There's a new comfort bias summer tyre to market, the Pirelli Cinturato C3! To see how good the new tyre really is, I've tested it against some of its key rivals from Michelin and Continental. I've also added some new tyres I've not tested before.
As usual, all the tyres in this test will be tested in the dry and wet, and I'll be assessing the comfort, noise, and rolling resistance (energy use) of the tyres to give you a complete overview of which tyre is best.
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.
Dry
Dry handling was very close! As always for the dry I'm not just testing outright lap time, as that is probably less interesting for this category of tyre, but we're digging deep into things like steering precision and predictability, things which impact your life on the road with these tyres.
The Firestone was lovely and predictable driving around, light steering, but as you sped up the rear got saturated quickly.
The Vredestein felt pretty bouncy, the steering wasn't precise and the softness of the tyre meant the rear took time to stabilise when turning which isn't a feeling I enjoy, it means you're guessing where the car is going. Otherwise, great grip.
The Falken felt more sporty, and was very stable, this new falken continues to perform well.
The top three were pretty difficult to pick from, which were the Conti, Michelin and Pirelli. The Conti had the quickest steering but did feel a touch elastic in this size, whereas the Michelin and Pirelli both felt very stable, rounded, mature and had excellent grip.
Subjectively it was very hard to pick a favorite between Michelin and Pirelli, but as the Pirelli was faster around the lap, it won.
Dry Handling
Dry handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 85.54 s | Best | |
| 85.61 s | +0.07 s | |
| 85.73 s | +0.19 s | |
| 86.22 s | +0.68 s | |
| 86.43 s | +0.89 s | |
| 86.57 s | +1.03 s | |
| 87.4 s | +1.86 s |
All the tyres in the Dry Handling test finished less than 3% apart.
The Pirelli Cinturato C3 needed just 34.13 meters to stop from 100 km/h, while the Goodtrip GR 66 took nearly 3 meters longer at 37.09 meters.
Dry Braking
Dry braking in meters (100 - 5 km/h)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 34.13 m | Best | 0 km/h | |
| 34.21 m | +0.08 m | 6 km/h | |
| 34.43 m | +0.30 m | 12 km/h | |
| 34.65 m | +0.52 m | 16 km/h | |
| 35.22 m | +1.09 m | 23 km/h | |
| 35.27 m | +1.14 m | 23 km/h | |
| 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.
Wet
It's been a while since I wet tested in a RWD car, and while safety systems have come a long way, it is a nice reminder how important tyres are.
The Goodtrip must have been named ironically as you wouldn't have a good trip in the wet. To be fair to it, it's not the worst cheap tyre I've ever used, but it certainly doesn't compare to the rest.
Next up was the Michelin Primacy 4+, as usual this was classic Michelin, super safe feeling with plenty of understeer. The French tyre is now a little down on grip, showing its age as one of the oldest tyres in this test.
The top 5 were separated by less than 3% which is crazy close on such a complicated track. While all the times were close, as usual, the grip was delivered in varying ways.
The Firestone was an easy tyre to drive, the rear felt very planted and it posted a good time, it didn't feel special but it wasn't particularly bad in any way either.
Next up was the Continental, and we're now 1.8% away from the best so these is a very tight group.
I usually love Continental in subjective handling, but in this size and this vehicle it didn't really gel for me. Still loads of grip, but the rear was a little behind the front, and the front had high levels of understeer. But again, we're within 2% of the best.
Third and second was the new Pirelli and the Vredestein Ultrac. The Pirelli felt like one of the best on this vehicle with nice steering and a solid balance, whereas the Vredestein felt a little sluggish in comparison but like always, the Ultrac had buckets of grip.
Finally, the new Falken posted the fastest time by the smallest of margins. It felt very similar to the vredestein, as in a little sluggish compared to the Pirelli, but loads of grip and no issue with the deeper water on the track.
Wet Handling
Wet handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 105.18 s | Best | |
| 106.28 s | +1.10 s | |
| 106.63 s | +1.45 s | |
| 107.14 s | +1.96 s | |
| 108.05 s | +2.87 s | |
| 109.92 s | +4.74 s | |
| 116.72 s | +11.54 s |
The difference between best and worst was 11% (11.54 s).
A very close handling test, so let's see if braking is can spread things out!
The Continental PremiumContact 7 showed its wet weather ability by stopping in just 24.61 meters from 80 km/h. The Goodtrip GR 66 needed an extra 9.4 meters to stop, taking 34 meters in total - a significant safety gap between best and worst.
Wet Braking
Wet braking in meters (80 - 5 km/h)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24.61 m | Best | 0 km/h | |
| 24.96 m | +0.35 m | 15 km/h | |
| 25.47 m | +0.86 m | 24 km/h | |
| 25.79 m | +1.18 m | 28 km/h | |
| 27.16 m | +2.55 m | 40 km/h | |
| 27.57 m | +2.96 m | 43 km/h | |
| 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.
The Continental PremiumContact 7 maintained grip up to 98.1 km/h before aquaplaning, while the Goodtrip GR 66 lost control at just 88.2 km/h.
Straight Aqua
Float Speed in Km/H
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 98.1 km/h | Best | |
| 97.7 km/h | -0.40 km/h | |
| 95.7 km/h | -2.40 km/h | |
| 95.5 km/h | -2.60 km/h | |
| 95.2 km/h | -2.90 km/h | |
| 92.1 km/h | -6.00 km/h | |
| 88.2 km/h | -9.90 km/h |
The difference between best and worst was 10.1% (9.9 Km/H).
The Pirelli Cinturato C3 generated the most grip in curved aquaplaning with 2.6 m/s², while the Falken could only manage 2.27 m/s². Unlike other wet tests, the Goodtrip wasn't the worst performer here.
Curved Aquaplaning
Remaining lateral acceleration
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 2.6 m/sec2 | Best | |
| 2.58 m/sec2 | -0.02 m/sec2 | |
| 2.57 m/sec2 | -0.03 m/sec2 | |
| 2.55 m/sec2 | -0.05 m/sec2 | |
| 2.47 m/sec2 | -0.13 m/sec2 | |
| 2.35 m/sec2 | -0.25 m/sec2 | |
| 2.27 m/sec2 | -0.33 m/sec2 |
The difference between best and worst was 12.7% (0.33 m/sec2).
Comfort
The Michelin Primacy 4+ led the comfort ratings with a perfect 10/10 score. The Goodtrip GR 66 scored lowest at 7/10, feeling somewhat firm in all impact conditions.
Subj. Comfort
Subjective Comfort Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Points | Best | |
| 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 9 Points | -1.00 Points | |
| 9 Points | -1.00 Points | |
| 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points | |
| 7 Points | -3.00 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 30% (3 Points).
The Vredestein Ultrac was the quietest tyre tested at 70.9 dB, while the Continental PremiumContact 7 was the loudest at 73.2 dB.
Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 70.9 dB | Best | |
| 71.1 dB | +0.20 dB | |
| 71.2 dB | +0.30 dB | |
| 71.9 dB | +1.00 dB | |
| 72.6 dB | +1.70 dB | |
| 72.8 dB | +1.90 dB | |
| 73.2 dB | +2.30 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 3.2% (2.3 dB).
Value
The Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN had the lowest rolling resistance at 7.3 kg/t, while the Goodtrip GR 66 was least efficient at 7.9 kg/t. A close group overall.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tyre | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.31 kg/t | Best | £0 | |
| 7.57 kg/t | +0.26 kg/t | £16 | |
| 7.7 kg/t | +0.39 kg/t | £24 | |
| 7.72 kg/t | +0.41 kg/t | £25 | |
| 7.77 kg/t | +0.46 kg/t | £28 | |
| 7.78 kg/t | +0.47 kg/t | £28 | |
| 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.
Results
The Best Touring Tyres for 2025 TestedWatch the full video of this test on YouTube Watch on YouTube
Pirelli Cinturato C3
225/50 R17 98Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 / 7 | 34.13 m | Best in this discipline |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 85.61 s | +0.07 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 24.96 m | +0.35 m |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 106.63 s | +1.45 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 95.7 km/h | -2.40 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 2.6 m/sec2 | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 4th / 7 | 71.9 dB | +1.00 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 7.7 kg/t | +0.39 kg/t |
- Rim Protection
- Small
- Weight
- 9.15 kgs
- Tread
- 7 mm
- Price
- 157.89
Continental PremiumContact 7
225/50 R17 98Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 / 7 | 34.65 m | +0.52 m |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 85.73 s | +0.19 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 24.61 m | Best in this discipline |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 107.14 s | +1.96 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 9.25 Points | -0.75 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 98.1 km/h | Best in this discipline |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 2.57 m/sec2 | -0.03 m/sec2 |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 7th / 7 | 73.2 dB | +2.30 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4th / 7 | 7.72 kg/t | +0.41 kg/t |
- Rim Protection
- Large
- Weight
- 9.25 kgs
- Tread
- 7.6 mm
- Price
- 128.59
Vredestein Ultrac
225/50 R17 98Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 / 7 | 34.43 m | +0.30 m |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 86.57 s | +1.03 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 25.79 m | +1.18 m |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 106.28 s | +1.10 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 95.2 km/h | -2.90 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 2.55 m/sec2 | -0.05 m/sec2 |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 1st / 7 | 70.9 dB | Best in this discipline |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 6th / 7 | 7.78 kg/t | +0.47 kg/t |
- Rim Protection
- Small
- Weight
- 9.7 kgs
- Tread
- 6.8 mm
- Price
- 117.19
Falken ZIEX ZE320
225/50 R17 98W XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 / 7 | 34.21 m | +0.08 m |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 85.54 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 7 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 25.47 m | +0.86 m |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 1st / 7 | 105.18 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 95.5 km/h | -2.60 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 2.27 m/sec2 | -0.33 m/sec2 |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 4th / 7 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 3rd / 7 | 71.2 dB | +0.30 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 5th / 7 | 7.77 kg/t | +0.46 kg/t |
- Rim Protection
- Large
- Weight
- 9.25 kgs
- Tread
- 6.8 mm
- Price
- 129.69
Michelin Primacy 4+
225/50 R17 98Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 / 7 | 35.22 m | +1.09 m |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 86.43 s | +0.89 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 27.16 m | +2.55 m |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 109.92 s | +4.74 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 8.75 Points | -1.25 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 97.7 km/h | -0.40 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 2nd / 7 | 2.58 m/sec2 | -0.02 m/sec2 |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 71.1 dB | +0.20 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 2nd / 7 | 7.57 kg/t | +0.26 kg/t |
- Rim Protection
- Small
- Weight
- 9.7 kgs
- Tread
- 6.6 mm
- Price
- 149.19
Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN
225/50 R17 98Y XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 / 7 | 35.27 m | +1.14 m |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 4th / 7 | 86.22 s | +0.68 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 6th / 7 | 27.57 m | +2.96 m |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 5th / 7 | 108.05 s | +2.87 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 7 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 92.1 km/h | -6.00 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 5th / 7 | 2.47 m/sec2 | -0.13 m/sec2 |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 5th / 7 | 72.6 dB | +1.70 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 1st / 7 | 7.31 kg/t | Best in this discipline |
- Rim Protection
- Large
- Weight
- 10.1 kgs
- Tread
- 7.5 mm
- Price
- 104.09
Goodtrip GR 66
225/50 R17 98W XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (11)
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 / 7 | 37.09 m | +2.96 m |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 87.4 s | +1.86 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 6 Points | -4.00 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 34 m | +9.39 m |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 7th / 7 | 116.72 s | +11.54 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 8 Points | -2.00 Points |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 88.2 km/h | -9.90 km/h |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 6th / 7 | 2.35 m/sec2 | -0.25 m/sec2 |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 7th / 7 | 7 Points | -3.00 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 6th / 7 | 72.8 dB | +1.90 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 7th / 7 | 7.94 kg/t | +0.63 kg/t |
- Rim Protection
- Large
- Weight
- 10.4 kgs
- Tread
- 7.3 mm
- Price
- 62.89
Hey Jon,
For someone who drives mostly on empty b-roads and lives for cornering but does not care for speed as such but being close to the limit (with margin for unexpected etc.). Would C3 225/45/17 XL be a good pairing to Civic 1.6diesel 10th gen (OEM is 215/50/17)? I am also considering PS5 215/50/17 and F1 Asy6 225/45/17 from UHP segment but I am afraid that extra grip will make the chassis hit the limit first, which makes for boring ride. Also I am looking for great communication and liveliness from tire which I do not think PS5 gives, nor Asy6 even if better at it (I owned gen 2 of Goodyear F1).
Best tire I used was Pzero Nero back in the day on my MX-5. With very stiff wall, limited and snappy grip but with progressive sand paper like feeling to slide recovery :). Real joy to drive. Driver's tire. I believe that is what Pirelli still do, driver's tires? Can C3 be considered as such? And the main question is it better in this particular function than PS5 / Asy6?
Sadly I cannot get PZ5 in the size I need as it probably would be my tire of choice.
Thank you
I am finding it hard to locate the C3 in Golf format, ie 205/55 R16 91V....reinforced or 94 are there.
Is it made in this format? Thank you.
If you can find it in 94v you're fine to fit it, often the 91 and 94 versions of the tyres are the same as it's cheaper to product one instead of two lines for very similar products.
Dear Tyre Reviews Team,
I’d like to propose that you consider adding RIM PROTECTION as a highlighted feature in your tire reviews. While it doesn’t necessarily need to be tested exhaustively, it’s a feature that I, along with many other customers, truly value. Not all tire manufacturers provide rim protection, but it makes a significant difference to those of us who care about preserving our rims from damage caused by curbs.
Personally, I would not consider purchasing a tire that doesn’t offer rim protection, and I believe many others share this sentiment. Including it in your reviews could help guide us in making more informed decisions.
Thank you for considering this suggestion, and I look forward to seeing this feature in future reviews!
Best regards,
Mauro van Leijden
Hey Jon, What would be the more comfortable tyre on a Honda Civic 1.8 140ps . The cinturato C3 with a load index 94 or the Pilot sport 5 with a load index of 91? The reccommended load index is 91
is that because you can't get the C3 in 91??
Yes exactly. I actually got the c3 in 94. It is soft and forgiving on potholes, but not as sporty as I would like it.
It should be C3 due to much softer construction in general. Good indication how soft the carcass of the tire will be is rolling resistance - the lower the softer.
That is why tires like outgoing Potenza Sport are dying breed. ECO bureaucracy is changing the landscape, and of course not for better for car enthusiasts.
Agreed
Read this review a few times and you're right, I've just had 4 new Ultrac+ (225/60/18) put on my Outback, impressively quiet, very comfortable and a decent wedge less than 'premium" options. If they handle as well in the wet as the test suggests, I'll be even happier.
Yay
Hey Jon we got pirelli pz5, hankook s1evo4 and kumho ps72 out, any updates for this years UHP test? Also would be amazing to finally see Falken fk520 in a UHP test from you.
My test should be out next week with the PZ5 and FK520 in.
Super! Would these tests translate to a 16 inch fwd car?! Interesting to see C3 coming through well. As yet it isn't made in a 91V rating for a 16 inch wheel, so considering getting it in 94 load setting, or the PremContact 7 in 91. Also be good to compare the Primacy 5.
Generally there is good crossover between drivetrains.
Interesting that, despite being poorest in curved aquaplaning, the ZE 320 had 'no issue with the deeper water on the track'. Care to comment on the bit of tension here?
Perhaps the aquaplaning test water depth is deeper again (why not list it?).
The best answer I can give is sometimes tyres testing does not make sense. Generally wet handling is 1mm and straight / curved aqua between 7 and 10mm.
The deeper water parts on the track were puddles in places so deeper again, which might indicate the falken had a narrower profile. I didn't measure it this time.
I suspect that the best explanatory hypothesis is that even the puddley bits of the wet track were not 7-10 mm.
If they were, then my next hypothesis would be that, as it's a puddle & not an extended bit of deep water (as in an aquaplaning test), the tyre would be in & out of it very quickly & the capacity of the tread voids to briefly store water rather than move it out might be explanatorily significant.
There's always sense to be made even if one can't make it!
Nice test! Always looking forward to your tests.
Too bad you didn’t get a hold of the new Ultrac+.
I’m currently deciding between ultrac+ and ze320 so nice to see the falken is a good tire and it seems comfortable.