2026 ADAC Summer Tyre Test

The ADAC tyre tests are always my favourite tyre tests, while they sadly don't release all the data they generate; they do provide excellent notes with their tests, and most importantly they are the most independent tyre testing team in the world meaning there is no manufacturer involvement in any way, which is rare in the world of tyre testing. 

For the 2026 Summer Test ADAC tested 16 tyres in the dry/wet noise comfort value and, most importantly, tread life to find out exactly which tyre is best for you. They tested the popular 225/50R17 tyre size using an Audi A4 but this is a premium touring tyre size that is available in which fits many vehicles. 

I highly recommend following the link below, especially if you're German is strong and watching their tyre test video. It is excellent, but below is my summary of the test. 

Test Publication:

225/50 R17 16 tyres 3 categories

Similar Tests

Images courtesy of ADAC

Test Publication:

https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/ausstattung-technik-zubehoer/reifen/reifentest/

Images courtesy of ADAC

Test Size: 225/50 R17

Tyres Tested: 16 tyres

Test Categories:
3 categories (8 tests)

Similar Tests

If you follow tyre testing regularly, the top 3 of this test will come as no surprise to you. It is the Continental Premium Contact 7, closely followed by the Pirelli Cinturato C3 and the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2,

The blend of dry and wet grip and the wear results meant these three tyres were the only three tyres to receive the very difficult to get good recommendation from ADAC. The next ten were satisfactory and the bottom three were only rated as adequate. 

I think the most interesting aspect of this test was the dual nature of the LingLong Sportmaster and how hard ADAC were on the tyre. It was the best tyre in wet braking as we've seen recently in the autobild 50 set Summer Shootout. It was, however, by far the worst in the wear test, with poor environmental factors and poor dry handling performance.

This highlights how far Chinese manufacturers have come. Beating premium tyres in wet braking is an achievement in itself but they're still unable to mass produce a tyre at a reasonable cost that is as rounded or as well balanced as a premium tyre. 

Dry

The Falken ZIEX ZE320 was the best in dry braking, closely followed by the LingLong Sportmaster. The delta between the best and worst was less than 3 m, with the Ventus Prime 4 finishing in last place.

When braking from highway speeds the difference would be nearly 5 m, which is about 1.1 car lengths.

Wet

As always the delta in wet braking was much larger, with a difference of nearly 8 m. The LingLong tied with the Continental at the top of the table, and the BF Goodrich, Firestone, and GreenTrac propped up the base of the table.

This means that from highway speeds the calculated difference is over 20 m, which means that when you are stopped on the LingLong or Continental, you will still be traveling 60 km/h on the worst.

The wet braking results on concrete were broadly similar.

 ADAC do publish straight and curved aquaplaning results. You can see the curved aquaplaning results on the results table tab above. Generally there wasn't a huge delta between the best and the worst 

Value

The wear test was the gold standard wear test performed on the road in a convoy, unlike other publications which use a machine. In this test the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 was the best, over doubling the expected tread life to 1.6 mm compared to the bottom two tyres.

As usual Michelin are strong in wear, and what I'm assuming is a revised Turanza 6 is also very strong in tread life. The Pirelli Cinturato C3 finishing in fourth place was a nice surprise too given how well this tyre grips.

 Sadly ADAC did not publish the purchase price of the tyres so we can't work out costs per 100 km driven.

ADAC do not release rolling resistance levels. Instead they drive the tyres on an oval to get the average liters per 100 km. Usually this test is only separated by 0.1 or 0.2 liters per 100 km and in this case it's 0.6, showing just what a compromise the LingLong has to get that wet grip.

Abrasion is the measure of particulate matter, measured in milligrams per kilometre per ton. Michelin always aces this test and once again it had a big advantage, emitting over half the tyre particulates the LingLong produces, which is a big difference for the environment. 

Results

1^st

Continental PremiumContact 7

225/50 R17 98Y

• EU Label: C/A/72
• Origin: Germany/Portugal
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.3 kgs

The PremiumContact 7 was the clear test winner. ADAC praise its “balanced” performance: it offers the best safety on dry and wet roads, high reserves in the limit range and short braking distances, while also delivering high efficiency and long life. It gives a precise steering response and high grip on dry pavement, making the car easy to control even at the limit. On wet roads it delivers very short braking distances and secure, easily controlled handling; aquaplaning behaviour is judged good in both directions. The environmental balance is also good thanks to high predicted mileage, low abrasion and good efficiency, although the rolling noise is slightly above average.

Dry

96.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	6th	35 M	33.9 M	+1.1 M	96.86%

Wet

98.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	1st	30.1 M			100%
Wet Braking - Concrete	2nd	34.9 M	32.3 M	+2.6 M	92.55%
Straight Aqua	1st	79.7 Km/H			100%
Curved Aquaplaning	1st	3.7 m/sec2			100%

Value

85.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	6th	44700 KM	57800 KM	-13100 KM	77.34%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.4 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	4th	69 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+15 mg/km/t	78.26%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

2^nd

Pirelli Cinturato C3

225/50 R17 98Y

• EU Label: B/A/70
• Origin: Romania
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.7 kgs

Pirelli’s Cinturato (C3) finishes just behind Continental. According to the test report, it secures a good rating for both safety and environmental balance, earning a clear recommendation. On dry roads the tyre has slight steering-feedback and precision weaknesses but remains safe and easily controllable due to high grip, and its braking distance from 100 km/h is rated very good. On wet surfaces it offers short braking distances, good handling and strong aquaplaning resistance. The environmental assessment is also good thanks to high predicted mileage, low abrasion and good efficiency. Strengths cited include good driving safety, high mileage and low wear, though the tyre is relatively noisy.

Dry

98.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	4th	34.5 M	33.9 M	+0.6 M	98.26%

Wet

94.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	5th	31.8 M	30.1 M	+1.7 M	94.65%
Wet Braking - Concrete	4th	37.3 M	32.3 M	+5 M	86.6%
Straight Aqua	1st	79.7 Km/H			100%
Curved Aquaplaning	3rd	3.6 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.1 m/sec2	97.3%

Value

82.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	4th	48600 KM	57800 KM	-9200 KM	84.08%
Fuel Consumption	12th	5.7 l/100km	5.4 l/100km	+0.3 l/100km	94.74%
Abrasion	8th	79 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+25 mg/km/t	68.35%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

3^rd

Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2

225/50 R17 98W

• EU Label: B/A/70
• Origin: Poland
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.3 kgs

Goodyear’s EfficientGrip Performance 2 earns a good overall rating, trailing the top two mainly because of minor dynamic weaknesses. The summary explains that dry-road feedback and braking distances are only moderate, though the tyre maintains high grip and remains stable at the limit. Wet-road performance is “just good” with weaknesses in aquaplaning and handling. The tyre’s environmental balance is very good: it has very high predicted mileage, low abrasion and good efficiency. ADAC lists its strengths as a balanced tyre with good safety, very high mileage and low wear, with minor weaknesses in aquaplaning and wet handling.

Dry

93.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	12th	36.3 M	33.9 M	+2.4 M	93.39%

Wet

92%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	4th	31.3 M	30.1 M	+1.2 M	96.17%
Wet Braking - Concrete	6th	38.1 M	32.3 M	+5.8 M	84.78%
Straight Aqua	11th	75.7 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-4 Km/H	94.98%
Curved Aquaplaning	7th	3.4 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.3 m/sec2	91.89%

Value

95.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	1st	57800 KM			100%
Fuel Consumption	4th	5.5 l/100km	5.4 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.18%
Abrasion	2nd	62 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+8 mg/km/t	87.1%

Read Reviews Test Results Buy from £133.99 Results Table Test Charts

4^th

Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN

225/50 R17 98Y

• EU Label: B/A/71
• Origin: Hungary
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.9 kgs

The Roadhawk 2 scores “good” for driving safety but only fair in the environmental balance. The tyre offers decent grip but imprecise steering on dry roads; braking is short yet overall precision is lacking. Wet performance is barely good: braking distances and longitudinal aquaplaning are weak, though handling remains acceptable. Predicted mileage and abrasion are only satisfactory, though efficiency is rated good. Consequently, ADAC sees it as a conditionally recommendable tyre with some safety and efficiency advantages but notable weaknesses in dry precision, wet braking and longevity.

Dry

97.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	5th	34.9 M	33.9 M	+1 M	97.13%

Wet

90.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	15th	34.9 M	30.1 M	+4.8 M	86.25%
Wet Braking - Concrete	11th	40.1 M	32.3 M	+7.8 M	80.55%
Straight Aqua	6th	77.2 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-2.5 Km/H	96.86%
Curved Aquaplaning	3rd	3.6 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.1 m/sec2	97.3%

Value

71.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	12th	36700 KM	57800 KM	-21100 KM	63.49%
Fuel Consumption	12th	5.7 l/100km	5.4 l/100km	+0.3 l/100km	94.74%
Abrasion	13th	95 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+41 mg/km/t	56.84%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

5^th

Falken ZIEX ZE320

225/50 R17 98W

• EU Label: C/A/68
• Origin: Turkey
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.0 kgs

The Ziex ZE320 narrowly misses a good safety rating. The summary notes modest steering precision on dry roads and sensitivity to heat, although it has the shortest dry-braking distance in the test. On wet roads it performs well in braking and handling but only fairly in aquaplaning. Environmental performance is “fair” because of mediocre mileage, but low wear, low weight and low fuel consumption contribute to good efficiency. Strengths include very short dry braking, good wet-road performance, low abrasion and very low weight, while weaknesses include deficits on dry roads, susceptibility to aquaplaning and only satisfactory mileage.

Dry

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	1st	33.9 M			100%

Wet

87.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	12th	34.3 M	30.1 M	+4.2 M	87.76%
Wet Braking - Concrete	5th	37.7 M	32.3 M	+5.4 M	85.68%
Straight Aqua	13th	75.2 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-4.5 Km/H	94.35%
Curved Aquaplaning	14th	3.1 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.6 m/sec2	83.78%

Value

79.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	10th	37500 KM	57800 KM	-20300 KM	64.88%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.6 l/100km	5.4 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.43%
Abrasion	5th	71 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+17 mg/km/t	76.06%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

6^th

Bridgestone Turanza 6

225/50 R17 98Y

• EU Label: B/A/70
• Origin: Poland
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.9 kgs

Bridgestone’s Turanza 6 does not achieve a good safety rating because of imprecise steering and heat sensitivity on both dry and wet roads; it tends to under- or oversteer early despite good braking. Nonetheless, its environmental performance is good, featuring very high predicted mileage, low abrasion, low weight and low fuel consumption. Therefore the tyre is recommended primarily for drivers who prioritise longevity and efficiency over sporty handling.

Dry

93.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	14th	36.4 M	33.9 M	+2.5 M	93.13%

Wet

89.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	10th	33.8 M	30.1 M	+3.7 M	89.05%
Wet Braking - Concrete	12th	40.2 M	32.3 M	+7.9 M	80.35%
Straight Aqua	6th	77.2 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-2.5 Km/H	96.86%
Curved Aquaplaning	7th	3.4 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.3 m/sec2	91.89%

Value

92.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	3rd	55600 KM	57800 KM	-2200 KM	96.19%
Fuel Consumption	4th	5.5 l/100km	5.4 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.18%
Abrasion	3rd	66 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+12 mg/km/t	81.82%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

7^th

Michelin Primacy 5

225/50 R17 98W

• EU Label: B/A/70
• Origin: Germany
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.2 kgs

The Primacy 5 also misses a good safety rating. The summary describes imprecise steering and thermal sensitivity on dry and wet roads, although braking on both surfaces is good. Its environmental rating is the best in the test: the tyre offers very high predicted mileage, the lowest abrasion and low weight, and it achieves the lowest fuel consumption among all candidates. Consequently, ADAC gives only a conditional recommendation, noting good braking and excellent efficiency but shortcomings in overall handling.

Dry

93.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	12th	36.3 M	33.9 M	+2.4 M	93.39%

Wet

90.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	6th	32.7 M	30.1 M	+2.6 M	92.05%
Wet Braking - Concrete	8th	38.8 M	32.3 M	+6.5 M	83.25%
Straight Aqua	9th	76.5 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-3.2 Km/H	95.98%
Curved Aquaplaning	11th	3.3 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.4 m/sec2	89.19%

Value

99%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	2nd	56000 KM	57800 KM	-1800 KM	96.89%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.4 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	1st	54 mg/km/t			100%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

8^th

Maxxis Premitra HP6

225/50 R17 98W

• EU Label: C/A/72
• Origin: China
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 10.0 kgs

Maxxis’s Premitra HP6 receives only fair ratings in safety and environmental categories. The tyre provides short braking distances on dry and wet roads but displays modest steering precision and grip at the limit on dry pavement. Wet-road performance is only fair. Environmentally, its predicted mileage is low, though weight and fuel consumption are favourable. ADAC highlights short braking, low abrasion and low fuel consumption as strengths, but notes handling weaknesses on both dry and wet surfaces and low mileage.

Dry

94.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	10th	35.8 M	33.9 M	+1.9 M	94.69%

Wet

87.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	9th	33.4 M	30.1 M	+3.3 M	90.12%
Wet Braking - Concrete	6th	38.1 M	32.3 M	+5.8 M	84.78%
Straight Aqua	14th	75 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-4.7 Km/H	94.1%
Curved Aquaplaning	15th	3 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.7 m/sec2	81.08%

Value

77.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	11th	37200 KM	57800 KM	-20600 KM	64.36%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.6 l/100km	5.4 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.43%
Abrasion	7th	76 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+22 mg/km/t	71.05%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

9^th

Kumho Ecsta HS52

225/50 R17 98W

• EU Label: C/A/72
• Origin: Korea
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 10.8 kgs

The updated Ecsta HS52 scores well on wet roads but only fair overall because of weak dry-road performance and increased weight. According to the summary, dry-road steering feedback and precision are merely adequate; wet grip and braking are good. Environmental performance is fair due to high abrasion and heavy weight, despite good predicted mileage and efficiency. ADAC lists short dry braking, good wet handling and good mileage as strengths, but notes deficits in dry handling, aquaplaning behaviour and slightly elevated abrasion and weight.

Dry

95%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	9th	35.7 M	33.9 M	+1.8 M	94.96%

Wet

92.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	3rd	31.1 M	30.1 M	+1 M	96.78%
Wet Braking - Concrete	3rd	35.9 M	32.3 M	+3.6 M	89.97%
Straight Aqua	5th	77.3 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-2.4 Km/H	96.99%
Curved Aquaplaning	13th	3.2 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.5 m/sec2	86.49%

Value

75.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	8th	43200 KM	57800 KM	-14600 KM	74.74%
Fuel Consumption	15th	5.8 l/100km	5.4 l/100km	+0.4 l/100km	93.1%
Abrasion	12th	91 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+37 mg/km/t	59.34%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

10^th

BFGoodrich Advantage

225/50 R17 98Y

• EU Label: C/A/70
• Origin: Poland
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 10.0 kgs

BFGoodrich’s Advantage fails to achieve a good rating mainly because of poor wet performance and higher wear. Dry-road steering feedback and stability are good, but braking distances are long. On wet roads, braking, aquaplaning and handling are only fair or sufficient, leading to early under- or oversteer. Predicted mileage and efficiency are good, but abrasion is slightly elevated. ADAC therefore gives a conditional recommendation, praising the dry-road handling and high mileage but cautioning about wet-road weaknesses and above-average weight.

Dry

92.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	15th	36.5 M	33.9 M	+2.6 M	92.88%

Wet

88.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	13th	34.5 M	30.1 M	+4.4 M	87.25%
Wet Braking - Concrete	14th	41.5 M	32.3 M	+9.2 M	77.83%
Straight Aqua	10th	76.2 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-3.5 Km/H	95.61%
Curved Aquaplaning	5th	3.5 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.2 m/sec2	94.59%

Value

80.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	5th	46700 KM	57800 KM	-11100 KM	80.8%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.6 l/100km	5.4 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.43%
Abrasion	9th	83 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+29 mg/km/t	65.06%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

11^th

Hankook Ventus Prime 4

225/50 R17 98W

• EU Label: B/A/69
• Origin: Korea/Hungary
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 10.0 kgs

The Ventus Prime4 narrowly misses a good safety rating due to weak wet performance. The summary notes slightly indirect steering on dry roads but good grip. Wet braking, aquaplaning and handling are only fair or sufficient, which leads to early under- or oversteer. The environmental rating is just good thanks to high predicted mileage and low abrasion, although the tyre is relatively heavy and noisy. Strengths include good handling at the limit on dry roads, high mileage and low fuel consumption; weaknesses include comfort issues on dry roads, wet-performance deficits and slightly increased weight.

Dry

92.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	16th	36.7 M	33.9 M	+2.8 M	92.37%

Wet

86.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	13th	34.5 M	30.1 M	+4.4 M	87.25%
Wet Braking - Concrete	15th	42.1 M	32.3 M	+9.8 M	76.72%
Straight Aqua	16th	72.9 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-6.8 Km/H	91.47%
Curved Aquaplaning	7th	3.4 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.3 m/sec2	91.89%

Value

83.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	6th	44700 KM	57800 KM	-13100 KM	77.34%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.4 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	6th	75 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+21 mg/km/t	72%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

12^th

Vredestein Ultrac plus

225/50 R17 98Y

• EU Label: C/A/69
• Origin: Hungary
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.7 kgs

Vredestein’s Ultrac+ fails to achieve a good rating in both safety and environmental categories. Dry-road steering feedback and precision are only fair; dry braking is good. On wet roads the tyre performs reasonably in aquaplaning and handling but not in braking. The environmental rating is fair due to low mileage and high abrasion, though weight and fuel consumption are low. ADAC notes short dry braking, good aquaplaning and wet handling, low weight and fuel consumption as strengths, but poor dry handling, slight wet-braking weakness, low mileage and high abrasion as weaknesses.

Dry

96%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	8th	35.3 M	33.9 M	+1.4 M	96.03%

Wet

91.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	11th	33.9 M	30.1 M	+3.8 M	88.79%
Wet Braking - Concrete	10th	39.5 M	32.3 M	+7.2 M	81.77%
Straight Aqua	3rd	79.3 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-0.4 Km/H	99.5%
Curved Aquaplaning	5th	3.5 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.2 m/sec2	94.59%

Value

68.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	14th	30600 KM	57800 KM	-27200 KM	52.94%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.6 l/100km	5.4 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.43%
Abrasion	14th	97 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+43 mg/km/t	55.67%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

13^th

Greentrac Quest X

225/50 R17 98Y

• EU Label: C/A/70
• Origin: China
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 11.0 kgs

The Chinese Greentrac Quest-X receives a conditional recommendation. The summary criticises its wet-road performance: wet braking is the worst in the test, and aquaplaning behaviour and handling are only fair. Dry-road feedback and precision are also not very good due to an elastic rear axle, though braking is good. Environmental performance is fair because of moderate mileage, slightly high abrasion and high weight, although fuel consumption is low. Strengths include short dry braking, good cross-aquaplaning and low fuel consumption, while weaknesses comprise deficits in dry handling, wet performance and moderate mileage with slightly high abrasion.

Dry

93.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	11th	36.2 M	33.9 M	+2.3 M	93.65%

Wet

86.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	16th	37.9 M	30.1 M	+7.8 M	79.42%
Wet Braking - Concrete	16th	44.5 M	32.3 M	+12.2 M	72.58%
Straight Aqua	11th	75.7 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-4 Km/H	94.98%
Curved Aquaplaning	1st	3.7 m/sec2			100%

Value

75.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	9th	38200 KM	57800 KM	-19600 KM	66.09%
Fuel Consumption	12th	5.7 l/100km	5.4 l/100km	+0.3 l/100km	94.74%
Abrasion	9th	83 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+29 mg/km/t	65.06%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

14^th

Lassa Revola

225/50 R17 98Y

• EU Label: B/A/71
• Origin: Turkey
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.7 kgs

The Turkish-made Lassa Revola is rated “not recommendable.” The summary states that it barely reaches a satisfactory score in safety: dry-road performance is poor, with the tyre losing grip as temperature rises, offering only minimal steering feedback and making it hard to control the vehicle; it tends to oversteer in emergency manoeuvres. Wet performance is somewhat better, with average braking and above-average handling, though aquaplaning resistance is only average. The environmental rating is only “befriedigend” due to average mileage and abrasion; efficiency is good thanks to low weight and fuel consumption. Strengths include very short dry braking, good wet performance, low weight and low fuel consumption, but the tyre is very weak on dry roads, has aquaplaning weaknesses and only satisfactory mileage and abrasion.

Dry

98.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	3rd	34.4 M	33.9 M	+0.5 M	98.55%

Wet

89.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	7th	32.9 M	30.1 M	+2.8 M	91.49%
Wet Braking - Concrete	9th	39.2 M	32.3 M	+6.9 M	82.4%
Straight Aqua	8th	76.6 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-3.1 Km/H	96.11%
Curved Aquaplaning	11th	3.3 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.4 m/sec2	89.19%

Value

73.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	13th	36100 KM	57800 KM	-21700 KM	62.46%
Fuel Consumption	7th	5.6 l/100km	5.4 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.43%
Abrasion	11th	89 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+35 mg/km/t	60.67%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

15^th

Leao Nova Force Acro

225/50 R17 98Y

• EU Label: C/A/72
• Origin: China
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 10.2 kgs

Leao’s Nova-Force Acro, a sub-brand of Linglong, receives a “not recommendable” verdict. It fails to achieve even a satisfactory rating in safety because of very weak dry performance; the tyre loses grip as temperature rises, provides delayed steering response and feels elastic, making it difficult to hit the correct steering angle. At the limit it tends to oversteer and proves hard to control. Wet-road performance is merely adequate; braking and aquaplaning behaviour are average, and handling is only sufficient. The environmental rating is also only adequate due to very low predicted mileage, high abrasion and high weight; efficiency is saved only by modest fuel consumption. ADAC notes that the tyre’s only strengths are a very short dry-braking distance and low fuel consumption, while weaknesses include very poor performance on both dry and wet surfaces, low mileage, high abrasion and above-average weight.

Dry

96.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	7th	35.2 M	33.9 M	+1.3 M	96.31%

Wet

85.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	8th	33 M	30.1 M	+2.9 M	91.21%
Wet Braking - Concrete	13th	40.8 M	32.3 M	+8.5 M	79.17%
Straight Aqua	15th	73.7 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-6 Km/H	92.47%
Curved Aquaplaning	16th	2.9 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.8 m/sec2	78.38%

Value

66.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	15th	27700 KM	57800 KM	-30100 KM	47.92%
Fuel Consumption	4th	5.5 l/100km	5.4 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.18%
Abrasion	15th	100 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+46 mg/km/t	54%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

16^th

Linglong Sport Master

225/50 R17 98Y

• EU Label: C/A/69
• Origin: Serbia
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 10.6 kgs

The Linglong Sport Master scores the lowest overall. Although it delivers the best wet-road performance in the test - very short wet braking distances, excellent wet handling and good longitudinal aquaplaning behaviour - its dry-road performance is very poor. As temperature rises the tyre loses grip, steering response becomes delayed and elastic, and the car tends to oversteer in evasive manoeuvres. The tyre therefore earns only a sufficient rating for safety and is not recommended. The environmental balance is also weak: extremely high abrasion, very low predicted mileage, high weight and high fuel consumption lead to an “ausreichend” rating. Strengths are limited to the very short dry-braking distance and the best wet performance in the test, whereas weaknesses include very poor dry performance, low mileage, high wear, high weight and high fuel consumption.

Dry

99.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	2nd	34.2 M	33.9 M	+0.3 M	99.12%

Wet

97.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	1st	30.1 M			100%
Wet Braking - Concrete	1st	32.3 M			100%
Straight Aqua	4th	78.6 Km/H	79.7 Km/H	-1.1 Km/H	98.62%
Curved Aquaplaning	7th	3.4 m/sec2	3.7 m/sec2	-0.3 m/sec2	91.89%

Value

58.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	16th	26100 KM	57800 KM	-31700 KM	45.16%
Fuel Consumption	16th	6 l/100km	5.4 l/100km	+0.6 l/100km	90%
Abrasion	16th	131 mg/km/t	54 mg/km/t	+77 mg/km/t	41.22%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts