Test Charts / Tyre Reviews

The Best Touring Tyres for 2025 Tested

Name: The Best Touring Tyres for 2025 Tested
Creator: Tyre Reviews
Published: 2025-03-03

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: 225/50 R17
Tyres tested: 7
Disciplines: 11

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
1Pirelli Cinturato C3	34.13 m	Best	0 km/h
2Falken ZIEX ZE320	34.21 m	+0.08 m	6 km/h
3Vredestein Ultrac	34.43 m	+0.30 m	12 km/h
4Continental PremiumContact 7	34.65 m	+0.52 m	16 km/h
5Michelin Primacy 4+	35.22 m	+1.09 m	23 km/h
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	35.27 m	+1.14 m	23 km/h
7Goodtrip GR 66	37.09 m	+2.96 m	37 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 8.7% (2.96 m ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Goodtrip GR 66 would still be travelling at 37 km/h when the Pirelli Cinturato C3 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
1Falken ZIEX ZE320	85.54 s	Best
2Pirelli Cinturato C3	85.61 s	+0.07 s
3Continental PremiumContact 7	85.73 s	+0.19 s
4Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	86.22 s	+0.68 s
5Michelin Primacy 4+	86.43 s	+0.89 s
6Vredestein Ultrac	86.57 s	+1.03 s
7Goodtrip GR 66	87.4 s	+1.86 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Primacy 4+	10 Points	Best
1Pirelli Cinturato C3	10 Points	Best
3Continental PremiumContact 7	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Falken ZIEX ZE320	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
5Vredestein Ultrac	9 Points	-1.00 Points
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
7Goodtrip GR 66	6 Points	-4.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 40% (4 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental PremiumContact 7	24.61 m	Best	0 km/h
2Pirelli Cinturato C3	24.96 m	+0.35 m	15 km/h
3Falken ZIEX ZE320	25.47 m	+0.86 m	24 km/h
4Vredestein Ultrac	25.79 m	+1.18 m	28 km/h
5Michelin Primacy 4+	27.16 m	+2.55 m	40 km/h
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	27.57 m	+2.96 m	43 km/h
7Goodtrip GR 66	34 m	+9.39 m	68 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 38.2% (9.39 m ≈ 2.1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Goodtrip GR 66 would still be travelling at 68 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
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Falken ZIEX ZE320	105.18 s	Best
2Vredestein Ultrac	106.28 s	+1.10 s
3Pirelli Cinturato C3	106.63 s	+1.45 s
4Continental PremiumContact 7	107.14 s	+1.96 s
5Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	108.05 s	+2.87 s
6Michelin Primacy 4+	109.92 s	+4.74 s
7Goodtrip GR 66	116.72 s	+11.54 s

The difference between best and worst was 11% (11.54 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Vredestein Ultrac	10 Points	Best
1Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	10 Points	Best
1Falken ZIEX ZE320	10 Points	Best
4Pirelli Cinturato C3	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
5Continental PremiumContact 7	9.25 Points	-0.75 Points
6Michelin Primacy 4+	8.75 Points	-1.25 Points
7Goodtrip GR 66	8 Points	-2.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 20% (2 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	98.1 km/h	Best
2Michelin Primacy 4+	97.7 km/h	-0.40 km/h
3Pirelli Cinturato C3	95.7 km/h	-2.40 km/h
4Falken ZIEX ZE320	95.5 km/h	-2.60 km/h
5Vredestein Ultrac	95.2 km/h	-2.90 km/h
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	92.1 km/h	-6.00 km/h
7Goodtrip GR 66	88.2 km/h	-9.90 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 10.1% (9.9 Km/H).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Cinturato C3	2.6 m/sec2	Best
2Michelin Primacy 4+	2.58 m/sec2	-0.02 m/sec2
3Continental PremiumContact 7	2.57 m/sec2	-0.03 m/sec2
4Vredestein Ultrac	2.55 m/sec2	-0.05 m/sec2
5Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	2.47 m/sec2	-0.13 m/sec2
6Goodtrip GR 66	2.35 m/sec2	-0.25 m/sec2
7Falken ZIEX ZE320	2.27 m/sec2	-0.33 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 12.7% (0.33 m/sec2).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Primacy 4+	10 Points	Best
2Vredestein Ultrac	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Continental PremiumContact 7	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Falken ZIEX ZE320	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4Pirelli Cinturato C3	9 Points	-1.00 Points
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
7Goodtrip GR 66	7 Points	-3.00 Points

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

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Vredestein Ultrac	70.9 dB	Best
2Michelin Primacy 4+	71.1 dB	+0.20 dB
3Falken ZIEX ZE320	71.2 dB	+0.30 dB
4Pirelli Cinturato C3	71.9 dB	+1.00 dB
5Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	72.6 dB	+1.70 dB
6Goodtrip GR 66	72.8 dB	+1.90 dB
7Continental PremiumContact 7	73.2 dB	+2.30 dB

The difference between best and worst was 3.2% (2.3 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	7.31 kg/t	Best	£0
2Michelin Primacy 4+	7.57 kg/t	+0.26 kg/t	£16
3Pirelli Cinturato C3	7.7 kg/t	+0.39 kg/t	£24
4Continental PremiumContact 7	7.72 kg/t	+0.41 kg/t	£25
5Falken ZIEX ZE320	7.77 kg/t	+0.46 kg/t	£28
6Vredestein Ultrac	7.78 kg/t	+0.47 kg/t	£28
7Goodtrip GR 66	7.94 kg/t	+0.63 kg/t	£38

The difference between best and worst was 8.6% (0.63 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Goodtrip GR 66 uses about 26 L (£38) more fuel than the Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN.

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.

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 → 5 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 · 35%
Dry Braking	45%	15.75%
Dry Handling	45%	15.75%
Subj. Dry Handling	10%	3.5%
Wet · 50%
Wet Braking	40%	20%
Wet Handling	35%	17.5%
Subj. Wet Handling	10%	5%
Straight Aqua	10%	5%
Curved Aquaplaning	5%	2.5%
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	50%	2.5%
Noise	50%	2.5%
Value · 10%
Rolling Resistance	100%	10%

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.

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 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

I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.

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.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tyre shortlist →Read the test →

More tyre tests