2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test

Below is the data from the excellent 2024 ADAC summer tyre test, which tested sixteen tyres in the popular 215/55 R17 size.

Test Publication:

215/55 R17 16 tyres 4 categories

Similar Tests

Images courtesy of ADAC

Test Publication:

https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/ausstattung-technik-zubehoer/reifen/reifentest/

Images courtesy of ADAC

Test Size: 215/55 R17

Tyres Tested: 16 tyres

Test Categories:
4 categories (11 tests)

Similar Tests

ADAC do not share all the data they use to read their final order, but they do share some very interesting test results, including wear! We've added a value calculation to the results comparing the reported purchase price against projected total mileage.

Dry

The new Continental PremiumContact 7 had a good advantage in dry braking over the second placed Michelin, which drew with the Linglong Sport Master.

Wet

The Continental also aced the wet braking test on both tarmac and concrete.

On average the Vredestein Ultrac was best in the deeper water of aquaplaning tests.

Comfort

The cheaper tyres performed very well in the external noise tests with Sailun and Linglong leading the way.

Value

Kumho narrowly beat Goodyear to be the best wearing tyres on test, and the quick stopping Continental matched the Michelin for third place.

The low wear of the Kumho paired with its reasonable purchase price it proved to be the cheapest per 1000km driven.

ADAC test fuel consumption by driving, not on a machine. The results were very close with three tyres tying for top spot.

As usual, Michelin had the lowest wearing compound which means it produced the lowest amount of environmental pollution.

Results

1^st

Continental PremiumContact 7

215/55 R17

• EU Label: C/A/71
• 3PMSF: no

The Continental PremiumContact 7 excels in driving safety for both dry and wet road conditions in this year's test, achieving the top marks for its excellent steering feedback, safe handling at the limit, and shortest braking distances, though it receives an average rating for aquaplaning resistance. While it demonstrates very good projected mileage and low tyre wear, its environmental impact rating is slightly reduced due to its relatively high weight and average noise levels, narrowly missing a high rating in efficiency.

Dry

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	1st	35.4 M			100%

Wet

93.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	1st	28.5 M			100%
Wet Braking - Concrete	1st	32 M			100%
Straight Aqua	15th	74 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-4.5 Km/H	94.27%
Curved Aquaplaning	14th	2.8 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.7 m/sec2	80%

Comfort

98.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	5th	71.3 dB	70 dB	+1.3 dB	98.18%

Value

75.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	3rd	60300 KM	69300 KM	-9000 KM	87.01%
Value	9th	2.89 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+1.12 Price/1000	61.25%
Price	15th	174	95	+79	54.6%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.9 l/100km	5.7 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.61%
Abrasion	5th	60.1 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+12 mg/km/t	80.03%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

2^nd

Michelin Primacy 4+

215/55 R17

• EU Label: B/A/70
• 3PMSF: no

The Michelin Primacy 4+ earns a solid rating for driving safety, delivering good steering feedback and secure handling at the limit on dry roads, along with a commendable short braking distance. Its performance on wet roads is also rated positively, with good marks in braking distance measurements and handling, allowing the test vehicle to be safely and easily maneuvered. However, it just misses a high rating in aquaplaning tests. In terms of environmental impact, the Primacy 4+ secures the second-best rating in the test. Its projected mileage is rated as very good, and tyre wear is minimal. Thanks to its low weight and fuel consumption, it also achieves a good rating in efficiency.

Dry

94.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	2nd	37.3 M	35.4 M	+1.9 M	94.91%

Wet

89.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	2nd	31.1 M	28.5 M	+2.6 M	91.64%
Wet Braking - Concrete	5th	37.1 M	32 M	+5.1 M	86.25%
Straight Aqua	10th	75.3 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-3.2 Km/H	95.92%
Curved Aquaplaning	13th	2.9 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.6 m/sec2	82.86%

Comfort

99%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	3rd	70.7 dB	70 dB	+0.7 dB	99.01%

Value

79.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	3rd	60300 KM	69300 KM	-9000 KM	87.01%
Value	10th	3.02 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+1.25 Price/1000	58.61%
Price	16th	182	95	+87	52.2%
Fuel Consumption	4th	5.8 l/100km	5.7 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.28%
Abrasion	1st	48.1 mg/km/t			100%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

3^rd

Kumho Ecsta HS52

215/55 R17

• EU Label: C/A/72
• 3PMSF: no

The Kumho Ecsta HS52 earns a solid rating in driving safety, providing good steering feedback and secure handling at the limit on dry roads, complemented by a short braking distance. On wet roads, it impresses with its braking performance and wet handling, offering good grip and easy, secure maneuverability. However, its aquaplaning performance is rated as average. Overall, the Kumho receives a good rating for wet performance. In terms of environmental impact, the Kumho achieves only an average outcome. While it scores well in projected mileage and wear, its higher tyre weight results in only average efficiency. The sustainability of this tyre, produced in China/Korea, is rated as sufficient.

Dry

92.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	12th	38.1 M	35.4 M	+2.7 M	92.91%

Wet

89%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	5th	32.8 M	28.5 M	+4.3 M	86.89%
Wet Braking - Concrete	2nd	35.8 M	32 M	+3.8 M	89.39%
Straight Aqua	16th	73.8 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-4.7 Km/H	94.01%
Curved Aquaplaning	12th	3 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.5 m/sec2	85.71%

Comfort

96.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	16th	72.6 dB	70 dB	+2.6 dB	96.42%

Value

92.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	1st	69300 KM			100%
Value	1st	1.77 Price/1000			100%
Price	5th	123	95	+28	77.24%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.9 l/100km	5.7 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.61%
Abrasion	3rd	55 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+6.9 mg/km/t	87.45%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

4^th

Debica Presto UHP2

215/55 R17

• EU Label: C/A/71
• 3PMSF: no

The Debica Presto UHP 2 is rated as good on dry roads but achieves only an average rating in wet conditions and overall driving safety. On dry roads, it provides just average steering feedback, making it challenging for drivers to immediately find the necessary steering angle for curves. However, its handling at the limit and braking distance are still rated as good, barely earning a good rating for dry performance. On wet roads, the Debica Presto UHP 2 does not surpass an average rating. While its aquaplaning resistance receives good marks, its braking performance and handling are deemed average. The tyre offers a moderate level of grip and satisfactorily combines longitudinal and lateral forces. In terms of environmental impact, the Presto UHP 2 narrowly misses a higher rating. Its projected mileage and wear are rated as nearly good. Additionally, its fuel consumption and low weight contribute to a good efficiency rating.

Dry

93.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	9th	37.9 M	35.4 M	+2.5 M	93.4%

Wet

90.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	13th	34.6 M	28.5 M	+6.1 M	82.37%
Wet Braking - Concrete	8th	37.4 M	32 M	+5.4 M	85.56%
Straight Aqua	6th	77.3 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-1.2 Km/H	98.47%
Curved Aquaplaning	3rd	3.3 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.2 m/sec2	94.29%

Comfort

97.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	9th	71.6 dB	70 dB	+1.6 dB	97.77%

Value

72%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	10th	42700 KM	69300 KM	-26600 KM	61.62%
Value	6th	2.81 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+1.04 Price/1000	62.99%
Price	3rd	120	95	+25	79.17%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.9 l/100km	5.7 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.61%
Abrasion	12th	80.8 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+32.7 mg/km/t	59.53%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

5^th

Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2

215/55 R17

• EU Label: C/A/70
• 3PMSF: no

The Dunlop Sport Maxx RT2 receives a just satisfactory rating in driving safety. On dry roads, it provides good steering feedback, precise control, and secure handling at the limit, along with a short braking distance, earning a solid good rating for dry performance. However, on wet roads, the Sport Maxx RT2 narrowly misses achieving more than a satisfactory rating. While it performs well in aquaplaning tests with good marks, it only achieves satisfactory results in braking distance measurements and wet handling. The tyre offers a medium level of grip and combines longitudinal and lateral forces satisfactorily. In terms of environmental impact, the Dunlop Sport Maxx RT2 just falls short of a good rating. Its projected mileage and wear are rated as nearly good, as are its weight and fuel consumption. However, due to slightly higher rolling noise and just satisfactory sustainability, it narrowly misses a good evaluation.

Dry

94.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	4th	37.5 M	35.4 M	+2.1 M	94.4%

Wet

91.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	12th	34.4 M	28.5 M	+5.9 M	82.85%
Wet Braking - Concrete	9th	38.2 M	32 M	+6.2 M	83.77%
Straight Aqua	3rd	77.8 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-0.7 Km/H	99.11%
Curved Aquaplaning	1st	3.5 m/sec2			100%

Comfort

97.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	14th	71.8 dB	70 dB	+1.8 dB	97.49%

Value

66.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	9th	43700 KM	69300 KM	-25600 KM	63.06%
Value	15th	3.57 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+1.8 Price/1000	49.58%
Price	12th	156	95	+61	60.9%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.9 l/100km	5.7 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.61%
Abrasion	11th	79.8 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+31.7 mg/km/t	60.28%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

6^th

Bridgestone Turanza 6

215/55 R17

• EU Label: B/A/70
• 3PMSF: no

The new Bridgestone Turanza 6 achieves only a satisfactory rating in driving safety due to minor weaknesses on both dry and wet roads. On dry roads, it fails to provide the necessary steering feedback, making it somewhat difficult for drivers to accurately adjust the steering angle for curves as required for a good rating. Its handling at the limit is also rated as just satisfactory, although it does secure a good rating for its braking distance. On wet surfaces, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 shows slight weaknesses, with its wet performance also deemed satisfactory within the test group. While it receives good marks in aquaplaning tests, these are not enough to offset its satisfactory performance in braking distance measurements and wet handling ability, where it offers a medium level of grip and suboptimal combination of longitudinal and lateral forces. In terms of environmental impact, the new Bridgestone Turanza 6 achieves a clearly good result. Its projected mileage and wear are rated as good, and it also records a good efficiency rating. However, it falls short of receiving good ratings in external noise and sustainability.

Dry

93.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	11th	38 M	35.4 M	+2.6 M	93.16%

Wet

88.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	13th	34.6 M	28.5 M	+6.1 M	82.37%
Wet Braking - Concrete	14th	39.9 M	32 M	+7.9 M	80.2%
Straight Aqua	1st	78.5 Km/H			100%
Curved Aquaplaning	7th	3.2 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.3 m/sec2	91.43%

Comfort

98%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	6th	71.4 dB	70 dB	+1.4 dB	98.04%

Value

68.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	7th	47900 KM	69300 KM	-21400 KM	69.12%
Value	14th	3.53 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+1.76 Price/1000	50.14%
Price	14th	169	95	+74	56.21%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.7 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	9th	73 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+24.9 mg/km/t	65.89%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

7^th

Fulda SportControl 2

215/55 R17

• EU Label: C/A/71
• 3PMSF: no

The Fulda SportControl 2 achieves a good rating on dry roads but does not surpass a satisfactory rating in wet conditions, impacting its overall safety rating. On dry roads, it provides satisfactory steering feedback but is considered safe at the limit, with its braking distance rated clearly good compared to the test field. However, on wet surfaces, the SportControl 2 misses a good rating, showing strength in aquaplaning resistance but only achieving satisfactory results in wet braking and handling, offering a medium level of grip and suboptimal combination of longitudinal and lateral forces. In terms of environmental impact, the SportControl 2 narrowly misses a good rating, with its projected mileage and wear assessed as just satisfactory. However, its efficiency is rated as good due to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry

93.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	7th	37.8 M	35.4 M	+2.4 M	93.65%

Wet

89.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	15th	34.9 M	28.5 M	+6.4 M	81.66%
Wet Braking - Concrete	10th	38.3 M	32 M	+6.3 M	83.55%
Straight Aqua	4th	77.7 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-0.8 Km/H	98.98%
Curved Aquaplaning	3rd	3.3 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.2 m/sec2	94.29%

Comfort

97.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	11th	71.7 dB	70 dB	+1.7 dB	97.63%

Value

66.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	12th	40400 KM	69300 KM	-28900 KM	58.3%
Value	13th	3.42 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+1.65 Price/1000	51.75%
Price	8th	138	95	+43	68.84%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.9 l/100km	5.7 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.61%
Abrasion	14th	82.5 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+34.4 mg/km/t	58.3%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

8^th

Hankook Ventus Prime 4

215/55 R17

• EU Label: B/A/69
• 3PMSF: no

The Hankook Ventus Prime4 achieves only a satisfactory rating, primarily due to its wet performance. On dry roads, it provides satisfactory steering feedback and is considered safe at the limit, with its braking distance rated as good compared to other tyres in the test. However, on wet roads, the Ventus Prime4 narrowly misses a good rating in braking distance measurements and clearly falls short in wet handling, offering a medium level of grip and suboptimal integration of longitudinal and lateral forces. Its aquaplaning resistance is also rated as just satisfactory. In terms of environmental impact, the Ventus Prime4 receives a good rating, with both its projected mileage and wear rated as good. Its weight is considered good for efficiency, and it nearly achieves a very good rating in fuel consumption.

Dry

92.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	12th	38.1 M	35.4 M	+2.7 M	92.91%

Wet

85.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	5th	32.8 M	28.5 M	+4.3 M	86.89%
Wet Braking - Concrete	12th	39.1 M	32 M	+7.1 M	81.84%
Straight Aqua	13th	74.3 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-4.2 Km/H	94.65%
Curved Aquaplaning	16th	2.7 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.8 m/sec2	77.14%

Comfort

97.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	9th	71.6 dB	70 dB	+1.6 dB	97.77%

Value

77.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	6th	49900 KM	69300 KM	-19400 KM	72.01%
Value	5th	2.77 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+1 Price/1000	63.9%
Price	8th	138	95	+43	68.84%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.7 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	4th	58.7 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+10.6 mg/km/t	81.94%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

9^th

Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2

215/55 R17

• EU Label: B/A/70
• 3PMSF: no

The Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 only achieves a satisfactory rating, with its dry performance being the limiting factor. On dry surfaces, it provides just adequate steering feedback and does not exceed a satisfactory rating in handling at the limit. The insufficient steering feedback makes it challenging to accurately adjust the steering angle for curves, leading to a tendency for the test vehicle to oversteer during sudden evasion maneuvers. However, the tyre does achieve a clearly good rating in braking distance. Overall, its dry performance does not surpass a satisfactory outcome. On wet roads, the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 narrowly misses a good rating in braking and aquaplaning but secures a good grade in wet handling due to its controllability. In terms of environmental impact, it falls just short of an excellent evaluation but still impresses with a very high projected mileage in the wear test, low wear, low tyre weight, and low fuel consumption.

Dry

93.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	9th	37.9 M	35.4 M	+2.5 M	93.4%

Wet

88.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	9th	33.3 M	28.5 M	+4.8 M	85.59%
Wet Braking - Concrete	10th	38.3 M	32 M	+6.3 M	83.55%
Straight Aqua	12th	74.9 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-3.6 Km/H	95.41%
Curved Aquaplaning	9th	3.1 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.4 m/sec2	88.57%

Comfort

98.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	4th	71 dB	70 dB	+1 dB	98.59%

Value

84%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	2nd	68800 KM	69300 KM	-500 KM	99.28%
Value	2nd	2.43 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+0.66 Price/1000	72.84%
Price	13th	167	95	+72	56.89%
Fuel Consumption	4th	5.8 l/100km	5.7 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.28%
Abrasion	2nd	51.9 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+3.8 mg/km/t	92.68%

Read Reviews Test Results Buy from £155.99 Results Table Test Charts

10^th

Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun

215/55 R17

• EU Label: C/A/69
• 3PMSF: no

The Falken Ziex ZE 310 EcoRun achieves only a satisfactory overall result, primarily due to its dry performance. On dry surfaces, it fails to provide precise steering feedback, making it difficult for drivers to adjust the steering angle for curves accurately, which precludes a good rating. Its handling at the limit is also rated as just satisfactory, though it does receive a good rating for its braking distance. In wet conditions, the Falken Ziex ZE 310 EcoRun performs better, securing good ratings in braking distance measurements and aquaplaning resistance, but narrowly misses a good rating in handling. While the vehicle can be safely driven on the course, increased grip and precision would improve its performance. Environmentally, the Falken Ziex ZE 310 EcoRun only achieves a satisfactory rating. It scores well for projected mileage and wear, but its status as the heaviest tyre in the test leads to only an adequate rating in that criterion. Its fuel consumption is barely rated as good, and sustainability, particularly for tyres produced in Turkey, is deemed adequate.

Dry

93.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	5th	37.7 M	35.4 M	+2.3 M	93.9%

Wet

92.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	3rd	32.6 M	28.5 M	+4.1 M	87.42%
Wet Braking - Concrete	3rd	36.3 M	32 M	+4.3 M	88.15%
Straight Aqua	5th	77.4 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-1.1 Km/H	98.6%
Curved Aquaplaning	3rd	3.3 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.2 m/sec2	94.29%

Comfort

98%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	6th	71.4 dB	70 dB	+1.4 dB	98.04%

Value

72.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	8th	46300 KM	69300 KM	-23000 KM	66.81%
Value	8th	2.85 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+1.08 Price/1000	62.11%
Price	7th	132	95	+37	71.97%
Fuel Consumption	16th	6 l/100km	5.7 l/100km	+0.3 l/100km	95%
Abrasion	8th	72 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+23.9 mg/km/t	66.81%

Read Reviews Test Results Buy from £127.99 Results Table Test Charts

11^th

Nexen N Fera Primus

215/55 R17

• EU Label: B/B/70
• 3PMSF: no

The Nexen N'Fera Primus receives a satisfactory rating in driving safety, failing to achieve a good rating in both dry and wet conditions. On dry roads, it provides barely satisfactory steering feedback and does not surpass a satisfactory rating in handling at the limit. A lack of precise steering feedback makes it challenging to accurately adjust the steering angle for curves, leading to a tendency for the vehicle to oversteer during sudden evasion maneuvers. However, the tyre achieves a clearly good rating in braking distance. On wet surfaces, the N'Fera Primus secures good ratings in braking distance measurements and lateral aquaplaning but only achieves satisfactory results in longitudinal aquaplaning and handling, preventing a good overall rating in wet performance. Environmentally, the Nexen narrowly misses a good rating, with its projected mileage, noise, and sustainability rated as just satisfactory, while its wear and efficiency are rated as good.

Dry

92.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	14th	38.4 M	35.4 M	+3 M	92.19%

Wet

89.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	7th	33 M	28.5 M	+4.5 M	86.36%
Wet Braking - Concrete	6th	37.2 M	32 M	+5.2 M	86.02%
Straight Aqua	11th	75.1 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-3.4 Km/H	95.67%
Curved Aquaplaning	7th	3.2 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.3 m/sec2	91.43%

Comfort

97.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	11th	71.7 dB	70 dB	+1.7 dB	97.63%

Value

70.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	11th	40800 KM	69300 KM	-28500 KM	58.87%
Value	11th	3.11 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+1.34 Price/1000	56.91%
Price	6th	127	95	+32	74.8%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.9 l/100km	5.7 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.61%
Abrasion	10th	73.5 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+25.4 mg/km/t	65.44%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

12^th

Goodride Solmax 1

215/55 R17

• EU Label: C/A/72
• 3PMSF: no

The Goodride Solmax 1 achieves only a satisfactory rating in this year's summer tyre test, primarily due to its performance on wet roads. On dry surfaces, it fails to provide sufficiently accurate steering feedback, making it challenging for drivers to adjust the steering angle for curves as needed for a good rating. Its handling at the limit is also rated as just satisfactory, although it scores a clearly good rating in braking distance. On wet surfaces, the Solmax 1 receives clear satisfactory ratings in braking distance and barely satisfactory in wet handling, demonstrating a relatively weak grip level and moderate ability to combine longitudinal and lateral forces. However, its aquaplaning resistance is rated as good. Environmentally, the Goodride Solmax 1 has a satisfactory impact, with both its projected mileage and wear rated as satisfactory. In terms of efficiency, it achieves a good rating due to low fuel consumption and a comparatively reasonable weight. However, the sustainability of this tyre, produced in China, is considered adequate.

Dry

91%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	15th	38.9 M	35.4 M	+3.5 M	91%

Wet

88.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	16th	35.1 M	28.5 M	+6.6 M	81.2%
Wet Braking - Concrete	16th	40.1 M	32 M	+8.1 M	79.8%
Straight Aqua	8th	76.7 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-1.8 Km/H	97.71%
Curved Aquaplaning	3rd	3.3 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.2 m/sec2	94.29%

Comfort

97.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	8th	71.5 dB	70 dB	+1.5 dB	97.9%

Value

67%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	15th	35600 KM	69300 KM	-33700 KM	51.37%
Value	12th	3.37 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+1.6 Price/1000	52.52%
Price	3rd	120	95	+25	79.17%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.9 l/100km	5.7 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.61%
Abrasion	15th	87.3 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+39.2 mg/km/t	55.1%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

13^th

Sailun Atrezzo ZSR2

215/55 R17

• EU Label: B/A/69
• 3PMSF: no

The Sailun Atrezzo ZSR2 achieves only a satisfactory rating in driving safety, providing just adequate steering feedback on dry roads and not exceeding a satisfactory rating in handling at the limit. The insufficient feedback affects the ability to accurately adjust the steering for curves, leading to a tendency for the vehicle to oversteer during sudden maneuvers. However, it does receive a clearly good rating in braking distance. Overall, its performance on dry roads is rated as satisfactory. On wet surfaces, the Sailun narrowly misses a good rating in both braking and aquaplaning, with only its wet handling performance being rated as just good. Thus, it achieves an overall satisfactory rating on wet roads. Environmentally, the Sailun also receives a satisfactory rating, with both its projected mileage and wear deemed satisfactory, albeit the latter just barely. It scores a good rating in efficiency due to low fuel consumption and a relatively low weight. However, the sustainability of this tyre, produced in China, is rated as adequate.

Dry

93.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	5th	37.7 M	35.4 M	+2.3 M	93.9%

Wet

88.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	4th	32.7 M	28.5 M	+4.2 M	87.16%
Wet Braking - Concrete	15th	40 M	32 M	+8 M	80%
Straight Aqua	9th	76.4 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-2.1 Km/H	97.32%
Curved Aquaplaning	9th	3.1 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.4 m/sec2	88.57%

Comfort

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	1st	70 dB			100%

Value

73.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	13th	38000 KM	69300 KM	-31300 KM	54.83%
Value	7th	2.82 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+1.05 Price/1000	62.77%
Price	2nd	107	95	+12	88.79%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.7 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	13th	81.2 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+33.1 mg/km/t	59.24%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

14^th

Semperit Speed Life 3

215/55 R17

• EU Label: C/B/72
• 3PMSF: no

The Semperit Speed-Life 3 receives a borderline satisfactory rating in driving safety, with only adequate steering feedback on dry roads and a similar rating in handling at the limit, leading to a tendency for the vehicle to oversteer during sudden maneuvers. Its braking performance is satisfactory, which just suffices for an overall satisfactory rating for its dry road properties. On wet roads, the Semperit Speed-Life 3 narrowly misses a good rating, achieving only satisfactory results in braking distance measurements and lateral aquaplaning. Despite good ratings in longitudinal aquaplaning and handling, it does not achieve a good overall wet performance rating. Environmentally, the Speed-Life 3 performs well, with a very good rating in projected mileage and good ratings in wear and efficiency. However, its noise level and sustainability receive satisfactory ratings.

Dry

86.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	16th	40.9 M	35.4 M	+5.5 M	86.55%

Wet

88.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	10th	33.6 M	28.5 M	+5.1 M	84.82%
Wet Braking - Concrete	13th	39.5 M	32 M	+7.5 M	81.01%
Straight Aqua	7th	76.8 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-1.7 Km/H	97.83%
Curved Aquaplaning	9th	3.1 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.4 m/sec2	88.57%

Comfort

97.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	11th	71.7 dB	70 dB	+1.7 dB	97.63%

Value

77.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	5th	55200 KM	69300 KM	-14100 KM	79.65%
Value	3rd	2.52 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+0.75 Price/1000	70.24%
Price	10th	139	95	+44	68.35%
Fuel Consumption	4th	5.8 l/100km	5.7 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.28%
Abrasion	6th	67.4 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+19.3 mg/km/t	71.36%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

15^th

Linglong Sport Master

215/55 R17

• EU Label: C/A/69
• 3PMSF: no

The Linglong Sport Master receives an overall satisfactory rating in driving safety. On dry roads, it provides only sufficient steering feedback and achieves an adequate rating in handling at the limit, with a tendency to oversteer during sudden evasive maneuvers and a slow stabilization time. Its braking performance on dry roads is also rated as satisfactory. In wet conditions, although the Sport Master achieves a good rating in braking distances, it only manages a satisfactory rating for aquaplaning resistance and handling, offering medium grip and suboptimal integration of longitudinal and lateral forces, leading to a satisfactory wet performance rating. Environmentally, the Linglong has a satisfactory impact, with satisfactory predicted mileage and good wear. Its efficiency is rated as good due to low fuel consumption and relatively low weight, but its sustainability, particularly for the tyre produced in China, is considered adequate.

Dry

94.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	2nd	37.3 M	35.4 M	+1.9 M	94.91%

Wet

86.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	8th	33.2 M	28.5 M	+4.7 M	85.84%
Wet Braking - Concrete	7th	37.3 M	32 M	+5.3 M	85.79%
Straight Aqua	14th	74.2 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-4.3 Km/H	94.52%
Curved Aquaplaning	14th	2.8 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.7 m/sec2	80%

Comfort

99.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	2nd	70.6 dB	70 dB	+0.6 dB	99.15%

Value

77.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	14th	37400 KM	69300 KM	-31900 KM	53.97%
Value	4th	2.54 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+0.77 Price/1000	69.69%
Price	1st	95			100%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.9 l/100km	5.7 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.61%
Abrasion	7th	70.4 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+22.3 mg/km/t	68.32%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

16^th

Vredestein Ultrac

215/55 R17

• EU Label: C/A/69
• 3PMSF: no

The Vredestein Ultrac is rated as good in driving safety. It provides good steering feedback and secure handling at the limit on dry roads, along with a short braking distance. On wet roads, its properties are also considered good, including in braking distance measurements and aquaplaning resistance, although it narrowly misses a good rating in handling. The tyre offers a medium level of grip but needs to better combine longitudinal and lateral forces for a higher rating. In terms of environmental impact, the Vredestein Ultrac is rated as merely adequate overall due to its low projected mileage. It receives a satisfactory rating for wear but is praised for its efficiency, attributed to its low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry

93.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	7th	37.8 M	35.4 M	+2.4 M	93.65%

Wet

92.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	11th	34.1 M	28.5 M	+5.6 M	83.58%
Wet Braking - Concrete	3rd	36.3 M	32 M	+4.3 M	88.15%
Straight Aqua	2nd	78.4 Km/H	78.5 Km/H	-0.1 Km/H	99.87%
Curved Aquaplaning	1st	3.5 m/sec2			100%

Comfort

97.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	14th	71.8 dB	70 dB	+1.8 dB	97.49%

Value

57.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	16th	27200 KM	69300 KM	-42100 KM	39.25%
Value	16th	5.11 Price/1000	1.77 Price/1000	+3.34 Price/1000	34.64%
Price	10th	139	95	+44	68.35%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.9 l/100km	5.7 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.61%
Abrasion	16th	102.7 mg/km/t	48.1 mg/km/t	+54.6 mg/km/t	46.84%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts