2023 ADAC Summer Tyre Test

It's the 50th anniversary of the ADAC tyre test, and to celebrate the German automotive body have tested fifty summer tyres in the popular 205/55 R16 tyre size, and have included wear testing for every tyre!

There's a lot to unpack in this test, so we'll dive straight in! Headline notes, there are two Michelin tyres in this test, the Michelin Primacy 4+ and the energy saving Michelin e.Primacy, the Continental on test is not the new PremiumContact 7, it's the previous model, the Continental PremiumContact 6, and Continental also have the new Continental UltraContact in the test which is meant to be a lower rolling resistance and higher mileage tyre for those who drive a lot of distance!

Wear

Wear is a key quality of any tyre - what good is a tyre that has amazing grip if it only lasts a few thousand miles?! Road wear testing is incredibly expensive, and with 50 sets of tyres on test ADAC had to split the tyres between road and machine wearing with control tyres between the two to ensure data correlation. 

As usual, Michelin led the wear test, but not with the tyre you'd expect. The Michelin e.Primacy, which starts with lower than average tread depth and is designed for very low fuel use (more on that later) recorded a staggering estimated 71,500kms tread life! 

The second best tyre was the impressive Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 which once again highlights the longevity of modern Goodyear products, and the low wearing Michelin Primacy 4+ was just beaten to third by the budget Doublecoin DC99. This also happens to be the best result for the Doublecoin, keep an eye on it later in the test.

Of the known brand names, it was a disappointing result for Uniroyal, Nokian and Dunlop, all projected to have less than half the miles of the best.

The advantage of having the prices of the tyres and estimated mileage, you can get an idea of the value of the tyres, based in Euros Per 1000km to see how much you get for your money.

As the Doublecoin was one of the best wearing AND one of the cheapest, it offered exceptional value, but we still wouldn't recommend fitting it unless you're really into sliding around. Of the good tyres on test, it was again the Goodyear and Michelin offering great cost per mile, but the Kumho Ecsta HS52 was up there in the mix too.

Wet

Often wear comes at the expense of wet grip, but once again Goodyear and Michelin (with the Primacy 4+ at least) are proving to break that trend. ADAC only published their wet braking data, of which they use two surfaces, asphalt and concrete. This is where the Michelin, Goodyear and Continental stretch their legs, but it was also a good grip result for the Cooper, Hankook and ESA Tecar on both surfaces.

Straight aquaplaning was led by Uniroyal, with the Doublecoin and Michelin e.Primacy struggling. You can read the result of curved aquaplaning in the results table below.

Dry

Continental once again led the way in dry braking, narrowly beating out the Hankook and Michelin e.Primacy.

Environment

As the environmental impact of all industry is becoming ever more important, the big tyre tests are now measuring "abrasion" which is how much rubber, measured in weight, the tyre loses. While a high mileage tyre should lead in this category, it isn't always a straight correlation as the tyres have different amounts of material in them.

The best in test was the e.Primacy, and ignoring the budget Michelin also did very well with the Primacy 4+, but Continentals new high mileage tyre, the UltraContact, also performed extremely well.

Fuel consumption was measured in a real world test rather than a machine rolling resistance test, and, well, there was a disappointingly small range of results. The total spread was 5.5 litres per 100km to 5.9 litres per 100km.

Given the relatively small real world advantage a tyre like the e.Primacy has in this test over a tyre like the Bridgestone Turanza T005, but the large disadvantage it has in wet grip, it makes me wonder if ultra low rolling resistance tyres are really the correct choice for anyone.

Finally external noise was measured, but for the sake of avoiding another long chart, you can find the data below. The e.Primacy was impressively quiet, and the Petlas impressively loud!

Results

You can find the full results below, with some of the testers notes on key tyres. If you want to see the full test we strongly suggest you learn German and head over to the ADAC website here.

1st: Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: B/A/69	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 13th 37.7 M 35.9 M +1.8 M 95.23% Wet Braking 11th 37.4 M 34.4 M +3 M 91.98% Wet Braking - Concrete 5th 36 M 35.2 M +0.8 M 97.78% Straight Aqua 27th 80.3 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -6.4 Km/H 92.62% Curved Aquaplaning 19th 3.5 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 87.5% Noise 15th 70.6 dB 69.1 dB +1.5 dB 97.88% Tyre Weight 11th 8.3 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.7 Kg 91.57% Wear 2nd 65700 KM 71500 KM -5800 KM 91.89% Value 8th 1.67 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.64 Price/1000 61.68% Price 44th 110 45 +65 40.91% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 5th 61.3 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +26.5 mg/km/t 56.77% Very balanced, good on dry and wet roads, good environmental record, very high mileage (top grade), efficient. None mentioned. Driving safety: The Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2 secures an overall good rating for driving safety. It offers the driver decent feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads, shows itself to be safe at the limit and boasts an above-average braking distance on dry roads. On wet roads, the Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2 shines in braking distance measurements and wet handling with good grip and safe drivability. Only when it comes to aquaplaning behavior does it not get beyond a satisfactory rating. Environmental balance: In the environmental balance, the Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2 scores with above-average mileage in the wear test and low abrasion. The efficiency is also impressive thanks to the low tire weight and low fuel consumption. When it comes to noise, the Goodyear performs satisfactorily. Read Reviews    Buy from £66.99
2nd: Continental Premium Contact 6
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 1st 35.9 M 100% Wet Braking 1st 34.4 M 100% Wet Braking - Concrete 1st 35.2 M 100% Straight Aqua 27th 80.3 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -6.4 Km/H 92.62% Curved Aquaplaning 33rd 3.3 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.7 m/sec2 82.5% Noise 33rd 71.4 dB 69.1 dB +2.3 dB 96.78% Tyre Weight 36th 8.9 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.3 Kg 85.39% Wear 6th 49700 KM 71500 KM -21800 KM 69.51% Value 32nd 2.31 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.28 Price/1000 44.59% Price 48th 115 45 +70 39.13% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 10th 69.5 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +34.7 mg/km/t 50.07% Very balanced, high driving safety (top mark), good on dry and wet roads (top marks), high mileage. Weaknesses in efficiency. Driving safety: The Continental PremiumContact 6 is impressive across the board and secured the top mark in the test for driving safety. It offers the driver good feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads, shows itself to be safe at the limit and claims the shortest braking distance in the test. This means that its performance on dry roads is clearly rated as good. But the Continental also shines with its performance on wet roads and also secured the top mark in the test here. It delivers the shortest braking distances in the test and is absolutely safe and easy to control over the wet handling course. Only when it comes to aquaplaning does it not get beyond a satisfactory rating. Environmental balance: In terms of the environmental balance, the PremiumContact 6 just missed out on a good rating. In the wear test, it delivers a good predicted mileage and its abrasion is also low, in terms of efficiency it just misses a good rating due to the tyre weight. When it comes to noise, it also performs satisfactorily. Read Reviews    Buy from £79.99
3rd: Michelin Primacy 4+
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/69	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 5th 36.9 M 35.9 M +1 M 97.29% Wet Braking 6th 36.7 M 34.4 M +2.3 M 93.73% Wet Braking - Concrete 11th 37.7 M 35.2 M +2.5 M 93.37% Straight Aqua 7th 83.5 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -3.2 Km/H 96.31% Curved Aquaplaning 14th 3.6 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.4 m/sec2 90% Noise 12th 70.5 dB 69.1 dB +1.4 dB 98.01% Tyre Weight 26th 8.6 Kg 7.6 Kg +1 Kg 88.37% Wear 4th 61300 KM 71500 KM -10200 KM 85.73% Value 16th 1.96 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.93 Price/1000 52.55% Price 49th 120 45 +75 37.5% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 4th 53.7 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +18.9 mg/km/t 64.8% Very balanced, good on dry and wet roads, good environmental record, very high mileage (top grade.) None mentioned. Driving safety: The Michelin Primacy 4+ secures an overall good rating for driving safety. The Michelin already offers the driver only satisfactory feedback on the steering wheel on a dry road, but still shows itself to be safe in the limit area. Its braking distance is classified as good compared to the test field. On wet roads, the Michelin gets good ratings in terms of braking distance measurements, aquaplaning behavior and handling. This makes it very balanced on wet roads. It offers good grip and safe driving characteristics. Environmental balance: In the environmental balance, the Primacy 4+ secures the second best rating in the test (best: Michelin e.Primacy). Its predicted mileage is classified as very good and its abrasion is also low. Read Reviews    Buy from £88.45
4th: Bridgestone Turanza T005
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: B/A/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 9th 37.3 M 35.9 M +1.4 M 96.25% Wet Braking 12th 37.7 M 34.4 M +3.3 M 91.25% Wet Braking - Concrete 19th 39.1 M 35.2 M +3.9 M 90.03% Straight Aqua 8th 82.8 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -3.9 Km/H 95.5% Curved Aquaplaning 19th 3.5 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 87.5% Noise 44th 72.3 dB 69.1 dB +3.2 dB 95.57% Tyre Weight 3rd 7.7 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.1 Kg 98.7% Wear 17th 40400 KM 71500 KM -31100 KM 56.5% Value 43rd 2.75 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.72 Price/1000 37.45% Price 46th 111 45 +66 40.54% Fuel Consumption 3rd 5.6 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.1 l/100km 98.21% Abrasion 15th 73.3 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +38.5 mg/km/t 47.48% Balanced, good on dry and wet roads, good environmental balance, high efficiency (top mark.) None mentioned. Driving safety: The Bridgestone Turanza T005 secures an overall good rating for driving safety. The Bridgestone Turanza T005 offers the driver decent feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads, shows itself to be safe at the limit and boasts a short braking distance on dry roads. On wet roads, the Bridgestone excels in braking distance measurements, longitudinal aquaplaning and wet handling with good grip and safe drivability. Only when aquaplaning transversely does it not get beyond a satisfactory rating. Environmental balance: The Bridgestone Turanza T005 achieves a good result in the environmental balance. It shines in terms of efficiency thanks to its low weight and fuel consumption, but its predicted mileage is rated as just good. Read Reviews    Buy from £63.99
5th: Nokian WetProof
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/68	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 14th 37.8 M 35.9 M +1.9 M 94.97% Wet Braking 3rd 35.8 M 34.4 M +1.4 M 96.09% Wet Braking - Concrete 8th 37.3 M 35.2 M +2.1 M 94.37% Straight Aqua 2nd 84.6 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -2.1 Km/H 97.58% Curved Aquaplaning 19th 3.5 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 87.5% Noise 15th 70.6 dB 69.1 dB +1.5 dB 97.88% Tyre Weight 11th 8.3 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.7 Kg 91.57% Wear 31st 35500 KM 71500 KM -36000 KM 49.65% Value 34th 2.45 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.42 Price/1000 42.04% Price 30th 87 45 +42 51.72% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 41st 90.9 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +56.1 mg/km/t 38.28% Balanced, good on dry and wet roads, efficient. Weakness in the environmental balance, weaknesses in mileage and abrasion, slight weaknesses in sustainability. Driving safety: The Nokian Wetproof impresses with its driving characteristics and thus secures a good rating for driving safety. It offers the driver good feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads, is absolutely safe at the limit and also impresses with short braking distances on dry roads. Overall, its performance on dry roads is clearly rated as good. But the Nokian also offers good properties on wet roads. It has good ratings for braking distance measurements, longitudinal aquaplaning and handling. Only in lateral aquaplaning does it not get beyond a satisfactory rating. Environmental balance: In terms of environmental balance, the Wetproof does not get more than a satisfactory rating. Both its predicted mileage and its abrasion are classified as only satisfactory in relation to the test field. Thanks to the low tire weight and low fuel consumption, however, it achieves a good rating for efficiency. Read Reviews
6th: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/67	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 11th 37.4 M 35.9 M +1.5 M 95.99% Wet Braking 7th 36.8 M 34.4 M +2.4 M 93.48% Wet Braking - Concrete 4th 35.8 M 35.2 M +0.6 M 98.32% Straight Aqua 33rd 79.7 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -7 Km/H 91.93% Curved Aquaplaning 19th 3.5 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 87.5% Noise 42nd 71.9 dB 69.1 dB +2.8 dB 96.11% Tyre Weight 40th 9 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.4 Kg 84.44% Wear 15th 40800 KM 71500 KM -30700 KM 57.06% Value 25th 2.18 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.15 Price/1000 47.25% Price 33rd 89 45 +44 50.56% Fuel Consumption 43rd 5.9 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.4 l/100km 93.22% Abrasion 22nd 75.7 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +40.9 mg/km/t 45.97% Balanced, good on wet and dry roads (top mark.) Slight weaknesses in the environmental balance, weakness in efficiency, weaknesses in sustainability. Driving safety: The Falken ZIEX ZE310 ECORUN sets the bar high on dry roads and also secures a good rating on wet roads, which leads to a good assessment of driving safety. The Falken secured the top mark in the test on dry roads. It offers the driver exemplary feedback on the steering wheel, is absolutely safe at the limit and also impresses with a short braking distance. The Falken ZIEX ZE310 ECORUN also gets a good rating on wet roads. It gets good ratings for braking distance measurements, lateral aquaplaning and wet handling. The test car can be driven safely and easily controlled over the course. Only in lateral aquaplaning does it not get beyond a satisfactory rating. Environmental balance: When it comes to the environmental balance, the ZIEX ZE310 does not get more than a satisfactory result. It does get good ratings for its predicted mileage and abrasion, but since it's quite heavy in comparison, it doesn't get more than a satisfactory rating for efficiency. In terms of sustainability, the tire produced in Turkey does not go beyond an adequate assessment. Read Reviews    Buy from £64.76
7th: Continental UltraContact
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: B/A/69	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 7th 37.1 M 35.9 M +1.2 M 96.77% Wet Braking 16th 38.3 M 34.4 M +3.9 M 89.82% Wet Braking - Concrete 16th 38.7 M 35.2 M +3.5 M 90.96% Straight Aqua 46th 76.5 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -10.2 Km/H 88.24% Curved Aquaplaning 46th 2.9 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -1.1 m/sec2 72.5% Noise 23rd 71 dB 69.1 dB +1.9 dB 97.32% Tyre Weight 9th 8.2 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.6 Kg 92.68% Wear 5th 55900 KM 71500 KM -15600 KM 78.18% Value 20th 2.02 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.99 Price/1000 50.99% Price 47th 113 45 +68 39.82% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 3rd 52.5 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +17.7 mg/km/t 66.29% Balanced, good on dry roads, good environmental record, very high mileage. Slight weakness on wet roads. Driving safety: The Continental UltraContact is rated as just satisfactory when it comes to driving safety. The UltraContact offers the driver satisfactory feedback on the steering wheel on a dry road, but is still safe at the limit. Thanks to its short braking distance, it can still secure a good overall rating on dry roads. On wet roads, however, the UltraContact does not get more than a satisfactory rating. Although it scores in the braking distance measurements and also in handling with good grip and safe driving characteristics, it falters when it comes to aquaplaning. In the case of longitudinal aquaplaning, he does not get more than a satisfactory result, and in the case of transverse aquaplaning, even more than an adequate result. Environmental balance: In the environmental balance, the UltraContact secures one of the best results in the test. His predicted mileage is classified as very good, and he only just misses a very good rating for wear. The tire also scores with its low weight and low fuel consumption. Read Reviews    Buy from £91.69
8th: Kumho Ecsta HS52
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 3rd 36.7 M 35.9 M +0.8 M 97.82% Wet Braking 17th 38.4 M 34.4 M +4 M 89.58% Wet Braking - Concrete 9th 37.6 M 35.2 M +2.4 M 93.62% Straight Aqua 13th 81.9 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -4.8 Km/H 94.46% Curved Aquaplaning 33rd 3.3 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.7 m/sec2 82.5% Noise 23rd 71 dB 69.1 dB +1.9 dB 97.32% Tyre Weight 41st 9.1 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.5 Kg 83.52% Wear 12th 43500 KM 71500 KM -28000 KM 60.84% Value 13th 1.89 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.86 Price/1000 54.5% Price 24th 82 45 +37 54.88% Fuel Consumption 43rd 5.9 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.4 l/100km 93.22% Abrasion 29th 79.3 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +44.5 mg/km/t 43.88% Balanced, good on dry and wet roads. Slight weaknesses in the environmental balance, weaknesses in efficiency, weaknesses in sustainability. Driving safety: The Kumho Ecsta HS52 secures an overall good rating for driving safety. The HS52 offers the driver only satisfactory feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads, but is still safe at the limit. Its braking distance is classified as good compared to the test field. On wet roads, the Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores in the braking distance measurements, longitudinal aquaplaning and wet handling with good grip and safe drivability. However, its transverse aquaplaning behavior is only rated as satisfactory. Overall, the Kumho secured a good rating for wet performance. Environmental balance: When it comes to the environmental balance, the Kumho does not get more than a satisfactory result. Although it scores in terms of predicted mileage and abrasion, but offers only satisfactory efficiency due to the higher tire weight. In terms of sustainability, the tire produced in China is rated as sufficient. Read Reviews
9th: Hankook Ventus Prime 4
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/69	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 2nd 36.6 M 35.9 M +0.7 M 98.09% Wet Braking 3rd 35.8 M 34.4 M +1.4 M 96.09% Wet Braking - Concrete 2nd 35.5 M 35.2 M +0.3 M 99.15% Straight Aqua 43rd 77.6 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -9.1 Km/H 89.5% Curved Aquaplaning 39th 3.2 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.8 m/sec2 80% Noise 38th 71.7 dB 69.1 dB +2.6 dB 96.37% Tyre Weight 41st 9.1 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.5 Kg 83.52% Wear 13th 42200 KM 71500 KM -29300 KM 59.02% Value 22nd 2.11 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.08 Price/1000 48.82% Price 33rd 89 45 +44 50.56% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 8th 67.6 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +32.8 mg/km/t 51.48% Balanced, good on dry and wet roads. Slight weakness when aquaplaning, slight weaknesses in the environmental balance, weaknesses in efficiency. Driving safety: The Hankook Ventus Prime4 secured a good overall rating for driving safety. The Ventus Prime 4 offers the driver satisfactory feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads, but is still safe at the limit. Its braking distance is classified as good compared to the test field. On wet roads, the Hankook Ventus Prime 4 scores in braking distance measurements and in wet handling with good grip and safe drivability. However, its aquaplaning behavior is only rated as satisfactory. Overall, the Hankook secured a good rating for wet performance. Environmental balance: In the environmental balance, the Ventus Prime4 gets a good rating for the predicted mileage and for its abrasion. In terms of efficiency, on the other hand, it loses out due to its relatively high weight. All in all, it does not go beyond a satisfactory result in terms of the environmental balance. Read Reviews
10th: Nexen N Fera Primus
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: D/A/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 19th 38.2 M 35.9 M +2.3 M 93.98% Wet Braking 15th 38.2 M 34.4 M +3.8 M 90.05% Wet Braking - Concrete 12th 37.9 M 35.2 M +2.7 M 92.88% Straight Aqua 4th 84.5 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -2.2 Km/H 97.46% Curved Aquaplaning 8th 3.7 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.3 m/sec2 92.5% Noise 18th 70.7 dB 69.1 dB +1.6 dB 97.74% Tyre Weight 19th 8.4 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.8 Kg 90.48% Wear 38th 33300 KM 71500 KM -38200 KM 46.57% Value 39th 2.58 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.55 Price/1000 39.92% Price 27th 86 45 +41 52.33% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 40th 88.1 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +53.3 mg/km/t 39.5% Balanced, good on dry and wet roads. Weakness in the environmental balance, weaknesses in mileage, slight weaknesses in sustainability. Driving Safety: The Nexen N'Fera Primus secures an overall good rating for driving safety. The Nexen offers the driver good feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads and is still safe even at the limit. In addition, its braking distance is rated as good compared to the test field. On wet roads, the N'Fera Primus gets good ratings for both braking distance measurements and aquaplaning behavior. In terms of handling, the Nexen just missed out on a good rating. All in all, it is still enough for a good assessment of the wet performance. Environmental balance: In terms of environmental balance, the Nexen does not get more than a satisfactory result. Both its predicted mileage and its abrasion are classified as satisfactory. Read Reviews
11th: Kenda Kenetica Pro KR210
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/B/69	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 32nd 39.5 M 35.9 M +3.6 M 90.89% Wet Braking 22nd 40.2 M 34.4 M +5.8 M 85.57% Wet Braking - Concrete 25th 40.1 M 35.2 M +4.9 M 87.78% Straight Aqua 5th 84.1 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -2.6 Km/H 97% Curved Aquaplaning 8th 3.7 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.3 m/sec2 92.5% Noise 23rd 71 dB 69.1 dB +1.9 dB 97.32% Tyre Weight 36th 8.9 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.3 Kg 85.39% Wear 33rd 35100 KM 71500 KM -36400 KM 49.09% Value 28th 2.25 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.22 Price/1000 45.78% Price 21st 79 45 +34 56.96% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 38th 87 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +52.2 mg/km/t 40% Good on dry and wet roads. Not quite balanced, weaknesses in the environmental balance, relatively low mileage (devaluation), significant weakness in sustainability. Driving safety: The Kenda Kenetica Pro KR210 secures an overall good rating for driving safety. The Kenda offers the driver good feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads and is also safe at the limit. In addition, its braking distance is rated as good compared to the test field. On wet roads, the Kenetica Pro KR210 missed a good rating in the braking distance measurements, but was able to secure good marks in aquaplaning behavior and handling. All in all, it is enough for a still good assessment of the wet performance. Environmental balance: When it comes to the environmental balance, the Kenda does not get beyond a satisfactory result. Both its predicted mileage and its abrasion are classified as satisfactory. In terms of sustainability, the tire produced in Taiwan is rated as sufficient. Read Reviews
12th: Kleber Dynaxer HP4
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/68	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 9th 37.3 M 35.9 M +1.4 M 96.25% Wet Braking 22nd 40.2 M 34.4 M +5.8 M 85.57% Wet Braking - Concrete 24th 39.5 M 35.2 M +4.3 M 89.11% Straight Aqua 19th 81.3 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -5.4 Km/H 93.77% Curved Aquaplaning 8th 3.7 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.3 m/sec2 92.5% Noise 8th 70.3 dB 69.1 dB +1.2 dB 98.29% Tyre Weight 34th 8.8 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.2 Kg 86.36% Wear 7th 48000 KM 71500 KM -23500 KM 67.13% Value 11th 1.83 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.8 Price/1000 56.28% Price 31st 88 45 +43 51.14% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 6th 63.5 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +28.7 mg/km/t 54.8% Good for the environmental balance, good for mileage, abrasion and efficiency. Not quite balanced, weakness on wet roads. Driving Safety: The driving safety of the Kleber Dynaxer HP4 does not go beyond a satisfactory rating. It offers the driver only average feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads and could prove to be a bit more stable during dynamic evasive maneuvers. Its braking distance is still classified as good, but overall it just misses out on a good rating on dry roads. On wet roads, the Kleber Dynaxer HP4 does not get more than a satisfactory rating either. Although it scored well in the aquaplaning tests, it only performed satisfactorily in the braking distance measurements and handling. It lacks a bit of grip and precision for a better rating. Environmental balance: In the environmental balance, the Dynaxer HP4 secures a good result in the test. Both its predicted mileage and its abrasion are rated as good. The tire also scores with its low fuel consumption, but it just misses out on a good rating in terms of weight. Read Reviews    Buy from £67.25
13th: Fulda EcoControl HP2
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/B/70	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 17th 38 M 35.9 M +2.1 M 94.47% Wet Braking 26th 40.8 M 34.4 M +6.4 M 84.31% Wet Braking - Concrete 31st 41.1 M 35.2 M +5.9 M 85.64% Straight Aqua 23rd 80.8 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -5.9 Km/H 93.19% Curved Aquaplaning 3rd 3.8 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.2 m/sec2 95% Noise 30th 71.2 dB 69.1 dB +2.1 dB 97.05% Tyre Weight 5th 7.9 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.3 Kg 96.2% Wear 8th 47500 KM 71500 KM -24000 KM 66.43% Value 13th 1.89 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.86 Price/1000 54.5% Price 35th 90 45 +45 50% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 11th 70.1 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +35.3 mg/km/t 49.64% Good for the environment, good for mileage, abrasion and efficiency. Not quite balanced, weakness on wet roads. Driving safety: The Fulda EcoControl HP2 can get a good rating on dry roads, but it does not get more than a satisfactory rating in the wet and thus overall driving safety. Overall, the Fulda still achieves a good rating on dry roads. Although it only offers the driver satisfactory feedback on the steering wheel, it is still safe at the limit. Its braking distance is also classified as clearly good compared to the test field. The EcoControl HP2 misses out on a good rating on wet roads. Although it can show good results in aquaplaning behavior, it does not get more than a satisfactory rating in wet braking and handling. It offers a medium level of grip and can only satisfactorily combine longitudinal and lateral forces. Environmental balance: In the environmental balance, the EcoControl HP2 secures a good result in the test. Both its predicted mileage and its abrasion are rated as good. In addition, it can also get a good result with its low fuel consumption and low weight in terms of efficiency. Read Reviews
14th: Toyo Proxes Comfort
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/70	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 14th 37.8 M 35.9 M +1.9 M 94.97% Wet Braking 25th 40.6 M 34.4 M +6.2 M 84.73% Wet Braking - Concrete 17th 38.8 M 35.2 M +3.6 M 90.72% Straight Aqua 40th 78.3 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -8.4 Km/H 90.31% Curved Aquaplaning 19th 3.5 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 87.5% Noise 10th 70.4 dB 69.1 dB +1.3 dB 98.15% Tyre Weight 11th 8.3 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.7 Kg 91.57% Wear 14th 41700 KM 71500 KM -29800 KM 58.32% Value 19th 2.01 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.98 Price/1000 51.24% Price 26th 84 45 +39 53.57% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 25th 75.9 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +41.1 mg/km/t 45.85% Still good on dry roads, good environmental balance. Not quite balanced, slight weakness on wet roads (devaluation), significant weakness in sustainability Driving safety: The Toyo Tires Proxes Comfort just missed out on a good result when it came to driving safety. The Toyo Tires Proxes Comfort offers the driver only average feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads, but still shows itself to be safe in the limit area. Thanks to its short braking distance, the Toyo Tires Proxes Comfort just about got a good rating for dry performance. The Toyo Tires Proxes Comfort narrowly missed out on a good rating on wet roads. Its performance is rated as satisfactory for both braking distance and aquaplaning measurements. In wet handling he still gets good ratings, but overall that's not enough to get a good result in the wet. Environmental balance: In the environmental balance, the Proxes Comfort secured a good result in the test. Both its predicted mileage and its abrasion are rated as good. In addition, it can also get a good result with its low fuel consumption and low weight in terms of efficiency. In terms of sustainability, the tire produced in Japan does not go beyond a sufficient result. Read Reviews    Buy from £44.06
15th: Debica Presto HP 2
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: D/B/70	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 28th 39.4 M 35.9 M +3.5 M 91.12% Wet Braking 33rd 41.8 M 34.4 M +7.4 M 82.3% Wet Braking - Concrete 34th 41.7 M 35.2 M +6.5 M 84.41% Straight Aqua 12th 82.1 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -4.6 Km/H 94.69% Curved Aquaplaning 2nd 3.9 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.1 m/sec2 97.5% Noise 28th 71.1 dB 69.1 dB +2 dB 97.19% Tyre Weight 8th 8.1 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.5 Kg 93.83% Wear 10th 45700 KM 71500 KM -25800 KM 63.92% Value 10th 1.77 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.74 Price/1000 58.19% Price 23rd 81 45 +36 55.56% Fuel Consumption 43rd 5.9 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.4 l/100km 93.22% Abrasion 19th 74 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +39.2 mg/km/t 47.03% Good environmental record, good for mileage, abrasion and efficiency. Not quite balanced, weakness on wet roads. Driving safety: The Debica Presto HP 2 does not get more than a satisfactory rating in either dry or wet conditions and therefore also overall in terms of driving safety. The Debica offers the driver only satisfactory feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads, so that it is difficult to set the steering angle required for the curve right away. But its handling at the limit is only classified as satisfactory. After all, he can get a good rating for the braking distance. On wet roads, the Debica Presto HP 2 does not get more than a satisfactory rating either. Although the tire received good ratings for its aquaplaning behavior, its properties in braking tests and handling were only rated as satisfactory. It offers a medium level of grip and can only satisfactorily combine longitudinal and lateral forces. Environmental balance: In the environmental balance, the Presto HP 2 secures a good result in the test. Both its predicted mileage and its abrasion are rated as good. In addition, it can also get a good result with its fuel consumption and low weight in terms of efficiency. Read Reviews
16th: Dunlop Sport BluResponse
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: B/A/68	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 14th 37.8 M 35.9 M +1.9 M 94.97% Wet Braking 31st 41.5 M 34.4 M +7.1 M 82.89% Wet Braking - Concrete 26th 40.2 M 35.2 M +5 M 87.56% Straight Aqua 9th 82.5 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -4.2 Km/H 95.16% Curved Aquaplaning 3rd 3.8 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.2 m/sec2 95% Noise 39th 71.8 dB 69.1 dB +2.7 dB 96.24% Tyre Weight 3rd 7.7 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.1 Kg 98.7% Wear 28th 36900 KM 71500 KM -34600 KM 51.61% Value 47th 2.98 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.95 Price/1000 34.56% Price 44th 110 45 +65 40.91% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 32nd 80.2 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +45.4 mg/km/t 43.39% Read Reviews    Buy from £66.89
17th: Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/69	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 6th 37 M 35.9 M +1.1 M 97.03% Wet Braking 24th 40.3 M 34.4 M +5.9 M 85.36% Wet Braking - Concrete 19th 39.1 M 35.2 M +3.9 M 90.03% Straight Aqua 15th 81.8 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -4.9 Km/H 94.35% Curved Aquaplaning 8th 3.7 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.3 m/sec2 92.5% Noise 12th 70.5 dB 69.1 dB +1.4 dB 98.01% Tyre Weight 29th 8.7 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.1 Kg 87.36% Wear 21st 39500 KM 71500 KM -32000 KM 55.24% Value 42nd 2.71 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.68 Price/1000 38.01% Price 43rd 107 45 +62 42.06% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 36th 82.1 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +47.3 mg/km/t 42.39% Good on dry roads, still good for mileage and efficiency. Not quite balanced, weaknesses on wet roads, weaknesses in the environmental balance, slight weakness in abrasion (devaluation.) Driving safety: The Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2 is rated as just satisfactory in terms of driving safety due to its wet properties. The Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2 offers the driver good feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads, can be steered precisely and is safe even at the limit. In addition, it can score with its short braking distance and thus secures a good rating for dry performance. On wet roads, however, the Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2 does not go beyond a satisfactory verdict. Although it scored well in the aquaplaning tests and secured good ratings, it was only satisfactory in the braking distance measurements and handling. It offers a medium level of grip and can only satisfactorily combine longitudinal and lateral forces. Environmental balance: The Cinturato P7 C2 also missed out on a good result in terms of the environmental balance. His predicted mileage is still rated as good, but he does not get more than a satisfactory result when it comes to abrasion. It doesn't help that its fuel consumption and weight are rated as good. Read Reviews    Buy from £70.20
18th: Sava Intensa HP2
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/B/70	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 19th 38.2 M 35.9 M +2.3 M 93.98% Wet Braking 27th 40.9 M 34.4 M +6.5 M 84.11% Wet Braking - Concrete 30th 40.9 M 35.2 M +5.7 M 86.06% Straight Aqua 19th 81.3 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -5.4 Km/H 93.77% Curved Aquaplaning 3rd 3.8 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.2 m/sec2 95% Noise 34th 71.5 dB 69.1 dB +2.4 dB 96.64% Tyre Weight 6th 8 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.4 Kg 95% Wear 23rd 38600 KM 71500 KM -32900 KM 53.99% Value 27th 2.23 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.2 Price/1000 46.19% Price 27th 86 45 +41 52.33% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 34th 81.4 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +46.6 mg/km/t 42.75% Read Reviews
19th: Semperit Speed Life 3
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/B/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 36th 39.7 M 35.9 M +3.8 M 90.43% Wet Braking 10th 37.2 M 34.4 M +2.8 M 92.47% Wet Braking - Concrete 3rd 35.7 M 35.2 M +0.5 M 98.6% Straight Aqua 15th 81.8 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -4.9 Km/H 94.35% Curved Aquaplaning 3rd 3.8 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.2 m/sec2 95% Noise 18th 70.7 dB 69.1 dB +1.6 dB 97.74% Tyre Weight 22nd 8.5 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.9 Kg 89.41% Wear 18th 40000 KM 71500 KM -31500 KM 55.94% Value 30th 2.28 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.25 Price/1000 45.18% Price 38th 91 45 +46 49.45% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 29th 79.3 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +44.5 mg/km/t 43.88% Read Reviews
20th: Firestone RoadHawk
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/70	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 18th 38.1 M 35.9 M +2.2 M 94.23% Wet Braking 32nd 41.7 M 34.4 M +7.3 M 82.49% Wet Braking - Concrete 28th 40.6 M 35.2 M +5.4 M 86.7% Straight Aqua 6th 83.6 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -3.1 Km/H 96.42% Curved Aquaplaning 3rd 3.8 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.2 m/sec2 95% Noise 47th 72.4 dB 69.1 dB +3.3 dB 95.44% Tyre Weight 1st 7.6 Kg 100% Wear 25th 38200 KM 71500 KM -33300 KM 53.43% Value 31st 2.3 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.27 Price/1000 44.78% Price 31st 88 45 +43 51.14% Fuel Consumption 43rd 5.9 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.4 l/100km 93.22% Abrasion 9th 68.7 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +33.9 mg/km/t 50.66% Read Reviews    Buy from £67.99
21st: BFGoodrich Advantage
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/70	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 8th 37.2 M 35.9 M +1.3 M 96.51% Wet Braking 21st 39.8 M 34.4 M +5.4 M 86.43% Wet Braking - Concrete 18th 39 M 35.2 M +3.8 M 90.26% Straight Aqua 19th 81.3 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -5.4 Km/H 93.77% Curved Aquaplaning 19th 3.5 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 87.5% Noise 44th 72.3 dB 69.1 dB +3.2 dB 95.57% Tyre Weight 29th 8.7 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.1 Kg 87.36% Wear 26th 37300 KM 71500 KM -34200 KM 52.17% Value 38th 2.57 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.54 Price/1000 40.08% Price 40th 96 45 +51 46.88% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 12th 71.2 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +36.4 mg/km/t 48.88% Read Reviews
22nd: GT Radial FE2
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/69	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 28th 39.4 M 35.9 M +3.5 M 91.12% Wet Braking 28th 41.1 M 34.4 M +6.7 M 83.7% Wet Braking - Concrete 32nd 41.3 M 35.2 M +6.1 M 85.23% Straight Aqua 17th 81.5 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -5.2 Km/H 94% Curved Aquaplaning 19th 3.5 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 87.5% Noise 36th 71.6 dB 69.1 dB +2.5 dB 96.51% Tyre Weight 29th 8.7 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.1 Kg 87.36% Wear 33rd 35100 KM 71500 KM -36400 KM 49.09% Value 17th 1.99 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.96 Price/1000 51.76% Price 10th 70 45 +25 64.29% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 37th 83.8 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +49 mg/km/t 41.53% Read Reviews
23rd: ESA Tecar Spirit Pro
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 32nd 39.5 M 35.9 M +3.6 M 90.89% Wet Braking 5th 36.3 M 34.4 M +1.9 M 94.77% Wet Braking - Concrete 6th 36.2 M 35.2 M +1 M 97.24% Straight Aqua 17th 81.5 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -5.2 Km/H 94% Curved Aquaplaning 14th 3.6 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.4 m/sec2 90% Noise 23rd 71 dB 69.1 dB +1.9 dB 97.32% Tyre Weight 19th 8.4 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.8 Kg 90.48% Wear 10th 45700 KM 71500 KM -25800 KM 63.92% Value 3rd 1.47 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.44 Price/1000 70.07% Price 6th 67 45 +22 67.16% Fuel Consumption 3rd 5.6 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.1 l/100km 98.21% Abrasion 21st 74.3 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +39.5 mg/km/t 46.84% Read Reviews
24th: Barum Bravuris 5HM
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/B/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 47th 41 M 35.9 M +5.1 M 87.56% Wet Braking 29th 41.4 M 34.4 M +7 M 83.09% Wet Braking - Concrete 35th 41.9 M 35.2 M +6.7 M 84.01% Straight Aqua 26th 80.4 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -6.3 Km/H 92.73% Curved Aquaplaning 19th 3.5 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 87.5% Noise 47th 72.4 dB 69.1 dB +3.3 dB 95.44% Tyre Weight 11th 8.3 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.7 Kg 91.57% Wear 30th 36000 KM 71500 KM -35500 KM 50.35% Value 33rd 2.39 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.36 Price/1000 43.1% Price 27th 86 45 +41 52.33% Fuel Consumption 3rd 5.6 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.1 l/100km 98.21% Abrasion 35th 81.7 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +46.9 mg/km/t 42.59% Read Reviews
25th: Viking Protech Newgen
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/B/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 43rd 40.3 M 35.9 M +4.4 M 89.08% Wet Braking 40th 44.2 M 34.4 M +9.8 M 77.83% Wet Braking - Concrete 33rd 41.5 M 35.2 M +6.3 M 84.82% Straight Aqua 31st 80 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -6.7 Km/H 92.27% Curved Aquaplaning 14th 3.6 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.4 m/sec2 90% Noise 15th 70.6 dB 69.1 dB +1.5 dB 97.88% Tyre Weight 11th 8.3 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.7 Kg 91.57% Wear 18th 40000 KM 71500 KM -31500 KM 55.94% Value 18th 2 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.97 Price/1000 51.5% Price 22nd 80 45 +35 56.25% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 27th 78.2 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +43.4 mg/km/t 44.5% Read Reviews
26th: Norauto Prevensys 4
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 23rd 39 M 35.9 M +3.1 M 92.05% Wet Braking 9th 36.9 M 34.4 M +2.5 M 93.22% Wet Braking - Concrete 12th 37.9 M 35.2 M +2.7 M 92.88% Straight Aqua 27th 80.3 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -6.4 Km/H 92.62% Curved Aquaplaning 8th 3.7 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.3 m/sec2 92.5% Noise 6th 70.1 dB 69.1 dB +1 dB 98.57% Tyre Weight 22nd 8.5 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.9 Kg 89.41% Wear 31st 35500 KM 71500 KM -36000 KM 49.65% Value 11th 1.83 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.8 Price/1000 56.28% Price 5th 65 45 +20 69.23% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 44th 94.3 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +59.5 mg/km/t 36.9% Read Reviews
27th: Apollo Alnac 4g
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/C/70	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 26th 39.3 M 35.9 M +3.4 M 91.35% Wet Braking 34th 42.2 M 34.4 M +7.8 M 81.52% Wet Braking - Concrete 28th 40.6 M 35.2 M +5.4 M 86.7% Straight Aqua 13th 81.9 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -4.8 Km/H 94.46% Curved Aquaplaning 19th 3.5 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 87.5% Noise 30th 71.2 dB 69.1 dB +2.1 dB 97.05% Tyre Weight 19th 8.4 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.8 Kg 90.48% Wear 44th 29700 KM 71500 KM -41800 KM 41.54% Value 48th 3.03 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +2 Price/1000 33.99% Price 35th 90 45 +45 50% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 39th 87.3 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +52.5 mg/km/t 39.86% Read Reviews    Buy from £53.23
28th: General Altimax One S
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/B/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 41st 40.2 M 35.9 M +4.3 M 89.3% Wet Braking 39th 43.9 M 34.4 M +9.5 M 78.36% Wet Braking - Concrete 38th 43.3 M 35.2 M +8.1 M 81.29% Straight Aqua 41st 78.1 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -8.6 Km/H 90.08% Curved Aquaplaning 19th 3.5 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 87.5% Noise 10th 70.4 dB 69.1 dB +1.3 dB 98.15% Tyre Weight 11th 8.3 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.7 Kg 91.57% Wear 15th 40800 KM 71500 KM -30700 KM 57.06% Value 6th 1.57 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.54 Price/1000 65.61% Price 3rd 64 45 +19 70.31% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 22nd 75.7 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +40.9 mg/km/t 45.97% Read Reviews
29th: Giti GitiSynergyH2
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 28th 39.4 M 35.9 M +3.5 M 91.12% Wet Braking 36th 43.5 M 34.4 M +9.1 M 79.08% Wet Braking - Concrete 38th 43.3 M 35.2 M +8.1 M 81.29% Straight Aqua 10th 82.4 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -4.3 Km/H 95.04% Curved Aquaplaning 14th 3.6 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.4 m/sec2 90% Noise 39th 71.8 dB 69.1 dB +2.7 dB 96.24% Tyre Weight 36th 8.9 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.3 Kg 85.39% Wear 23rd 38600 KM 71500 KM -32900 KM 53.99% Value 15th 1.94 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.91 Price/1000 53.09% Price 16th 75 45 +30 60% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 33rd 80.6 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +45.8 mg/km/t 43.18% Read Reviews
30th: Petlas Imperium PT515
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/B/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 26th 39.3 M 35.9 M +3.4 M 91.35% Wet Braking 37th 43.6 M 34.4 M +9.2 M 78.9% Wet Braking - Concrete 37th 43.1 M 35.2 M +7.9 M 81.67% Straight Aqua 35th 79.3 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -7.4 Km/H 91.46% Curved Aquaplaning 33rd 3.3 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.7 m/sec2 82.5% Noise 50th 73.6 dB 69.1 dB +4.5 dB 93.89% Tyre Weight 46th 9.2 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.6 Kg 82.61% Wear 8th 47500 KM 71500 KM -24000 KM 66.43% Value 4th 1.56 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.53 Price/1000 66.03% Price 14th 74 45 +29 60.81% Fuel Consumption 43rd 5.9 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.4 l/100km 93.22% Abrasion 14th 72.6 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +37.8 mg/km/t 47.93% Read Reviews
31st: Uniroyal RainSport 5
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 24th 39.1 M 35.9 M +3.2 M 91.82% Wet Braking 7th 36.8 M 34.4 M +2.4 M 93.48% Wet Braking - Concrete 7th 36.3 M 35.2 M +1.1 M 96.97% Straight Aqua 1st 86.7 Km/H 100% Curved Aquaplaning 1st 4 m/sec2 100% Noise 22nd 70.9 dB 69.1 dB +1.8 dB 97.46% Tyre Weight 22nd 8.5 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.9 Kg 89.41% Wear 38th 33300 KM 71500 KM -38200 KM 46.57% Value 44th 2.76 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.73 Price/1000 37.32% Price 39th 92 45 +47 48.91% Fuel Consumption 43rd 5.9 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.4 l/100km 93.22% Abrasion 43rd 93.2 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +58.4 mg/km/t 37.34% Good on wet roads. Less balanced, significant weaknesses on dry roads (devaluation), weakness in environmental performance and sustainability, low mileage, high fuel consumption. Driving safety: The Uniroyal RainSport 5 is only rated as satisfactory for driving safety due to its dry properties. The RainSport 5 only offers the driver sufficient feedback on the steering wheel on a dry road and also receives an adequate rating for its handling at the limit - in the event of sudden evasive maneuvers, the test car tends to oversteer with the tires, but skilful steering maneuvers can prevent skidding. When it comes to the braking distance, the Uniroyal can secure a good mark with a short value. Overall, its drying properties are classified as satisfactory. On wet roads, the Uniroyal RainSport 5 receives very good ratings for its aquaplaning behavior, for its braking performance and its behavior in wet handling, thanks to good grip and safe and precise driveability, good reviews. Overall, the overall wet performance is rated as good. Environmental balance: In terms of environmental balance, the Uniroyal RainSport 5 is also clearly rated as satisfactory. Both its predicted mileage and its abrasion are classified as satisfactory. The efficiency is still rated as good thanks to the relatively low fuel consumption and weight. Read Reviews    Buy from £60.50
32nd: Hifly HF201
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: D/C/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 37th 39.8 M 35.9 M +3.9 M 90.2% Wet Braking 42nd 44.5 M 34.4 M +10.1 M 77.3% Wet Braking - Concrete 36th 42.9 M 35.2 M +7.7 M 82.05% Straight Aqua 37th 79.2 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -7.5 Km/H 91.35% Curved Aquaplaning 40th 3.1 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.9 m/sec2 77.5% Noise 8th 70.3 dB 69.1 dB +1.2 dB 98.29% Tyre Weight 26th 8.6 Kg 7.6 Kg +1 Kg 88.37% Wear 22nd 39100 KM 71500 KM -32400 KM 54.69% Value 7th 1.64 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.61 Price/1000 62.8% Price 3rd 64 45 +19 70.31% Fuel Consumption 43rd 5.9 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.4 l/100km 93.22% Abrasion 17th 73.6 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +38.8 mg/km/t 47.28% Read Reviews
33rd: Cooper Zeon CS8
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: D/A/70	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 21st 38.6 M 35.9 M +2.7 M 93.01% Wet Braking 2nd 35 M 34.4 M +0.6 M 98.29% Wet Braking - Concrete 9th 37.6 M 35.2 M +2.4 M 93.62% Straight Aqua 22nd 80.9 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -5.8 Km/H 93.31% Curved Aquaplaning 33rd 3.3 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.7 m/sec2 82.5% Noise 7th 70.2 dB 69.1 dB +1.1 dB 98.43% Tyre Weight 49th 9.6 Kg 7.6 Kg +2 Kg 79.17% Wear 42nd 31500 KM 71500 KM -40000 KM 44.06% Value 40th 2.63 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.6 Price/1000 39.16% Price 25th 83 45 +38 54.22% Fuel Consumption 43rd 5.9 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.4 l/100km 93.22% Abrasion 47th 97.7 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +62.9 mg/km/t 35.62% Read Reviews
34th: Westlake Z 107
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: D/B/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 24th 39.1 M 35.9 M +3.2 M 91.82% Wet Braking 29th 41.4 M 34.4 M +7 M 83.09% Wet Braking - Concrete 15th 38.4 M 35.2 M +3.2 M 91.67% Straight Aqua 2nd 84.6 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -2.1 Km/H 97.58% Curved Aquaplaning 8th 3.7 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.3 m/sec2 92.5% Noise 34th 71.5 dB 69.1 dB +2.4 dB 96.64% Tyre Weight 26th 8.6 Kg 7.6 Kg +1 Kg 88.37% Wear 46th 27100 KM 71500 KM -44400 KM 37.9% Value 41st 2.69 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.66 Price/1000 38.29% Price 13th 73 45 +28 61.64% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 42nd 92.2 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +57.4 mg/km/t 37.74% Read Reviews
35th: Minerva Radial 209
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: D/B/70	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 45th 40.8 M 35.9 M +4.9 M 87.99% Wet Braking 43rd 45.3 M 34.4 M +10.9 M 75.94% Wet Braking - Concrete 45th 44.8 M 35.2 M +9.6 M 78.57% Straight Aqua 30th 80.1 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -6.6 Km/H 92.39% Curved Aquaplaning 30th 3.4 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.6 m/sec2 85% Noise 30th 71.2 dB 69.1 dB +2.1 dB 97.05% Tyre Weight 11th 8.3 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.7 Kg 91.57% Wear 35th 34600 KM 71500 KM -36900 KM 48.39% Value 24th 2.14 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.11 Price/1000 48.13% Price 14th 74 45 +29 60.81% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 17th 73.6 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +38.8 mg/km/t 47.28% Read Reviews
36th: King Meiler Sport 1 KM
205/55 R16 91V	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 35th 39.6 M 35.9 M +3.7 M 90.66% Wet Braking 35th 43.1 M 34.4 M +8.7 M 79.81% Wet Braking - Concrete 40th 43.4 M 35.2 M +8.2 M 81.11% Straight Aqua 32nd 79.9 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -6.8 Km/H 92.16% Curved Aquaplaning 40th 3.1 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.9 m/sec2 77.5% Noise 28th 71.1 dB 69.1 dB +2 dB 97.19% Tyre Weight 34th 8.8 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.2 Kg 86.36% Wear 28th 36900 KM 71500 KM -34600 KM 51.61% Value 21st 2.03 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1 Price/1000 50.74% Price 16th 75 45 +30 60% Fuel Consumption 1st 5.5 l/100km 100% Abrasion 28th 78.9 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +44.1 mg/km/t 44.11% Read Reviews
37th: Tomket Sport 3 Series 3
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/B/69	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 22nd 38.8 M 35.9 M +2.9 M 92.53% Wet Braking 41st 44.3 M 34.4 M +9.9 M 77.65% Wet Braking - Concrete 44th 44.4 M 35.2 M +9.2 M 79.28% Straight Aqua 44th 77.3 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -9.4 Km/H 89.16% Curved Aquaplaning 40th 3.1 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.9 m/sec2 77.5% Noise 36th 71.6 dB 69.1 dB +2.5 dB 96.51% Tyre Weight 1st 7.6 Kg 100% Wear 42nd 31500 KM 71500 KM -40000 KM 44.06% Value 23rd 2.13 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.1 Price/1000 48.36% Price 6th 67 45 +22 67.16% Fuel Consumption 3rd 5.6 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.1 l/100km 98.21% Abrasion 22nd 75.7 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +40.9 mg/km/t 45.97% Read Reviews
38th: Michelin e.Primacy
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: A/B/69	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 3rd 36.7 M 35.9 M +0.8 M 97.82% Wet Braking 38th 43.7 M 34.4 M +9.3 M 78.72% Wet Braking - Concrete 41st 43.8 M 35.2 M +8.6 M 80.37% Straight Aqua 48th 72.8 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -13.9 Km/H 83.97% Curved Aquaplaning 47th 2.8 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -1.2 m/sec2 70% Noise 2nd 69.8 dB 69.1 dB +0.7 dB 99% Tyre Weight 6th 8 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.4 Kg 95% Wear 1st 71500 KM 100% Value 9th 1.73 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.7 Price/1000 59.54% Price 50th 124 45 +79 36.29% Fuel Consumption 1st 5.5 l/100km 100% Abrasion 1st 34.8 mg/km/t 100% Very good environmental balance, best sustainability, very high mileage (top grade), very little abrasion (top mark), light and very economical (top mark) Unbalanced, weaknesses on dry and particularly wet roads (devaluation.) Driving safety: The Michelin e.Primacy is rated as sufficient for driving safety due to its wet performance. The Michelin e.Primacy offers the driver satisfactory feedback on the steering wheel on dry roads and does not get more than a satisfactory rating when driving at the limit. When it comes to the braking distance, however, the tire scores well and even gets a good rating for it. All in all, however, it does not get more than a satisfactory result in terms of dry performance. On wet roads, the e.Primacy shows clear weaknesses compared to the test field. Its braking, aquaplaning and handling performance is rated as only adequate. The tire can only moderately combine longitudinal and lateral forces, which means that the test car can only be controlled imprecisely and in the limit area with great difficulty. Overall, the wet performance is rated as sufficient. Environmental balance: In terms of environmental balance, the e.Primacy sets the standard in the test field. It offers a very high predicted mileage, gets a very good rating for the lowest wear and also scores points in terms of efficiency with very low fuel consumption and low tire weight. The Michelin e.Primacy also sets the bar high when it comes to sustainability and is the only tire that just barely misses a good rating. It offers a very high predicted mileage, gets a very good rating for the lowest wear and also scores points in terms of efficiency with very low fuel consumption and low tire weight. The Michelin e.Primacy also sets the bar high when it comes to sustainability and is the only tire that just barely misses a good rating. It offers a very high predicted mileage, gets a very good rating for the lowest wear and also scores points in terms of efficiency with very low fuel consumption and low tire weight. The Michelin e.Primacy also sets the bar high when it comes to sustainability and is the only tire that just barely misses a good rating. Read Reviews    Buy from £79.33
39th: Laufenn S Fit EQ+
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/B/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 12th 37.6 M 35.9 M +1.7 M 95.48% Wet Braking 20th 39.5 M 34.4 M +5.1 M 87.09% Wet Braking - Concrete 21st 39.3 M 35.2 M +4.1 M 89.57% Straight Aqua 41st 78.1 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -8.6 Km/H 90.08% Curved Aquaplaning 30th 3.4 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.6 m/sec2 85% Noise 23rd 71 dB 69.1 dB +1.9 dB 97.32% Tyre Weight 9th 8.2 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.6 Kg 92.68% Wear 48th 25300 KM 71500 KM -46200 KM 35.38% Value 46th 2.96 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.93 Price/1000 34.8% Price 16th 75 45 +30 60% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 46th 96.8 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +62 mg/km/t 35.95% Read Reviews
40th: Delinte DH2
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: B/B/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 32nd 39.5 M 35.9 M +3.6 M 90.89% Wet Braking 14th 38.1 M 34.4 M +3.7 M 90.29% Wet Braking - Concrete 14th 38 M 35.2 M +2.8 M 92.63% Straight Aqua 45th 77.2 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -9.5 Km/H 89.04% Curved Aquaplaning 49th 2.7 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -1.3 m/sec2 67.5% Noise 1st 69.1 dB 100% Tyre Weight 29th 8.7 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.1 Kg 87.36% Wear 45th 27500 KM 71500 KM -44000 KM 38.46% Value 36th 2.55 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.52 Price/1000 40.39% Price 10th 70 45 +25 64.29% Fuel Consumption 3rd 5.6 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.1 l/100km 98.21% Abrasion 45th 96.1 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +61.3 mg/km/t 36.21% Read Reviews
41st: Zeetex ZT1000
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: E/C/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 39th 39.9 M 35.9 M +4 M 89.97% Wet Braking 18th 39 M 34.4 M +4.6 M 88.21% Wet Braking - Concrete 21st 39.3 M 35.2 M +4.1 M 89.57% Straight Aqua 35th 79.3 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -7.4 Km/H 91.46% Curved Aquaplaning 40th 3.1 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.9 m/sec2 77.5% Noise 2nd 69.8 dB 69.1 dB +0.7 dB 99% Tyre Weight 29th 8.7 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.1 Kg 87.36% Wear 50th 23100 KM 71500 KM -48400 KM 32.31% Value 49th 3.29 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +2.26 Price/1000 31.31% Price 19th 76 45 +31 59.21% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 49th 112.6 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +77.8 mg/km/t 30.91% Read Reviews
42nd: Avon ZV7
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: D/A/70	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 28th 39.4 M 35.9 M +3.5 M 91.12% Wet Braking 13th 38 M 34.4 M +3.6 M 90.53% Wet Braking - Concrete 21st 39.3 M 35.2 M +4.1 M 89.57% Straight Aqua 10th 82.4 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -4.3 Km/H 95.04% Curved Aquaplaning 30th 3.4 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.6 m/sec2 85% Noise 39th 71.8 dB 69.1 dB +2.7 dB 96.24% Tyre Weight 47th 9.3 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.7 Kg 81.72% Wear 49th 24000 KM 71500 KM -47500 KM 33.57% Value 50th 3.75 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +2.72 Price/1000 27.47% Price 35th 90 45 +45 50% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 50th 126 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +91.2 mg/km/t 27.62% Read Reviews    Buy from £57.20
43rd: Radar RPX800
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/A/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 44th 40.5 M 35.9 M +4.6 M 88.64% Wet Braking 19th 39.1 M 34.4 M +4.7 M 87.98% Wet Braking - Concrete 27th 40.5 M 35.2 M +5.3 M 86.91% Straight Aqua 39th 79 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -7.7 Km/H 91.12% Curved Aquaplaning 45th 3 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -1 m/sec2 75% Noise 4th 69.9 dB 69.1 dB +0.8 dB 98.86% Tyre Weight 36th 8.9 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.3 Kg 85.39% Wear 46th 27100 KM 71500 KM -44400 KM 37.9% Value 35th 2.47 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.44 Price/1000 41.7% Price 6th 67 45 +22 67.16% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 48th 101 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +66.2 mg/km/t 34.46% Read Reviews    Buy from £39.06
44th: Rotalla RH01 E Pace
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/B/69	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 40th 40.1 M 35.9 M +4.2 M 89.53% Wet Braking 44th 45.9 M 34.4 M +11.5 M 74.95% Wet Braking - Concrete 43rd 44.2 M 35.2 M +9 M 79.64% Straight Aqua 23rd 80.8 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -5.9 Km/H 93.19% Curved Aquaplaning 33rd 3.3 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.7 m/sec2 82.5% Noise 18th 70.7 dB 69.1 dB +1.6 dB 97.74% Tyre Weight 22nd 8.5 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.9 Kg 89.41% Wear 41st 32900 KM 71500 KM -38600 KM 46.01% Value 26th 2.19 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.16 Price/1000 47.03% Price 12th 72 45 +27 62.5% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 15th 73.3 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +38.5 mg/km/t 47.48% Read Reviews
45th: Berlin Tires Summer UHP 1 G2
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: D/B/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 45th 40.8 M 35.9 M +4.9 M 87.99% Wet Braking 48th 54 M 34.4 M +19.6 M 63.7% Wet Braking - Concrete 47th 49 M 35.2 M +13.8 M 71.84% Straight Aqua 47th 75 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -11.7 Km/H 86.51% Curved Aquaplaning 40th 3.1 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.9 m/sec2 77.5% Noise 21st 70.8 dB 69.1 dB +1.7 dB 97.6% Tyre Weight 41st 9.1 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.5 Kg 83.52% Wear 38th 33300 KM 71500 KM -38200 KM 46.57% Value 4th 1.56 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.53 Price/1000 66.03% Price 2nd 52 45 +7 86.54% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 31st 80 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +45.2 mg/km/t 43.5% Read Reviews
46th: Lassa DriveWays
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: B/B/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 41st 40.2 M 35.9 M +4.3 M 89.3% Wet Braking 45th 46.4 M 34.4 M +12 M 74.14% Wet Braking - Concrete 42nd 44.1 M 35.2 M +8.9 M 79.82% Straight Aqua 25th 80.7 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -6 Km/H 93.08% Curved Aquaplaning 33rd 3.3 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.7 m/sec2 82.5% Noise 44th 72.3 dB 69.1 dB +3.2 dB 95.57% Tyre Weight 41st 9.1 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.5 Kg 83.52% Wear 36th 33700 KM 71500 KM -37800 KM 47.13% Value 45th 2.91 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.88 Price/1000 35.4% Price 41st 98 45 +53 45.92% Fuel Consumption 3rd 5.6 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.1 l/100km 98.21% Abrasion 26th 76.1 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +41.3 mg/km/t 45.73% Read Reviews
47th: Evergreen DynaComfort EH226
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: D/C/68	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 48th 41.4 M 35.9 M +5.5 M 86.71% Wet Braking 47th 50.9 M 34.4 M +16.5 M 67.58% Wet Braking - Concrete 48th 49.7 M 35.2 M +14.5 M 70.82% Straight Aqua 37th 79.2 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -7.5 Km/H 91.35% Curved Aquaplaning 19th 3.5 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 87.5% Noise 12th 70.5 dB 69.1 dB +1.4 dB 98.01% Tyre Weight 41st 9.1 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.5 Kg 83.52% Wear 18th 40000 KM 71500 KM -31500 KM 55.94% Value 36th 2.55 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.52 Price/1000 40.39% Price 42nd 102 45 +57 44.12% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 13th 72.2 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +37.4 mg/km/t 48.2% Read Reviews
48th: Riken Road Performance
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/C/71	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 37th 39.8 M 35.9 M +3.9 M 90.2% Wet Braking 46th 48.4 M 34.4 M +14 M 71.07% Wet Braking - Concrete 46th 45.7 M 35.2 M +10.5 M 77.02% Straight Aqua 34th 79.6 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -7.1 Km/H 91.81% Curved Aquaplaning 14th 3.6 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -0.4 m/sec2 90% Noise 43rd 72.1 dB 69.1 dB +3 dB 95.84% Tyre Weight 11th 8.3 Kg 7.6 Kg +0.7 Kg 91.57% Wear 36th 33700 KM 71500 KM -37800 KM 47.13% Value 29th 2.26 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +1.23 Price/1000 45.58% Price 19th 76 45 +31 59.21% Fuel Consumption 10th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 7th 67 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +32.2 mg/km/t 51.94% Read Reviews    Buy from £70.13
49th: Double Coin DC99
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: C/C/70	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 49th 42.5 M 35.9 M +6.6 M 84.47% Wet Braking 50th 59.3 M 34.4 M +24.9 M 58.01% Wet Braking - Concrete 50th 58.4 M 35.2 M +23.2 M 60.27% Straight Aqua 50th 70.3 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -16.4 Km/H 81.08% Curved Aquaplaning 49th 2.7 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -1.3 m/sec2 67.5% Noise 5th 70 dB 69.1 dB +0.9 dB 98.71% Tyre Weight 47th 9.3 Kg 7.6 Kg +1.7 Kg 81.72% Wear 3rd 64800 KM 71500 KM -6700 KM 90.63% Value 1st 1.03 Price/1000 100% Price 6th 67 45 +22 67.16% Fuel Consumption 3rd 5.6 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.1 l/100km 98.21% Abrasion 2nd 45.9 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +11.1 mg/km/t 75.82% Read Reviews
50th: Premiorri Solazo
205/55 R16 91V EU Label: D/B/70	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 50th 42.9 M 35.9 M +7 M 83.68% Wet Braking 49th 58.1 M 34.4 M +23.7 M 59.21% Wet Braking - Concrete 49th 57.1 M 35.2 M +21.9 M 61.65% Straight Aqua 49th 71.3 Km/H 86.7 Km/H -15.4 Km/H 82.24% Curved Aquaplaning 47th 2.8 m/sec2 4 m/sec2 -1.2 m/sec2 70% Noise 49th 72.5 dB 69.1 dB +3.4 dB 95.31% Tyre Weight 50th 9.9 Kg 7.6 Kg +2.3 Kg 76.77% Wear 26th 37300 KM 71500 KM -34200 KM 52.17% Value 2nd 1.21 Price/1000 1.03 Price/1000 +0.18 Price/1000 85.12% Price 1st 45 100% Fuel Consumption 28th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 19th 74 mg/km/t 34.8 mg/km/t +39.2 mg/km/t 47.03% Read Reviews