Test Publication:
225/50 R17
10 tyres
4 categories
Test Publication:
Unknown
Test Size:
225/50 R17
Tyres Tested:
10 tyres
Each year, the wonderful Swedish publication Teknikens Värld performs a summer tyre test in Sweden. Their 2020 test covers ten 225/50 R17 summer tyres, including the first test of the brand new Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2!
The unique Swedishness of the test means they don't perform dry handling, but instead the "moose test" which involves a sharp lane change at speed. Sadly, we can't database this, but you can see the results of the test in the commentary at the bottom of the page.
Other points of note is the fuel use isn't the usual rolling resistance of the tyre in kg/T, it's instead the estimated litres per 100km used by the test Volvo, and they give a subjective comfort score which looks at noise and comfort levels, rather than the usual external pass-by noise!
Dry
In the dry braking, the Michelin had an unusually big advantage over the rest of the tyres, stopping nearly a meter sooner than the second placed Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2!
- Michelin Primacy 4
- Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
- Continental Premium Contact 6
- Pirelli CINTURATO P7
- Nokian Hakka Blue 2
- Federal Evoluzion ST 1
- Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
- Sunny NA305
- Kumho Solus HS51 Harmony Sports
- Nexen N Fera SU1
Wet
Wet braking was won by the Continental PremiumContact 6. Second place was again awarded to the new Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2, with the dry braking champion, the Michelin Primacy 4, having to settle for seventh.
- Continental Premium Contact 6
- Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
- Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
- Federal Evoluzion ST 1
- Kumho Solus HS51 Harmony Sports
- Nokian Hakka Blue 2
- Michelin Primacy 4
- Pirelli CINTURATO P7
- Sunny NA305
- Nexen N Fera SU1
The new Goodyear was fastest over the relatively short wet handling lap, while the Michelin proved braking and handling results don't always match, finishing second in this test.
- Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
- Michelin Primacy 4
- Pirelli CINTURATO P7
- Kumho Solus HS51 Harmony Sports
- Nokian Hakka Blue 2
- Continental Premium Contact 6
- Federal Evoluzion ST 1
- Sunny NA305
- Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
- Nexen N Fera SU1
The Kumho and Nokian tyres had a good advantage during aquaplaning testing.
- Kumho Solus HS51 Harmony Sports
- Nokian Hakka Blue 2
- Continental Premium Contact 6
- Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
- Sunny NA305
- Michelin Primacy 4
- Pirelli CINTURATO P7
- Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
- Federal Evoluzion ST 1
- Nexen N Fera SU1
Environment
Subjectively, the Michelin had the comfort advantage, which combined internal noise and how comfortable the tyres felt when driving. The Goodyear and Pirelli were best of the rest.
- Michelin Primacy 4
- Pirelli CINTURATO P7
- Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
- Nokian Hakka Blue 2
- Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
- Continental Premium Contact 6
- Federal Evoluzion ST 1
- Nexen N Fera SU1
- Kumho Solus HS51 Harmony Sports
- Sunny NA305
These rolling resistance numbers are the estimated litres per 100km.
- Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
- Nexen N Fera SU1
- Michelin Primacy 4
- Continental Premium Contact 6
- Nokian Hakka Blue 2
- Sunny NA305
- Federal Evoluzion ST 1
- Pirelli CINTURATO P7
- Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
- Kumho Solus HS51 Harmony Sports
The best tyres on test were also the lightest.
- Michelin Primacy 4
- Continental Premium Contact 6
- Pirelli CINTURATO P7
- Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
- Sunny NA305
- Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
- Kumho Solus HS51 Harmony Sports
- Federal Evoluzion ST 1
- Nokian Hakka Blue 2
- Nexen N Fera SU1
Results
No obvious flaws and good balance of characteristics, excellent wet handling, low rolling resistance, the best level of comfort.
Average resistance to aquaplaning.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
1st |
22.24 M |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
7th |
28.05 M |
25.77 M |
+2.28 M |
91.87% |
| Wet Handling |
2nd |
39.14 s |
39 s |
+0.14 s |
99.64% |
| Straight Aqua |
6th |
73.5 Km/H |
78.5 Km/H |
-5 Km/H |
93.63% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
1st |
10 Points |
|
|
100% |
| Tyre Weight |
1st |
9.6 Kg |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Rolling Resistance |
3rd |
5.56 kg / t |
5.5 kg / t |
+0.06 kg / t |
98.92% |
No obvious flaws and good balance of characteristics.
Average resistance to aquaplaning.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
2nd |
23.21 M |
22.24 M |
+0.97 M |
95.82% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
2nd |
26.23 M |
25.77 M |
+0.46 M |
98.25% |
| Wet Handling |
1st |
39 s |
|
|
100% |
| Straight Aqua |
8th |
73 Km/H |
78.5 Km/H |
-5.5 Km/H |
92.99% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
2nd |
9 Points |
10 Points |
-1 Points |
90% |
| Tyre Weight |
3rd |
10 Kg |
9.6 Kg |
+0.4 Kg |
96% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Rolling Resistance |
1st |
5.5 kg / t |
|
|
100% |
No obvious flaws and good balance of characteristics, excellent resistance to aquaplaning, the best result in a moose test.
None mentioned.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
4th |
23.59 M |
22.24 M |
+1.35 M |
94.28% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
6th |
27.14 M |
25.77 M |
+1.37 M |
94.95% |
| Wet Handling |
5th |
39.71 s |
39 s |
+0.71 s |
98.21% |
| Straight Aqua |
2nd |
78 Km/H |
78.5 Km/H |
-0.5 Km/H |
99.36% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
4th |
8 Points |
10 Points |
-2 Points |
80% |
| Tyre Weight |
6th |
11.2 Kg |
9.6 Kg |
+1.6 Kg |
85.71% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Rolling Resistance |
5th |
5.69 kg / t |
5.5 kg / t |
+0.19 kg / t |
96.66% |
Short braking distance on wet roads, very good elk test result, low fuel consumption.
Low comfort levels.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
3rd |
23.32 M |
22.24 M |
+1.08 M |
95.37% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
1st |
25.77 M |
|
|
100% |
| Wet Handling |
6th |
39.77 s |
39 s |
+0.77 s |
98.06% |
| Straight Aqua |
3rd |
75.5 Km/H |
78.5 Km/H |
-3 Km/H |
96.18% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
6th |
6 Points |
10 Points |
-4 Points |
60% |
| Tyre Weight |
1st |
9.6 Kg |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Rolling Resistance |
4th |
5.58 kg / t |
5.5 kg / t |
+0.08 kg / t |
98.57% |
Excellent wet handling, good result in elk test, high level of comfort.
Higher fuel consumption.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
4th |
23.59 M |
22.24 M |
+1.35 M |
94.28% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
8th |
28.24 M |
25.77 M |
+2.47 M |
91.25% |
| Wet Handling |
3rd |
39.17 s |
39 s |
+0.17 s |
99.57% |
| Straight Aqua |
6th |
73.5 Km/H |
78.5 Km/H |
-5 Km/H |
93.63% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
2nd |
9 Points |
10 Points |
-1 Points |
90% |
| Tyre Weight |
3rd |
10 Kg |
9.6 Kg |
+0.4 Kg |
96% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Rolling Resistance |
8th |
5.78 kg / t |
5.5 kg / t |
+0.28 kg / t |
95.16% |
Short braking distance on wet roads, high resistance to aquaplaning.
The worst result in a moose test (i.e. stability during maneuvering is worse than other tires, which is a very important factor)
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
7th |
23.78 M |
22.24 M |
+1.54 M |
93.52% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
3rd |
26.52 M |
25.77 M |
+0.75 M |
97.17% |
| Wet Handling |
9th |
40.17 s |
39 s |
+1.17 s |
97.09% |
| Straight Aqua |
4th |
75 Km/H |
78.5 Km/H |
-3.5 Km/H |
95.54% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
5th |
7 Points |
10 Points |
-3 Points |
70% |
| Tyre Weight |
6th |
11.2 Kg |
9.6 Kg |
+1.6 Kg |
85.71% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Rolling Resistance |
9th |
5.79 kg / t |
5.5 kg / t |
+0.29 kg / t |
94.99% |
Excellent resistance to aquaplaning.
Poor wet handling, low comfort, high rolling resistance, average result in the moose test.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
9th |
24.34 M |
22.24 M |
+2.1 M |
91.37% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
5th |
27.09 M |
25.77 M |
+1.32 M |
95.13% |
| Wet Handling |
4th |
39.58 s |
39 s |
+0.58 s |
98.53% |
| Straight Aqua |
1st |
78.5 Km/H |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
9th |
2 Points |
10 Points |
-8 Points |
20% |
| Tyre Weight |
6th |
11.2 Kg |
9.6 Kg |
+1.6 Kg |
85.71% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Rolling Resistance |
10th |
5.87 kg / t |
5.5 kg / t |
+0.37 kg / t |
93.7% |
Good braking performance.
Poor wet handling, the worst result in the moose test.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
6th |
23.75 M |
22.24 M |
+1.51 M |
93.64% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
4th |
27.03 M |
25.77 M |
+1.26 M |
95.34% |
| Wet Handling |
7th |
40.05 s |
39 s |
+1.05 s |
97.38% |
| Straight Aqua |
8th |
73 Km/H |
78.5 Km/H |
-5.5 Km/H |
92.99% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
6th |
6 Points |
10 Points |
-4 Points |
60% |
| Tyre Weight |
6th |
11.2 Kg |
9.6 Kg |
+1.6 Kg |
85.71% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Rolling Resistance |
7th |
5.76 kg / t |
5.5 kg / t |
+0.26 kg / t |
95.49% |
Very low price, acceptable wet handling, low rolling resistance
Bad result the elk test, long braking distances on dry and wet surfaces, lowest comfort.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
8th |
24.01 M |
22.24 M |
+1.77 M |
92.63% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
9th |
28.35 M |
25.77 M |
+2.58 M |
90.9% |
| Wet Handling |
8th |
40.1 s |
39 s |
+1.1 s |
97.26% |
| Straight Aqua |
5th |
74 Km/H |
78.5 Km/H |
-4.5 Km/H |
94.27% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
10th |
1 Points |
10 Points |
-9 Points |
10% |
| Tyre Weight |
5th |
10.2 Kg |
9.6 Kg |
+0.6 Kg |
94.12% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Rolling Resistance |
6th |
5.72 kg / t |
5.5 kg / t |
+0.22 kg / t |
96.15% |
Low rolling resistance.
With the exception of economy, the complete absence of positive aspects - you expect more from the tyre of this brand. The longest braking distance on dry and wet surfaces, poor wet handling, low comfort.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
10th |
24.85 M |
22.24 M |
+2.61 M |
89.5% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
10th |
29.71 M |
25.77 M |
+3.94 M |
86.74% |
| Wet Handling |
10th |
41.33 s |
39 s |
+2.33 s |
94.36% |
| Straight Aqua |
10th |
72.5 Km/H |
78.5 Km/H |
-6 Km/H |
92.36% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Subj. Comfort |
8th |
4 Points |
10 Points |
-6 Points |
40% |
| Tyre Weight |
10th |
12.9 Kg |
9.6 Kg |
+3.3 Kg |
74.42% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Rolling Resistance |
2nd |
5.54 kg / t |
5.5 kg / t |
+0.04 kg / t |
99.28% |