The 2022 AutoBild summer tyre is here! As usual, the test started out as a wet and dry braking test of fifty sets of tyres in the popular 215/55 R17 size using a VW Passat, with the best twenty one moving through to this full test. Not only have AutoBild managed to test the new Hankook Ventus Prime 4 and Kumho Ecsta HS52, they've also put all twenty one sets of tyres through a wear test, and included an (unnamed) all season tyre as a reference in the grip tests!
The Best in Test
The Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 won the test by combining good grip in the dry and wet, very low rolling resistance and the best wear on test. Even though it wasn't the cheapest tyre, when AutoBild divided the purchase price by the projected mileage it also proved to be the best value tyre on test, a very impressive showing from Goodyear.
Hankook will be pleased with a second place overall for the new Prime 4. The Prime 3 often had high wear, but the Prime 4 was excellent in the wear test, one of the best tyres in the dry and very good in the wet.
It seems impossible to keep the Michelin Primacy 4 away from the podium of a test, with the French tyre finishing third overall with low wear and a very low rolling resistance as its standout qualities, but thanks to its high purchase price, its calculated value was 20% lower than the Goodyears.
The other notiable inclusion in this test was the ultra low rolling resistance Continental EcoContact 6. Due to the way tyre tests work, this tyre was never going to do well overall thanks to lower levels of wet grip, but the Continental eco tyre did prove to have a significant advantage in rolling resistance, reasonable grip in the dry and wet (remember it beat thirty other tyres in dry and wet braking to get to this test) and surprisingly good levels of wear. If you're looking for a tyre to save petrol, this might be the one for you, but it's definitely not great for sporty handling.
As for the all season tyre, it was the worst in dry braking which was no surprise, but also the worst in both aquaplaning tests, mid pack in dry and wet handling, and mid-pack for rolling resistance. Given this is the only tyre which would offer any sort of grip in snow, it's a fairly impressive result.
Below is the exhaustive data, and be sure to check out the full test on the AutoBild website!
Dry
The new Kumho and Nokian led the way in dry braking, with Bridgestone and Hankook tied behind them.
Dry Braking
Spread: 5.20 M (14.6%)|Avg: 36.59 M
Dry braking in meters (100 - 0 km/h) (Lower is better)
Dry Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tyre
Hankook led the dry handling lap with the fastest average speed, and Michelin was the best of the rest.
Dry Handling
Spread: 2.20 Km/H (2.3%)|Avg: 94.72 Km/H
Dry Handling Average Speed (Higher is better)
Hankook Ventus Prime 4
96.00 Km/H
Michelin Primacy 4
95.60 Km/H
Toyo Proxes Comfort
95.40 Km/H
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
95.20 Km/H
Bridgestone Turanza T005
95.20 Km/H
Sava Intensa UHP 2
95.10 Km/H
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
95.00 Km/H
Vredestein Ultrac
95.00 Km/H
BFGoodrich Advantage
95.00 Km/H
Laufenn S Fit EQ Plus
95.00 Km/H
Reference All Season
94.80 Km/H
Goodride SA57
94.70 Km/H
Kumho Ecsta HS52
94.70 Km/H
GT Radial FE2
94.50 Km/H
Nokian PowerProof
94.40 Km/H
Debica Presto UHP2
94.20 Km/H
Kleber Dynaxer HP4
94.20 Km/H
Fulda SportControl 2
94.10 Km/H
Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
94.10 Km/H
Maxxis Premitra HP5
94.00 Km/H
Nexen N Fera Primus
93.90 Km/H
Continental EcoContact 6
93.80 Km/H
Wet
The Bridgestone Turanza T005 consistently leads wet braking testing, and once again it was the best tyre in the test. The new Hankook again placed well, with Falken and Vredestein close behind.
Wet Braking
Spread: 8.10 M (18.8%)|Avg: 46.31 M
Wet braking in meters (100 - 0 km/h) (Lower is better)
Wet Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tyre
Bridgestone again led the wet in wet handling, with Hankook and this time Nokian rounding out the top three.
Wet Handling
Spread: 7.20 Km/H (9.6%)|Avg: 72.95 Km/H
Wet Handling Average Speed (Higher is better)
Bridgestone Turanza T005
74.90 Km/H
Hankook Ventus Prime 4
74.50 Km/H
Nokian PowerProof
74.40 Km/H
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
74.30 Km/H
Vredestein Ultrac
74.30 Km/H
Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
74.00 Km/H
Nexen N Fera Primus
73.60 Km/H
Reference All Season
73.60 Km/H
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
73.50 Km/H
Debica Presto UHP2
73.40 Km/H
Toyo Proxes Comfort
73.40 Km/H
Sava Intensa UHP 2
73.20 Km/H
Maxxis Premitra HP5
73.10 Km/H
Michelin Primacy 4
73.00 Km/H
Kumho Ecsta HS52
72.60 Km/H
Fulda SportControl 2
72.40 Km/H
GT Radial FE2
72.30 Km/H
BFGoodrich Advantage
72.10 Km/H
Goodride SA57
72.10 Km/H
Kleber Dynaxer HP4
71.60 Km/H
Laufenn S Fit EQ Plus
70.90 Km/H
Continental EcoContact 6
67.70 Km/H
Wet circle roughly mirrored wet handling.
Wet Circle
Spread: 1.06 m/s (15.7%)|Avg: 6.26 m/s
Lateral wet grip in m/s squared (Higher is better)
Bridgestone Turanza T005
6.74 m/s
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
6.64 m/s
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
6.61 m/s
Hankook Ventus Prime 4
6.59 m/s
Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
6.49 m/s
Vredestein Ultrac
6.43 m/s
Fulda SportControl 2
6.38 m/s
Nokian PowerProof
6.34 m/s
Sava Intensa UHP 2
6.29 m/s
Debica Presto UHP2
6.27 m/s
Reference All Season
6.25 m/s
Maxxis Premitra HP5
6.23 m/s
Toyo Proxes Comfort
6.23 m/s
Michelin Primacy 4
6.20 m/s
Nexen N Fera Primus
6.19 m/s
Kumho Ecsta HS52
6.16 m/s
GT Radial FE2
6.11 m/s
Goodride SA57
6.01 m/s
BFGoodrich Advantage
5.97 m/s
Kleber Dynaxer HP4
5.94 m/s
Laufenn S Fit EQ Plus
5.88 m/s
Continental EcoContact 6
5.68 m/s
There were varying results for the two aquaplaning tests.
Straight Aqua
Spread: 8.40 Km/H (9.5%)|Avg: 84.55 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
88.20 Km/H
Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
88.10 Km/H
Maxxis Premitra HP5
87.90 Km/H
Nexen N Fera Primus
87.30 Km/H
Michelin Primacy 4
86.40 Km/H
Vredestein Ultrac
86.40 Km/H
Nokian PowerProof
86.00 Km/H
Kleber Dynaxer HP4
86.00 Km/H
Sava Intensa UHP 2
85.60 Km/H
Fulda SportControl 2
85.60 Km/H
Laufenn S Fit EQ Plus
84.80 Km/H
Bridgestone Turanza T005
84.40 Km/H
Hankook Ventus Prime 4
84.30 Km/H
BFGoodrich Advantage
83.80 Km/H
Debica Presto UHP2
83.70 Km/H
Kumho Ecsta HS52
83.60 Km/H
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
82.60 Km/H
GT Radial FE2
82.20 Km/H
Toyo Proxes Comfort
81.60 Km/H
Continental EcoContact 6
81.50 Km/H
Goodride SA57
80.40 Km/H
Reference All Season
79.80 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
Spread: 1.21 m/sec2 (24.9%)|Avg: 4.25 m/sec2
Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)
Maxxis Premitra HP5
4.85 m/sec2
Debica Presto UHP2
4.83 m/sec2
Vredestein Ultrac
4.59 m/sec2
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
4.54 m/sec2
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
4.53 m/sec2
Sava Intensa UHP 2
4.51 m/sec2
Bridgestone Turanza T005
4.47 m/sec2
GT Radial FE2
4.45 m/sec2
Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
4.37 m/sec2
Nexen N Fera Primus
4.34 m/sec2
Goodride SA57
4.28 m/sec2
Fulda SportControl 2
4.27 m/sec2
Kleber Dynaxer HP4
4.17 m/sec2
Michelin Primacy 4
4.15 m/sec2
Laufenn S Fit EQ Plus
4.14 m/sec2
Nokian PowerProof
4.12 m/sec2
Hankook Ventus Prime 4
3.98 m/sec2
Kumho Ecsta HS52
3.97 m/sec2
BFGoodrich Advantage
3.87 m/sec2
Continental EcoContact 6
3.75 m/sec2
Toyo Proxes Comfort
3.68 m/sec2
Reference All Season
3.64 m/sec2
Wear
The test winning Goodyear had a huge lead in wear, with Michelina and Continental rounding out the top three.
Wear
Spread: 25500.00 KM (49.7%)|Avg: 34000.00 KM
Predicted tread life in KM (Higher is better)
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
51340.00 KM
Michelin Primacy 4
44880.00 KM
Continental EcoContact 6
41480.00 KM
Hankook Ventus Prime 4
40800.00 KM
Kumho Ecsta HS52
39440.00 KM
Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
36380.00 KM
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
35360.00 KM
BFGoodrich Advantage
35020.00 KM
Kleber Dynaxer HP4
34340.00 KM
Fulda SportControl 2
32980.00 KM
Bridgestone Turanza T005
31960.00 KM
Toyo Proxes Comfort
31960.00 KM
Sava Intensa UHP 2
31620.00 KM
Laufenn S Fit EQ Plus
31280.00 KM
Debica Presto UHP2
30600.00 KM
GT Radial FE2
29240.00 KM
Maxxis Premitra HP5
27880.00 KM
Nexen N Fera Primus
27540.00 KM
Vredestein Ultrac
27200.00 KM
Goodride SA57
26860.00 KM
Nokian PowerProof
25840.00 KM
Value is calculated by dividing the purchase price of the tyres by the projected mileage then giving a Euros per 1000km figure.
The eco bias Continental had a good lead in the rolling resistance test, with Michelin, Bridgestone and Goodyear the best of the "regular" tyres.
Rolling Resistance
Spread: 3.69 kg / t (64.9%)|Avg: 8.14 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
Continental EcoContact 6
5.69 kg / t
Michelin Primacy 4
6.83 kg / t
Bridgestone Turanza T005
6.94 kg / t
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
7.10 kg / t
Hankook Ventus Prime 4
7.35 kg / t
Laufenn S Fit EQ Plus
7.80 kg / t
Debica Presto UHP2
7.96 kg / t
BFGoodrich Advantage
8.19 kg / t
Sava Intensa UHP 2
8.19 kg / t
GT Radial FE2
8.24 kg / t
Fulda SportControl 2
8.37 kg / t
Vredestein Ultrac
8.42 kg / t
Kleber Dynaxer HP4
8.43 kg / t
Kumho Ecsta HS52
8.51 kg / t
Nokian PowerProof
8.55 kg / t
Toyo Proxes Comfort
8.56 kg / t
Reference All Season
8.80 kg / t
Maxxis Premitra HP5
8.84 kg / t
Nexen N Fera Primus
8.93 kg / t
Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2
8.96 kg / t
Goodride SA57
8.98 kg / t
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
9.38 kg / t
19,000 km
£1.45/L
8.0 L/100km
--
Annual Difference
--
Lifetime Savings
--
Extra Fuel/Energy
--
Extra CO2
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.
Autobild conducted external noise testing at 50 km/h and 80 km/h, these are the results from 50 km/h.
Graphs - or texts - for rolling resistance and noise should switch positions. Also, there's no final verdict (pros and cons) for »Bridgestone T005« now. It's nice you mentioned »Auto bild« site and magazine for details, but maybe it would be useful to mark »Volkswagen Passat Variant B8« as test-vehicle.
I am not sure how the Goodyear wins this considering it is way behind the best in terms of performance on the road. Looking at the individual results suggest that is the middle of the pack at most things (apart from wear)
Auto Bild have quite a complicated downgrade system meaning if a tyre is best in every test but one key test where is was "yellow" then it can never finish in the top group. The exact details of this aren't published as far as I know so we have to trust the results.
I remember a website (Hungarian I think) that contained some of the tyre tests where you could value various criteria on your own (e.g. safety parameters in the dry / wet, performance, rolling resistance, estimated mileage). And it changed the rankings according to your criteria. Sadly I can't remember its address anymore, it's been a few years.
It is not just tyre tests, current Euro NCAP also no longer analyses real safety of a given car but checks if it has enough assisting and potentially dangerous gizmos instead.
If you ever find that website please share it, I remember it too and loved the solution, I'm trying to implement one on tyre reviews so it would be great to have it as a reference.
When the Conti EC5 was released, it had spider charts comparing it with the EC3 & a (woeful) "fuel efficiency optimised" experimental tyre. The message was that one can't go too far down the LRR path without serious degradation of wet grip. It seems that that experimental tyre is the parent of the execrable EC6..
Conti EC 6 is already older (Oct. 2018 productions starts, 2019 first sales but developed much earlier), see https://reifenpresse.de/202... It has already kind of "Evo" further optimized (pattern, fuel consumption, compound, grip and handling) and more quiet successor which is called EC 6Q, at least already in the OEM versions. But I see at the bottom of the reference that currently its available ony in 17-21'...but it was not yet publicly and independently tested, first test results I expect to be published in the spring 2023.
Normally I saw there are still shops selling the older EC5, maybe also in smaller sizes, which are probably no more profitable for the producers, given the huge raise of primary materials, energies and inflation.
You can also use alternatives from the remaining top producers, like e.g. not so much known Hankook K435 Eco 2, Michelin Primacy 4/4+ or Bridgestone Turanza T005 or Eco etc. But probably all producers will increase the prices within the 1st half of this year, at least, so hurry up to buy slightly older stock, if you need it this year.
I do wish that other qualities were optimised a bit more or that the excellent PC5 &/or PC2 were maintained in more smaller sizes as an alternative to the EC6. Presumably the market isn't there. I have used the Kinergy Eco2 (to replace no longer available PC2 in my size) dirt is a decided step down in crispness of response, wet grip & limit behaviour. .
I was checking out the FALKEN 205/55 R16 ZIEX ZE310AEC 91V, which have a Fuel Efficiency mark A, but it says here it has almost the highest rolling resistance... So, now I'm a bit confused...
Graphs - or texts - for rolling resistance and noise should switch positions. Also, there's no final verdict (pros and cons) for »Bridgestone T005« now. It's nice you mentioned »Auto bild« site and magazine for details, but maybe it would be useful to mark »Volkswagen Passat Variant B8« as test-vehicle.
Well spotted, thank you.
I am not sure how the Goodyear wins this considering it is way behind the best in terms of performance on the road. Looking at the individual results suggest that is the middle of the pack at most things (apart from wear)
Auto Bild have quite a complicated downgrade system meaning if a tyre is best in every test but one key test where is was "yellow" then it can never finish in the top group. The exact details of this aren't published as far as I know so we have to trust the results.
I remember a website (Hungarian I think) that contained some of the tyre tests where you could value various criteria on your own (e.g. safety parameters in the dry / wet, performance, rolling resistance, estimated mileage). And it changed the rankings according to your criteria. Sadly I can't remember its address anymore, it's been a few years.
It is not just tyre tests, current Euro NCAP also no longer analyses real safety of a given car but checks if it has enough assisting and potentially dangerous gizmos instead.
IF safety was the primary criteria, Vredestein and Nokian would be definitely in the top three whereas Goodyear would have been in the bottom third.
If you ever find that website please share it, I remember it too and loved the solution, I'm trying to implement one on tyre reviews so it would be great to have it as a reference.
Found it, deeply burried at autonavigator.hu.
the most recent being a winter tyre test of 2021 (https://www.autonavigator.h...
Legend, thank you for finding that! :D
When the Conti EC5 was released, it had spider charts comparing it with the EC3 & a (woeful) "fuel efficiency optimised" experimental tyre. The message was that one can't go too far down the LRR path without serious degradation of wet grip. It seems that that experimental tyre is the parent of the execrable EC6..
Conti EC 6 is already older (Oct. 2018 productions starts, 2019 first sales but developed much earlier), see https://reifenpresse.de/202...
It has already kind of "Evo" further optimized (pattern, fuel consumption, compound, grip and handling) and more quiet successor which is called EC 6Q, at least already in the OEM versions. But I see at the bottom of the reference that currently its available ony in 17-21'...but it was not yet publicly and independently tested, first test results I expect to be published in the spring 2023.
Normally I saw there are still shops selling the older EC5, maybe also in smaller sizes, which are probably no more profitable for the producers, given the huge raise of primary materials, energies and inflation.
You can also use alternatives from the remaining top producers, like e.g. not so much known Hankook K435 Eco 2, Michelin Primacy 4/4+ or Bridgestone Turanza T005 or Eco etc. But probably all producers will increase the prices within the 1st half of this year, at least, so hurry up to buy slightly older stock, if you need it this year.
I do wish that other qualities were optimised a bit more or that the excellent PC5 &/or PC2 were maintained in more smaller sizes as an alternative to the EC6. Presumably the market isn't there. I have used the Kinergy Eco2 (to replace no longer available PC2 in my size) dirt is a decided step down in crispness of response, wet grip & limit behaviour.
.
Still no Primacy 4+ review...
I tested it in a comparison video on youtube against ps5 and ps4s and auto express have tested it: https://www.tyrereviews.com...
I was checking out the FALKEN 205/55 R16 ZIEX ZE310AEC 91V, which have a Fuel Efficiency mark A, but it says here it has almost the highest rolling resistance... So, now I'm a bit confused...
This test would have been started in 2021 so it might be that the tyre has had a midlife update.
Got it. Might be :)