Test Charts / Auto Bild Allrad

2026 Summer SUV Tyre Test

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: 255/45 R19
Tyres tested: 9
Disciplines: 13
Test vehicle: Audi Q3

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Falken Azenis FK520	32.5 m	Best	0 km/h
2Hankook Ventus Evo	32.8 m	+0.30 m	12 km/h
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	32.9 m	+0.40 m	14 km/h
4Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	33.1 m	+0.60 m	18 km/h
5Vredestein Ultrac Pro	33.4 m	+0.90 m	21 km/h
6Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	34.1 m	+1.60 m	28 km/h
7Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	34.4 m	+1.90 m	31 km/h
8Giti GitiSport S2+	34.5 m	+2.00 m	31 km/h
9Toyo Proxes Sport 2	34.6 m	+2.10 m	32 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 6.5% (2.1 m ≈ 0.5 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Toyo Proxes Sport 2 would still be travelling at 32 km/h when the Falken Azenis FK520 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
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	106.6 km/h	Best
2Toyo Proxes Sport 2	104.9 km/h	-1.70 km/h
3Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	104.6 km/h	-2.00 km/h
4Hankook Ventus Evo	104.4 km/h	-2.20 km/h
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	104 km/h	-2.60 km/h
6Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	103.9 km/h	-2.70 km/h
7Giti GitiSport S2+	103.6 km/h	-3.00 km/h
8Vredestein Ultrac Pro	103.1 km/h	-3.50 km/h
9Falken Azenis FK520	102.4 km/h	-4.20 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 3.9% (4.2 Km/H).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Hankook Ventus Evo	50.2 m	Best	0 km/h
2Falken Azenis FK520	51.3 m	+1.10 m	19 km/h
3Vredestein Ultrac Pro	51.9 m	+1.70 m	24 km/h
4Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	52.3 m	+2.10 m	26 km/h
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	53 m	+2.80 m	30 km/h
6Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	53.4 m	+3.20 m	32 km/h
7Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	54.4 m	+4.20 m	36 km/h
8Toyo Proxes Sport 2	55.4 m	+5.20 m	40 km/h
9Giti GitiSport S2+	60.1 m	+9.90 m	53 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 19.7% (9.9 m ≈ 2.2 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Giti GitiSport S2+ would still be travelling at 53 km/h when the Hankook Ventus Evo 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
1Hankook Ventus Evo	89.1 km/h	Best
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	88.9 km/h	-0.20 km/h
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	87.8 km/h	-1.30 km/h
4Vredestein Ultrac Pro	87 km/h	-2.10 km/h
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	86.8 km/h	-2.30 km/h
6Toyo Proxes Sport 2	86.5 km/h	-2.60 km/h
6Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	86.5 km/h	-2.60 km/h
8Falken Azenis FK520	86.4 km/h	-2.70 km/h
9Giti GitiSport S2+	83.8 km/h	-5.30 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 5.9% (5.3 Km/H).

Wet Circle
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	19.9 s	Best
2Hankook Ventus Evo	20.1 s	+0.20 s
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	20.4 s	+0.50 s
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	20.4 s	+0.50 s
5Falken Azenis FK520	20.7 s	+0.80 s
5Toyo Proxes Sport 2	20.7 s	+0.80 s
7Vredestein Ultrac Pro	20.8 s	+0.90 s
7Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	20.8 s	+0.90 s
9Giti GitiSport S2+	21.2 s	+1.30 s

The difference between best and worst was 6.5% (1.3 s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	90.9 km/h	Best
2Toyo Proxes Sport 2	89.9 km/h	-1.00 km/h
3Vredestein Ultrac Pro	89.3 km/h	-1.60 km/h
4Hankook Ventus Evo	88.7 km/h	-2.20 km/h
5Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	87.2 km/h	-3.70 km/h
6Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	87.1 km/h	-3.80 km/h
7Falken Azenis FK520	85.4 km/h	-5.50 km/h
8Giti GitiSport S2+	85.3 km/h	-5.60 km/h
9Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	84.8 km/h	-6.10 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 6.7% (6.1 Km/H).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Toyo Proxes Sport 2	2.56 m/sec2	Best
2Hankook Ventus Evo	2.54 m/sec2	-0.02 m/sec2
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	2.53 m/sec2	-0.03 m/sec2
4Vredestein Ultrac Pro	2.5 m/sec2	-0.06 m/sec2
5Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	2.4 m/sec2	-0.16 m/sec2
5Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	2.4 m/sec2	-0.16 m/sec2
7Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	2.36 m/sec2	-0.20 m/sec2
8Giti GitiSport S2+	2.34 m/sec2	-0.22 m/sec2
9Falken Azenis FK520	2.18 m/sec2	-0.38 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 14.8% (0.38 m/sec2).

Off road

Gravel Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	64.2 km/h	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	63.9 km/h	-0.30 km/h
3Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	63.8 km/h	-0.40 km/h
4Vredestein Ultrac Pro	63.6 km/h	-0.60 km/h
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	63.4 km/h	-0.80 km/h
6Hankook Ventus Evo	63.3 km/h	-0.90 km/h
7Falken Azenis FK520	63.2 km/h	-1.00 km/h
8Giti GitiSport S2+	63 km/h	-1.20 km/h
9Toyo Proxes Sport 2	62.8 km/h	-1.40 km/h

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

Gravel Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook Ventus Evo	11442 N	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	10861 N	-581.00 N
3Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	10810 N	-632.00 N
4Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	10610 N	-832.00 N
5Giti GitiSport S2+	10606 N	-836.00 N
6Toyo Proxes Sport 2	10387 N	-1,055.00 N
7Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	10199 N	-1,243.00 N
8Vredestein Ultrac Pro	10003 N	-1,439.00 N
9Falken Azenis FK520	9935 N	-1,507.00 N

The difference between best and worst was 13.2% (1,507 N).

Sand Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Falken Azenis FK520	10718 N	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	10317 N	-401.00 N
3Vredestein Ultrac Pro	10147 N	-571.00 N
4Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	10019 N	-699.00 N
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	9937 N	-781.00 N
6Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	8897 N	-1,821.00 N
7Hankook Ventus Evo	8501 N	-2,217.00 N
8Toyo Proxes Sport 2	8487 N	-2,231.00 N
9Giti GitiSport S2+	8296 N	-2,422.00 N

The difference between best and worst was 22.6% (2,422 N).

Grass Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook Ventus Evo	3729 N	Best
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	2879 N	-850.00 N
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	2864 N	-865.00 N
4Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	2658 N	-1,071.00 N
4Falken Azenis FK520	2658 N	-1,071.00 N
6Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	2584 N	-1,145.00 N
6Giti GitiSport S2+	2584 N	-1,145.00 N
8Vredestein Ultrac Pro	2548 N	-1,181.00 N
9Toyo Proxes Sport 2	2514 N	-1,215.00 N

The difference between best and worst was 32.6% (1,215 N).

Comfort

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	67 dB	Best
2Vredestein Ultrac Pro	69.1 dB	+2.10 dB
3Hankook Ventus Evo	70.6 dB	+3.60 dB
4Toyo Proxes Sport 2	71 dB	+4.00 dB
5Falken Azenis FK520	71.3 dB	+4.30 dB
6Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	71.7 dB	+4.70 dB
6Giti GitiSport S2+	71.7 dB	+4.70 dB
8Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	72.4 dB	+5.40 dB
9Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	72.9 dB	+5.90 dB

The difference between best and worst was 8.8% (5.9 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Vredestein Ultrac Pro	6.92 kg/t	Best	£0
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6	7.24 kg/t	+0.32 kg/t	£20
3Falken Azenis FK520	7.35 kg/t	+0.43 kg/t	£27
4Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	7.62 kg/t	+0.70 kg/t	£45
5Giti GitiSport S2+	7.68 kg/t	+0.76 kg/t	£48
6Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV	8.07 kg/t	+1.15 kg/t	£73
7Hankook Ventus Evo	8.15 kg/t	+1.23 kg/t	£78
8Toyo Proxes Sport 2	8.25 kg/t	+1.33 kg/t	£85
9Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	8.57 kg/t	+1.65 kg/t	£105

The difference between best and worst was 23.8% (1.65 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo uses about 72 L (£105) more fuel than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.

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.