Below is the data from the 2024 EVO Summer Tyre Test. As usual, EVO do an excellent job of digging into the subjective nature of the tyres, so be sure to read the full test over at https://www.evo.co.uk/technology
Test Size:
235/35 R19
Tyres Tested:
7 tyres
Test Categories:
4 categories (10 tests)
Similar Tests
4 categories (10 tests)
Dry
Dry Braking
Dry Handling
Subj. Dry Handling
Wet
Wet Braking
Wet Handling
Subj. Wet Handling
Straight Aqua
Curved Aquaplaning
Comfort
Subj. Noise
Value
Rolling Resistance
Results
- 3PMSF: no
The Continental SportContact 7 showed remarkable improvement from its sixth-place finish last year to take the overall win. Its dry handling performance was particularly impressive, topping the subjective scores and showing excellent speed through corners. The tyre demonstrated a perfect balance of grip and feedback, setting strong times while maintaining good feel. In wet conditions, it built on these strengths with strong scores across all tests. The tyre's performance in dry conditions was notably strong, matching or beating the previous benchmark times while feeling more composed. This combination of improved performance across all conditions, along with good refinement and balance, made it the clear winner and earned it top marks in most key categories.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 1st | 30.7 M | 100% |
| Dry Handling | 6th | 101.58 s | 99.02% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 1st | 61 Points | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 2nd | 32.3 M | 97.21% |
| Wet Handling | 4th | 69.25 s | 97.49% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 6th | 56.5 Points | 94.17% |
| Straight Aqua | 3rd | 72 Km/H | 99.09% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 4th | 67.14 m/sec2 | 96.84% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Noise | 1st | 24.5 Points | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling Resistance | 4th | 9.01 kg / t | 94.34% |
- 3PMSF: no
The Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S demonstrated significant improvements over its previous version, particularly in straight-line aquaplaning where it had traditionally struggled. The standout performance came in wet braking, where it jumped from third to first place. The tyre felt secure and precise in wet conditions, ranking fourth in both subjective scores and lap times. It was especially impressive in high-speed wet driving, offering a fluid feel through transitions with bright and connected steering feedback. While not outstanding in all wet tests, it made up for this with strong dry performance and good refinement. The combination of strong wet performance, excellent dry handling, and the lowest rolling resistance in the test secured its second-place finish.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 3rd | 33.1 M | 92.75% |
| Dry Handling | 4th | 101.21 s | 99.38% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 2nd | 58.5 Points | 95.9% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 1st | 31.4 M | 100% |
| Wet Handling | 3rd | 69.17 s | 97.6% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 4th | 57.5 Points | 95.83% |
| Straight Aqua | 6th | 70.61 Km/H | 97.18% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 7th | 65.82 m/sec2 | 94.94% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Noise | 2nd | 24 Points | 97.96% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling Resistance | 1st | 8.5 kg / t | 100% |
- 3PMSF: no
The Goodyear Eagle F1 Supersport showed strong performance across all tests, particularly standing out in wet conditions. The tyre was quick around the handling circuit, just a fraction behind the quickest time, and scored highly in subjective rating with good grip levels. It demonstrated a stable yet adjustable character in the wet while maintaining strong precision. The tyre's wet braking was solid, coming in fourth with a stopping distance about 2m off the best. Aquaplaning resistance was strong in both straight and curved tests, and the tyre showed good levels of refinement on the road, though it initially needed some warming up. Overall, an impressive performance that earned it third place.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 5th | 33.5 M | 91.64% |
| Dry Handling | 1st | 100.58 s | 100% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 4th | 57 Points | 93.44% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 4th | 33.5 M | 93.73% |
| Wet Handling | 5th | 69.41 s | 97.26% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 1st | 60 Points | 100% |
| Straight Aqua | 2nd | 72.04 Km/H | 99.15% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 3rd | 67.7 m/sec2 | 97.65% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Noise | 3rd | 23.5 Points | 95.92% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling Resistance | 7th | 10.44 kg / t | 81.42% |
- 3PMSF: no
The Bridgestone Potenza Sport, last year's winner, delivered another strong performance but missed out on the overall win as competitors stepped up their game. It set the pace in wet handling, being a second faster than the next best tyre and matching that with strong subjective scores. The tyre showed good balance and traction in wet conditions, though it was less progressive than some rivals. In the dry, it ranked third in both lap times and subjective scores, demonstrating good response at medium to high speeds. Its only real weaknesses were high rolling resistance and somewhat disappointing wet braking results, but it remained an impressive performer overall.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 2nd | 32.1 M | 95.64% |
| Dry Handling | 3rd | 101.2 s | 99.39% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 3rd | 58 Points | 95.08% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 7th | 35.1 M | 89.46% |
| Wet Handling | 1st | 67.51 s | 100% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 2nd | 58 Points | 96.67% |
| Straight Aqua | 1st | 72.66 Km/H | 100% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 5th | 66.88 m/sec2 | 96.47% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Noise | 6th | 22 Points | 89.8% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling Resistance | 6th | 10.04 kg / t | 84.66% |
- 3PMSF: no
Testing the new Vredestein Ultrac Pro for the first time, it showed strong consistency across all tests, particularly in wet conditions. The tyre performed well in wet circle and wet handling lap times, coming in just two metres behind the best in wet braking. Its strongest showing was in dry handling, where it offered good precision and adjustability, though it placed seventh and last in dry braking. The tyre demonstrated progressive, predictable behavior and was easily managed at the limit. While its weak point was dry braking, it showed decent refinement on the road and strong overall performance that nearly matched the top-tier tyres.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 7th | 35.1 M | 87.46% |
| Dry Handling | 2nd | 101.18 s | 99.41% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 4th | 57 Points | 93.44% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 2nd | 32.3 M | 97.21% |
| Wet Handling | 6th | 69.8 s | 96.72% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 5th | 57 Points | 95% |
| Straight Aqua | 4th | 71.76 Km/H | 98.76% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 6th | 66.14 m/sec2 | 95.4% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Noise | 3rd | 23.5 Points | 95.92% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling Resistance | 3rd | 8.86 kg / t | 95.94% |
- 3PMSF: no
The Pirelli P Zero PZ4 finished sixth in testing, showing better performance than previous versions but still lagging behind the top performers. The tyre showed strong wet subjective scores and performed adequately in dry tests. Braking performance was mixed, coming in fifth in wet braking at 2.5m behind the best. In wet tests, the tyre was quick but lacked steering feel, though it was sharp and responsive with strong on-the-brakes performance. The tyre stood out for refinement, being one of the quietest on test, but lacked some feedback and outright steering feel compared to the leaders.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 6th | 33.6 M | 91.37% |
| Dry Handling | 5th | 101.23 s | 99.36% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 6th | 56 Points | 91.8% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 6th | 34.1 M | 92.08% |
| Wet Handling | 2nd | 68.36 s | 98.76% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 2nd | 58 Points | 96.67% |
| Straight Aqua | 7th | 69.85 Km/H | 96.13% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 2nd | 67.78 m/sec2 | 97.76% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Noise | 3rd | 23.5 Points | 95.92% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling Resistance | 5th | 9.17 kg / t | 92.69% |
- 3PMSF: no
The Falken Azenis FK520's strongest performance was in curved aquaplaning, where it topped the results, backed by decent straight-line aquaplaning resistance. However, it struggled in most other areas, finishing seventh in wet handling (almost four seconds off the best lap time) and scoring poorly in subjective handling tests. The tyre needed careful management in wet conditions, requiring time to settle into turns and showing tentative grip characteristics. While it offered good refinement on regular roads, the Falken struggled to match its high-performance competitors, particularly in wet conditions. Feedback from the tyre was decent, but it needs improvement in wet grip to compete with the leading brands.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 4th | 33.4 M | 91.92% |
| Dry Handling | 7th | 102.52 s | 98.11% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 7th | 51 Points | 83.61% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 5th | 34 M | 92.35% |
| Wet Handling | 7th | 71.27 s | 94.72% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 7th | 47 Points | 78.33% |
| Straight Aqua | 5th | 71.43 Km/H | 98.31% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 1st | 69.33 m/sec2 | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subj. Noise | 7th | 21 Points | 85.71% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rolling Resistance | 2nd | 8.68 kg / t | 97.93% |