Test Charts / EVO

2020 EVO UHP Summer Tyre Test

Name: 2020 EVO UHP Summer Tyre Test
Creator: Tyre Reviews
Published: 2020-12-29

Compare each discipline in the tested size. See the measured result, position and gap to the best tyre, then read the verdict for the trade-offs behind the finishing order.

Tested size: 235/35 R19
Tyres tested: 7
Disciplines: 10

Read the measurements, not just the rank

Lower is better for braking distances and lap times; higher is better for subjective scores and aquaplaning speed. Bars start at zero. Read the gap alongside the position: adjacent tyres can be separated by very different margins.

Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tyres does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	33.6 m	Best	0 km/h
2Continental Sport Contact 6	33.8 m	+0.20 m	10 km/h
3Pirelli P Zero PZ4	34.1 m	+0.50 m	16 km/h
4Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	34.7 m	+1.10 m	23 km/h
5Nokian PowerProof	35.5 m	+1.90 m	30 km/h
6Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2	35.6 m	+2.00 m	31 km/h
7Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	36.1 m	+2.50 m	34 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 7.4% (2.5 m ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Vredestein Ultrac Vorti would still be travelling at 34 km/h when the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S had stopped.

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

Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	52.15 s	Best
1Pirelli P Zero PZ4	52.15 s	Best
3Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	52.5 s	+0.35 s
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	52.5 s	+0.35 s
5Continental Sport Contact 6	52.65 s	+0.50 s
6Nokian PowerProof	52.95 s	+0.80 s
7Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2	53.1 s	+0.95 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	63 Points	Best
2Continental Sport Contact 6	61.5 Points	-1.50 Points
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	59 Points	-4.00 Points
4Pirelli P Zero PZ4	57 Points	-6.00 Points
5Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2	56 Points	-7.00 Points
5Nokian PowerProof	56 Points	-7.00 Points
7Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	53.5 Points	-9.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 15.1% (9.5 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	26 m	Best	0 km/h
2Continental Sport Contact 6	27.7 m	+1.70 m	32 km/h
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	28 m	+2.00 m	35 km/h
4Pirelli P Zero PZ4	28.7 m	+2.70 m	40 km/h
5Nokian PowerProof	28.8 m	+2.80 m	41 km/h
6Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	29.6 m	+3.60 m	45 km/h
7Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2	30.1 m	+4.10 m	48 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 15.8% (4.1 m ≈ 0.9 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2 would still be travelling at 48 km/h when the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S had stopped.

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

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero PZ4	46 s	Best
2Nokian PowerProof	46.7 s	+0.70 s
2Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	46.7 s	+0.70 s
4Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	46.8 s	+0.80 s
5Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2	47.2 s	+1.20 s
6Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	48 s	+2.00 s
7Continental Sport Contact 6	48.5 s	+2.50 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.4% (2.5 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero PZ4	62 Points	Best
2Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2	58.5 Points	-3.50 Points
3Nokian PowerProof	56.5 Points	-5.50 Points
4Continental Sport Contact 6	56 Points	-6.00 Points
5Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	55.5 Points	-6.50 Points
6Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	55 Points	-7.00 Points
7Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	54.5 Points	-7.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 12.1% (7.5 Points).

Wet Circle
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	12.39 s	Best
2Pirelli P Zero PZ4	12.42 s	+0.03 s
2Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	12.42 s	+0.03 s
4Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2	12.54 s	+0.15 s
4Nokian PowerProof	12.54 s	+0.15 s
6Continental Sport Contact 6	12.6 s	+0.21 s
7Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	12.71 s	+0.32 s

All the tyres in the Wet Circle test finished less than 3% apart.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2	74.4 km/h	Best
2Pirelli P Zero PZ4	72.2 km/h	-2.20 km/h
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	72 km/h	-2.40 km/h
4Nokian PowerProof	71.8 km/h	-2.60 km/h
5Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	71.7 km/h	-2.70 km/h
6Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	71.6 km/h	-2.80 km/h
7Continental Sport Contact 6	71.5 km/h	-2.90 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 3.9% (2.9 Km/H).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	25 Points	Best
2Continental Sport Contact 6	24.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Nokian PowerProof	23.5 Points	-1.50 Points
4Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2	22.5 Points	-2.50 Points
4Pirelli P Zero PZ4	22.5 Points	-2.50 Points
6Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	22 Points	-3.00 Points
6Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	22 Points	-3.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 12% (3 Points).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Continental Sport Contact 6	0.83 kg/t	Best	£0
2Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2	0.84 kg/t	+0.01 kg/t	£5
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	0.87 kg/t	+0.04 kg/t	£21
4Nokian PowerProof	0.89 kg/t	+0.06 kg/t	£32
5Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	0.92 kg/t	+0.09 kg/t	£48
6Vredestein Ultrac Vorti	0.98 kg/t	+0.15 kg/t	£80
7Pirelli P Zero PZ4	1.02 kg/t	+0.19 kg/t	£101

The difference between best and worst was 22.9% (0.19 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Pirelli P Zero PZ4 uses about 70 L (£101) more fuel than the Continental Sport Contact 6.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions. These calculators use the full test field, independently of your tyre selection above.

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.