Test Charts / Tyre Reviews

The BEST Performance Tyres Tested

Name: The BEST Performance Tyres Tested
Creator: Tyre Reviews
Published: 2023-05-16

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: 225/40 R18
Tyres tested: 6
Disciplines: 17

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
1Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	33 m	Best	0 km/h
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport	33.21 m	+0.21 m	10 km/h
3Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	33.4 m	+0.40 m	14 km/h
4Continental PremiumContact 7	33.41 m	+0.41 m	14 km/h
5Michelin Pilot Sport 5	33.65 m	+0.65 m	18 km/h
6Yokohama Advan Sport V107	34.68 m	+1.68 m	29 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 5.1% (1.68 m ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Yokohama Advan Sport V107 would still be travelling at 29 km/h when the Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 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
1Yokohama Advan Sport V107	73.58 s	Best
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport	73.71 s	+0.13 s
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	73.92 s	+0.34 s
4Continental PremiumContact 7	74.12 s	+0.54 s
5Michelin Pilot Sport 5	74.44 s	+0.86 s
6Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	74.98 s	+1.40 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	100 Points	Best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 5	100 Points	Best
3Continental PremiumContact 7	95 Points	-5.00 Points
4Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	92 Points	-8.00 Points
4Yokohama Advan Sport V107	92 Points	-8.00 Points
4Bridgestone Potenza Sport	92 Points	-8.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 8% (8 Points).

Subj. Fun
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Yokohama Advan Sport V107	10 Points	Best
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
4Michelin Pilot Sport 5	8 Points	-2.00 Points
4Continental PremiumContact 7	8 Points	-2.00 Points
6Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	7 Points	-3.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 30% (3 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental PremiumContact 7	27.1 m	Best	0 km/h
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport	28.3 m	+1.20 m	27 km/h
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	28.6 m	+1.50 m	30 km/h
4Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	28.9 m	+1.80 m	32 km/h
5Michelin Pilot Sport 5	29.1 m	+2.00 m	34 km/h
6Yokohama Advan Sport V107	29.7 m	+2.60 m	38 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 9.6% (2.6 m ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Yokohama Advan Sport V107 would still be travelling at 38 km/h when the Continental PremiumContact 7 had stopped.

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

Wet Braking - Cool
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental PremiumContact 7	27.9 m	Best	0 km/h
2Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	29.5 m	+1.60 m	30 km/h
3Michelin Pilot Sport 5	30.7 m	+2.80 m	39 km/h
4Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	31.4 m	+3.50 m	43 km/h
5Bridgestone Potenza Sport	31.5 m	+3.60 m	44 km/h
6Yokohama Advan Sport V107	32.3 m	+4.40 m	48 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 15.8% (4.4 m ≈ 1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Yokohama Advan Sport V107 would still be travelling at 48 km/h when the Continental PremiumContact 7 had stopped.

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

Wet Braking - Worn
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport	40.5 m	Best	0 km/h
1Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	40.5 m	Best	0 km/h
3Michelin Pilot Sport 5	41.7 m	+1.20 m	22 km/h
4Continental PremiumContact 7	42.2 m	+1.70 m	26 km/h
5Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	43.4 m	+2.90 m	34 km/h
6Yokohama Advan Sport V107	44.9 m	+4.40 m	41 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 10.9% (4.4 m ≈ 1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Yokohama Advan Sport V107 would still be travelling at 41 km/h when the Bridgestone Potenza Sport 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
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport	91.2 s	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	91.97 s	+0.77 s
3Continental PremiumContact 7	92.06 s	+0.86 s
4Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	93.25 s	+2.05 s
5Yokohama Advan Sport V107	94.6 s	+3.40 s
6Michelin Pilot Sport 5	94.67 s	+3.47 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.8% (3.47 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	100 Points	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 5	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Continental PremiumContact 7	98 Points	-2.00 Points
4Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	95 Points	-5.00 Points
4Bridgestone Potenza Sport	95 Points	-5.00 Points
6Yokohama Advan Sport V107	90 Points	-10.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 10% (10 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	80.9 km/h	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 5	80.5 km/h	-0.40 km/h
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	79 km/h	-1.90 km/h
4Bridgestone Potenza Sport	78.3 km/h	-2.60 km/h
5Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	76.8 km/h	-4.10 km/h
5Yokohama Advan Sport V107	76.8 km/h	-4.10 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 5.1% (4.1 Km/H).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 5	6.31 m/sec2	Best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	6.31 m/sec2	Best
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	6.25 m/sec2	-0.06 m/sec2
4Yokohama Advan Sport V107	6.22 m/sec2	-0.09 m/sec2
5Bridgestone Potenza Sport	5.7 m/sec2	-0.61 m/sec2
6Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	5.21 m/sec2	-1.10 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 17.4% (1.1 m/sec2).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	100 Points	Best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	100 Points	Best
3Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	98 Points	-2.00 Points
3Michelin Pilot Sport 5	98 Points	-2.00 Points
5Bridgestone Potenza Sport	95 Points	-5.00 Points
6Yokohama Advan Sport V107	90 Points	-10.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 10% (10 Points).

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	71.9 dB	Best
2Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	72 dB	+0.10 dB
3Bridgestone Potenza Sport	72.2 dB	+0.30 dB
4Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	72.4 dB	+0.50 dB
5Michelin Pilot Sport 5	72.8 dB	+0.90 dB
6Yokohama Advan Sport V107	72.9 dB	+1.00 dB

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

Value

Wear
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 5	30,595 KM	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	26,053 KM	-4,542 KM
3Continental PremiumContact 7	25,802 KM	-4,793 KM
4Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	23,231 KM	-7,364 KM
5Yokohama Advan Sport V107	20,728 KM	-9,867 KM
6Bridgestone Potenza Sport	20,459 KM	-10,136 KM

The difference between best and worst was 33.1% (10,136 KM).

Value
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	cost per 1,000 km
1Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	3.16 Price/1000	Best	£15.76
2Continental PremiumContact 7	3.3 Price/1000	+0.14 Price/1000	£15.53
3Michelin Pilot Sport 5	3.5 Price/1000	+0.34 Price/1000	£16.53
4Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	3.52 Price/1000	+0.36 Price/1000	£16.95
5Yokohama Advan Sport V107	4.17 Price/1000	+1.01 Price/1000	£24.54
6Bridgestone Potenza Sport	4.53 Price/1000	+1.37 Price/1000	£26.30

The difference between best and worst was 43.4% (1.37 Price/1000). Over 40,000 km the cheapest tyre to own (Continental PremiumContact 7) works out £431 cheaper than the most expensive (Bridgestone Potenza Sport).

How this is calculated

Assumes a typical car using 8 l/100km (with rolling resistance causing 20% of fuel use), fuel at £1.45 per litre and £60 fitting per set of four. Purchase prices are from the time of the 2023 test; financing costs are excluded.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Continental PremiumContact 7	8.4 kg/t	Best	£0
2Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	8.6 kg/t	+0.20 kg/t	£10
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	8.6 kg/t	+0.20 kg/t	£10
2Michelin Pilot Sport 5	8.6 kg/t	+0.20 kg/t	£10
5Yokohama Advan Sport V107	10.2 kg/t	+1.80 kg/t	£94
6Bridgestone Potenza Sport	10.3 kg/t	+1.90 kg/t	£100

The difference between best and worst was 22.6% (1.9 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport uses about 69 L (£100) more fuel than the Continental PremiumContact 7.

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.

Abrasion
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 5	65.7 mg/km/t	Best
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport	72.3 mg/km/t	+6.60 mg/km/t
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	72.4 mg/km/t	+6.70 mg/km/t
4Continental PremiumContact 7	75.9 mg/km/t	+10.20 mg/km/t
5Yokohama Advan Sport V107	92 mg/km/t	+26.30 mg/km/t
6Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	97 mg/km/t	+31.30 mg/km/t

The difference between best and worst was 47.6% (31.3 mg/km/t).

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 → 0 km/h
Wet Braking - Cool: 80 → 0 km/h
Wet Braking - Worn: 80 → 0 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 · 30%
Dry Braking	50%	15%
Dry Handling	30%	9%
Subj. Dry Handling	20%	6%
Wet · 40%
Wet Braking	15%	6%
Wet Braking - Cool	15%	6%
Wet Braking - Worn	15%	6%
Wet Handling	35%	14%
Subj. Wet Handling	10%	4%
Straight Aqua	5%	2%
Curved Aquaplaning	5%	2%
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	50%	2.5%
Noise	50%	2.5%
Value · 25%
Wear	30%	7.5%
Value	30%	7.5%
Rolling Resistance	30%	7.5%
Abrasion	10%	2.5%

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.

Subj. Dry Handling

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.

Subj. Fun

Some tyres deliver strong measured performance but still feel uninvolving, so I also include an assessment of driving enjoyment during spirited driving. This score considers steering feel, communication, balance, predictability at the limit, driver confidence, and the overall sense of connection between the vehicle and the road. It is intended to capture qualities that matter to enthusiastic drivers but are not always fully described by isolated objective metrics. Rated on a 1–10 scale.

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 Braking - Cool

This test follows the same procedure as the standard wet braking test — entry speed of 88 km/h, full ABS braking, VBOX measurement over the 80–5 km/h window — but is conducted at cooler ambient temperatures, typically below 7°C. The lower temperature allows assessment of how each tyre's compound performs when cold, which is particularly relevant for all-season and winter tyre evaluation. Reference tyres are run at the same frequency as the standard wet braking programme.

Wet Braking - Worn

This test follows the same procedure as the standard wet braking test — entry speed of 88 km/h, full ABS braking, VBOX measurement over the 80–5 km/h window — but uses tyres that have been worn to low tread depth, typically around 2mm. This evaluates how each tyre performs as its tread wears down, which is a critical safety metric. Many tyres lose significant wet braking performance at lower tread depths, and this test quantifies that degradation.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wear

I do not conduct tread wear testing myself; where wear is included in a programme, it is carried out by a contracted specialist test provider using either an on-road convoy method or an accelerated machine-based method. In convoy wear testing, multiple vehicles run a defined public-road route over an extended distance, with tread depth measured at intervals and tyres rotated methodically to reduce positional and vehicle-specific effects. In accelerated machine wear testing, the tyre is run on a specialised roadwheel or rough-surfaced drum system designed to simulate real-world wear under controlled load, speed, alignment, and force inputs. I then use the contracted provider's measured wear rate relative to the reference tyre to estimate projected tread life.

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.

Abrasion

Abrasion is assessed as tyre mass loss over a defined driving distance or test cycle. Tyre mass is measured before and after the test using precision scales, and the result is expressed in the relevant unit for the programme. Where relevant, the methodology follows the latest applicable industry or regulatory development procedures.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tyre shortlist →Read the test →

More tyre tests