Test Charts / Auto Bild
2024 EV Tyre Test
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
- 235/55 R19
- Tyres tested
- 9
- Disciplines
- 13
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.
Focus on your tyres
Select tyres to highlight them throughout the charts.
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
2Dry Braking
Dry braking in meters (100 - 0 km/h)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 33 m | Best | 0 km/h | |
| 33.2 m | +0.20 m | 10 km/h | |
| 33.9 m | +0.90 m | 21 km/h | |
| 34 m | +1.00 m | 22 km/h | |
| 34.1 m | +1.10 m | 23 km/h | |
| 34.7 m | +1.70 m | 29 km/h | |
| 35 m | +2.00 m | 31 km/h | |
| 37.2 m | +4.20 m | 44 km/h | |
| 37.9 m | +4.90 m | 47 km/h |
The difference between best and worst was 14.8% (4.9 m ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV would still be travelling at 47 km/h when the Hankook iON evo SUV had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Dry Handling
Dry Handling Average Speed
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 71.3 km/h | Best | |
| 70.9 km/h | -0.40 km/h | |
| 70.7 km/h | -0.60 km/h | |
| 70.4 km/h | -0.90 km/h | |
| 70.2 km/h | -1.10 km/h | |
| 70.1 km/h | -1.20 km/h | |
| 69.6 km/h | -1.70 km/h | |
| 67.6 km/h | -3.70 km/h | |
| 67.1 km/h | -4.20 km/h |
The difference between best and worst was 5.9% (4.2 Km/H).
Wet
5Wet Braking
Wet braking in meters (100 - 0 km/h)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 37.7 m | Best | 0 km/h | |
| 39.1 m | +1.40 m | 25 km/h | |
| 39.2 m | +1.50 m | 25 km/h | |
| 39.4 m | +1.70 m | 27 km/h | |
| 39.4 m | +1.70 m | 27 km/h | |
| 42.4 m | +4.70 m | 43 km/h | |
| 43.3 m | +5.60 m | 47 km/h | |
| 46 m | +8.30 m | 55 km/h | |
| 48.1 m | +10.40 m | 60 km/h |
The difference between best and worst was 27.6% (10.4 m ≈ 2.3 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco would still be travelling at 60 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 Handling
Wet Handling Average Speed
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 59.2 km/h | Best | |
| 58.5 km/h | -0.70 km/h | |
| 58.3 km/h | -0.90 km/h | |
| 57.6 km/h | -1.60 km/h | |
| 57.1 km/h | -2.10 km/h | |
| 56.3 km/h | -2.90 km/h | |
| 56.2 km/h | -3.00 km/h | |
| 55.2 km/h | -4.00 km/h | |
| 54.3 km/h | -4.90 km/h |
The difference between best and worst was 8.3% (4.9 Km/H).
Wet Circle
Wet Circle Lap Time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 12.88 s | Best | |
| 12.88 s | Best | |
| 12.93 s | +0.05 s | |
| 12.95 s | +0.07 s | |
| 13.01 s | +0.13 s | |
| 13.11 s | +0.23 s | |
| 13.39 s | +0.51 s | |
| 13.45 s | +0.57 s | |
| 13.95 s | +1.07 s |
The difference between best and worst was 8.3% (1.07 s).
Straight Aqua
Float Speed in Km/H
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 95.5 km/h | Best | |
| 94.7 km/h | -0.80 km/h | |
| 94.6 km/h | -0.90 km/h | |
| 94.4 km/h | -1.10 km/h | |
| 94.4 km/h | -1.10 km/h | |
| 94.1 km/h | -1.40 km/h | |
| 93.4 km/h | -2.10 km/h | |
| 93.2 km/h | -2.30 km/h | |
| 92.1 km/h | -3.40 km/h |
The difference between best and worst was 3.6% (3.4 Km/H).
Curved Aquaplaning
Remaining lateral acceleration
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 3.28 m/sec2 | Best | |
| 3.27 m/sec2 | -0.01 m/sec2 | |
| 3.25 m/sec2 | -0.03 m/sec2 | |
| 3.24 m/sec2 | -0.04 m/sec2 | |
| 2.99 m/sec2 | -0.29 m/sec2 | |
| 2.96 m/sec2 | -0.32 m/sec2 | |
| 2.94 m/sec2 | -0.34 m/sec2 | |
| 2.7 m/sec2 | -0.58 m/sec2 | |
| 2.64 m/sec2 | -0.64 m/sec2 |
The difference between best and worst was 19.5% (0.64 m/sec2).
Comfort
1Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 68.6 dB | Best | |
| 70 dB | +1.40 dB | |
| 70 dB | +1.40 dB | |
| 70.2 dB | +1.60 dB | |
| 70.3 dB | +1.70 dB | |
| 70.5 dB | +1.90 dB | |
| 70.5 dB | +1.90 dB | |
| 71.2 dB | +2.60 dB | |
| 71.3 dB | +2.70 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 3.9% (2.7 dB).
Value
5Wear
Predicted tread life in KM
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 36,885 KM | Best | |
| 35,865 KM | -1,020 KM | |
| 35,695 KM | -1,190 KM | |
| 34,905 KM | -1,980 KM | |
| 33,015 KM | -3,870 KM | |
| 27,375 KM | -9,510 KM | |
| 27,155 KM | -9,730 KM | |
| 18,530 KM | -18,355 KM |
The difference between best and worst was 49.8% (18,355 KM).
Value
Euros/1000km based on cost/wear
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best | cost per 1,000 km |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14.55 Price/1000 | Best | €22.73 | |
| 19.33 Price/1000 | +4.78 Price/1000 | €24.74 | |
| 19.48 Price/1000 | +4.93 Price/1000 | €23.10 | |
| 20.2 Price/1000 | +5.65 Price/1000 | €24.92 | |
| 21.05 Price/1000 | +6.50 Price/1000 | €28.26 | |
| 23.01 Price/1000 | +8.46 Price/1000 | €25.57 | |
| 23.42 Price/1000 | +8.87 Price/1000 | €31.70 | |
| 38.32 Price/1000 | +23.77 Price/1000 | €51.30 |
The difference between best and worst was 163.4% (23.77 Price/1000). Over 40,000 km the cheapest tyre to own (Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco) works out €1,143 cheaper than the most expensive (Bridgestone Potenza Sport).
How this is calculated
Assumes a typical EV using 18 kWh/100km (with rolling resistance causing 25% of energy use), electricity at €0.32 per kWh and €70 fitting per set of four. Purchase prices are from the time of the 2024 test; financing costs are excluded.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best | Extra energy / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.55 kg/t | Best | £0 | |
| 6.17 kg/t | +0.62 kg/t | £27 | |
| 6.55 kg/t | +1.00 kg/t | £43 | |
| 6.64 kg/t | +1.09 kg/t | £47 | |
| 6.88 kg/t | +1.33 kg/t | £57 | |
| 7.51 kg/t | +1.96 kg/t | £85 | |
| 7.71 kg/t | +2.16 kg/t | £93 | |
| 7.99 kg/t | +2.44 kg/t | £105 | |
| 9.1 kg/t | +3.55 kg/t | £153 |
The difference between best and worst was 64% (3.55 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £0.28/kWh, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport uses about 547 kWh (£153) more electricity than the Falken e.Ziex.
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.
Energy Consumption
Energy consumption in kW hours per 100 km
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best | Extra energy / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18.28 kWh/100km | Best | £0 | |
| 18.46 kWh/100km | +0.18 kWh/100km | £10 | |
| 18.83 kWh/100km | +0.55 kWh/100km | £29 | |
| 19.17 kWh/100km | +0.89 kWh/100km | £47 | |
| 19.88 kWh/100km | +1.60 kWh/100km | £85 | |
| 20.02 kWh/100km | +1.74 kWh/100km | £93 | |
| 20.66 kWh/100km | +2.38 kWh/100km | £127 | |
| 20.82 kWh/100km | +2.54 kWh/100km | £135 |
The difference between best and worst was 13.9% (2.54 kWh/100km). Over 19,000 km a year at £0.28/kWh, the GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV uses about 483 kWh (£135) more electricity than the Falken e.Ziex.
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.
Abrasion
Total weight loss after wear test in grams
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 1069 g | Best | |
| 1141 g | +72.00 g | |
| 1211 g | +142.00 g | |
| 1211 g | +142.00 g | |
| 1222 g | +153.00 g | |
| 1234 g | +165.00 g | |
| 1244 g | +175.00 g | |
| 2093 g | +1,024.00 g |
The difference between best and worst was 95.8% (1,024 g).
Test setup & methodology
The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.
Recorded test conditions
Recorded test conditions
- Dry Braking
- 100 → 0 km/h
- Wet Braking
- 100 → 0 km/h
More tyre tests
Cross-check this test
Where these tyres were tested again, and how the verdict held up.
2025 Summer Tyre Test Shootout
225/40 R1852 tyres tested
4 of these 9 tyres tested again
2025 Teknikens Varld Summer Tyre Test
235/55 R198 tyres tested
3 of these 9 tyres tested again
2025 Vi Bilagare Summer EV Tyre Test
235/55 R196 tyres tested
3 of these 9 tyres tested again

