Wybór Kierowców has published a test of 6 all-season tyres in size 215/55 R17. The test included two budget segment tyres, three mid-range tyres, and one premium tyre.
Test Size:
215/55 R17
Tyres Tested:
6 tyres
Test Categories:
3 categories (6 tests)
Similar Tests
3 categories (6 tests)
This is the second official test of the SeasonProof 2, and the second win! However, the competition wasn't super stiff, the CrossClimate 2 has already been replaced, and I would expect Nokian to beat the rest of the brands without problem.
Still, a test is a test, see the data below!
Dry
Dry Braking
Dry Handling
Wet
Wet Braking
Wet Handling
Snow
Snow Braking
Snow Handling
Results
- 3PMSF: no
- Price: 588.00
The Nokian Tyres Seasonproof 2 takes first place in this test with the highest point score, demonstrating that mid-segment producers can now compete with premium brands. This Finnish tyre proves particularly impressive on wet surfaces, offering the highest level of safety in wet conditions with excellent handling characteristics. The tyre also excels in snowy conditions, winning the handling competition on snow and delivering very good braking performance. On dry asphalt, it performs very well, though it doesn't quite match the Michelin in outright dry grip. The main weakness is its high rolling resistance, which impacts fuel efficiency. Overall, the Seasonproof 2 provides consistently strong performance across all conditions without surprising the driver in any situation.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 2nd | 41.5 M | 93.73% |
| Dry Handling | 5th | 113.6 s | 99.47% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 1st | 28.6 M | 100% |
| Wet Handling | 1st | 73.8 s | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Snow Braking | 3rd | 16.2 M | 96.91% |
| Snow Handling | 1st | 86.9 s | 100% |
- 3PMSF: no
- Price: 656.00
The Michelin CrossClimate 2 is described as a perfectly balanced all-season tyre that often serves as the benchmark for this type of tyre. It wins against the Nokian on dry asphalt and snow, showing only slightly less capability on wet surfaces. The tyre delivers the highest level of safety with excellent steering precision across all conditions. It offers the best handling properties on dry asphalt among all tested tyres and demonstrates excellent parameters in winter conditions. A significant advantage is its low rolling resistance, contributing to good fuel economy. The CrossClimate 2 represents premium quality with no significant weaknesses, though it loses the top spot to the Nokian primarily due to its slightly reduced wet weather performance.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 1st | 38.9 M | 100% |
| Dry Handling | 2nd | 113.2 s | 99.82% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 3rd | 31.8 M | 89.94% |
| Wet Handling | 5th | 76.1 s | 96.98% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Snow Braking | 1st | 15.7 M | 100% |
| Snow Handling | 2nd | 88.9 s | 97.75% |
- 3PMSF: no
- Price: 439.00
The Dębica Navigator 3 achieves a podium finish, which represents a significant success for this Polish budget-segment tyre. The tyre is properly balanced with similar performance levels across all road conditions, meaning it doesn't surprise the driver in any situation and is perceived as safe. It wins the competition on the dry handling circuit and achieves the lowest rolling resistance in the test, making it the most fuel-efficient option. The tyre also demonstrates high lateral grip on wet surfaces. However, its braking performance on wet asphalt is only average, which prevents it from scoring higher. The Navigator 3 offers excellent value for money with consistent, predictable performance.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 4th | 43.4 M | 89.63% |
| Dry Handling | 1st | 113 s | 100% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 5th | 34.7 M | 82.42% |
| Wet Handling | 3rd | 75.7 s | 97.49% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Snow Braking | 5th | 16.6 M | 94.58% |
| Snow Handling | 4th | 91.1 s | 95.39% |
- 3PMSF: no
- Price: 418.00
The Kumho Solus 4S HA32+ shares third place with the Dębica, showing a similar characteristic of balanced parameters across different surfaces. The Korean tyre outperforms the Dębica on wet surfaces and snow, providing better grip in these conditions. It also features a low rolling resistance coefficient, contributing to good fuel efficiency. The tyre's strength lies in its consistent behavior across varying conditions, making it predictable for drivers. However, it loses points to the Dębica on dry asphalt performance and in the rolling resistance category. While it doesn't win any individual test, its average performance on lateral wet grip is noted, and it shows an extended braking distance on dry surfaces, which are its main drawbacks.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 6th | 44.8 M | 86.83% |
| Dry Handling | 3rd | 113.3 s | 99.74% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 4th | 32.5 M | 88% |
| Wet Handling | 4th | 75.9 s | 97.23% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Snow Braking | 2nd | 16.1 M | 97.52% |
| Snow Handling | 3rd | 90.4 s | 96.13% |
- 3PMSF: no
- Price: 489.00
The Vredestein Quatrac Pro+ finishes in fifth place, losing out to its immediate rivals primarily due to poor fuel efficiency scores and weaker snow performance. The Dutch tyre is not as well-balanced as competitors, showing very good performance on wet asphalt with short braking distances and high lateral grip, while also performing reasonably well on dry surfaces. However, it significantly loses points in winter conditions, where it demonstrates the weakest snow performance in the test. The tyre also suffers from the highest rolling resistance coefficient in the group, negatively impacting fuel economy. Despite these shortcomings, the Quatrac Pro+ maintains strong wet weather capabilities, making it suitable for drivers prioritizing wet performance over winter competence.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 5th | 43.8 M | 88.81% |
| Dry Handling | 6th | 113.7 s | 99.38% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 2nd | 30.9 M | 92.56% |
| Wet Handling | 2nd | 74.9 s | 98.53% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Snow Braking | 6th | 17.1 M | 91.81% |
| Snow Handling | 5th | 91.2 s | 95.29% |
- 3PMSF: no
- Price: 442.00
The Sunny NC501 finishes last in the test with an average point score, though it maintains required safety margins throughout. The Chinese budget tyre loses the most points on wet surfaces, where it performs poorly with the longest braking distances and weakest handling characteristics. On dry roads and in winter conditions, the NC501 performs at an average level without any particular strengths or weaknesses. The tyre also suffers from high rolling resistance, impacting fuel efficiency negatively. While it offers decent dry road parameters, the significant performance gap on wet asphalt is concerning. The price is not particularly attractive compared to better-performing alternatives, making it difficult to recommend despite meeting basic safety requirements.
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | 2nd | 41.5 M | 93.73% |
| Dry Handling | 4th | 113.4 s | 99.65% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wet Braking | 6th | 35.4 M | 80.79% |
| Wet Handling | 6th | 78.5 s | 94.01% |
| Test | # | Result | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Snow Braking | 4th | 16.5 M | 95.15% |
| Snow Handling | 6th | 91.6 s | 94.87% |