.46%
Rolling Resistance5th+1.51 kg / t78.88%
Fuel Consumption3rd+0.07 l/100km98.64%
High comfort, low rolling resistance, price.
Slightly diffuse driving characteristics.
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.

Read Reviews    Buy from £56.59

7th: Nokian Hakka Green 3

Nokian Hakka Green 3
  • 205/55 R16 94V
  • EU Label: A/B/69
  • Weight: 7.7kgs
  • Tread: 7.9mm
Test#Difference%
Dry Braking9th+3.3 M91.2%
Dry Handling10th+2.3 s97.9%
Wet Braking7th+5.1 M84.87%
Wet Handling6th+1.2 s98.26%
Wet Circle7th+0.7 s96.7%
Straight Aqua7th-5.5 Km/H93.52%
Curved Aquaplaning5th-2.5 m/sec296.42%
Price7th+398 60.94%
Rolling Resistance2nd+0.65 kg / t89.67%
Fuel Consumption4th+0.1 l/100km98.07%
Silent. Decent wet grip for an eco-tire.
Long braking distances. Not efficient enough.
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.

Read Reviews

8th: Continental EcoContact 6

Continental EcoContact 6
  • 205/55 R16 91V
  • EU Label: A/A/71
  • Weight: 7.9kgs
  • Tread: 6.7mm
Test#Difference%
Dry Braking8th+2.1 M94.21%
Dry Handling6th+1.2 s98.89%
Wet Braking8th+5.6 M83.63%
Wet Handling8th+3.8 s94.7%
Wet Circle8th+1.1 s94.91%
Straight Aqua9th-7.2 Km/H91.52%
Curved Aquaplaning9th-4.4 m/sec293.7%
Price6th+368 62.79%
Rolling Resistance3rd+0.84 kg / t87.04%
Fuel Consumption1st100%
Low consumption. Good comfort.
Poor wet grip. Extended braking distances. Slow steering reaction.
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.

Read Reviews    Buy from £67.89

9th: Michelin e.Primacy

Michelin e.Primacy
  • 205/55 R16 91W
  • EU Label: A/B/69
  • Weight: 8kgs
  • Tread: 6.1mm
Test#Difference%
Dry Braking6th+1.4 M96.07%
Dry Handling8th+1.3 s98.8%
Wet Braking9th+7.7 M78.79%
Wet Handling9th+4.5 s93.78%
Wet Circle9th+1.5 s93.18%
Straight Aqua10th-9.7 Km/H88.57%
Curved Aquaplaning10th-5.8 m/sec291.69%
Price10th+498 55.5%
Rolling Resistance1st100%
Fuel Consumption2nd+0.06 l/100km98.83%
Low rolling resistance, good stability, crisp steering feel.
Very poor wet grip! Long stopping distances in wet.
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.

Read Reviews    Buy from £76.89

10th: Petlas Imperium PT515

Petlas Imperium PT515
  • 205/55 R16 91V
  • EU Label: C/B/71
  • Weight: 8.9kgs
  • Tread: 8.1mm
Test#Difference%
Dry Braking10th+3.7 M90.24%
Dry Handling9th+1.6 s98.53%
Wet Braking10th+9.6 M74.87%
Wet Handling10th+4.7 s93.53%
Wet Circle10th+1.6 s92.76%
Straight Aqua8th-6.5 Km/H92.34%
Curved Aquaplaning8th-3.2 m/sec295.42%
Price1st100%
Rolling Resistance9th+2.75 kg / t67.22%
Fuel Consumption9th+0.41 l/100km92.52%
Good shock absorption and low noise on rough asphalt.
Difficult to control in a crisis situations. Poor braking performance.
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.

Read Reviews

Similar Tyre Tests




Discussion:

comments powered by Disqus