The Auto Bild 2024 summer tyre test for electric vehicles (EVs) in the 235/55 R19 size aimed to compare the performance of standard and specialized EV tyres to determine if EV-specific tyres offer significant advantages over their conventional counterparts. The test included eight tyre models: the Continental PremiumContact 7, Falken e.Ziex [ev specific], Hankook iON evo SUV [ev specific], Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV, Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6, GT Radial SportActive 2 EV [ev specific], Bridgestone Potenza Sport, and Goodride ZuperEco Z-107.
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
Interestingly, Michelin decided not to officially enter their EV-specific tyre, the Pilot Sport EV, or their e-Primacy model in the test, opting instead for the Pilot Sport 4 SUV from their sports tyre segment. Despite this, the discontinued Pilot Sport EV was still tested alongside the other contenders, providing an opportunity to compare its performance against both standard and EV-specific tyres.
The tyres were evaluated on a Kia EV6 electric vehicle across three main categories: Wet Performance (40% weightage), Dry Performance (40% weightage), and Cost (20% weightage). Wet Performance tests included aquaplaning, curved aquaplaning, handling, steering response, and braking. Dry Performance assessed handling, braking, rolling comfort, and pass-by noise. The Cost category considered mileage, price per mileage, rolling resistance, and electricity consumption.
In the final results, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV emerged as the overall winner, receiving an "Exemplary" rating. The Continental PremiumContact 7 and Hankook iON evo SUV tied for second place, also with "Exemplary" ratings. The Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 followed closely in fourth place. The test demonstrated that while specialized EV tyres like the Hankook iON evo SUV can offer benefits, high-quality standard tyres such as those from Continental and Michelin can also provide excellent performance on electric vehicles.
As for the Michelin Pilot Sport EV, although it wasn't officially part of the test, its performance in the measured categories suggests it would have likely placed in the lower half of the rankings. The tyre struggled in wet conditions, placing 7th in braking and 8th in both aquaplaning tests. It fared slightly better in dry handling, securing 6th place. However, without complete data across all test criteria, it's difficult to determine its exact position in the final order.
The Auto Bild 2024 summer tyre test for EVs showcases the importance of considering a balance of safety, performance, and efficiency when selecting tyres for electric vehicles. While EV-specific tyres can offer some advantages, the test proves that high-quality standard tyres can also rise to the challenge of providing excellent performance on these technologically advanced vehicles.
Dry
The Hankook iON evo SUV showcased the best dry braking performance, stopping just short of the Continental PremiumContact 7. The GT Radial SportActive 2 EV and Goodride ZuperEco Z-107 required the longest distances to come to a halt.
Dry 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.
Continental PremiumContact 7 demonstrated the most agile and precise handling on dry roads, closely followed by the Michelin's Pilot Sport 4 SUV and Bridgestone Potenza Sport. The Goodride ZuperEco Z-107 and GT Radial SportActive 2 EV struggled to keep up with the leaders in this discipline.
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
In wet braking tests, the Continental PremiumContact 7 outperformed the competition, with the Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 and Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV not far behind. The Goodride ZuperEco Z-107 had the longest braking distance on wet surfaces.
Wet 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.
The Bridgestone Potenza Sport and Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV displayed the best handling characteristics on wet roads, while the Goodride ZuperEco Z-107 was again last.
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).
The Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV had the highest resistance to aquaplaning in straight-line conditions, with most tyres performing similarly well. The Falken e.Ziex was the first to lose grip on the water-covered surface.
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
The Hankook iON evo SUV proved to be the quietest tyre, whereas the Bridgestone Potenza Sport produced the most noise.
Noise
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
The Continental PremiumContact 7 demonstrated the lowest wear rate, promising the highest mileage. The Bridgestone Potenza Sport had the highest wear, just half of the Continental.
Wear
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).
The rolling resistance and energy consumption tests yielded intriguing results, particularly for the Bridgestone Potenza Sport and GT Radial SportActive 2 EV tyres. In the rolling resistance test, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport had the highest rolling resistance, while the GT Radial SportActive 2 EV performed well, ranking second only to the Falken e.Ziex.
However, the real-world efficiency test revealed a different picture. The GT Radial SportActive 2 EV, despite its low rolling resistance in the lab test, consumed the most energy during real-world testing. This discrepancy highlights the importance of conducting both laboratory and real-world assessments to gain a comprehensive understanding of a tyre's performance.
The article does not provide specific theories to explain this discrepancy, but it is possible that other factors, such as the tyre's construction, compound, or interaction with the road surface, may have contributed to the GT Radial SportActive 2 EV's higher energy consumption in real-world conditions. Euros/1000km based on cost/wear 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). 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. Energy consumption in kW hours per 100 km 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. Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.Value
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 How this is calculated
Energy Consumption
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 Adjust the assumptions
The Continental PremiumContact 7 produced the least amount of tyre abrasion, suggesting a more environmentally friendly performance. The Bridgestone Potenza Sport had the highest abrasion rate, which may lead to increased tyre particulate emissions.
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).
Results
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV
235/55 R19 105Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 5th / 9 | 34.1 m | +1.10 m |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 9 | 70.9 km/h | -0.40 km/h |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 39.2 m | +1.50 m |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 9 | 58.5 km/h | -0.70 km/h |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 12.93 s | +0.05 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 1st / 9 | 95.5 km/h | Best in this discipline |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 9 | 3.25 m/sec2 | -0.03 m/sec2 |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 70 dB | +1.40 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 2nd / 8 | 35865 KM | -1,020.00 KM |
| ValueLower is better | 7th / 8 | 23.42 Price/1000 | +8.87 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 8th / 9 | 7.99 kg/t | +2.44 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 4th / 8 | 19.17 kWh/100km | +0.89 kWh/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 3rd / 8 | 1211 g | +142.00 g |
- EU Label
- C/A/72
- Weight
- 12.95 kgs
- Price
- 840.00
Continental PremiumContact 7
235/55 R19 105Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 33.2 m | +0.20 m |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 9 | 71.3 km/h | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 9 | 37.7 m | Best in this discipline |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 9 | 57.6 km/h | -1.60 km/h |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 1st / 9 | 12.88 s | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 7th / 9 | 93.4 km/h | -2.10 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 6th / 9 | 2.96 m/sec2 | -0.32 m/sec2 |
| NoiseLower is better | 5th / 9 | 70.3 dB | +1.70 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 1st / 8 | 36885 KM | Best in this discipline |
| ValueLower is better | 4th / 8 | 20.2 Price/1000 | +5.65 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4th / 9 | 6.64 kg/t | +1.09 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 2nd / 8 | 18.46 kWh/100km | +0.18 kWh/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 1st / 8 | 1069 g | Best in this discipline |
- EU Label
- C/A/72
- Weight
- 11.95 kgs
- Price
- 745.00
Hankook iON evo SUV
235/55 R19 105Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 1st / 9 | 33 m | Best in this discipline |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 9 | 70.2 km/h | -1.10 km/h |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 9 | 39.4 m | +1.70 m |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 9 | 57.1 km/h | -2.10 km/h |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 6th / 9 | 13.11 s | +0.23 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 4th / 9 | 94.4 km/h | -1.10 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 5th / 9 | 2.99 m/sec2 | -0.29 m/sec2 |
| NoiseLower is better | 1st / 9 | 68.6 dB | Best in this discipline |
| WearHigher is better | 3rd / 8 | 35695 KM | -1,190.00 KM |
| ValueLower is better | 2nd / 8 | 19.33 Price/1000 | +4.78 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 5th / 9 | 6.88 kg/t | +1.33 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 3rd / 8 | 18.83 kWh/100km | +0.55 kWh/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 2nd / 8 | 1141 g | +72.00 g |
- EU Label
- A/A/69
- Weight
- 13.35 kgs
- Price
- 690.00
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
235/55 R19 105Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 33.9 m | +0.90 m |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 9 | 70.4 km/h | -0.90 km/h |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 39.1 m | +1.40 m |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 9 | 58.3 km/h | -0.90 km/h |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 5th / 9 | 13.01 s | +0.13 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 3rd / 9 | 94.6 km/h | -0.90 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 2nd / 9 | 3.27 m/sec2 | -0.01 m/sec2 |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 70 dB | +1.40 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 5th / 8 | 33015 KM | -3,870.00 KM |
| ValueLower is better | 5th / 8 | 21.05 Price/1000 | +6.50 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 6th / 9 | 7.51 kg/t | +1.96 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 6th / 8 | 20.02 kWh/100km | +1.74 kWh/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 6th / 8 | 1234 g | +165.00 g |
- EU Label
- B/A/69
- Weight
- 13.08 kgs
- Price
- 695.00
Falken e.Ziex
235/55 R19 105V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 6th / 9 | 34.7 m | +1.70 m |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 9 | 69.6 km/h | -1.70 km/h |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 6th / 9 | 42.4 m | +4.70 m |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 9 | 56.3 km/h | -2.90 km/h |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 7th / 9 | 13.39 s | +0.51 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 9th / 9 | 92.1 km/h | -3.40 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 7th / 9 | 2.94 m/sec2 | -0.34 m/sec2 |
| NoiseLower is better | 4th / 9 | 70.2 dB | +1.60 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 6th / 8 | 27375 KM | -9,510.00 KM |
| ValueLower is better | 6th / 8 | 23.01 Price/1000 | +8.46 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 1st / 9 | 5.55 kg/t | Best in this discipline |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 1st / 8 | 18.28 kWh/100km | Best in this discipline |
| AbrasionLower is better | 7th / 8 | 1244 g | +175.00 g |
- EU Label
- A/A/69
- Weight
- 11.79 kgs
- Price
- 630.00
GT Radial Sport Active 2 EV
235/55 R19 105V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 9th / 9 | 37.9 m | +4.90 m |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 8th / 9 | 67.6 km/h | -3.70 km/h |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 8th / 9 | 46 m | +8.30 m |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 8th / 9 | 55.2 km/h | -4.00 km/h |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 8th / 9 | 13.45 s | +0.57 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 6th / 9 | 94.1 km/h | -1.40 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 9th / 9 | 2.64 m/sec2 | -0.64 m/sec2 |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 9 | 70.5 dB | +1.90 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 4th / 8 | 34905 KM | -1,980.00 KM |
| ValueLower is better | 3rd / 8 | 19.48 Price/1000 | +4.93 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 2nd / 9 | 6.17 kg/t | +0.62 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 8th / 8 | 20.82 kWh/100km | +2.54 kWh/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 5th / 8 | 1222 g | +153.00 g |
- EU Label
- A/A/69
- Weight
- 12.89 kgs
- Price
- 680.00
Bridgestone Potenza Sport
235/55 R19 105Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 4th / 9 | 34 m | +1.00 m |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 9 | 70.7 km/h | -0.60 km/h |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 9 | 39.4 m | +1.70 m |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 9 | 59.2 km/h | Best in this discipline |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 1st / 9 | 12.88 s | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 4th / 9 | 94.4 km/h | -1.10 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 4th / 9 | 3.24 m/sec2 | -0.04 m/sec2 |
| NoiseLower is better | 8th / 9 | 71.2 dB | +2.60 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 8th / 8 | 18530 KM | -18,355.00 KM |
| ValueLower is better | 8th / 8 | 38.32 Price/1000 | +23.77 Price/1000 |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 9th / 9 | 9.1 kg/t | +3.55 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 7th / 8 | 20.66 kWh/100km | +2.38 kWh/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 8th / 8 | 2093 g | +1,024.00 g |
- EU Label
- C/A/72
- Weight
- 13.48 kgs
- Price
- 710.00
Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco
235/55 R19 105V XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 8th / 9 | 37.2 m | +4.20 m |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 9th / 9 | 67.1 km/h | -4.20 km/h |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 9th / 9 | 48.1 m | +10.40 m |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 9th / 9 | 54.3 km/h | -4.90 km/h |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 9th / 9 | 13.95 s | +1.07 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 2nd / 9 | 94.7 km/h | -0.80 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 9 | 3.28 m/sec2 | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 9 | 70.5 dB | +1.90 dB |
| WearHigher is better | 7th / 8 | 27155 KM | -9,730.00 KM |
| ValueLower is better | 1st / 8 | 14.55 Price/1000 | Best in this discipline |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 7th / 9 | 7.71 kg/t | +2.16 kg/t |
| Energy ConsumptionLower is better | 5th / 8 | 19.88 kWh/100km | +1.60 kWh/100km |
| AbrasionLower is better | 3rd / 8 | 1211 g | +142.00 g |
- EU Label
- C/B/72
- Weight
- 13.10 kgs
- Price
- 395.00
Michelin Pilot Sport EV
235/55 R19
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (9)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Position in discipline | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 7th / 9 | 35 m | +2.00 m |
| Dry HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 9 | 70.1 km/h | -1.20 km/h |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 7th / 9 | 43.3 m | +5.60 m |
| Wet HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 9 | 56.2 km/h | -3.00 km/h |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 4th / 9 | 12.95 s | +0.07 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 8th / 9 | 93.2 km/h | -2.30 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 8th / 9 | 2.7 m/sec2 | -0.58 m/sec2 |
| NoiseLower is better | 9th / 9 | 71.3 dB | +2.70 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 3rd / 9 | 6.55 kg/t | +1.00 kg/t |
In your test, the Continental tire has lower rolling resistance than the Hankook. But according to the EU tire marking, the Continental tire is a C tire and the Hankook is an A tire. How can that be?
I don't know the answer (this isn't my test) however tyre manufacturers are allowed to downgrade label scores if they want to for marketing reasons.