Test Charts / Tyre Reviews

2022/23 Tyre Reviews All Season Tyre Test

Name: 2022/23 Tyre Reviews All Season Tyre Test
Creator: Tyre Reviews
Published: 2022-09-12

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: 225/45 R17
Tyres tested: 10
Disciplines: 11

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	38.6 m	Best	0 km/h
2Hankook Kinergy 4S2	39.2 m	+0.60 m	16 km/h
3Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO	39.3 m	+0.70 m	17 km/h
4Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2	39.5 m	+0.90 m	20 km/h
5Vredestein Quatrac Pro	39.9 m	+1.30 m	23 km/h
6Falken EUROALL SEASON AS210	40.1 m	+1.50 m	25 km/h
7Continental AllSeasonContact	41.6 m	+3.00 m	35 km/h
7Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen 3	41.6 m	+3.00 m	35 km/h
9Kleber Quadraxer 2	42.6 m	+4.00 m	40 km/h
10Tomket Allyear 3	43.5 m	+4.90 m	44 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 12.7% (4.9 m ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Tomket Allyear 3 would still be travelling at 44 km/h when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 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
1Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen 3	78.7 s	Best
2Continental AllSeasonContact	78.8 s	+0.10 s
3Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO	78.9 s	+0.20 s
4Hankook Kinergy 4S2	79.3 s	+0.60 s
4Michelin CrossClimate 2	79.3 s	+0.60 s
6Falken EUROALL SEASON AS210	79.7 s	+1.00 s
7Vredestein Quatrac Pro	80.1 s	+1.40 s
8Tomket Allyear 3	80.2 s	+1.50 s
9Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2	80.6 s	+1.90 s
10Kleber Quadraxer 2	80.8 s	+2.10 s

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

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Vredestein Quatrac Pro	30.5 m	Best	0 km/h
2Hankook Kinergy 4S2	31.6 m	+1.10 m	24 km/h
3Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen 3	31.9 m	+1.40 m	27 km/h
4Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO	32 m	+1.50 m	28 km/h
5Michelin CrossClimate 2	32.2 m	+1.70 m	30 km/h
6Falken EUROALL SEASON AS210	32.5 m	+2.00 m	32 km/h
7Continental AllSeasonContact	33.2 m	+2.70 m	37 km/h
8Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2	35.9 m	+5.40 m	50 km/h
9Kleber Quadraxer 2	36.7 m	+6.20 m	53 km/h
10Tomket Allyear 3	41 m	+10.50 m	66 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 34.4% (10.5 m ≈ 2.3 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Tomket Allyear 3 would still be travelling at 66 km/h when the Vredestein Quatrac Pro 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
1Vredestein Quatrac Pro	96.6 s	Best
2Hankook Kinergy 4S2	97.1 s	+0.50 s
3Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen 3	97.5 s	+0.90 s
4Falken EUROALL SEASON AS210	97.7 s	+1.10 s
5Continental AllSeasonContact	98.1 s	+1.50 s
6Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO	98.6 s	+2.00 s
7Michelin CrossClimate 2	99 s	+2.40 s
8Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2	100.3 s	+3.70 s
9Kleber Quadraxer 2	101.3 s	+4.70 s
10Tomket Allyear 3	108.6 s	+12.00 s

The difference between best and worst was 12.4% (12 s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook Kinergy 4S2	80.5 km/h	Best
2Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen 3	79.3 km/h	-1.20 km/h
3Kleber Quadraxer 2	78.8 km/h	-1.70 km/h
3Michelin CrossClimate 2	78.8 km/h	-1.70 km/h
5Continental AllSeasonContact	78.3 km/h	-2.20 km/h
6Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO	78.1 km/h	-2.40 km/h
7Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2	77.9 km/h	-2.60 km/h
8Falken EUROALL SEASON AS210	77 km/h	-3.50 km/h
9Vredestein Quatrac Pro	74.1 km/h	-6.40 km/h
10Tomket Allyear 3	72.1 km/h	-8.40 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 10.4% (8.4 Km/H).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook Kinergy 4S2	7.5 m/sec2	Best
2Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen 3	7.3 m/sec2	-0.20 m/sec2
3Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO	6.9 m/sec2	-0.60 m/sec2
4Kleber Quadraxer 2	6.7 m/sec2	-0.80 m/sec2
4Continental AllSeasonContact	6.7 m/sec2	-0.80 m/sec2
6Michelin CrossClimate 2	6.5 m/sec2	-1.00 m/sec2
7Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2	6.4 m/sec2	-1.10 m/sec2
8Falken EUROALL SEASON AS210	6.3 m/sec2	-1.20 m/sec2
9Vredestein Quatrac Pro	6 m/sec2	-1.50 m/sec2
10Tomket Allyear 3	5.2 m/sec2	-2.30 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 30.7% (2.3 m/sec2).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	31.1 m	Best	0 km/h
2Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen 3	31.5 m	+0.40 m	15 km/h
3Kleber Quadraxer 2	31.8 m	+0.70 m	19 km/h
4Hankook Kinergy 4S2	32.3 m	+1.20 m	25 km/h
5Continental AllSeasonContact	32.4 m	+1.30 m	26 km/h
6Tomket Allyear 3	32.7 m	+1.60 m	29 km/h
7Falken EUROALL SEASON AS210	33.2 m	+2.10 m	33 km/h
8Vredestein Quatrac Pro	34.4 m	+3.30 m	40 km/h
9Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2	34.9 m	+3.80 m	43 km/h
10Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO	36.7 m	+5.60 m	51 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 18% (5.6 m ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO would still be travelling at 51 km/h when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 had stopped.

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

Snow Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	5.5 s	Best
2Kleber Quadraxer 2	5.7 s	+0.20 s
3Tomket Allyear 3	5.9 s	+0.40 s
4Hankook Kinergy 4S2	6 s	+0.50 s
5Falken EUROALL SEASON AS210	6.2 s	+0.70 s
6Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2	6.7 s	+1.20 s
7Continental AllSeasonContact	6.8 s	+1.30 s
8Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen 3	7.1 s	+1.60 s
9Vredestein Quatrac Pro	7.8 s	+2.30 s
10Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO	9.5 s	+4.00 s

The difference between best and worst was 72.7% (4 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2	110 s	Best
2Kleber Quadraxer 2	113.3 s	+3.30 s
3Hankook Kinergy 4S2	114.3 s	+4.30 s
4Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen 3	114.7 s	+4.70 s
5Continental AllSeasonContact	115.5 s	+5.50 s
6Tomket Allyear 3	115.8 s	+5.80 s
7Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2	116.7 s	+6.70 s
8Falken EUROALL SEASON AS210	118.9 s	+8.90 s
9Vredestein Quatrac Pro	120 s	+10.00 s
10Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO	125.4 s	+15.40 s

The difference between best and worst was 14% (15.4 s).

Comfort

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Falken EUROALL SEASON AS210	69.1 dB	Best
2Vredestein Quatrac Pro	69.3 dB	+0.20 dB
3Kleber Quadraxer 2	69.4 dB	+0.30 dB
3Hankook Kinergy 4S2	69.4 dB	+0.30 dB
3Tomket Allyear 3	69.4 dB	+0.30 dB
6Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen 3	69.5 dB	+0.40 dB
6Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2	69.5 dB	+0.40 dB
8Michelin CrossClimate 2	69.6 dB	+0.50 dB
9Continental AllSeasonContact	69.7 dB	+0.60 dB
10Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO	69.8 dB	+0.70 dB

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

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO	7.5 kg/t	Best	£0
1Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF2	7.5 kg/t	Best	£0
3Michelin CrossClimate 2	7.9 kg/t	+0.40 kg/t	£24
4Continental AllSeasonContact	8.1 kg/t	+0.60 kg/t	£35
5Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen 3	8.2 kg/t	+0.70 kg/t	£41
5Tomket Allyear 3	8.2 kg/t	+0.70 kg/t	£41
7Kleber Quadraxer 2	8.5 kg/t	+1.00 kg/t	£59
7Hankook Kinergy 4S2	8.5 kg/t	+1.00 kg/t	£59
9Falken EUROALL SEASON AS210	9.1 kg/t	+1.60 kg/t	£94
10Vredestein Quatrac Pro	9.4 kg/t	+1.90 kg/t	£112

The difference between best and worst was 25.3% (1.9 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Vredestein Quatrac Pro uses about 77 L (£112) more fuel than the Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO.

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.

Test setup & methodology

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

Show full testing methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 100 → 5 km/h
Wet Braking: 80 → 5 km/h
Snow Braking: 40 → 5 km/h
Snow Traction: 5 → 40 km/h

Score Weighting

Weights express the scoring priorities, not how much each discipline actually changed the finishing order. The size of the performance gaps matters too. Category weights contribute to the overall score. Within each category, discipline weights divide that category’s share. Published finishing positions also need to be read alongside the editorial verdict.

Test	Within category	Share of overall score
Dry · 25%
Dry Braking	55%	13.75%
Dry Handling	40%	10%
Subj. Dry Handling	5%	1.25%
Wet · 35%
Wet Braking	50%	17.5%
Wet Handling	25%	8.75%
Subj. Wet Handling	5%	1.75%
Straight Aqua	10%	3.5%
Curved Aquaplaning	10%	3.5%
Snow · 25%
Snow Braking	45%	11.25%
Snow Traction	5%	1.25%
Snow Handling	40%	10%
Subj. Snow Handling	10%	2.5%
Comfort · 5%
Noise	100%	5%
Value · 10%
Rolling Resistance	100%	10%

Our standard methods

The conditions above are recorded for this test. The descriptions below explain our standard procedures; measurement windows and run counts can vary by test.

Dry Braking

For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tyres are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.

Dry Handling

For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.

Wet Braking

For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tyre performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.

Wet Handling

For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.

Straight Aqua

To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tyre set and average the valid results.

Curved Aquaplaning

For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 metres in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.

Snow Braking

For snow braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 50 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a groomed, compacted snow surface, measuring 45-5 km/h. I generally use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tyre ever brakes on the same piece of snow twice. My standard programme is twelve runs per tyre set, although the sequence can extend further if the data justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. To correct for changing snow surface conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly — typically every two candidate test sets.

Snow Traction

For snow traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a groomed snow surface with traction control active and measure speed and time using GPS telemetry. I typically use a 5–35 km/h measurement window to reduce the influence of launch transients and powertrain irregularities. I use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tyre ever accelerates on the same piece of snow twice. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I complete multiple runs per tyre set and average the valid results. Reference tyres are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing snow surface conditions.

Snow Handling

For snow handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated snow handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tyres are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly than asphalt, control runs are carried out more frequently — typically every two candidate test sets.

Noise

For cabin noise assessment, I drive at controlled speeds, typically 50, 80, 100, and 120 km/h, on NVH test surfaces with defined texture characteristics. Calibrated microphones are positioned at ear height within the cabin. Measurements are taken using A-weighting, with one-third octave analysis where required to identify tonal features such as cavity resonance. Windows remain closed, ventilation is off, and ambient conditions are controlled so the data reflects the tyre rather than external interference.

Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tyre is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tyre shortlist →Read the test →

More tyre tests