German publication AutoBild has tested eight summer tyres in the 215/55 R18 size specifically aimed at electric vehicles. The test aimed to find tyres that could achieve the difficult balance between energy efficiency (for maximum EV range) and safety performance.

AutoBild evaluated models from premium manufacturers like Continental, Goodyear and Michelin alongside offerings from mid-range brands including Falken, Firestone and Yokohama, plus budget option Goodride. Interestingly, only two tyres in the test - the Hankook iON evo and Falken e.Ziex - were specifically designed as EV tyres, while others were standard tyres that manufacturers claim are also suitable for electric vehicles.

Test setup & methodology

The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.

Recorded test conditions

Wet Braking: 100 → 0 km/h

Testing was conducted on a Hyundai Kona EV, with tyres put through wet and dry handling, braking, and aquaplaning tests. Additionally, the publication measured rolling resistance and conducted a roll-out test to determine real-world range impact. The results showed that in extreme cases, tyre choice could affect vehicle range by up to 70 kilometers (43 miles.)

One of the most interesting findings was that the Hankook iON evo, specifically designed for EVs, claimed the overall victory, but standard tyres from Continental and Goodyear followed extremely closely behind. This suggests that the gap between dedicated EV tyres and high-quality standard tyres is minimal when balancing safety and efficiency needs.

Goodyear's EfficientGrip 2 SUV was awarded AutoBild's "Green Tyre 2025" environmental seal due to its excellent balance of rolling resistance, longevity, and environmental characteristics.

Dry

Hankook iON evo achieved the shortest braking distance of 33.6 meters, with Continental close behind at 34.5 meters. Goodride Solmax 1 needed significantly more distance at 37.8 meters, showing the safety gap between premium and budget options.

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON Evo	33.6 m	Best
2Continental PremiumContact 7	34.5 m	+0.90 m
3Michelin Primacy 4+	35.1 m	+1.50 m
4Falken e.Ziex	35.7 m	+2.10 m
5Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	35.9 m	+2.30 m
6Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	36.6 m	+3.00 m
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	36.6 m	+3.00 m
8Goodride Solmax 1	37.8 m	+4.20 m

The difference between best and worst was 12.5% (4.2 m ≈ 0.9 Car Lengths).

Hankook topped the handling test with 92.8 km/h average speed, followed by Continental at 91.9 km/h and Goodyear at 91.1 km/h. The Goodride again finished last with 88.2 km/h, confirming its limited cornering abilities.

Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON Evo	92.8 km/h	Best
2Continental PremiumContact 7	91.9 km/h	-0.90 km/h
3Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	91.1 km/h	-1.70 km/h
4Michelin Primacy 4+	90.8 km/h	-2.00 km/h
5Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	90.5 km/h	-2.30 km/h
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	90.4 km/h	-2.40 km/h
7Falken e.Ziex	90.2 km/h	-2.60 km/h
8Goodride Solmax 1	88.2 km/h	-4.60 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 5% (4.6 Km/H).

Wet

Continental took the lead in wet conditions with a 39.4-meter stopping distance, just ahead of Hankook at 39.6 meters. The gap to last-place Goodride widened to 48.7 meters, a 23% increase that could be critical in emergency situations.

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental PremiumContact 7	39.4 m	Best	0 km/h
2Hankook iON Evo	39.6 m	+0.20 m	9 km/h
3Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	41.8 m	+2.40 m	31 km/h
4Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	42.2 m	+2.80 m	33 km/h
5Michelin Primacy 4+	43.2 m	+3.80 m	39 km/h
6Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	44.9 m	+5.50 m	45 km/h
7Falken e.Ziex	45.6 m	+6.20 m	48 km/h
8Goodride Solmax 1	48.7 m	+9.30 m	57 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 23.6% (9.3 m ≈ 2.1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Goodride Solmax 1 would still be travelling at 57 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.

Hankook led wet handling with 74.4 km/h, narrowly beating Continental's 74.1 km/h. Goodyear maintained third position while Falken e.Ziex fell to second-last despite its EV-specific design.

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON Evo	74.4 km/h	Best
2Continental PremiumContact 7	74.1 km/h	-0.30 km/h
3Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	72.9 km/h	-1.50 km/h
4Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	72 km/h	-2.40 km/h
5Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	71.5 km/h	-2.90 km/h
6Michelin Primacy 4+	70.6 km/h	-3.80 km/h
7Falken e.Ziex	69.3 km/h	-5.10 km/h
8Goodride Solmax 1	68.4 km/h	-6.00 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 8.1% (6 Km/H).

In the wet circle test, Hankook continued strong with 12.45 seconds, followed by Continental and Yokohama. Goodride again struggled with the slowest time at 13.03 seconds.

Wet Circle
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON Evo	12.45 s	Best
2Continental PremiumContact 7	12.59 s	+0.14 s
3Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	12.67 s	+0.22 s
4Falken e.Ziex	12.68 s	+0.23 s
5Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	12.7 s	+0.25 s
6Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	12.79 s	+0.34 s
7Michelin Primacy 4+	12.86 s	+0.41 s
8Goodride Solmax 1	13.03 s	+0.58 s

The difference between best and worst was 4.7% (0.58 s).

Firestone Roadhawk 2 resisted aquaplaning up to 80.1 km/h, significantly better than its performance in other tests. Hankook placed second at 74.8 km/h, while Yokohama lost grip earliest at 63.7 km/h.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	80.1 km/h	Best
2Hankook iON Evo	74.8 km/h	-5.30 km/h
3Falken e.Ziex	72.6 km/h	-7.50 km/h
4Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	71.5 km/h	-8.60 km/h
5Continental PremiumContact 7	69.3 km/h	-10.80 km/h
6Goodride Solmax 1	67.5 km/h	-12.60 km/h
7Michelin Primacy 4+	65.8 km/h	-14.30 km/h
8Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	63.7 km/h	-16.40 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 20.5% (16.4 Km/H).

Firestone maintained its aquaplaning advantage in curves with 3.02 m/s² lateral acceleration. Hankook again followed in second place, while Yokohama continued to struggle with water evacuation.

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	3.02 m/sec2	Best
2Hankook iON Evo	2.97 m/sec2	-0.05 m/sec2
3Goodride Solmax 1	2.85 m/sec2	-0.17 m/sec2
4Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	2.84 m/sec2	-0.18 m/sec2
4Falken e.Ziex	2.84 m/sec2	-0.18 m/sec2
6Continental PremiumContact 7	2.74 m/sec2	-0.28 m/sec2
7Michelin Primacy 4+	2.6 m/sec2	-0.42 m/sec2
8Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	2.58 m/sec2	-0.44 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 14.6% (0.44 m/sec2).

Comfort

Yokohama produced the least external noise at 68.7 dB, a key advantage for quiet EV operation. Continental and Firestone were the loudest at over 72 dB, showing their focus on grip over comfort.

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	68.7 dB	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	69.9 dB	+1.20 dB
3Hankook iON Evo	70.2 dB	+1.50 dB
4Goodride Solmax 1	70.3 dB	+1.60 dB
5Falken e.Ziex	70.9 dB	+2.20 dB
6Michelin Primacy 4+	71.2 dB	+2.50 dB
7Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	72 dB	+3.30 dB
8Continental PremiumContact 7	72.1 dB	+3.40 dB

The difference between best and worst was 4.9% (3.4 dB).

Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV leads in subjective comfort with 8 points, highlighting its balanced approach to both efficiency and ride quality. Most premium contenders like Hankook, Continental, Michelin and Falken offer respectable comfort with 7 points. The budget Goodride Solmax 1 trails significantly with just 5 points, showing where cost-cutting affects the driving experience most noticeably.

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	8 Points	Best
2Michelin Primacy 4+	7 Points	-1.00 Points
2Continental PremiumContact 7	7 Points	-1.00 Points
2Falken e.Ziex	7 Points	-1.00 Points
2Hankook iON Evo	7 Points	-1.00 Points
2Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	7 Points	-1.00 Points
7Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	6 Points	-2.00 Points
8Goodride Solmax 1	5 Points	-3.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 37.5% (3 Points).

Value

Goodyear showed the best durability with a projected 49,050 km lifespan. Michelin placed second at 44,920 km, while Firestone's 28,510 km was just over half of Goodyear's life expectancy.

Wear
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	49,050 KM	Best
2Michelin Primacy 4+	44,920 KM	-4,130 KM
3Hankook iON Evo	43,120 KM	-5,930 KM
4Continental PremiumContact 7	40,890 KM	-8,160 KM
5Falken e.Ziex	36,790 KM	-12,260 KM
6Goodride Solmax 1	31,030 KM	-18,020 KM
7Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	30,280 KM	-18,770 KM
8Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	28,510 KM	-20,540 KM

The difference between best and worst was 41.9% (20,540 KM).

Budget Goodride offered the best cost efficiency at €11 per 1,000 km despite performance limitations. Goodyear combined durability with competitive pricing for second place, while premium-priced Michelin ranked last at €16.4 per 1,000 km.

Value
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	cost per 1,000 km
1Goodride Solmax 1	11 Price/1000	Best	€16.55
2Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	12 Price/1000	+1.00 Price/1000	€16.63
3Falken e.Ziex	14.9 Price/1000	+3.90 Price/1000	€16.85
4Hankook iON Evo	15.1 Price/1000	+4.10 Price/1000	€19.03
5Continental PremiumContact 7	15.2 Price/1000	+4.20 Price/1000	€21.30
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	15.6 Price/1000	+4.60 Price/1000	€21.68
7Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	15.7 Price/1000	+4.70 Price/1000	€22.23
8Michelin Primacy 4+	16.4 Price/1000	+5.40 Price/1000	€19.52

The difference between best and worst was 49.1% (5.4 Price/1000). Over 40,000 km the cheapest tyre to own (Goodride Solmax 1) works out €227 cheaper than the most expensive (Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61).

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 2025 test; financing costs are excluded.

Falken e.Ziex recorded the lowest rolling resistance at 5.86 kg/t, followed by Michelin and Hankook. Continental had the highest at 7.66 kg/t, showing its priority on grip over efficiency.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra energy / year
1Falken e.Ziex	5.86 kg/t	Best	£0
2Michelin Primacy 4+	6.51 kg/t	+0.65 kg/t	£27
3Hankook iON Evo	6.81 kg/t	+0.95 kg/t	£39
4Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	7.15 kg/t	+1.29 kg/t	£53
5Goodride Solmax 1	7.22 kg/t	+1.36 kg/t	£56
6Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	7.33 kg/t	+1.47 kg/t	£60
7Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	7.58 kg/t	+1.72 kg/t	£70
8Continental PremiumContact 7	7.66 kg/t	+1.80 kg/t	£74

The difference between best and worst was 30.7% (1.8 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £0.28/kWh, the Continental PremiumContact 7 uses about 263 kWh (£74) more electricity than the Falken e.Ziex.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.

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.

Falken's efficiency translated to 410 km range, 65.6 km more than Continental's 344.4 km. Hankook balanced performance with efficiency for second place at 381.3 km, highlighting how tyre choice affects EV range.

Range
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Falken e.Ziex	410 km	Best
2Hankook iON Evo	381 km	-29 km
3Michelin Primacy 4+	377 km	-33 km
4Goodride Solmax 1	373 km	-37 km
5Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV	373 km	-37 km
5Yokohama BluEarth XT AE61	373 km	-37 km
7Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN	353 km	-57 km
8Continental PremiumContact 7	344 km	-66 km

The difference between best and worst was 16% (65.6 km).

Results

The Hankook iON evo, specifically designed for electric vehicles, achieved first place with outstanding wet and dry performance. It delivered excellent braking distances (39.6m in wet, 33.6m in dry), strong handling characteristics, and good aquaplaning resistance. With a projected lifespan of 43,120km and moderate rolling resistance (6.81 kg/t), it provides a good balance between safety and efficiency. The tyre offered 381.3km of range in the EV test and strong cornering grip, securing an overall "exemplary" rating.

Dry100%

Wet99%

Comfort92.7%

Value85.3%

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	1^st / 8	33.6 m	Best in this discipline
Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	92.8 km/h	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	39.6 m	+0.20 m
Wet HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	74.4 km/h	Best in this discipline
Wet CircleLower is better	1^st / 8	12.45 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 8	74.8 km/h	-5.30 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 8	2.97 m/sec2	-0.05 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 8	7 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 8	70.2 dB	+1.50 dB
WearHigher is better	3^rd / 8	43120 KM	-5,930.00 KM
ValueLower is better	4^th / 8	15.1 Price/1000	+4.10 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	3^rd / 8	6.81 kg/t	+0.95 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	2^nd / 8	381.3 km	-28.70 km

EU Label: B/A/69
Price: 650.00

Continental's PremiumContact 7 delivered the shortest wet braking distance (39.4m) and strong dry performance. Despite having the highest rolling resistance in the test (7.66 kg/t) and lowest range impact (344.4km), its safety credentials remained impressive with sharp handling characteristics and a projected lifespan of 40,890km. This tyre secured second place with minimal difference from the winner, proving standard tyres can perform effectively on EVs.

Dry98.2%

Wet97.1%

Comfort91.4%

Value79.2%

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	2^nd / 8	34.5 m	+0.90 m
Dry HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 8	91.9 km/h	-0.90 km/h
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	39.4 m	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 8	74.1 km/h	-0.30 km/h
Wet CircleLower is better	2^nd / 8	12.59 s	+0.14 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 8	69.3 km/h	-10.80 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 8	2.74 m/sec2	-0.28 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 8	7 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 8	72.1 dB	+3.40 dB
WearHigher is better	4^th / 8	40890 KM	-8,160.00 KM
ValueLower is better	5^th / 8	15.2 Price/1000	+4.20 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	8^th / 8	7.66 kg/t	+1.80 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	8^th / 8	344.4 km	-65.60 km

EU Label: C/A/71
Price: 620.00

The Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV achieved third place and won the "Green Tyre" award for its environmental credentials. Its standout feature was exceptional longevity with a projected 49,050km lifespan - the highest in the test. The tyre offered balanced wet (42.2m braking) and dry performance with moderate rolling resistance (7.15 kg/t). Its range impact was 373.1km, placing it mid-field, but its overall combination of efficiency and safety secured its position as the most environmentally friendly option.

Dry95.9%

Wet95.2%

Comfort99.1%

Value91.1%

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	5^th / 8	35.9 m	+2.30 m
Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	91.1 km/h	-1.70 km/h
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	42.2 m	+2.80 m
Wet HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	72.9 km/h	-1.50 km/h
Wet CircleLower is better	6^th / 8	12.79 s	+0.34 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 8	71.5 km/h	-8.60 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	4^th / 8	2.84 m/sec2	-0.18 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	1^st / 8	8 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 8	69.9 dB	+1.20 dB
WearHigher is better	1^st / 8	49050 KM	Best in this discipline
ValueLower is better	2^nd / 8	12 Price/1000	+1.00 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	4^th / 8	7.15 kg/t	+1.29 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	5^th / 8	373.1 km	-36.90 km

EU Label: B/A/70
Price: 590.00

The Michelin Primacy 4+ delivered good all-round performance with short braking distances (43.2m wet, 35.1m dry) and solid handling. It showed low rolling resistance (6.51 kg/t) and delivered 377.2km of range in the test. As the most expensive tyre (€735), it offered strong longevity (44,920km) but suffered from limited aquaplaning resistance, especially in curved conditions. While not explicitly marketed as an EV tyre, it performed well in efficiency metrics.

Dry96.8%

Wet92.1%

Comfort92%

Value86.1%

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	3^rd / 8	35.1 m	+1.50 m
Dry HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 8	90.8 km/h	-2.00 km/h
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	43.2 m	+3.80 m
Wet HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 8	70.6 km/h	-3.80 km/h
Wet CircleLower is better	7^th / 8	12.86 s	+0.41 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 8	65.8 km/h	-14.30 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	7^th / 8	2.6 m/sec2	-0.42 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 8	7 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 8	71.2 dB	+2.50 dB
WearHigher is better	2^nd / 8	44920 KM	-4,130.00 KM
ValueLower is better	8^th / 8	16.4 Price/1000	+5.40 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 8	6.51 kg/t	+0.65 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	3^rd / 8	377.2 km	-32.80 km

EU Label: B/A/70
Price: 735.00

The Falken e.Ziex, specifically designed for EVs, stood out for having the lowest rolling resistance (5.86 kg/t) and provided the best range result (410km). It demonstrated good aquaplaning resistance but showed longer wet braking distances (45.6m) compared to top performers. With average dry handling and a moderate projected lifespan of 36,790km, it secured a "good" overall rating with clear focus on efficiency over ultimate grip.

Dry95.7%

Wet92.5%

Comfort92.2%

Value87.3%

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	4^th / 8	35.7 m	+2.10 m
Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	90.2 km/h	-2.60 km/h
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	45.6 m	+6.20 m
Wet HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	69.3 km/h	-5.10 km/h
Wet CircleLower is better	4^th / 8	12.68 s	+0.23 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 8	72.6 km/h	-7.50 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	4^th / 8	2.84 m/sec2	-0.18 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 8	7 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 8	70.9 dB	+2.20 dB
WearHigher is better	5^th / 8	36790 KM	-12,260.00 KM
ValueLower is better	3^rd / 8	14.9 Price/1000	+3.90 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	1^st / 8	5.86 kg/t	Best in this discipline
RangeHigher is better	1^st / 8	410 km	Best in this discipline

EU Label: A/A/72
Price: 550.00

The Firestone Roadhawk 2 excelled in aquaplaning resistance, achieving the best performance in both straight-line (80.1 km/h) and curved aquaplaning tests (3.02 m/s²). However, it showed limitations in wet braking (41.8m) and overall grip. With a modest projected lifespan of 28,510km (the lowest in the test) and mid-range rolling resistance (7.33 kg/t), the tyre's range impact was below average at 352.6km. Its performance earned a "satisfactory" rating.

Dry94.6%

Wet97.2%

Comfort91.5%

Value72.9%

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	6^th / 8	36.6 m	+3.00 m
Dry HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 8	90.4 km/h	-2.40 km/h
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	41.8 m	+2.40 m
Wet HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 8	72 km/h	-2.40 km/h
Wet CircleLower is better	5^th / 8	12.7 s	+0.25 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 8	80.1 km/h	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 8	3.02 m/sec2	Best in this discipline
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 8	7 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 8	72 dB	+3.30 dB
WearHigher is better	8^th / 8	28510 KM	-20,540.00 KM
ValueLower is better	6^th / 8	15.6 Price/1000	+4.60 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 8	7.33 kg/t	+1.47 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	7^th / 8	352.6 km	-57.40 km

EU Label: B/A/71
Price: 445.00

The Yokohama BluEarth-XT recorded the quietest passing noise in the test (68.7 dB at 80 km/h), making it ideal for silent EVs. Its dry performance was reasonable, but wet weather capabilities showed weaknesses, particularly in aquaplaning resistance where it recorded the lowest values. With a projected lifespan of 30,280km and high rolling resistance (7.58 kg/t), its range impact was 373.1km. The tyre received a "satisfactory" rating for its mixed performance profile.

Dry94.7%

Wet91.5%

Comfort87.5%

Value74.1%

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	6^th / 8	36.6 m	+3.00 m
Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 8	90.5 km/h	-2.30 km/h
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	44.9 m	+5.50 m
Wet HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 8	71.5 km/h	-2.90 km/h
Wet CircleLower is better	3^rd / 8	12.67 s	+0.22 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 8	63.7 km/h	-16.40 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	8^th / 8	2.58 m/sec2	-0.44 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	7^th / 8	6 Points	-2.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 8	68.7 dB	Best in this discipline
WearHigher is better	7^th / 8	30280 KM	-18,770.00 KM
ValueLower is better	7^th / 8	15.7 Price/1000	+4.70 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	7^th / 8	7.58 kg/t	+1.72 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	5^th / 8	373.1 km	-36.90 km

EU Label: C/A/68
Price: 475.00

As the budget option, the Goodride Solmax 1 showed significant compromises in safety. It recorded the longest wet braking distance (48.7m) and limited handling capabilities. Its projected lifespan was 31,030km with moderate rolling resistance (7.22 kg/t), providing a range of 373.2km. Despite its affordable price (€340), its safety limitations resulted in a "conditionally recommended" rating, placing it last in the test.

Dry92%

Wet89.4%

Comfort80.1%

Value82%

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	8^th / 8	37.8 m	+4.20 m
Dry HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 8	88.2 km/h	-4.60 km/h
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	48.7 m	+9.30 m
Wet HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 8	68.4 km/h	-6.00 km/h
Wet CircleLower is better	8^th / 8	13.03 s	+0.58 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 8	67.5 km/h	-12.60 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 8	2.85 m/sec2	-0.17 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	8^th / 8	5 Points	-3.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 8	70.3 dB	+1.60 dB
WearHigher is better	6^th / 8	31030 KM	-18,020.00 KM
ValueLower is better	1^st / 8	11 Price/1000	Best in this discipline
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	5^th / 8	7.22 kg/t	+1.36 kg/t
RangeHigher is better	4^th / 8	373.2 km	-36.80 km

EU Label: X/X/72
Price: 340.00

Discussion

12 comments

Phillip Jenkins Apr 24, 2025 archived

These are great tests and the results are very helpful. However, I have a 2020 Tesla Model Y that have 255/40R20 so it's harder or impossible to find in your test fleet. In my location of Minneapolis it's VERY common to have dedicated snows (mine are Sottozero 3) and a good All Season for the rest of the year. It turns out finding a good 3+ seasons tire in my size is not easy. I must walk thru a whole series of trade-offs to get a few remaining features I can live with. I can find a summer tire with does well dry & wet & handling & braking. But replacing that soft rubber every 25K miles? I managed nearly 30K miles out of the original Eagle F1 that came with my Model Y (they've changed that now) only because I have experience driving a 4200 pound over-powered car before. It's not the weight its the heavy foot. Taking the highway cloverleaf ramp at 55 mph when it's 90 degrees F means you rub off 1000 hwy miles in 15 seconds. Anyway, some tire testing with my tire size requirements would be immensely helpful. You do great testing! Thank you for that work.

#10086
1. Sebastien Phillip Jenkins Jul 24, 2025 archived
  
  I am in Canada and Hankook has the winter version of the iON. It's called the ION icept
  
  #10247
Benjamin Hojnik Mar 26, 2025 archived

That's a lot of difference a tire can make on the range! Is there any data on this publication at what sort of speed range tests were performed?

#10049
1. TyreReviews Benjamin Hojnik Apr 11, 2025 archived
  
  I didn't see that data, sorry.
  
  #10063
2. James Benjamin Hojnik Dec 1, 2025 archived
  
  This is a great question! From what I understand, the impact of tires on range is much smaller at highway speeds. So if this test was run at highway speeds, you might see as much as 2x this impact at slower speeds, versus if this test was done at lower speeds, the impact could be as little as 1/2 of this at highway speeds
  
  #10451
  1. TyreReviews James Dec 2, 2025 archived
    
    I believe Autobild usually run the tyres on an oval around 80kmh but I would need to check.
    A tyres impact remains relatively constant but you are correct that the aero factor squares so at higher speeds the air is a bigger issue.
    
    #10452
    1. Dima TyreReviews Jun 23, 2026
      
      It's actually 100 km/h for braking tests (as stated in the original article).
      But I couldn't find the RANGE test. What is it? 410.00 km means what?
      
      #10663
      1. TyreReviews Dima Jun 23, 2026
        
        We were discussing the range test, where the vehicle is driven in an oval at a constant speed, which I thought was 80. 100km/h is the braking test, which is different (and they actually measure from 80 in the wet and calculate up to 100)
        
        The 410km is the estimated ev range with that tyre based on the range test.
        
        #10664
Pedro Neves Mar 20, 2025 archived

Shouldn´t the range scale be the other way around? I believe the Falken should have a 100% grade and be the 1st and the Continental 84%, being the 8th.

#10032
1. TyreReviews Pedro Neves Mar 20, 2025 archived
  
  Which chart are you referring to?
  
  #10033
  1. Pedro Neves TyreReviews Mar 20, 2025 archived
    
    The last one
    
    #10035
    1. TyreReviews Pedro Neves Mar 20, 2025 archived
      
      Yes you are correct, nice spot. Let me fix that.
      
      #10037

Menu

Tyre shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry

Wet

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test