Menu

2022/23 Best 9 All Terrain Tyres

Jonathan Benson
Tested and written by Jonathan Benson
12 min read Updated
Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Testing Methodology
    1. Categories Tested
  3. Wet
  4. Dry
  5. Gravel
  6. Dirt
  7. Environment
  8. Results
  9. Firestone Destination AT2
  10. Continental TerrainContact AT
  11. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure
  12. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain+
  13. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
  14. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
  15. Toyo Open Country AT III
  16. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
  17. Nitto Terra Grappler G2

Update 2023-10-24: To find out which of these are best in the snow, and how they compare to an all season and full winter tyre, please read the all terrain snow test here.

In this test I'll be testing nine of the most popular all terrain tyres to see which has the most grip in the dry, wet, AND offroad, and also to see which uses the least gas, and which has the best comfort and lowest noise in the real world. Basically, everything you'll ever need to know about these all terrain tyres!

2022/23 Best 9 All Terrain Tyres

Due to the sheer range of all terrain tyres in this  tyre size, there's definitely tyres I've missed that I wanted to test, I'm sure you'll let me know your missing favorites in the comments, and if you know the all terrain tyre market well you'll know these are all from the mild end of the all terrain tyre spectrum which are designed to spend more time on-road than their aggressive all terrain brothers! If this test performs well, I'll of course do aggressive all terrain and mud terrain tests in the future.

On test we have the BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA, Continental Terrain Contact AT, Firestone Destination A/T2, Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure, Nitto Terra Grappler G2, Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain plus, Toyo Open Country A/T III, Travelstar Ecopath AT, and the Yokohama Geolander AT G015.

Testing Methodology

Test Driver
Jonathan Benson
Tyre Size
275/65 R18
Test Location
Professional Proving Ground
Test Year
2022
Tyres Tested
9
Show full testing methodology Hide methodology

Every tyre is tested using calibrated instrumented measurement and structured subjective assessment. Reference tyres are retested throughout each session to correct for changing conditions, ensuring fair, repeatable comparisons. Multiple reference sets are used where needed so that control tyre wear does not affect accuracy.

We use professional-grade testing equipment including GPS data loggers, accelerometers, and calibrated microphones. All tyres are broken in and conditioned before testing begins. For full details on our equipment, preparation process, and calibration procedures, see our complete testing methodology.

Categories Tested

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.

Subj. Dry Handling

Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated dry handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

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.

Subj. Wet Handling

Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

Wet Circle

For wet lateral grip testing, I use a circular track of fixed radius, typically between 30 and 50 metres, broadly aligned with ISO 4138 principles. The surface is wetted in a controlled and repeatable manner. I progressively increase speed until the maximum sustainable cornering speed is reached. I normally record multiple laps in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions to reduce the influence of camber, banking, or directional track bias. I then calculate average lateral acceleration and compare the result with the reference tyre.

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.

Gravel Handling

For gravel handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated gravel handling course with ESC typically disabled. I complete multiple timed laps per tyre set, excluding laps affected by driver error or environmental inconsistency. Because natural surfaces are inherently variable, I place particular emphasis on repeat runs, careful reference tracking, and averaged results. The control tyre is retested at regular intervals throughout the session.

Subj. Gravel Handling

Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment on a dedicated gravel course. I score steering feel, traction, stability, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

Dirt Handling

For dirt handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated dirt handling course with ESC typically disabled. I complete multiple timed laps per tyre set, excluding laps affected by driver error or environmental inconsistency. Because natural surfaces are inherently variable, I place particular emphasis on repeat runs, careful reference tracking, and averaged results. The control tyre is retested at regular intervals.

Subj. Dirt Handling

Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment on a dedicated dirt course. I score steering feel, traction, stability, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

Subj. Comfort

To assess comfort, I drive on a wide range of road surfaces (often dedicated comfort tracks at test facilities) at speeds from 50 to 120 km/h, including smooth motorway, coarse surfaces, expansion joints, broken pavement, and sharp-edged obstacles. I evaluate primary ride quality, secondary ride quality, impact harshness, seat-transmitted vibration, and the tyre's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tyre.

Subj. Noise

For subjective noise assessment, I drive at constant speeds across multiple surface types with the windows closed, ventilation off, and audio system off. I assess overall noise level, tonal quality, cavity boom, pattern noise, broadband roar, and sensitivity to both speed and road texture. Each tyre is rated on a 1–10 scale and supported by written observations on noise character and annoyance.

Noise

I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.

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.

Standards: ISO 4138 UNECE Regulation 117 ISO 13325 ISO 28580 UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6

Wet

On the road, it's the wet grip of the tyre that can really make a difference in an emergency situation which is why I feel wet braking and wet handling tests are very important tests of any tyre, including all terrain!

Only one tyre of the group made the raptor difficult to drive that was the Nitto, with the average of the three laps nearly 89 seconds. The balance was fine, but it really didn't want to grip longitudinally or laterally, and was the only tyre I out braked myself so badly I ended up leaving the course. Fortunately this is no problem for a Raptor, but on the road that's less than ideal.

Next up was the BFGoodrich, it had nice steering, and a safe understeer balance, the rear was very stable, but you were just waiting for the understeer to quit before getting on the power so the lap time was slow.

Toyo and Pirelli were next in the 84 second mark, and while they were close in time, they were very different to drive. The Toyo was a confusing tyre, difficult to drive quickly due to limited feedback, and once you were sliding it took a while to recover. The Pirelli conversely was a joy to drive, it felt almost sporty, certainly the most direct of the pack and an enjoyable experience.

The Travelstar finished fifth, another tyre with a lot of understeer and not much detail through the steering wheel, but the grip was good, impressive for the price point!

Goodyear and Yokohama were next. Like the Pirelli, the Goodyear was a really nice rounded tyre to drive, good grip, predictable, the Raptor went where you wanted it to go, just a rounded experience. The Yokohama on the other hand, excellent grip, especially on the brakes, but just lacked feedback and understeered a bit more than its main rivals.

The final two tyres were the Firestone and Continental. These tyres were almost tied on time, the Continental had a fraction of a lead, but they too delivered it in different ways. While the Firestone was fast and had loads of grip, it was a little numb and had more understeer than the Conti. The Continental was just a great tyre to drive, whatever you asked for it. Predictable grip, good communication at the limit, progressive past the limit. Considering this is a mild all terrain tyre, I'm very impressed!

Wet Braking

Spread: 16.05 M (27.7%)|Avg: 63.11 M
Wet braking in meters (100 - 0 km/h) (Lower is better)
  1. Continental TerrainContact AT
    58.00 M
  2. Firestone Destination AT2
    58.55 M
  3. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    59.60 M
  4. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    60.45 M
  5. Toyo Open Country AT III
    62.65 M
  6. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    62.95 M
  7. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    63.25 M
  8. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    68.50 M
  9. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    74.05 M

Wet Handling

Spread: 7.34 s (9%)|Avg: 83.89 s
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Continental TerrainContact AT
    81.33 s
  2. Firestone Destination AT2
    81.59 s
  3. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    82.28 s
  4. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    82.48 s
  5. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    83.78 s
  6. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    84.30 s
  7. Toyo Open Country AT III
    84.56 s
  8. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    86.02 s
  9. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    88.67 s

Straight Aqua

Spread: 5.40 Km/H (6.2%)|Avg: 83.98 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
  1. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    86.50 Km/H
  2. Firestone Destination AT2
    85.90 Km/H
  3. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    85.40 Km/H
  4. Continental TerrainContact AT
    84.40 Km/H
  5. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    83.80 Km/H
  6. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    83.10 Km/H
  7. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    82.90 Km/H
  8. Toyo Open Country AT III
    82.70 Km/H
  9. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    81.10 Km/H

Curved Aquaplaning

Spread: 0.96 m/sec2 (25.7%)|Avg: 3.24 m/sec2
Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)
  1. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    3.73 m/sec2
  2. Firestone Destination AT2
    3.63 m/sec2
  3. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    3.40 m/sec2
  4. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    3.34 m/sec2
  5. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    3.17 m/sec2
  6. Continental TerrainContact AT
    3.12 m/sec2
  7. Toyo Open Country AT III
    3.10 m/sec2
  8. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    2.93 m/sec2
  9. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    2.77 m/sec2

Dry

In a repeat of wet handling, Nitto and BFGoodrich were at the back of the dry handling times. They didn't feel bad to drive, none of the tyres did, but they were slightly sluggish to react to inputs and didn't offer the most feedback.

The rest of the tyres were all within a second of each other, and honestly there wasn't a huge spread subjectively either below the limit or beyond. If I had to declare a winner, it would be the Goodyear as the steering was quick and direct and loaded up nicely, with the Firestone, Pirelli, Nitto and Travelstar being the next group of very good tyres. 

The Conti and Yoko all felt fairly similar with slightly less responsive steering, and the Toyo felt the least precise, though the margins were small. None of the tyres failed the lane change stability exercise and none gave me any surprises on any of the 33 laps completed.

Dry Braking

Spread: 5.00 M (12%)|Avg: 43.64 M
Dry braking in meters (100 - 0 km/h) (Lower is better)
  1. Continental TerrainContact AT
    41.60 M
  2. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    42.30 M
  3. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    42.40 M
  4. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    43.40 M
  5. Toyo Open Country AT III
    43.60 M
  6. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    43.70 M
  7. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    44.00 M
  8. Firestone Destination AT2
    45.20 M
  9. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    46.60 M

Dry Handling

Spread: 1.02 s (1.5%)|Avg: 68.81 s
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    68.32 s
  2. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    68.41 s
  3. Continental TerrainContact AT
    68.60 s
  4. Toyo Open Country AT III
    68.63 s
  5. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    68.63 s
  6. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    68.99 s
  7. Firestone Destination AT2
    69.06 s
  8. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    69.33 s
  9. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    69.34 s

Gravel

Gravel is an interesting test and very hard to do right! As a little insight, because of the damage I do to the track in my 3 lap run, which takes 3 minutes, the track needs 20 minutes of combing and fixing the surface between tyres to make sure it's the same for every tyre.

Also, I'm going to score off road a little differently to dry and wet. When using your vehicle offroad, you're less likely to need max out handling or emergency avoidance, so I'm going to give more score weight to how the tyre is subjectively, which is how the tyre reacts to your inputs, especially the sub limit. I have of course done max handling laps so you'll know which gives you the most grip too, so we should have all the bases covered. And caveat, it's very close between all the tyres.

The most difficult tyres to get around the lap were the Continental, Nitto and Yokohama. All three tyres felt like they had low grip sublimit, and the Continental was particularly bad as the rear would come around more quickly than any other tyre. This improved as you got faster, and while the grip was there you really had to work for it. Nitto was a bit better past the limit, but did like to slide too.

Goodyear and Pirelli were next in handling, I thought both of these, and the Nitto would do really well because of the tread pattern, but I guess there's more to it than that! There were better sublimit, but both lacked a little grip compared to the best.

Firestone and Travelstar were both very good, if anything it felt like the Travelstar had the edge, they were both responsive sublimit and had good levels of grip, but the stars of the show were BFGoodrich and Toyo. BFGoodrich is an off road brand, and it really showed here, as it had the fastest lap and the most impressive braking, turning and balance both sublimit, and doing big fun slides like these. If you live at the end of a long gravel drive, this is the tyre to have.

Gravel Handling

Spread: 2.46 s (4%)|Avg: 62.53 s
Gravel Handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    61.60 s
  2. Firestone Destination AT2
    61.77 s
  3. Toyo Open Country AT III
    62.12 s
  4. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    62.12 s
  5. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    62.47 s
  6. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    62.73 s
  7. Continental TerrainContact AT
    62.73 s
  8. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    63.16 s
  9. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    64.06 s

Subj. Gravel Handling

Spread: 15.00 Points (15%)|Avg: 91.67 Points
Subjective Gravel Handling Score (Higher is better)
  1. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    100.00 Points
  2. Toyo Open Country AT III
    100.00 Points
  3. Firestone Destination AT2
    95.00 Points
  4. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    95.00 Points
  5. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    90.00 Points
  6. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    90.00 Points
  7. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    85.00 Points
  8. Continental TerrainContact AT
    85.00 Points
  9. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    85.00 Points

Dirt

Like gravel, dirt is a very difficult surface to test on. I would go as far to say even more difficult to get consistent timings as some of it is hardpack, some of it is very dusty, some of it gets rutted, the list goes on, however as the group was extremely close we must be doing something right.

The BFGoodrich and Toyo were again the standouts on dirt, with the Nitto and Yoko again struggling. The rest of the group were all very close on time, with the Conti and Pirelli probably my favorites to drive quickly as they were just a little more predictable and responsive.

Dirt Handling

Spread: 1.69 s (3%)|Avg: 58.01 s
Dirt handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    56.86 s
  2. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    57.76 s
  3. Firestone Destination AT2
    57.91 s
  4. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    57.95 s
  5. Continental TerrainContact AT
    58.00 s
  6. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    58.26 s
  7. Toyo Open Country AT III
    58.37 s
  8. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    58.41 s
  9. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    58.55 s

Subj. Dirt Handling

Spread: 10.00 Points (10%)|Avg: 94.44 Points
Subjective Dirt Handling Score (Higher is better)
  1. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    100.00 Points
  2. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    95.00 Points
  3. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    95.00 Points
  4. Continental TerrainContact AT
    95.00 Points
  5. Toyo Open Country AT III
    95.00 Points
  6. Firestone Destination AT2
    95.00 Points
  7. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    95.00 Points
  8. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    90.00 Points
  9. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    90.00 Points

Environment

Pulling it back to everyday life, I think noise and comfort is very important for these tyres, and while none of the tyres were super loud and crashy as some all terrain and mud terrain tyres can be, there was definitely a spread.

The "not very good" award goes to the budget travel star tyre. As impressive as it's been so far in the test, it was let down as the only tyre with really intrusive pattern noise at speed, and it really did rattle the cabin over the impact strips and potholes.

Nitto and Toyo were the next pair of tyres, both having some audible noise in the cabin and feeling pretty firm in comfort, with the nitto noisy in a straight line and very noisy when turning left, but not right. Strange.

BFGoodrich and Goodyear were a step up again in noise and comfort, and I'm going to put the Pirelli in this group too as even though it felt like quite a firm tyre, it didn't have any secondary event after a big impact like the other tyres so it didn't feel as crashy overall. Abrupt but honest feeling. I appreciate this.

The Continental and Firestone were both impressive tyres in terms of noise and comfort, though the firestone did have a little tread pattern noise when turning, but was extremely quiet in a straight line. However,  if you want the most comfortable and quietest mild all terrain tyre, it has to be the Yokohama. This was mega impressive, and while testing blind, I always instantly knew I was on the yokohama as it was a standout from the group in terms of comfort and in cabin refinement. Impressive job.

Noise

Spread: 6.20 dB (8.6%)|Avg: 74.64 dB
External noise in dB (Lower is better)
  1. Continental TerrainContact AT
    71.90 dB
  2. Firestone Destination AT2
    72.80 dB
  3. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    73.00 dB
  4. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    73.20 dB
  5. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    73.50 dB
  6. Toyo Open Country AT III
    75.30 dB
  7. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    76.70 dB
  8. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    77.30 dB
  9. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    78.10 dB

Subj. Noise

Spread: 15.00 Points (15%)|Avg: 94.44 Points
Subjective in car noise levels (Higher is better)
  1. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    100.00 Points
  2. Continental TerrainContact AT
    100.00 Points
  3. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    100.00 Points
  4. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    95.00 Points
  5. Firestone Destination AT2
    95.00 Points
  6. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    95.00 Points
  7. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    90.00 Points
  8. Toyo Open Country AT III
    90.00 Points
  9. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    85.00 Points

Subj. Comfort

Spread: 20.00 Points (20%)|Avg: 90.00 Points
Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)
  1. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    100.00 Points
  2. Continental TerrainContact AT
    95.00 Points
  3. Firestone Destination AT2
    95.00 Points
  4. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    90.00 Points
  5. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    90.00 Points
  6. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    90.00 Points
  7. Toyo Open Country AT III
    85.00 Points
  8. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    85.00 Points
  9. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    80.00 Points

With gas prices as crazy as they are, the rolling resistance of a tyre, which is how much a tyre contributes to your gas bill, is very important. There wasn't a massive gap between the tyres, just under 13% which is around  3% difference in the real world, but over 60,000 miles those differences can add up! Firestone, BFgoodrich and Pirelli had the lowest rolling resistance, and Yokohama, Continental and Nitto had the highest of the group. 

Rolling Resistance

Spread: 1.35 kg / t (16%)|Avg: 9.27 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
  1. Firestone Destination AT2
    8.42 kg / t
  2. BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
    8.86 kg / t
  3. Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
    8.89 kg / t
  4. Toyo Open Country AT III
    9.27 kg / t
  5. Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adve
    9.49 kg / t
  6. Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
    9.49 kg / t
  7. Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
    9.56 kg / t
  8. Continental TerrainContact AT
    9.67 kg / t
  9. Nitto Terra Grappler G2
    9.77 kg / t

Results

As all terrain tyres mean different things to different people, there's no one best tyre for everyone. As we have to present the results in some sort of order, we've used a score weighting we feel suits the intention of a mild all terrain tyre, i.e. more on road then off road. However, we've also just finished an update to the tyre reviews website where you can go and adjust the score weighting based on your own needs to see which tyre is best for you. I highly recommend you do that as it gives you total control in finding the best all terrain tyre for you. You can find it linked below.

1st

Firestone Destination AT2

275/65 R18 114T
Firestone Destination AT2
  • Production: 0722
  • Origin: Canada
  • UTQG: 540 A B
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 18.9 kgs
  • Tread: 9.4 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 8th 45.2 M 41.6 M +3.6 M 92.04%
Dry Handling 7th 69.06 s 68.32 s +0.74 s 98.93%
Subj. Dry Handling 6th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 2nd 58.55 M 58 M +0.55 M 99.06%
Wet Handling 2nd 81.59 s 81.33 s +0.26 s 99.68%
Subj. Wet Handling 4th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Wet Circle 1st 13.3 s 100%
Straight Aqua 2nd 85.9 Km/H 86.5 Km/H -0.6 Km/H 99.31%
Curved Aquaplaning 2nd 3.63 m/sec2 3.73 m/sec2 -0.1 m/sec2 97.32%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 2nd 45.5 M 39.08 M +6.42 M 85.89%
Snow Traction 2nd 5.07 s 4.57 s +0.5 s 90.14%
Snow Handling 2nd 97.73 s 97.4 s +0.33 s 99.66%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Gravel Handling 2nd 61.77 s 61.6 s +0.17 s 99.72%
Subj. Gravel Handling 3rd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Dirt Handling 3rd 57.91 s 56.86 s +1.05 s 98.19%
Subj. Dirt Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Subj. Noise 4th 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Noise 2nd 72.8 dB 71.9 dB +0.9 dB 98.76%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 1st 8.42 kg / t 100%
Highly Recommended Firestone Destination AT2
2nd

Continental TerrainContact AT

275/65 R18 116T
Continental TerrainContact AT
  • Production: 1822
  • Origin: USA
  • UTQG: 680 A B
  • Weight: 19.95 kgs
  • Tread: 9.1 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 1st 41.6 M 100%
Dry Handling 3rd 68.6 s 68.32 s +0.28 s 99.59%
Subj. Dry Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 1st 58 M 100%
Wet Handling 1st 81.33 s 100%
Subj. Wet Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Wet Circle 2nd 13.39 s 13.3 s +0.09 s 99.33%
Straight Aqua 4th 84.4 Km/H 86.5 Km/H -2.1 Km/H 97.57%
Curved Aquaplaning 6th 3.12 m/sec2 3.73 m/sec2 -0.61 m/sec2 83.65%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 3rd 47.84 M 39.08 M +8.76 M 81.69%
Snow Traction 4th 5.66 s 4.57 s +1.09 s 80.74%
Snow Handling 5th 102.56 s 97.4 s +5.16 s 94.97%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Gravel Handling 6th 62.73 s 61.6 s +1.13 s 98.2%
Subj. Gravel Handling 7th 85 Points 100 Points -15 Points 85%
Dirt Handling 5th 58 s 56.86 s +1.14 s 98.03%
Subj. Dirt Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Subj. Noise 1st 100 Points 100%
Noise 1st 71.9 dB 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 8th 9.67 kg / t 8.42 kg / t +1.25 kg / t 87.07%
Highly Recommended Continental TerrainContact AT
Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure
  • Production: 5221
  • Origin: Mexico
  • UTQG: 640 A B
  • Weight: 19.58 kgs
  • Tread: 9.4 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 3rd 42.4 M 41.6 M +0.8 M 98.11%
Dry Handling 1st 68.32 s 100%
Subj. Dry Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 3rd 59.6 M 58 M +1.6 M 97.32%
Wet Handling 4th 82.48 s 81.33 s +1.15 s 98.61%
Subj. Wet Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Wet Circle 2nd 13.39 s 13.3 s +0.09 s 99.33%
Straight Aqua 9th 81.1 Km/H 86.5 Km/H -5.4 Km/H 93.76%
Curved Aquaplaning 8th 2.93 m/sec2 3.73 m/sec2 -0.8 m/sec2 78.55%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 4th 49.97 M 39.08 M +10.89 M 78.21%
Snow Traction 7th 6.93 s 4.57 s +2.36 s 65.95%
Snow Handling 7th 111.23 s 97.4 s +13.83 s 87.57%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Gravel Handling 6th 62.73 s 61.6 s +1.13 s 98.2%
Subj. Gravel Handling 5th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Dirt Handling 2nd 57.76 s 56.86 s +0.9 s 98.44%
Subj. Dirt Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 4th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Subj. Noise 1st 100 Points 100%
Noise 3rd 73 dB 71.9 dB +1.1 dB 98.49%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 5th 9.49 kg / t 8.42 kg / t +1.07 kg / t 88.72%
Highly Recommended Goodyear Wrangler All Terrain Adventure
4th

Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain+

275/65 R18 116T
Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain Plus
  • Production: 3721
  • Origin: Brazil
  • UTQG: 640 A B
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 19.47 kgs
  • Tread: 10 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 4th 43.4 M 41.6 M +1.8 M 95.85%
Dry Handling 2nd 68.41 s 68.32 s +0.09 s 99.87%
Subj. Dry Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 6th 62.95 M 58 M +4.95 M 92.14%
Wet Handling 6th 84.3 s 81.33 s +2.97 s 96.48%
Subj. Wet Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Wet Circle 6th 13.7 s 13.3 s +0.4 s 97.08%
Straight Aqua 5th 83.8 Km/H 86.5 Km/H -2.7 Km/H 96.88%
Curved Aquaplaning 3rd 3.4 m/sec2 3.73 m/sec2 -0.33 m/sec2 91.15%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 6th 51.11 M 39.08 M +12.03 M 76.46%
Snow Traction 6th 6.26 s 4.57 s +1.69 s 73%
Snow Handling 6th 111.18 s 97.4 s +13.78 s 87.61%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Gravel Handling 8th 63.16 s 61.6 s +1.56 s 97.53%
Subj. Gravel Handling 5th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Dirt Handling 6th 58.26 s 56.86 s +1.4 s 97.6%
Subj. Dirt Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 4th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Subj. Noise 7th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Noise 9th 78.1 dB 71.9 dB +6.2 dB 92.06%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 3rd 8.89 kg / t 8.42 kg / t +0.47 kg / t 94.71%
Recommended Pirelli Scorpion All Terrain+
5th

Yokohama Geolandar AT G015

275/65 R18 116H
Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
  • Production: 0222
  • Origin: USA
  • UTQG: 600 A B
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 19.29 kgs
  • Tread: 9.5 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 7th 44 M 41.6 M +2.4 M 94.55%
Dry Handling 6th 68.99 s 68.32 s +0.67 s 99.03%
Subj. Dry Handling 6th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 4th 60.45 M 58 M +2.45 M 95.95%
Wet Handling 3rd 82.28 s 81.33 s +0.95 s 98.85%
Subj. Wet Handling 5th 85 Points 100 Points -15 Points 85%
Wet Circle 4th 13.53 s 13.3 s +0.23 s 98.3%
Straight Aqua 3rd 85.4 Km/H 86.5 Km/H -1.1 Km/H 98.73%
Curved Aquaplaning 4th 3.34 m/sec2 3.73 m/sec2 -0.39 m/sec2 89.54%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 7th 51.55 M 39.08 M +12.47 M 75.81%
Snow Traction 5th 6.07 s 4.57 s +1.5 s 75.29%
Snow Handling 3rd 101.77 s 97.4 s +4.37 s 95.71%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Gravel Handling 5th 62.47 s 61.6 s +0.87 s 98.61%
Subj. Gravel Handling 7th 85 Points 100 Points -15 Points 85%
Dirt Handling 8th 58.41 s 56.86 s +1.55 s 97.35%
Subj. Dirt Handling 8th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 1st 100 Points 100%
Subj. Noise 4th 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Noise 4th 73.2 dB 71.9 dB +1.3 dB 98.22%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 7th 9.56 kg / t 8.42 kg / t +1.14 kg / t 88.08%
Recommended Yokohama Geolandar AT G015
6th

Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain

275/65 R18 116T
Travelstar Ecopath AT All Terrain
  • Production: 1221
  • Origin: Thailand
  • UTQG: 520 A B
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 19.24 kgs
  • Tread: 10.2 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 2nd 42.3 M 41.6 M +0.7 M 98.35%
Dry Handling 4th 68.63 s 68.32 s +0.31 s 99.55%
Subj. Dry Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 7th 63.25 M 58 M +5.25 M 91.7%
Wet Handling 5th 83.78 s 81.33 s +2.45 s 97.08%
Subj. Wet Handling 7th 80 Points 100 Points -20 Points 80%
Wet Circle 5th 13.69 s 13.3 s +0.39 s 97.15%
Straight Aqua 1st 86.5 Km/H 100%
Curved Aquaplaning 1st 3.73 m/sec2 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Gravel Handling 3rd 62.12 s 61.6 s +0.52 s 99.16%
Subj. Gravel Handling 3rd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Dirt Handling 9th 58.55 s 56.86 s +1.69 s 97.11%
Subj. Dirt Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 9th 80 Points 100 Points -20 Points 80%
Subj. Noise 9th 85 Points 100 Points -15 Points 85%
Noise 7th 76.7 dB 71.9 dB +4.8 dB 93.74%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 5th 9.49 kg / t 8.42 kg / t +1.07 kg / t 88.72%
7th

Toyo Open Country AT III

275/65 R18 116T
Toyo Open Country AT III
  • Production: 0822
  • Origin: Japan
  • UTQG: 600 A B
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 19.74 kgs
  • Tread: 10.9 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 5th 43.6 M 41.6 M +2 M 95.41%
Dry Handling 4th 68.63 s 68.32 s +0.31 s 99.55%
Subj. Dry Handling 6th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 5th 62.65 M 58 M +4.65 M 92.58%
Wet Handling 7th 84.56 s 81.33 s +3.23 s 96.18%
Subj. Wet Handling 7th 80 Points 100 Points -20 Points 80%
Wet Circle 7th 13.77 s 13.3 s +0.47 s 96.59%
Straight Aqua 8th 82.7 Km/H 86.5 Km/H -3.8 Km/H 95.61%
Curved Aquaplaning 7th 3.1 m/sec2 3.73 m/sec2 -0.63 m/sec2 83.11%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 5th 50.59 M 39.08 M +11.51 M 77.25%
Snow Traction 3rd 5.61 s 4.57 s +1.04 s 81.46%
Snow Handling 4th 102.45 s 97.4 s +5.05 s 95.07%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Gravel Handling 3rd 62.12 s 61.6 s +0.52 s 99.16%
Subj. Gravel Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Dirt Handling 7th 58.37 s 56.86 s +1.51 s 97.41%
Subj. Dirt Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 7th 85 Points 100 Points -15 Points 85%
Subj. Noise 7th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Noise 6th 75.3 dB 71.9 dB +3.4 dB 95.48%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 4th 9.27 kg / t 8.42 kg / t +0.85 kg / t 90.83%
8th

BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA

275/65 R18 116T
BFGoodrich Trail Terrain TA
  • Production: 1422
  • Origin: USA
  • UTQG: 660 A B
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 20.07 kgs
  • Tread: 10 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 9th 46.6 M 41.6 M +5 M 89.27%
Dry Handling 8th 69.33 s 68.32 s +1.01 s 98.54%
Subj. Dry Handling 6th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 8th 68.5 M 58 M +10.5 M 84.67%
Wet Handling 8th 86.02 s 81.33 s +4.69 s 94.55%
Subj. Wet Handling 5th 85 Points 100 Points -15 Points 85%
Wet Circle 8th 13.91 s 13.3 s +0.61 s 95.61%
Straight Aqua 6th 83.1 Km/H 86.5 Km/H -3.4 Km/H 96.07%
Curved Aquaplaning 9th 2.77 m/sec2 3.73 m/sec2 -0.96 m/sec2 74.26%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 1st 39.08 M 100%
Snow Traction 1st 4.57 s 100%
Snow Handling 1st 97.4 s 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Gravel Handling 1st 61.6 s 100%
Subj. Gravel Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Dirt Handling 1st 56.86 s 100%
Subj. Dirt Handling 1st 100 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 4th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Subj. Noise 1st 100 Points 100%
Noise 5th 73.5 dB 71.9 dB +1.6 dB 97.82%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 2nd 8.86 kg / t 8.42 kg / t +0.44 kg / t 95.03%
9th

Nitto Terra Grappler G2

275/65 R18 116T
Nitto Terra Grappler G2
  • Production: 1422
  • Origin: USA
  • UTQG: 600 A B
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 21.21 kgs
  • Tread: 10 mm
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 6th 43.7 M 41.6 M +2.1 M 95.19%
Dry Handling 9th 69.34 s 68.32 s +1.02 s 98.53%
Subj. Dry Handling 2nd 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 9th 74.05 M 58 M +16.05 M 78.33%
Wet Handling 9th 88.67 s 81.33 s +7.34 s 91.72%
Subj. Wet Handling 9th 70 Points 100 Points -30 Points 70%
Wet Circle 9th 14.43 s 13.3 s +1.13 s 92.17%
Straight Aqua 7th 82.9 Km/H 86.5 Km/H -3.6 Km/H 95.84%
Curved Aquaplaning 5th 3.17 m/sec2 3.73 m/sec2 -0.56 m/sec2 84.99%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Gravel Handling 9th 64.06 s 61.6 s +2.46 s 96.16%
Subj. Gravel Handling 7th 85 Points 100 Points -15 Points 85%
Dirt Handling 4th 57.95 s 56.86 s +1.09 s 98.12%
Subj. Dirt Handling 8th 90 Points 100 Points -10 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 7th 85 Points 100 Points -15 Points 85%
Subj. Noise 4th 95 Points 100 Points -5 Points 95%
Noise 8th 77.3 dB 71.9 dB +5.4 dB 93.01%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 9th 9.77 kg / t 8.42 kg / t +1.35 kg / t 86.18%

comments powered by Disqus