Menu

2023 Tyre Reviews SUV Winter Tyre Test

Jonathan Benson
Tested and written by Jonathan Benson
9 min read Updated
Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Testing Methodology
    1. Categories Tested
  3. Snow
  4. Wet
  5. Dry
  6. Comfort
  7. Value
  8. Results
  9. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
  10. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
  11. Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
  12. Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
  13. Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
  14. Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
  15. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+ SUV
  16. Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
  17. Leao Winter Defender UHP

For the second winter test of 2023, Tyre Reviews as looked at nine of the best SUV performance winter tyres in the popular 235/60 R18 size. As always, all the tyres have been testing in the dry, wet and snow, and had the noise, comfort and rolling resistance analysed.

Will an heavier AWD vehicle have any impact on the overall results? Read on or watch the video below to find out!

2023 Tyre Reviews SUV Winter Tyre Test

Testing Methodology

Test Driver
Jonathan Benson
Tyre Size
235/60 R18
Test Location
Professional Proving Ground
Test Year
2023
Tyres Tested
9
Show full testing methodology Hide methodology

Every tyre is tested using calibrated instrumented measurement and structured subjective assessment. Reference tyres are retested throughout each session to correct for changing conditions, ensuring fair, repeatable comparisons. Multiple reference sets are used where needed so that control tyre wear does not affect accuracy.

We use professional-grade testing equipment including GPS data loggers, accelerometers, and calibrated microphones. All tyres are broken in and conditioned before testing begins. For full details on our equipment, preparation process, and calibration procedures, see our complete testing methodology.

Categories Tested

Dry Braking

For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tyres are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.

Dry Handling

For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.

Subj. Dry Handling

Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated dry handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

Wet Braking

For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tyre performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.

Wet Handling

For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.

Subj. Wet Handling

Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

Straight Aqua

To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tyre set and average the valid results.

Curved Aquaplaning

For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 metres in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.

Snow Braking

For snow braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 50 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a groomed, compacted snow surface, measuring 45-5 km/h. I generally use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tyre ever brakes on the same piece of snow twice. My standard programme is twelve runs per tyre set, although the sequence can extend further if the data justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. To correct for changing snow surface conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly — typically every two candidate test sets.

Snow Traction

For snow traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a groomed snow surface with traction control active and measure speed and time using GPS telemetry. I typically use a 5–35 km/h measurement window to reduce the influence of launch transients and powertrain irregularities. I use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tyre ever accelerates on the same piece of snow twice. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I complete multiple runs per tyre set and average the valid results. Reference tyres are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing snow surface conditions.

Snow Handling

For snow handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated snow handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tyres are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly than asphalt, control runs are carried out more frequently — typically every two candidate test sets.

Subj. Snow Handling

Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated snow handling circuit. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tyres are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I score steering precision, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence on snow using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

Subj. Comfort

To assess comfort, I drive on a wide range of road surfaces (often dedicated comfort tracks at test facilities) at speeds from 50 to 120 km/h, including smooth motorway, coarse surfaces, expansion joints, broken pavement, and sharp-edged obstacles. I evaluate primary ride quality, secondary ride quality, impact harshness, seat-transmitted vibration, and the tyre's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tyre.

Subj. Noise

For subjective noise assessment, I drive at constant speeds across multiple surface types with the windows closed, ventilation off, and audio system off. I assess overall noise level, tonal quality, cavity boom, pattern noise, broadband roar, and sensitivity to both speed and road texture. Each tyre is rated on a 1–10 scale and supported by written observations on noise character and annoyance.

Noise

I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.

Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tyre is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.

Standards: UNECE Regulation 117 ISO 13325 ISO 28580 UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6

Snow

The worst tyre in snow handling also happened to be the cheapest. It felt more like an all season tyre, and a bad one at that, provinging very low grip. 

Next up was the Maxxis, 8.4% off the best, so you can see already much more grip than the budget, but sadly much less grip than the best in the test. This tyre also had high levels of understeer and limited communication around the limit meaning you were constantly worried about if you were near the limit of grip.

Next up was the Bridgestone, it felt better under traction than the Maxxis and had less understeer, but it was still quite an understeer bias tyre.

The next group of tyres were all within a percent of each other, and that was the Nokian, Hankook and Pirelli. All three of these had better front axle bite on turn in which helped the lap time, and all of them were really well balanced and nice feeling tyres to drive. If I had to pick one of the three, the Nokian would take it subjectively, but all of their snow performances were perfectly good.

A little ahead of that group was the Goodyear and Continental. We're in the realm of very good now, and they felt a lot like the preceding group but with just and extra little bit of grip. The Goodyear did pick up a little more understeer but it had plenty of grip to back it up.

The best tyre in snow handling was also the best in the Tyre Reviews car winter test, so it seems at least in snow, a different vehicle and AWD doesn't make a difference. There's no escaping the Pilot Alpin 5 SUV is in a class of its own, and if you'd told me the tyre I was driving on was actually a soft compound winter tyre snuck into the group, I'd probably believe you, it just found grip where no other tyre could, and was thoroughly well balanced and enjoyable to drive too. One day I might be able to tell you that a Michelin winter tyre isn't the best in the snow, but today is not that day. 

Snow Handling

Spread: 7.65 s (8.6%)|Avg: 92.76 s
Snow handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
    88.65 s
  2. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    90.85 s
  3. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plu
    91.90 s
  4. Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
    92.05 s
  5. Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
    92.35 s
  6. Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
    93.25 s
  7. Leao Winter Defender UHP
    94.60 s
  8. Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
    94.90 s
  9. Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
    96.30 s

The Hankook Winter I*Cept Evo3 had the best snow braking, with Nokian close behind. The rest of the field were close, apart from the Leoa which finished 20% behind the group.

Snow Braking

Spread: 3.54 M (22.2%)|Avg: 16.50 M
Snow braking in meters (40 - 5 km/h) (Lower is better)
  1. Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
    15.92 M
  2. Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
    15.97 M
  3. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
    16.06 M
  4. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plu
    16.13 M
  5. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    16.21 M
  6. Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
    16.23 M
  7. Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
    16.24 M
  8. Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
    16.31 M
  9. Leao Winter Defender UHP
    19.46 M

Snow traction brought the the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 back to the front, with the new Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2 jumping to second place. The Leao was once again 20% behind the rest cementing it's snow performance as well below an acceptable standard.

Snow Traction

Spread: 0.98 s (27.8%)|Avg: 3.72 s
Snow acceleration time (5 - 40 km/h) (Lower is better)
  1. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
    3.53 s
  2. Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
    3.54 s
  3. Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
    3.56 s
  4. Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
    3.62 s
  5. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plu
    3.65 s
  6. Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
    3.67 s
  7. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    3.68 s
  8. Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
    3.76 s
  9. Leao Winter Defender UHP
    4.51 s

Wet

Wet handling saw the pack compress, no doubt helped by the AWD platform I'm testing with.

There was only one bad tyre, and it wasn't even that bad. The Leao winter defender was 4% off the best in time, and it definitely wasn't the best balanced tyre for the road as it had pretty snappy oversteer making it quite the challenge. Fun for me as a tester in track , but I wouldn't want to put my dad on it on the road. 

Next up was the Maxxis, just 2% off the best, so it's already a very close group. The Maxxis was one of the most lovely tyres to drive, offering really predictable grip, good steering response and just a hint of understeer in the balance. 

Nokian was next now just 1.5% off the best, and again was a lovely tyre to drive with an understeer balance.

Bridgestone and Hankook essentially tied next just 1% off the fastest lap. The Bridgestone had a frustratingly high amount of understeer compared to some of the other tyres around it and a vague feeling front axle. Understeer is safe, but this was a lot. The hankook was better in this regard, the car was more balanced, but there wasn't any extra grip.

The top four tyres were separated by just 0.4% and where Michelin, Continental, Goodyear and Pirelli was the fastest.

The Michelin had good grip, but like the Bridgestone it was one of the numbest tyres with a lot of understeer, the Continental was more fun but a little twitchy around the limit, the goodyear was one of the best subjectively and felt a lot like the Maxxis, and the Pirelli was the fastest.

The differences were very small, and all of these tyres are impressive in their own ways. Apart from maybe the Leao.

Wet Handling

Spread: 3.03 s (4.1%)|Avg: 74.00 s
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
    73.11 s
  2. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plu
    73.33 s
  3. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    73.45 s
  4. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
    73.55 s
  5. Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
    73.85 s
  6. Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
    73.90 s
  7. Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
    74.13 s
  8. Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
    74.56 s
  9. Leao Winter Defender UHP
    76.14 s

The Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 was best in wet braking, narrowly beating the excellent performing Bridgestone.

Wet Braking

Spread: 2.25 M (6.8%)|Avg: 33.84 M
Wet braking in meters (80 - 5 km/h) (Lower is better)
  1. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
    32.86 M
  2. Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
    33.03 M
  3. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    33.06 M
  4. Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
    33.32 M
  5. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plu
    33.64 M
  6. Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
    34.11 M
  7. Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
    34.64 M
  8. Leao Winter Defender UHP
    34.75 M
  9. Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
    35.11 M

The new Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV was the best in both straight and curved aquaplaning by quite a margin! Bridgestone also performed well in second place in both of the deeper water tests.

Straight Aqua

Spread: 5.80 Km/H (6.4%)|Avg: 86.86 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
  1. Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
    90.70 Km/H
  2. Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
    88.70 Km/H
  3. Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
    88.30 Km/H
  4. Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
    86.60 Km/H
  5. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
    86.10 Km/H
  6. Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
    85.80 Km/H
  7. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plu
    85.30 Km/H
  8. Leao Winter Defender UHP
    85.30 Km/H
  9. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    84.90 Km/H

Curved Aquaplaning

Spread: 0.90 m/sec2 (20.9%)|Avg: 3.76 m/sec2
Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)
  1. Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
    4.30 m/sec2
  2. Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
    4.08 m/sec2
  3. Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
    4.00 m/sec2
  4. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    3.73 m/sec2
  5. Leao Winter Defender UHP
    3.64 m/sec2
  6. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
    3.63 m/sec2
  7. Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
    3.60 m/sec2
  8. Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
    3.42 m/sec2
  9. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plu
    3.40 m/sec2

Dry

If you want to take your SUV on a track day and insist on doing it on winter tyres, fit the Pirelli, Hankook or Maxxis! 

Apart from that, there's not a huge amount else to learn from dry handling. All the tyres were stable during lane changes and they all felt similar around the limit.

Dry Handling

Spread: 1.25 s (1.9%)|Avg: 66.62 s
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
    66.11 s
  2. Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
    66.27 s
  3. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    66.28 s
  4. Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
    66.37 s
  5. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
    66.61 s
  6. Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
    66.63 s
  7. Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
    66.88 s
  8. Leao Winter Defender UHP
    67.11 s
  9. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plu
    67.36 s

Dry braking had the Laeo finally performing well, stopping the car in the shortest distance, narrowly beating the Pirelli!

Dry Braking

Spread: 2.73 M (6.6%)|Avg: 42.79 M
Dry braking in meters (100 - 5 km/h) (Lower is better)
  1. Leao Winter Defender UHP
    41.45 M
  2. Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
    41.52 M
  3. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
    42.15 M
  4. Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
    42.63 M
  5. Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
    42.93 M
  6. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    43.02 M
  7. Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
    43.46 M
  8. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plu
    43.75 M
  9. Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
    44.18 M

Comfort

As noise and comfort for an SUV is more important than something like a sports car, I spent quite a lot of time doing subjective noise and comfort, but as always, things were very close, so I also measured external noise too.

In terms of overall subjective noise and comfort levels when driving, I thought the Michelin did a VERY good job, and Bridgestone, Continental, Goodyear, Hankook and Nokain were also good. The Pirelli was a lovely sounding tyre inside, it had a low noise low pitch sound which was kind to the ears, but was a bit firmer than the best in the test, and if you want to avoid a tyre which crashes over impacts, that award goes to the Maxxis.

Subj. Comfort

Spread: 8.00 Points (8%)|Avg: 95.22 Points
Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)
  1. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
    100.00 Points
  2. Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
    98.00 Points
  3. Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
    98.00 Points
  4. Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
    95.00 Points
  5. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    95.00 Points
  6. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plu
    95.00 Points
  7. Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
    92.00 Points
  8. Leao Winter Defender UHP
    92.00 Points
  9. Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
    92.00 Points

Noise

Spread: 5.70 dB (8.3%)|Avg: 71.22 dB
External noise in dB (Lower is better)
  1. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
    68.90 dB
  2. Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
    70.00 dB
  3. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plu
    70.50 dB
  4. Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
    70.80 dB
  5. Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
    70.90 dB
  6. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    71.10 dB
  7. Leao Winter Defender UHP
    72.00 dB
  8. Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
    72.20 dB
  9. Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
    74.60 dB

Value

Energy use is getting more and more important, and depending on how important it is to you it can change the overall results of the test. Continental had the largest lead in rolling resistance I've ever seen. Bridgestone was the next best, then Hankook before quite a big gap to the rest of the tyres. If you have an EV, the Continental is the one to get.

Rolling Resistance

Spread: 1.99 kg / t (30.7%)|Avg: 7.86 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
  1. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    6.49 kg / t
  2. Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
    7.25 kg / t
  3. Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
    7.46 kg / t
  4. Leao Winter Defender UHP
    7.77 kg / t
  5. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
    8.19 kg / t
  6. Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
    8.22 kg / t
  7. Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
    8.43 kg / t
  8. Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
    8.47 kg / t
  9. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plu
    8.48 kg / t

Results

Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
  • EU Label: B/B/71
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 11.87 kgs
  • Tread: 8.6 mm
  • Price: 162.00
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 6th 43.02 M 41.45 M +1.57 M 96.35%
Dry Handling 3rd 66.28 s 66.11 s +0.17 s 99.74%
Subj. Dry Handling 4th 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 3rd 33.06 M 32.86 M +0.2 M 99.4%
Wet Handling 3rd 73.45 s 73.11 s +0.34 s 99.54%
Subj. Wet Handling 3rd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Straight Aqua 9th 84.9 Km/H 90.7 Km/H -5.8 Km/H 93.61%
Curved Aquaplaning 4th 3.73 m/sec2 4.3 m/sec2 -0.57 m/sec2 86.74%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 5th 16.21 M 15.92 M +0.29 M 98.21%
Snow Traction 7th 3.68 s 3.53 s +0.15 s 95.92%
Snow Handling 2nd 90.85 s 88.65 s +2.2 s 97.58%
Subj. Snow Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 4th 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Subj. Noise 4th 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Noise 6th 71.1 dB 68.9 dB +2.2 dB 96.91%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 8th 162.29 98.99 +63.3 61%
Rolling Resistance 1st 6.493 kg / t 100%
Highly Recommended Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
2nd

Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV

235/60 R18 107H
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
  • EU Label: C/B/68
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 12.96 kgs
  • Tread: 8.3 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 3rd 42.15 M 41.45 M +0.7 M 98.34%
Dry Handling 5th 66.61 s 66.11 s +0.5 s 99.25%
Subj. Dry Handling 4th 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 1st 32.86 M 100%
Wet Handling 4th 73.55 s 73.11 s +0.44 s 99.4%
Subj. Wet Handling 3rd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Straight Aqua 5th 86.1 Km/H 90.7 Km/H -4.6 Km/H 94.93%
Curved Aquaplaning 6th 3.63 m/sec2 4.3 m/sec2 -0.67 m/sec2 84.42%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 3rd 16.06 M 15.92 M +0.14 M 99.13%
Snow Traction 1st 3.53 s 100%
Snow Handling 1st 88.65 s 100%
Subj. Snow Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 1st 100 Points 100%
Subj. Noise 1st 100 Points 100%
Noise 1st 68.9 dB 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 9th 171.49 98.99 +72.5 57.72%
Rolling Resistance 5th 8.186 kg / t 6.493 kg / t +1.69 kg / t 79.32%
Test Winner Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 SUV
3rd

Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X

235/60 R18 107H
Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
  • EU Label: C/B/72
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 12.82 kgs
  • Tread: 8.3 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 5th 42.93 M 41.45 M +1.48 M 96.55%
Dry Handling 2nd 66.27 s 66.11 s +0.16 s 99.76%
Subj. Dry Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 4th 33.32 M 32.86 M +0.46 M 98.62%
Wet Handling 6th 73.9 s 73.11 s +0.79 s 98.93%
Subj. Wet Handling 3rd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Straight Aqua 4th 86.6 Km/H 90.7 Km/H -4.1 Km/H 95.48%
Curved Aquaplaning 3rd 4 m/sec2 4.3 m/sec2 -0.3 m/sec2 93.02%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 1st 15.92 M 100%
Snow Traction 4th 3.62 s 3.53 s +0.09 s 97.51%
Snow Handling 5th 92.35 s 88.65 s +3.7 s 95.99%
Subj. Snow Handling 7th 92 Points 100 Points -8 Points 92%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 4th 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Subj. Noise 8th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Noise 9th 74.6 dB 68.9 dB +5.7 dB 92.36%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 3rd 128.79 98.99 +29.8 76.86%
Rolling Resistance 3rd 7.459 kg / t 6.493 kg / t +0.97 kg / t 87.05%
Highly Recommended Hankook Winter i cept evo 3 X
3rd

Bridgestone Blizzak LM005

235/60 R18 107H
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
  • EU Label: C/A/72
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 12.89 kgs
  • Tread: 8.3 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 7th 43.46 M 41.45 M +2.01 M 95.38%
Dry Handling 6th 66.63 s 66.11 s +0.52 s 99.22%
Subj. Dry Handling 4th 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 2nd 33.03 M 32.86 M +0.17 M 99.49%
Wet Handling 5th 73.85 s 73.11 s +0.74 s 99%
Subj. Wet Handling 8th 92 Points 100 Points -8 Points 92%
Straight Aqua 2nd 88.7 Km/H 90.7 Km/H -2 Km/H 97.79%
Curved Aquaplaning 2nd 4.08 m/sec2 4.3 m/sec2 -0.22 m/sec2 94.88%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 7th 16.24 M 15.92 M +0.32 M 98.03%
Snow Traction 3rd 3.56 s 3.53 s +0.03 s 99.16%
Snow Handling 8th 94.9 s 88.65 s +6.25 s 93.41%
Subj. Snow Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 2nd 98 Points 100 Points -2 Points 98%
Subj. Noise 4th 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Noise 4th 70.8 dB 68.9 dB +1.9 dB 97.32%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 4th 138.29 98.99 +39.3 71.58%
Rolling Resistance 2nd 7.248 kg / t 6.493 kg / t +0.76 kg / t 89.58%
Test Winner Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
5th

Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV

235/60 R18 107H
Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
  • EU Label: C/B/70
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 13.63 kgs
  • Tread: 8.3 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 9th 44.18 M 41.45 M +2.73 M 93.82%
Dry Handling 7th 66.88 s 66.11 s +0.77 s 98.85%
Subj. Dry Handling 7th 92 Points 100 Points -8 Points 92%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 6th 34.11 M 32.86 M +1.25 M 96.34%
Wet Handling 7th 74.13 s 73.11 s +1.02 s 98.62%
Subj. Wet Handling 3rd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Straight Aqua 1st 90.7 Km/H 100%
Curved Aquaplaning 1st 4.3 m/sec2 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 2nd 15.97 M 15.92 M +0.05 M 99.69%
Snow Traction 6th 3.67 s 3.53 s +0.14 s 96.19%
Snow Handling 6th 93.25 s 88.65 s +4.6 s 95.07%
Subj. Snow Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 2nd 98 Points 100 Points -2 Points 98%
Subj. Noise 3rd 98 Points 100 Points -2 Points 98%
Noise 8th 72.2 dB 68.9 dB +3.3 dB 95.43%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 5th 157.69 98.99 +58.7 62.78%
Rolling Resistance 6th 8.221 kg / t 6.493 kg / t +1.73 kg / t 78.98%
Recommended Nokian Snowproof 2 SUV
6th

Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2

235/60 R18 107H
Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
  • EU Label: C/A/71
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 12.79 kgs
  • Tread: 8.3 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 2nd 41.52 M 41.45 M +0.07 M 99.83%
Dry Handling 1st 66.11 s 100%
Subj. Dry Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 7th 34.64 M 32.86 M +1.78 M 94.86%
Wet Handling 1st 73.11 s 100%
Subj. Wet Handling 3rd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Straight Aqua 6th 85.8 Km/H 90.7 Km/H -4.9 Km/H 94.6%
Curved Aquaplaning 8th 3.42 m/sec2 4.3 m/sec2 -0.88 m/sec2 79.53%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 6th 16.23 M 15.92 M +0.31 M 98.09%
Snow Traction 2nd 3.54 s 3.53 s +0.01 s 99.72%
Snow Handling 4th 92.05 s 88.65 s +3.4 s 96.31%
Subj. Snow Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 7th 92 Points 100 Points -8 Points 92%
Subj. Noise 1st 100 Points 100%
Noise 2nd 70 dB 68.9 dB +1.1 dB 98.43%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 6th 160.39 98.99 +61.4 61.72%
Rolling Resistance 7th 8.43 kg / t 6.493 kg / t +1.94 kg / t 77.02%
Recommended Pirelli Scorpion Winter 2
Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Plus SUV
  • EU Label: C/B/72
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 13.95 kgs
  • Tread: 8.5 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 8th 43.75 M 41.45 M +2.3 M 94.74%
Dry Handling 9th 67.36 s 66.11 s +1.25 s 98.14%
Subj. Dry Handling 7th 92 Points 100 Points -8 Points 92%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 5th 33.64 M 32.86 M +0.78 M 97.68%
Wet Handling 2nd 73.33 s 73.11 s +0.22 s 99.7%
Subj. Wet Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Straight Aqua 7th 85.3 Km/H 90.7 Km/H -5.4 Km/H 94.05%
Curved Aquaplaning 9th 3.4 m/sec2 4.3 m/sec2 -0.9 m/sec2 79.07%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 4th 16.13 M 15.92 M +0.21 M 98.7%
Snow Traction 5th 3.65 s 3.53 s +0.12 s 96.71%
Snow Handling 3rd 91.9 s 88.65 s +3.25 s 96.46%
Subj. Snow Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 4th 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Subj. Noise 4th 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Noise 3rd 70.5 dB 68.9 dB +1.6 dB 97.73%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 7th 161.19 98.99 +62.2 61.41%
Rolling Resistance 9th 8.476 kg / t 6.493 kg / t +1.98 kg / t 76.6%
8th

Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV

235/60 R18 107H
Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 SUV
  • EU Label: C/B/69
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 13.12 kgs
  • Tread: 8.4 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 4th 42.63 M 41.45 M +1.18 M 97.23%
Dry Handling 4th 66.37 s 66.11 s +0.26 s 99.61%
Subj. Dry Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 9th 35.11 M 32.86 M +2.25 M 93.59%
Wet Handling 8th 74.56 s 73.11 s +1.45 s 98.06%
Subj. Wet Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Straight Aqua 3rd 88.3 Km/H 90.7 Km/H -2.4 Km/H 97.35%
Curved Aquaplaning 7th 3.6 m/sec2 4.3 m/sec2 -0.7 m/sec2 83.72%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 8th 16.31 M 15.92 M +0.39 M 97.61%
Snow Traction 8th 3.76 s 3.53 s +0.23 s 93.88%
Snow Handling 9th 96.3 s 88.65 s +7.65 s 92.06%
Subj. Snow Handling 8th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 7th 92 Points 100 Points -8 Points 92%
Subj. Noise 4th 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Noise 5th 70.9 dB 68.9 dB +2 dB 97.18%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 2nd 106.39 98.99 +7.4 93.04%
Rolling Resistance 8th 8.467 kg / t 6.493 kg / t +1.97 kg / t 76.69%
9th

Leao Winter Defender UHP

235/60 R18 107H
Leao Winter Defender UHP
  • EU Label: C/C/72
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 13.88 kgs
  • Tread: 8.8 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 1st 41.45 M 100%
Dry Handling 8th 67.11 s 66.11 s +1 s 98.51%
Subj. Dry Handling 9th 88 Points 100 Points -12 Points 88%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 8th 34.75 M 32.86 M +1.89 M 94.56%
Wet Handling 9th 76.14 s 73.11 s +3.03 s 96.02%
Subj. Wet Handling 9th 80 Points 100 Points -20 Points 80%
Straight Aqua 7th 85.3 Km/H 90.7 Km/H -5.4 Km/H 94.05%
Curved Aquaplaning 5th 3.64 m/sec2 4.3 m/sec2 -0.66 m/sec2 84.65%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 9th 19.46 M 15.92 M +3.54 M 81.81%
Snow Traction 9th 4.51 s 3.53 s +0.98 s 78.27%
Snow Handling 7th 94.6 s 88.65 s +5.95 s 93.71%
Subj. Snow Handling 9th 80 Points 100 Points -20 Points 80%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 7th 92 Points 100 Points -8 Points 92%
Subj. Noise 8th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Noise 7th 72 dB 68.9 dB +3.1 dB 95.69%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Price 1st 98.99 100%
Rolling Resistance 4th 7.772 kg / t 6.493 kg / t +1.28 kg / t 83.54%

comments powered by Disqus