Test source Autozurnal

2026 autozurnal Eco Summer Tyre Test

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…

Data analyzed and reviewed byJonathan Benson

April 10, 2026 8 min read

Tyre shortlist Read the test

215/55 R18 / 2026 View full image

Tyres tested: 10
Tested size: 215/55 R18
Test vehicle: VW iD3
Disciplines: 11

At a glance

Tyre shortlist

10 Tyres tested

Published finishing positions, with the strengths and considerations from this test. Owner reviews cover other sizes and driving conditions.

Tyre shortlist

Compare selected tyres

2026 autozurnal Eco Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R18

Tyre	Hankook iON Evo	Continental UltraContact NXT	Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	Michelin Primacy 5	Pirelli Powergy	Barum Bravuris 6	Sava Intensa SUV 2	Kormoran Ultra High Performance	Imperial EcoSport SUV	Tomket Tomket Suv
Position	1^st	2^nd	3^rd	4^th	5^th	6^th	7^th	8^th	9^th	10^th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	100%	93.4%	94.2%	90.1%	93.4%	86.9%	91.1%	87.1%	83.7%	80.7%
Wet	98.6%	95.8%	94.8%	96%	94.6%	91.1%	95.3%	87.9%	89%	84.4%
Comfort	99.7%	95.7%	95.9%	95.5%	96.4%	95.5%	92%	88.7%	92%	91.8%
Value	83.8%	95.3%	100%	86.2%	88.4%	94.3%	79.4%	88.8%	76.5%	80.8%
Keep researching	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results

Explore the complete results →

The full test

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

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

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 100 → 0 km/h
Wet Braking: 100 → 0 km/h

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
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Hankook iON Evo	34.8 m	Best	0 km/h
2Continental UltraContact NXT	37 m	+2.20 m	32 km/h
3Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	37.1 m	+2.30 m	32 km/h
4Pirelli Powergy	37.2 m	+2.40 m	33 km/h
5Sava Intensa SUV 2	38.2 m	+3.40 m	39 km/h
6Michelin Primacy 5	38.3 m	+3.50 m	39 km/h
7Kormoran Ultra High Performance	38.7 m	+3.90 m	41 km/h
8Barum Bravuris 6	39.3 m	+4.50 m	44 km/h
9Imperial EcoSport SUV	40.7 m	+5.90 m	49 km/h
10Tomket Tomket Suv	42 m	+7.20 m	54 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 20.7% (7.2 m ≈ 1.6 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Tomket Tomket Suv would still be travelling at 54 km/h when the Hankook iON Evo had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

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
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON Evo	7.75 Points	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	7.44 Points	-0.31 Points
3Pirelli Powergy	7.19 Points	-0.56 Points
4Sava Intensa SUV 2	7.06 Points	-0.69 Points
5Continental UltraContact NXT	7 Points	-0.75 Points
6Michelin Primacy 5	6.69 Points	-1.06 Points
7Barum Bravuris 6	6.13 Points	-1.62 Points
8Imperial EcoSport SUV	5.81 Points	-1.94 Points
9Kormoran Ultra High Performance	5.69 Points	-2.06 Points
10Tomket Tomket Suv	5.44 Points	-2.31 Points

The difference between best and worst was 29.8% (2.31 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
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental UltraContact NXT	47.2 m	Best	0 km/h
2Michelin Primacy 5	47.8 m	+0.60 m	15 km/h
3Hankook iON Evo	48.6 m	+1.40 m	22 km/h
4Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	48.7 m	+1.50 m	23 km/h
5Pirelli Powergy	49.4 m	+2.20 m	27 km/h
6Barum Bravuris 6	52.6 m	+5.40 m	42 km/h
7Sava Intensa SUV 2	52.7 m	+5.50 m	42 km/h
8Kormoran Ultra High Performance	57.4 m	+10.20 m	55 km/h
9Imperial EcoSport SUV	58.1 m	+10.90 m	56 km/h
10Tomket Tomket Suv	62.3 m	+15.10 m	64 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 32% (15.1 m ≈ 3.4 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Tomket Tomket Suv would still be travelling at 64 km/h when the Continental UltraContact NXT had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

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
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON Evo	83.6 s	Best
2Pirelli Powergy	86.3 s	+2.70 s
3Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	86.4 s	+2.80 s
4Continental UltraContact NXT	87 s	+3.40 s
5Sava Intensa SUV 2	87.1 s	+3.50 s
6Michelin Primacy 5	87.3 s	+3.70 s
7Barum Bravuris 6	89.7 s	+6.10 s
8Imperial EcoSport SUV	91.9 s	+8.30 s
9Kormoran Ultra High Performance	93.2 s	+9.60 s
10Tomket Tomket Suv	95.4 s	+11.80 s

The difference between best and worst was 14.1% (11.8 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
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON Evo	11.49 s	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	11.59 s	+0.10 s
3Pirelli Powergy	11.7 s	+0.21 s
4Continental UltraContact NXT	11.71 s	+0.22 s
5Sava Intensa SUV 2	11.77 s	+0.28 s
6Michelin Primacy 5	12.1 s	+0.61 s
6Barum Bravuris 6	12.1 s	+0.61 s
8Imperial EcoSport SUV	12.19 s	+0.70 s
9Tomket Tomket Suv	12.44 s	+0.95 s
10Kormoran Ultra High Performance	12.55 s	+1.06 s

The difference between best and worst was 9.2% (1.06 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
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON Evo	81.5 km/h	Best
2Sava Intensa SUV 2	79 km/h	-2.50 km/h
3Michelin Primacy 5	77.8 km/h	-3.70 km/h
4Pirelli Powergy	74.8 km/h	-6.70 km/h
5Continental UltraContact NXT	74.5 km/h	-7.00 km/h
6Imperial EcoSport SUV	73.5 km/h	-8.00 km/h
7Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	72.9 km/h	-8.60 km/h
7Barum Bravuris 6	72.9 km/h	-8.60 km/h
9Kormoran Ultra High Performance	72.2 km/h	-9.30 km/h
10Tomket Tomket Suv	71.1 km/h	-10.40 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 12.8% (10.4 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
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Sava Intensa SUV 2	3.45 m/sec2	Best
2Hankook iON Evo	3.26 m/sec2	-0.19 m/sec2
3Michelin Primacy 5	3.21 m/sec2	-0.24 m/sec2
4Imperial EcoSport SUV	3.08 m/sec2	-0.37 m/sec2
5Kormoran Ultra High Performance	3.03 m/sec2	-0.42 m/sec2
6Continental UltraContact NXT	2.9 m/sec2	-0.55 m/sec2
7Barum Bravuris 6	2.82 m/sec2	-0.63 m/sec2
8Pirelli Powergy	2.79 m/sec2	-0.66 m/sec2
9Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	2.77 m/sec2	-0.68 m/sec2
10Tomket Tomket Suv	2.62 m/sec2	-0.83 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 24.1% (0.83 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
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook iON Evo	7 Points	Best
2Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Pirelli Powergy	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Continental UltraContact NXT	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Michelin Primacy 5	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Barum Bravuris 6	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
7Imperial EcoSport SUV	6 Points	-1.00 Points
7Sava Intensa SUV 2	6 Points	-1.00 Points
7Tomket Tomket Suv	6 Points	-1.00 Points
10Kormoran Ultra High Performance	5.5 Points	-1.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 21.4% (1.5 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
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Powergy	71.4 dB	Best
2Hankook iON Evo	71.9 dB	+0.50 dB
3Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	72.2 dB	+0.80 dB
4Kormoran Ultra High Performance	72.3 dB	+0.90 dB
5Continental UltraContact NXT	72.4 dB	+1.00 dB
6Sava Intensa SUV 2	72.6 dB	+1.20 dB
7Imperial EcoSport SUV	72.7 dB	+1.30 dB
7Michelin Primacy 5	72.7 dB	+1.30 dB
7Barum Bravuris 6	72.7 dB	+1.30 dB
10Tomket Tomket Suv	72.9 dB	+1.50 dB

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

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
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra energy / year
1Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	0.54 kg/t	Best	£0
2Continental UltraContact NXT	0.59 kg/t	+0.05 kg/t	£22
3Barum Bravuris 6	0.6 kg/t	+0.06 kg/t	£27
4Kormoran Ultra High Performance	0.66 kg/t	+0.12 kg/t	£53
5Pirelli Powergy	0.67 kg/t	+0.13 kg/t	£58
6Michelin Primacy 5	0.68 kg/t	+0.14 kg/t	£62
7Hankook iON Evo	0.7 kg/t	+0.16 kg/t	£71
8Sava Intensa SUV 2	0.78 kg/t	+0.24 kg/t	£106
9Tomket Tomket Suv	0.79 kg/t	+0.25 kg/t	£111
10Imperial EcoSport SUV	0.84 kg/t	+0.30 kg/t	£133

The difference between best and worst was 55.6% (0.3 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £0.28/kWh, the Imperial EcoSport SUV uses about 475 kWh (£133) more electricity than the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2.

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.

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
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra energy / year
1Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2	12.86 kWh/100km	Best	£0
2Continental UltraContact NXT	12.95 kWh/100km	+0.09 kWh/100km	£5
3Barum Bravuris 6	12.96 kWh/100km	+0.10 kWh/100km	£5
4Kormoran Ultra High Performance	13.27 kWh/100km	+0.41 kWh/100km	£22
5Pirelli Powergy	13.34 kWh/100km	+0.48 kWh/100km	£26
6Tomket Tomket Suv	13.76 kWh/100km	+0.90 kWh/100km	£48
7Michelin Primacy 5	13.78 kWh/100km	+0.92 kWh/100km	£49
8Hankook iON Evo	14.12 kWh/100km	+1.26 kWh/100km	£67
9Sava Intensa SUV 2	14.21 kWh/100km	+1.35 kWh/100km	£72
10Imperial EcoSport SUV	14.4 kWh/100km	+1.54 kWh/100km	£82

The difference between best and worst was 12% (1.54 kWh/100km). Over 19,000 km a year at £0.28/kWh, the Imperial EcoSport SUV uses about 293 kWh (£82) more electricity than the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2.

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

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.

Autozurnal Good dobrý

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.

Dry100%

Wet98.6%

Comfort99.7%

Value83.8%

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	1^st / 10	34.8 m	Best in this discipline
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 10	7.75 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 10	48.6 m	+1.40 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 10	83.6 s	Best in this discipline
Wet CircleLower is better	1^st / 10	11.49 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 10	81.5 km/h	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 10	3.26 m/sec2	-0.19 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	1^st / 10	7 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 10	71.9 dB	+0.50 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	7^th / 10	0.7 kg/t	+0.16 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 10	14.12 kWh/100km	+1.26 kWh/100km

Autozurnal Good dobrý

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.

Dry93.4%

Wet95.8%

Comfort95.7%

Value95.3%

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	2^nd / 10	37 m	+2.20 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 10	7 Points	-0.75 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 10	47.2 m	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 10	87 s	+3.40 s
Wet CircleLower is better	4^th / 10	11.71 s	+0.22 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 10	74.5 km/h	-7.00 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 10	2.9 m/sec2	-0.55 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 10	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 10	72.4 dB	+1.00 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 10	0.587 kg/t	+0.05 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 10	12.95 kWh/100km	+0.09 kWh/100km

Autozurnal Good dobrý

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.

Dry94.2%

Wet94.8%

Comfort95.9%

Value100%

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	3^rd / 10	37.1 m	+2.30 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 10	7.438 Points	-0.31 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 10	48.7 m	+1.50 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 10	86.4 s	+2.80 s
Wet CircleLower is better	2^nd / 10	11.59 s	+0.10 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 10	72.9 km/h	-8.60 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	9^th / 10	2.77 m/sec2	-0.68 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 10	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 10	72.2 dB	+0.80 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	1^st / 10	0.536 kg/t	Best in this discipline
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 10	12.86 kWh/100km	Best in this discipline

Autozurnal Good dobrý

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.

Dry90.1%

Wet96%

Comfort95.5%

Value86.2%

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	6^th / 10	38.3 m	+3.50 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 10	6.688 Points	-1.06 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 10	47.8 m	+0.60 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 10	87.3 s	+3.70 s
Wet CircleLower is better	6^th / 10	12.1 s	+0.61 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 10	77.8 km/h	-3.70 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 10	3.21 m/sec2	-0.24 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 10	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 10	72.7 dB	+1.30 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 10	0.677 kg/t	+0.14 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	7^th / 10	13.78 kWh/100km	+0.92 kWh/100km

Autozurnal Very Good velmi dobrý

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.

Dry93.4%

Wet94.6%

Comfort96.4%

Value88.4%

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	4^th / 10	37.2 m	+2.40 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 10	7.188 Points	-0.56 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 10	49.4 m	+2.20 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 10	86.3 s	+2.70 s
Wet CircleLower is better	3^rd / 10	11.7 s	+0.21 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 10	74.8 km/h	-6.70 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	8^th / 10	2.79 m/sec2	-0.66 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 10	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 10	71.4 dB	Best in this discipline
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	5^th / 10	0.667 kg/t	+0.13 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 10	13.34 kWh/100km	+0.48 kWh/100km

Autozurnal Good dobrý

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.

Dry86.9%

Wet91.1%

Comfort95.5%

Value94.3%

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	8^th / 10	39.3 m	+4.50 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 10	6.125 Points	-1.63 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 10	52.6 m	+5.40 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 10	89.7 s	+6.10 s
Wet CircleLower is better	6^th / 10	12.1 s	+0.61 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 10	72.9 km/h	-8.60 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	7^th / 10	2.82 m/sec2	-0.63 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 10	6.5 Points	-0.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 10	72.7 dB	+1.30 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	3^rd / 10	0.6 kg/t	+0.06 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	3^rd / 10	12.96 kWh/100km	+0.10 kWh/100km

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.

Dry91.1%

Wet95.3%

Comfort92%

Value79.4%

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	5^th / 10	38.2 m	+3.40 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 10	7.063 Points	-0.69 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 10	52.7 m	+5.50 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 10	87.1 s	+3.50 s
Wet CircleLower is better	5^th / 10	11.77 s	+0.28 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 10	79 km/h	-2.50 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 10	3.45 m/sec2	Best in this discipline
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	7^th / 10	6 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 10	72.6 dB	+1.20 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	8^th / 10	0.784 kg/t	+0.25 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	9^th / 10	14.21 kWh/100km	+1.35 kWh/100km

Autozurnal Good dobrý

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.

Dry87.1%

Wet87.9%

Comfort88.7%

Value88.8%

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	7^th / 10	38.7 m	+3.90 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	9^th / 10	5.688 Points	-2.06 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 10	57.4 m	+10.20 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	9^th / 10	93.2 s	+9.60 s
Wet CircleLower is better	10^th / 10	12.55 s	+1.06 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 10	72.2 km/h	-9.30 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	5^th / 10	3.03 m/sec2	-0.42 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	10^th / 10	5.5 Points	-1.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 10	72.3 dB	+0.90 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	4^th / 10	0.664 kg/t	+0.13 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	4^th / 10	13.27 kWh/100km	+0.41 kWh/100km

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.

Dry83.7%

Wet89%

Comfort92%

Value76.5%

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	9^th / 10	40.7 m	+5.90 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 10	5.813 Points	-1.94 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	9^th / 10	58.1 m	+10.90 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	8^th / 10	91.9 s	+8.30 s
Wet CircleLower is better	8^th / 10	12.19 s	+0.70 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 10	73.5 km/h	-8.00 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	4^th / 10	3.08 m/sec2	-0.37 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	7^th / 10	6 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 10	72.7 dB	+1.30 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	10^th / 10	0.841 kg/t	+0.31 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	10^th / 10	14.4 kWh/100km	+1.54 kWh/100km

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.

Dry80.7%

Wet84.4%

Comfort91.8%

Value80.8%

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	10^th / 10	42 m	+7.20 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	10^th / 10	5.438 Points	-2.31 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	10^th / 10	62.3 m	+15.10 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	10^th / 10	95.4 s	+11.80 s
Wet CircleLower is better	9^th / 10	12.44 s	+0.95 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	10^th / 10	71.1 km/h	-10.40 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	10^th / 10	2.62 m/sec2	-0.83 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	7^th / 10	6 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	10^th / 10	72.9 dB	+1.50 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	9^th / 10	0.786 kg/t	+0.25 kg/t
Energy ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 10	13.76 kWh/100km	+0.90 kWh/100km

More tyre tests

Cross-check this test

All tyre tests

Where these tyres were tested again, and how the verdict held up.

DEKRA2025

2025 DEKRA Wear Test of Michelin Primacy 5 Energy vs Rivals

215/55 R188 tyres tested

3 of these 10 tyres tested again

Joint winners there

Michelin Primacy 5 / Michelin Primacy 5 Energy

ADAC2026

2026 ADAC Summer Tyre Test

225/50 R1716 tyres tested

2 of these 10 tyres tested again

Winner there

Continental PremiumContact 7

Motor2025

2025 Motor Low Rolling Resistance (AA) Tyre Test

205/55 R167 tyres tested

2 of these 10 tyres tested again

Winner there

Continental UltraContact NXT

More tyre tests2026 AutoView Sport Tyre Test 2026 Tire Rack Streetable Track Tyre Test 2026 Auto Express Summer Tyre Test Michelin Range Test - CrossClimate 3, 3 Sport, Primacy 5, Pilot Sport 5 and Cup 2 All tests: Summer Tyres

Best tyresBest UUHP Tyres Best Performance Summer Tyres Best Summer Tyres

Discussion

7 comments

pgamelas Sep 4, 2026

I watched the tests, and the results for the Hankook iON evo are accurate when the tyres are new. When I first bought them, they were excellent, just as you can see in the review.

However, after a relatively short period of time — around 10,000 km — the tyres started behaving completely differently. In the rain and on wet roads, they became unpredictable and, in my opinion, very dangerous. In dry corners, they also started to feel less precise.

I have never had tyres that changed their behaviour so much over such a short period of use. On the same car (Tesla Model 3 Performance), I previously had Michelin Pilot Sport 4S and Bridgestone Potenza Sport, and now the Hankooks. The difference in behaviour as the tyres wear is much more noticeable with the Hankooks.

I have now done around 40,000 km on them. They still have plenty of tread left, as they last significantly longer than the Bridgestones. However, I intend to replace them before winter because I no longer feel confident using them in wet conditions.

Regards

#10760
Antore May 25, 2026

You write that the PremiumContact 7 is a “safety/handling champ.” Continental is a good tire and has won many tests. However, load capacity is a significant factor when making tire comparisons, and I have not seen a single test where the PremiumContact 7 has come out on top when talking about tires suitable for the weight of EVs and sizes 18 inches or above.

The Ion EVO is unfortunately tested quite rarely, but AutoBild tested it about a year ago in size 215/55 R18 (99 Y), and the PremiumContact 7 was included as well. The Ion EVO was the clear winner compared to the Continental — both in wet and dry conditions, handling, braking, and even aquaplaning tests. I recommend taking a look at the test results.

I’ve now been driving on these Hankooks for a few weeks (Polestar 2), and besides being a high-performance tire, it is also incredibly comfortable and quiet. I can recommend it without reservation.

#10637
1. TyreReviews Antore May 26, 2026
  
  I'm a little confused as the PC7 isn't in this test? Generally the PC7 does well in safety critical criteria such as wet braking.
  
  The iON EVO does seem to be quite a special tyre though.
  
  #10638
  1. Antore TyreReviews May 26, 2026
    
    As I wrote, the PC7 and the iON EVO were both included in the same AutoBild test about a year ago. I haven’t found any other tire test where these two tires were tested together. The only way to truly compare tires is when they are tested at the same time and using the same testing methods.
    
    Here is the link to the results, where both the PC7 and the iON EVO are included: https://www.tyrereviews.com/Tyre-Tests/2025-EV-Tyre-Test.htm
    
    #10639
  2. Antore TyreReviews May 26, 2026
    
    My original message was meant to be a reply to “Fermin’s” message below, where the PC7 was mentioned. My bad, and I apologize for posting my message in the wrong place :)
    
    #10640
    1. TyreReviews Antore May 27, 2026
      
      Ah that makes more sense :)
      
      I have actually tested the iON but not against the PC7. It is a very good tyre. Sadly there was an issue with part of the test so the full results couldn't be published yet.
      
      #10641
Fermi Apr 20, 2026 archived

Very interesting test results. I am currently thinking what my next pair of summers will be for my Ioniq 6 (225 / 55 R18). It is currently running on Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 3 EV, which have a C in wet braking and I really dislike their lack of wet grip.
When I pair this with other recent summer tyre tests (yours and ADAC first of all), it seems that both the Goodyear Efficient Grip 2 and Continental Ultragrip NXT are very similar in Safety/Handling to the Michelin Primacy 5, but quite a lot better in rolling resistance.
Going from the ADAC test, Goodyear is also very comparable in wear to the Michelin. I would assume the Ultragrip to be very competitive here, but so far I have seen no data on this.
Going to the safety/handling champs, like the Continental Premium Contact 7 and Pirelli Cinturato C3, they probably slot in rolling resistance like the Imperial in this test.
For me this means I either pay a premium and go the Premium Contact 7 / Pirelli route: This would result in ~160€ more over lifetime in energy, and 20% less mileage until they need to be changed. This is roughly 50% more expensive in total over tyre lifetime. Also, roughly 50 km less range per battery charge (Going just by a 2 kWh/100km increase).
If I go by the more economical prio, I would skip the Primacy 5 and go straight for Efficient Grip 2 or Ultragrip NXT. Means a lot cheaper to run and 50 km more on a single charge.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

#10610

Menu

Tyre shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry

Wet

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test