Auto Žurnál tested 10 summer tyres in size 215/55 R18 99V on a Volkswagen ID.3. The test covered wet performance (braking, handling, aquaplaning, circle tracking), dry performance (braking, handling), and economy and comfort (rolling resistance, energy consumption, noise, subjective comfort).
The Hankook iON evo took the top spot with strong results across wet and dry disciplines, including the shortest dry braking distance (34.8 m) and the fastest wet handling lap. Continental's UltraContact NXT followed in second, posting the best wet braking distance (47.2 m) and leading on efficiency. At the other end, the Tomket SUV finished last with a wet braking distance of 62.3 m - over 15 metres longer than the Continental - and the slowest times in both handling tests. The Imperial EcoSport SUV also received a failing grade. Among the budget options, the Barum Bravuris 6 stood out with rolling resistance and energy consumption figures that matched the premium tyres.
```html
Dry
The Hankook stopped in just 34.8 m, over 7 metres shorter than the last-placed Tomket at 42.0 m. That gap is significant - at the point where the Hankook has come to a complete stop, the Tomket is still travelling at 41.3 km/h.
Dry Braking
Spread: 7.20 M (20.7%)|Avg: 38.33 M
Dry braking in meters (100 - 0 km/h) (Lower is better)
Dry Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tyre
Subjective dry handling scores followed a similar order, with the Hankook again on top (7.75) and the Tomket at the bottom (5.44). The Goodyear placed second here, ahead of the Pirelli and Sava, both of which outperformed the Continental in this discipline.
Subj. Dry Handling
Spread: 2.31 Points (29.8%)|Avg: 6.62 Points
Subjective Dry Handling Score (Higher is better)
Hankook iON Evo
7.75 Points
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
7.44 Points
Pirelli Powergy
7.19 Points
Sava Intensa SUV 2
7.06 Points
Continental UltraContact NXT
7.00 Points
Michelin Primacy 5
6.69 Points
Barum Bravuris 6
6.13 Points
Imperial EcoSport SUV
5.81 Points
Kormoran Ultra High Performance
5.69 Points
Tomket Tomket Suv
5.44 Points
Wet
The Continental posted the shortest wet braking distance at 47.2 m, closely followed by the Michelin at 47.8 m. The Tomket needed 62.3 m to stop - over 15 metres more - meaning it would still be doing 49.3 km/h at the point where the Continental had already come to rest.
Wet Braking
Spread: 15.10 M (32%)|Avg: 52.48 M
Wet braking in meters (100 - 0 km/h) (Lower is better)
Wet Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tyre
The Hankook was the fastest around the wet handling circuit at 83.6 s, with the Pirelli and Goodyear close behind. The Tomket was again last at 95.4 s, nearly 12 seconds off the pace - a large margin on an 1823 m track.
Wet Handling
Spread: 11.80 s (14.1%)|Avg: 88.79 s
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Hankook iON Evo
83.60 s
Pirelli Powergy
86.30 s
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
86.40 s
Continental UltraContact NXT
87.00 s
Sava Intensa SUV 2
87.10 s
Michelin Primacy 5
87.30 s
Barum Bravuris 6
89.70 s
Imperial EcoSport SUV
91.90 s
Kormoran Ultra High Performance
93.20 s
Tomket Tomket Suv
95.40 s
Wet circle tracking times were tightly grouped at the top, with the Hankook (11.49 s), Goodyear (11.59 s), and Pirelli (11.70 s) separated by just two tenths. The Kormoran was slowest at 12.55 s.
Wet Circle
Spread: 1.06 s (9.2%)|Avg: 11.96 s
Wet Circle Lap Time in seconds (Lower is better)
Hankook iON Evo
11.49 s
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
11.59 s
Pirelli Powergy
11.70 s
Continental UltraContact NXT
11.71 s
Sava Intensa SUV 2
11.77 s
Barum Bravuris 6
12.10 s
Michelin Primacy 5
12.10 s
Imperial EcoSport SUV
12.19 s
Tomket Tomket Suv
12.44 s
Kormoran Ultra High Performance
12.55 s
The Hankook held on to grip longest in straight-line aquaplaning, reaching 81.5 km/h before losing traction - well clear of the Tomket at 71.1 km/h. The Goodyear, despite its strong showing in other wet tests, dropped to eighth here at 72.9 m.
Straight Aqua
Spread: 10.40 Km/H (12.8%)|Avg: 75.02 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
Hankook iON Evo
81.50 Km/H
Sava Intensa SUV 2
79.00 Km/H
Michelin Primacy 5
77.80 Km/H
Pirelli Powergy
74.80 Km/H
Continental UltraContact NXT
74.50 Km/H
Imperial EcoSport SUV
73.50 Km/H
Barum Bravuris 6
72.90 Km/H
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
72.90 Km/H
Kormoran Ultra High Performance
72.20 Km/H
Tomket Tomket Suv
71.10 Km/H
Curved aquaplaning reshuffled the order: the Sava took first place at 3.45 m/s, ahead of the Hankook. The Goodyear finished last at 2.77 m/s, suggesting its tread pattern prioritises other wet disciplines over lateral water evacuation.
Curved Aquaplaning
Spread: 0.83 m/sec2 (24.1%)|Avg: 2.99 m/sec2
Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)
Sava Intensa SUV 2
3.45 m/sec2
Hankook iON Evo
3.26 m/sec2
Michelin Primacy 5
3.21 m/sec2
Imperial EcoSport SUV
3.08 m/sec2
Kormoran Ultra High Performance
3.03 m/sec2
Continental UltraContact NXT
2.90 m/sec2
Barum Bravuris 6
2.82 m/sec2
Pirelli Powergy
2.79 m/sec2
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
2.77 m/sec2
Tomket Tomket Suv
2.62 m/sec2
Comfort
The Hankook scored highest for subjective comfort at 7.0 points, likely helped by its built-in sound absorber foam layer. Five tyres - Pirelli, Barum, Continental, Goodyear, and Michelin - all tied at 6.5, while the Kormoran came last at 5.5.
Subj. Comfort
Spread: 1.50 Points (21.4%)|Avg: 6.30 Points
Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)
Hankook iON Evo
7.00 Points
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
6.50 Points
Barum Bravuris 6
6.50 Points
Michelin Primacy 5
6.50 Points
Continental UltraContact NXT
6.50 Points
Pirelli Powergy
6.50 Points
Imperial EcoSport SUV
6.00 Points
Sava Intensa SUV 2
6.00 Points
Tomket Tomket Suv
6.00 Points
Kormoran Ultra High Performance
5.50 Points
Exterior noise levels were closely bunched. The Pirelli was the quietest at both 50 km/h (65.4 dB) and 80 km/h (71.4 dB), while the Tomket was the loudest at 66.5 and 72.9 dB respectively - a small but measurable difference.
Noise
Spread: 1.50 dB (2.1%)|Avg: 72.38 dB
External noise in dB (Lower is better)
Pirelli Powergy
71.40 dB
Hankook iON Evo
71.90 dB
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
72.20 dB
Kormoran Ultra High Performance
72.30 dB
Continental UltraContact NXT
72.40 dB
Sava Intensa SUV 2
72.60 dB
Barum Bravuris 6
72.70 dB
Michelin Primacy 5
72.70 dB
Imperial EcoSport SUV
72.70 dB
Tomket Tomket Suv
72.90 dB
Value
The Goodyear had the lowest rolling resistance coefficient at 0.536, followed by the Continental at 0.587 and Barum at 0.600. The Imperial was the least efficient at 0.841 - roughly 57% higher than the Goodyear.
Rolling Resistance
Spread: 0.30 kg / t (55.6%)|Avg: 0.69 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
0.54 kg / t
Continental UltraContact NXT
0.59 kg / t
Barum Bravuris 6
0.60 kg / t
Kormoran Ultra High Performance
0.66 kg / t
Pirelli Powergy
0.67 kg / t
Michelin Primacy 5
0.68 kg / t
Hankook iON Evo
0.70 kg / t
Sava Intensa SUV 2
0.78 kg / t
Tomket Tomket Suv
0.79 kg / t
Imperial EcoSport SUV
0.84 kg / t
19,000 km
£1.45/L
8.0 L/100km
--
Annual Difference
--
Lifetime Savings
--
Extra Fuel/Energy
--
Extra CO2
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.
Real-world energy consumption on the ID.3 at a constant 80 km/h mirrored the lab results closely, with the Goodyear leading at 12.86 kWh/100 km and the Imperial last at 14.40 kWh/100 km. The Barum matched the Continental almost exactly (12.96 vs 12.95), confirming its strong efficiency showing despite being a budget tyre.
Energy Consumption
Spread: 1.54 kWh/100km (12%)|Avg: 13.57 kWh/100km
Energy consumption in kW hours per 100 km (Lower is better)
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
12.86 kWh/100km
Continental UltraContact NXT
12.95 kWh/100km
Barum Bravuris 6
12.96 kWh/100km
Kormoran Ultra High Performance
13.27 kWh/100km
Pirelli Powergy
13.34 kWh/100km
Tomket Tomket Suv
13.76 kWh/100km
Michelin Primacy 5
13.78 kWh/100km
Hankook iON Evo
14.12 kWh/100km
Sava Intensa SUV 2
14.21 kWh/100km
Imperial EcoSport SUV
14.40 kWh/100km
19,000 km
£1.45/L
8.0 L/100km
--
Annual Difference
--
Lifetime Savings
--
Extra Fuel/Energy
--
Extra CO2
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.
Results
The Hankook iON evo topped the overall standings with strong results across almost every discipline, followed by the Continental UltraContact NXT and Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2. The Tomket SUV and Imperial EcoSport SUV finished at the bottom with significant safety deficits, particularly in braking.
Hankook iON evo was crowned the winner of the test, standing out for its specialized "sound absorber" layer that completely eliminated hollow tyre echoes and significantly reduced interior cabin noise. It heavily dominated both wet and dry handling and braking disciplines and took first place in longitudinal aquaplaning. While it is one of the heavier tyres (10.96 kg) due to its foam insert, it still secured a solid fourth place in economy and comfort.
Continental UltraContact NXT finished second overall as the lightest tyre tested (9.47 kg) and was highlighted as an ecologically focused "ultra-marathoner" designed to endure high mileage despite a slightly shallower 7 mm tread. It excelled in the efficiency and comfort categories and actually led the entire pack in wet braking performance. Overall, it ranked fourth on wet surfaces and third on dry surfaces, while dominating in economy.
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 took the third spot on the podium as an excellent, well-rounded performer. It demonstrated top-tier efficiency by taking first place in both laboratory rolling resistance and real-world energy consumption tests. Weighing in on the lighter side (9.71 kg), it delivered great safety metrics by finishing third in wet handling disciplines and second in dry disciplines.
Michelin Primacy 5 secured fourth place overall. The tester noted that this specific set was surprisingly manufactured in China, which might have contributed to it being one of the heavier premium tyres at 10.81 kg. Despite the weight, it performed admirably in safety tests, taking third place in both longitudinal and transverse aquaplaning.
Pirelli Powergy was used as the baseline reference tyre for the test (scored at 100%) and finished fifth overall. It particularly excelled in exterior acoustic comfort, scoring the absolute best in exterior noise measurements at 50 and 80 km/h. It also delivered strong and reliable grip, placing second in wet handling and third in dry handling on the test track.
Barum Bravuris 6 emerged as the best budget tyre in the test with a sixth-place overall finish. This Czech-origin brand is the second lightest tyre (9.52 kg) and features a deep 7.4 mm tread. While its wet and dry safety ratings placed it lower in the pack (seventh place in both), it truly shined in economy and comfort, tying with premium tyres for the top ranks in rolling resistance and real-world EV efficiency.
Sava Intensa SUV 2 finished seventh overall and surprised the tester by outperforming many premium options in transverse aquaplaning, where it took first place. It held its own dynamically with a sixth-place finish in both wet and dry disciplines. However, its overall score was heavily dragged down by a last-place (tenth) finish in the economy and comfort categories.
Kormoran Ultra High Performance landed in eighth place overall. It struggled somewhat in handling and braking, finishing ninth in both wet and dry surface disciplines. However, it partially redeemed itself for daily driving by placing a respectable sixth in the economy and comfort tests.
Imperial EcoSport SUV was the heaviest tyre in the entire test, weighing 11.21 kg, though it shared the deepest tread depth (7.4 mm). While it generally placed in the lower half of the pack across most metrics, it managed a surprising fourth-place finish in the transverse aquaplaning discipline.
Tomket SUV finished dead last and was strongly criticized for its severe lack of safety and grip. The most alarming data point was its wet braking performance: stopping from 100 km/h took 62.3 meters-a massive 15 meters longer than the best tyre. The tester noted that if a car on Hankooks had completely stopped, a car on Tomkets would still be traveling at a dangerous 41.3 km/h.
