In their latest tyre test, Motor magazine has taken a unique approach to evaluating summer tyres, focusing on models that combine energy efficiency with high performance. The test specifically targeted tyres with the lowest rolling resistance ratings, examining whether fuel-saving characteristics would compromise grip and safety features.

Test setup & methodology

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

Recorded test conditions

Wet Braking: 100 → 0 km/h

The testing team selected seven tyres in the popular 205/55 R16 size, a dimension commonly found on vehicles ranging from the Audi A3 to the Volvo V70. Six of the tested models carried the EU label's top "A" rating for both rolling resistance and wet grip, while the seventh tyre (Prinx XLAB Comfort EV) featured an "A" rating for rolling resistance but a "B" for wet grip.

Unfortunately the magazine didn't share that only the Continental and Prinx tyres are aftermarket tyres, the rest in AA EU label scores are OE tuned. Falken and Bridgestone are Audi, Michelin is a Peugeot tyre, Nexen is Renault, and the Goodyear was unmarked, but most likely VW as usually in replacement it is unmarked. We do not know exactly how tuned these tyres are, but we can expect they have traded some wet grip for rolling resistance in the process.

The results revealed a tight competition among most contenders, with the Continental UltraContact NXT emerging as the overall winner, demonstrating the best balance of wet and dry performance. The Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 and Michelin e.Primacy secured second and third places respectively, with Michelin particularly impressing with its outstanding rolling resistance results.

Perhaps most surprising was how mid-range tyres like the Falken Ziex ZE310 Ecorun matched premium models in many performance aspects, finishing tied for fourth place with the Bridgestone Turanza T005. Only the Chinese-made Prinx XLAB Comfort EV significantly underperformed, showing particularly concerning results in wet conditions despite its premium-level pricing.

Dry

The Michelin e.Primacy leads the dry braking test with a stopping distance of just 36.1 meters from 100 km/h, closely followed by the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun at 36.3 meters. Continental's UltraContact NXT places third, showing good all-round capabilities. The Chinese Prinx XLAB Comfort EV struggles significantly, requiring 39.5 meters - over 3 meters more than the best performers.

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin e.Primacy	36.1 m	Best
2Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	36.3 m	+0.20 m
3Continental UltraContact NXT	36.6 m	+0.50 m
4Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	37.1 m	+1.00 m
5Nexen N Blue S	37.6 m	+1.50 m
6Bridgestone Turanza T005	37.9 m	+1.80 m
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	39.5 m	+3.40 m

The difference between best and worst was 9.4% (3.4 m ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths).

Continental takes the top spot in the dry handling test with a lap time of 52.5 seconds, demonstrating its balanced performance characteristics. Goodyear's EfficientGrip Performance 2 follows closely at 52.8 seconds, with Falken maintaining its strong dry performance in third. Despite its excellent dry braking, the Michelin e.Primacy falls to sixth place here, suggesting a less sporty handling character.

Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental UltraContact NXT	52.5 s	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	52.8 s	+0.30 s
3Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	52.9 s	+0.40 s
4Bridgestone Turanza T005	53 s	+0.50 s
5Nexen N Blue S	53.2 s	+0.70 s
6Michelin e.Primacy	53.4 s	+0.90 s
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	53.6 s	+1.10 s

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

Test drivers rated the Continental UltraContact NXT highest for subjective handling feel, scoring 7.1 points. Bridgestone's Turanza T005 impresses with second place (6.9 points) despite middling results in objective tests. The Nexen N Blue S rates lowest at 5.7 points, indicating less precise steering response and driver confidence compared to its competitors.

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental UltraContact NXT	7.1 Points	Best
2Bridgestone Turanza T005	6.9 Points	-0.20 Points
3Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	6.7 Points	-0.40 Points
4Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	6.5 Points	-0.60 Points
5Michelin e.Primacy	6.3 Points	-0.80 Points
6Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	6 Points	-1.10 Points
7Nexen N Blue S	5.7 Points	-1.40 Points

The difference between best and worst was 19.7% (1.4 Points).

Wet

Continental dominates wet braking with a stopping distance of 50.2 meters, followed by Goodyear (51.1m) and Michelin (51.7m). This continues Continental's strong showing across both dry and wet disciplines. The Prinx tyre presents a serious safety concern with a dramatically longer stopping distance of 68.7 meters - nearly 18.5 meters (37%) more than the Continental.

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental UltraContact NXT	50.2 m	Best	0 km/h
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	51.1 m	+0.90 m	17 km/h
3Michelin e.Primacy	51.7 m	+1.50 m	22 km/h
4Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	53.8 m	+3.60 m	34 km/h
5Nexen N Blue S	53.9 m	+3.70 m	34 km/h
6Bridgestone Turanza T005	54.2 m	+4.00 m	35 km/h
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	68.7 m	+18.50 m	67 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 36.9% (18.5 m ≈ 4.1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Prinx XLAB Comfort EV would still be travelling at 67 km/h when the Continental UltraContact NXT had stopped.

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

Continental maintains its wet performance lead with the quickest lap time of 84.6 seconds, with Goodyear and Michelin following in the same order as the wet braking test. This consistent performance across wet tests demonstrates these premium brands' well-rounded wet-weather engineering. Again, the Prinx tyre lags significantly behind with a time of 94 seconds.

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental UltraContact NXT	84.6 s	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	85 s	+0.40 s
3Michelin e.Primacy	85.5 s	+0.90 s
4Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	86.1 s	+1.50 s
5Nexen N Blue S	86.5 s	+1.90 s
6Bridgestone Turanza T005	86.9 s	+2.30 s
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	94 s	+9.40 s

The difference between best and worst was 11.1% (9.4 s).

Nexen N Blue S surprisingly excels in straight-line aquaplaning resistance with a float speed of 76.7 km/h, significantly outperforming tyres that lead in other wet categories. Bridgestone places second (74.5 km/h), showing good water evacuation capabilities. Despite their strong performance in other wet tests, both Michelin and Prinx struggle with the lowest float speeds of 71.5 and 71.1 km/h respectively.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Nexen N Blue S	76.7 km/h	Best
2Bridgestone Turanza T005	74.5 km/h	-2.20 km/h
3Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	74.3 km/h	-2.40 km/h
4Continental UltraContact NXT	74.1 km/h	-2.60 km/h
5Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	73.7 km/h	-3.00 km/h
6Michelin e.Primacy	71.5 km/h	-5.20 km/h
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	71.1 km/h	-5.60 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 7.3% (5.6 Km/H).

Bridgestone Turanza T005 dominates curved aquaplaning resistance with 2.98 m/sec² of remaining lateral acceleration, followed closely by Nexen at 2.89 m/sec². These results align with their strong straight aquaplaning performance. Michelin shows its weakest result here at 2.28 m/sec² - significantly behind the competition and reinforcing its weakness in water evacuation tests.

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Turanza T005	2.98 m/sec2	Best
2Nexen N Blue S	2.89 m/sec2	-0.09 m/sec2
3Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	2.77 m/sec2	-0.21 m/sec2
4Continental UltraContact NXT	2.75 m/sec2	-0.23 m/sec2
5Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	2.72 m/sec2	-0.26 m/sec2
6Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	2.56 m/sec2	-0.42 m/sec2
7Michelin e.Primacy	2.28 m/sec2	-0.70 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 23.5% (0.7 m/sec2).

Comfort

Continental, Goodyear, and Michelin tie for first place with 7.0 points each, showing that low rolling resistance doesn't necessarily compromise ride comfort. The remaining tyres score reasonably well, with only the Prinx noticeably behind at 6.0 points.

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	7 Points	Best
1Michelin e.Primacy	7 Points	Best
1Continental UltraContact NXT	7 Points	Best
4Bridgestone Turanza T005	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Nexen N Blue S	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	6 Points	-1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 14.3% (1 Points).

Goodyear produces the lowest external noise at 63.4 dB, with Continental and Michelin following closely. Bridgestone measures noticeably louder at 66.8 dB, a full 3.4 dB above the quietest tyre. Interestingly, the budget Prinx tyre performs relatively well in this test, placing fourth with 64.1 dB, one of its few stronger showings.

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	63.4 dB	Best
2Continental UltraContact NXT	63.8 dB	+0.40 dB
3Michelin e.Primacy	63.9 dB	+0.50 dB
4Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	64.1 dB	+0.70 dB
5Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	65 dB	+1.60 dB
6Nexen N Blue S	65.2 dB	+1.80 dB
7Bridgestone Turanza T005	66.8 dB	+3.40 dB

The difference between best and worst was 5.4% (3.4 dB).

Value

Michelin e.Primacy demonstrates its efficiency focus with the lowest rolling resistance coefficient of 5.48 kg/t, followed closely by Goodyear at 5.61 kg/t. Despite winning multiple performance categories, Continental places sixth at 6.58 kg/t, suggesting its optimisation focused more on grip than efficiency. The Prinx tyre shows the worst efficiency at 6.81 kg/t, contradicting its "Comfort EV" naming which implies energy efficiency.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Michelin e.Primacy	5.48 kg/t	Best	£0
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	5.61 kg/t	+0.13 kg/t	£10
3Nexen N Blue S	6.04 kg/t	+0.56 kg/t	£45
4Bridgestone Turanza T005	6.08 kg/t	+0.60 kg/t	£48
5Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	6.35 kg/t	+0.87 kg/t	£70
6Continental UltraContact NXT	6.58 kg/t	+1.10 kg/t	£88
7Prinx XLAB Comfort EV	6.81 kg/t	+1.33 kg/t	£107

The difference between best and worst was 24.3% (1.33 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Prinx XLAB Comfort EV uses about 74 L (£107) more fuel than the Michelin e.Primacy.

Adjust the assumptions

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

Petrol/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

19,000 km

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

£1.45/L

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

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

Results

The Continental UltraContact NXT emerges as the overall winner, demonstrating exceptional balance across nearly all testing criteria. It dominates wet performance categories with best-in-class wet braking, handling, and circle grip while maintaining strong dry performance credentials. The Continental excels in subjective handling assessments, earning top marks from test drivers for both precision and comfort. Its only notable weakness appears in rolling resistance, where it ranks sixth, suggesting Continental prioritized grip and handling characteristics over maximum efficiency. Despite this trade-off and its premium price point (€479), the UltraContact NXT justifies its position as the test winner through consistently high performance across safety-critical categories.

Dry99.4%

Wet98.8%

Comfort99.7%

Rolling Resistance83.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (11)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 7	36.6 m	+0.50 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	1^st / 7	52.5 s	Best in this discipline
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 7	7.1 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 7	50.2 m	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 7	84.6 s	Best in this discipline
Wet CircleHigher is better	1^st / 7	0.841 m/s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 7	74.1 km/h	-2.60 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	4^th / 7	2.75 m/sec2	-0.23 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	1^st / 7	7 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 7	63.8 dB	+0.40 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 7	6.58 kg/t	+1.10 kg/t

EU Label: A/A/
Origin: Portugal
Price: 479.00

The Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 secures a strong second-place finish with well-balanced performance across all test categories. It follows closely behind Continental in wet performance while delivering excellent efficiency with the second-lowest rolling resistance rating. The Goodyear shines particularly in comfort metrics, achieving the lowest external noise levels (63.4 dB) and tied for top comfort scores. It demonstrates solid dry handling capabilities with a second-place finish in the dry handling test (52.8 seconds). While not leading in any individual performance category except noise, the Goodyear impresses with its consistent high-level performance and well-rounded character, offering an excellent balance between safety, comfort, and efficiency at a slightly lower price point (€436) than the Continental.

Dry97.7%

Wet98.2%

Comfort100%

Rolling Resistance97.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (11)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	4^th / 7	37.1 m	+1.00 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 7	52.8 s	+0.30 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 7	6.5 Points	-0.60 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 7	51.1 m	+0.90 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 7	85 s	+0.40 s
Wet CircleHigher is better	2^nd / 7	0.84 m/s	0.00 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 7	73.7 km/h	-3.00 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 7	2.77 m/sec2	-0.21 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	1^st / 7	7 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 7	63.4 dB	Best in this discipline
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 7	5.61 kg/t	+0.13 kg/t

EU Label: A/A/
Origin: Poland
Price: 436.00

The Michelin e.Primacy showcases its efficiency-focused design by delivering the best rolling resistance coefficient (5.48 kg/t) while still maintaining strong overall performance. It excels in dry braking with a class-leading 36.1 meters stopping distance and delivers good wet braking performance. The e.Primacy's comfort credentials are equally impressive, tying for first in subjective comfort assessment. However, Michelin shows some weakness in water evacuation tests, placing last in curved aquaplaning and near-last in straight aquaplaning resistance. This suggests a trade-off where rolling resistance improvements may have compromised water dispersion capabilities. Despite these limitations, the Michelin's balance of efficiency, comfort, and core safety performance at a competitive price point (€415) earns it third place overall.

Dry98.2%

Wet94.4%

Comfort99.6%

Rolling Resistance100%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (11)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	1^st / 7	36.1 m	Best in this discipline
Dry HandlingLower is better	6^th / 7	53.4 s	+0.90 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 7	6.3 Points	-0.80 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 7	51.7 m	+1.50 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 7	85.5 s	+0.90 s
Wet CircleHigher is better	5^th / 7	0.802 m/s	-0.04 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 7	71.5 km/h	-5.20 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	7^th / 7	2.28 m/sec2	-0.70 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	1^st / 7	7 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 7	63.9 dB	+0.50 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	1^st / 7	5.48 kg/t	Best in this discipline

EU Label: A/A/
Origin: Germany
Price: 415.00

The Bridgestone Turanza T005, despite being a model being phased out of the market, delivers solid performance across most test categories. It particularly excels in aquaplaning resistance, winning the curved aquaplaning test with 2.98 m/sec² and placing second in straight aquaplaning. The Bridgestone also scores well in subjective dry handling assessment (second place with 6.9 points), showing good driver feedback and precision. Its main weaknesses appear in wet braking (sixth place at 54.2 meters) and external noise (last place at 66.8 dB). With respectable rolling resistance and good dry handling characteristics, the Turanza T005 demonstrates why it was a successful premium tyre, though its balanced but not class-leading performance in most categories explains its tied fourth-place finish despite its premium pricing (€437).

Dry97.1%

Wet96.3%

Comfort93.9%

Rolling Resistance90.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (11)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	6^th / 7	37.9 m	+1.80 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	4^th / 7	53 s	+0.50 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 7	6.9 Points	-0.20 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 7	54.2 m	+4.00 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 7	86.9 s	+2.30 s
Wet CircleHigher is better	3^rd / 7	0.817 m/s	-0.02 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 7	74.5 km/h	-2.20 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 7	2.98 m/sec2	Best in this discipline
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	4^th / 7	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 7	66.8 dB	+3.40 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	4^th / 7	6.08 kg/t	+0.60 kg/t

EU Label: A/A/
Origin: Hungary
Price: 437.00

The Falken Ziex ZE310 Ecorun demonstrates the narrowing gap between mid-range and premium tyres, matching Bridgestone's overall score to tie for fourth place. The Falken particularly impresses in dry conditions, achieving second-best dry braking performance (36.3 meters) and third-place dry handling times. It delivers solid subjective handling feedback (third place) and maintains reasonable wet performance with mid-pack results across most wet categories. Its aquaplaning resistance is mixed, with good straight-line performance but below-average results in curved aquaplaning tests. With middle-of-the-pack rolling resistance and reasonable comfort scores, the Falken represents excellent value at €336 - significantly less expensive than the premium competitors while delivering comparable performance in many key categories.

Dry98.9%

Wet95.1%

Comfort95.2%

Rolling Resistance86.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (11)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 7	36.3 m	+0.20 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 7	52.9 s	+0.40 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 7	6.7 Points	-0.40 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 7	53.8 m	+3.60 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 7	86.1 s	+1.50 s
Wet CircleHigher is better	4^th / 7	0.814 m/s	-0.03 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 7	74.3 km/h	-2.40 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 7	2.56 m/sec2	-0.42 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	4^th / 7	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 7	65 dB	+1.60 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	5^th / 7	6.35 kg/t	+0.87 kg/t

EU Label: A/A/
Origin: Turkey
Price: 336.00

The Nexen N'Blue S proves to be a cost-effective option with some standout performance characteristics. Most notably, it dominates the straight aquaplaning test with a significantly higher float speed (76.7 km/h) than its competitors and places second in curved aquaplaning resistance. The tyre also features good efficiency with the third-best rolling resistance result (6.04 kg/t). However, the Nexen shows clear compromises in subjective assessments, ranking last in subjective dry handling feel (5.7 points). Its wet and dry braking performances are adequate but unexceptional, placing mid-pack. At €253, the N'Blue S represents the best value option in the test for price-conscious buyers, particularly those in rainy climates where its excellent aquaplaning resistance would be beneficial, though its handling feel limitations are evident compared to premium offerings.

Dry95.8%

Wet96.1%

Comfort95.1%

Rolling Resistance90.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (11)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	5^th / 7	37.6 m	+1.50 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	5^th / 7	53.2 s	+0.70 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 7	5.7 Points	-1.40 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 7	53.9 m	+3.70 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 7	86.5 s	+1.90 s
Wet CircleHigher is better	6^th / 7	0.801 m/s	-0.04 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 7	76.7 km/h	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 7	2.89 m/sec2	-0.09 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	4^th / 7	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 7	65.2 dB	+1.80 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	3^rd / 7	6.04 kg/t	+0.56 kg/t

EU Label: A/A/
Origin: South Korea
Price: 253.00

The Prinx XLAB Comfort EV significantly underperforms across most test categories, raising serious safety concerns particularly in wet conditions. Its wet braking distance (68.7 meters) is nearly 37% longer than the test-winning Continental, representing a potentially dangerous performance deficit. The Chinese tyre also records the slowest wet handling time (94 seconds) and poorest wet circle grip. Despite its "Comfort EV" naming suggesting energy efficiency, it ironically delivers the worst rolling resistance result (6.81 kg/t). The Prinx also falls short in dry performance with the longest dry braking distance and slowest handling time. Its only decent result comes in noise testing, where it places mid-pack. Given its price point (€321) exceeding both the Falken and Nexen while delivering substantially worse performance, the Prinx XLAB Comfort EV cannot be recommended despite its "B" EU wet grip rating.

Dry93.7%

Wet86%

Comfort92.3%

Rolling Resistance80.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (11)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	7^th / 7	39.5 m	+3.40 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	7^th / 7	53.6 s	+1.10 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 7	6 Points	-1.10 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 7	68.7 m	+18.50 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 7	94 s	+9.40 s
Wet CircleHigher is better	7^th / 7	0.755 m/s	-0.09 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 7	71.1 km/h	-5.60 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	5^th / 7	2.72 m/sec2	-0.26 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	7^th / 7	6 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 7	64.1 dB	+0.70 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	7^th / 7	6.81 kg/t	+1.33 kg/t

EU Label: A/B/
Origin: China
Price: 321.00

Tyre	Continental UltraContact NXT	Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	Michelin e.Primacy	Bridgestone Turanza T005	Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun	Nexen N Blue S	Prinx XLAB Comfort EV
Position	1^st	2^nd	3^rd	4^th	5^th	6^th	7^th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	99.4%	97.7%	98.2%	97.1%	98.9%	95.8%	93.7%
Wet	98.8%	98.2%	94.4%	96.3%	95.1%	96.1%	86%
Comfort	99.7%	100%	99.6%	93.9%	95.2%	95.1%	92.3%
Rolling Resistance	83.3%	97.7%	100%	90.1%	86.3%	90.7%	80.5%
Keep researching	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results

Menu

Tyre shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry

Wet

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test