Test Charts / Tyre Reviews

Are Budget Tyres Finally Good Enough? 8 Cheap Tyres VS 1 Premium Tyre

Name: Are Budget Tyres Finally Good Enough? 8 Cheap Tyres VS 1 Premium Tyre
Creator: Tyre Reviews
Published: 2023-04-13

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: 205/55 R16
Tyres tested: 9
Disciplines: 12

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental PremiumContact 7	35.27 m	Best	0 km/h
2Tomket Sport Series 1	37.83 m	+2.56 m	34 km/h
3Nankang Econex NA1	38.45 m	+3.18 m	37 km/h
4Davanti DX390	39.08 m	+3.81 m	41 km/h
5Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1	39.32 m	+4.05 m	42 km/h
6Winrun R330	39.41 m	+4.14 m	42 km/h
7King Meiler Sport 1 KM	39.48 m	+4.21 m	42 km/h
8Double Coin DC99	39.62 m	+4.35 m	43 km/h
9Triangle SporteX TH201	40.01 m	+4.74 m	45 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 13.4% (4.74 m ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Triangle SporteX TH201 would still be travelling at 45 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.

Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	51.73 s	Best
2Nankang Econex NA1	52.23 s	+0.50 s
3Tomket Sport Series 1	52.78 s	+1.05 s
4King Meiler Sport 1 KM	52.84 s	+1.11 s
5Winrun R330	52.85 s	+1.12 s
6Triangle SporteX TH201	52.97 s	+1.24 s
7Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1	53.21 s	+1.48 s
8Davanti DX390	53.32 s	+1.59 s
9Double Coin DC99	53.39 s	+1.66 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.2% (1.66 s).

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	100 Points	Best
2Winrun R330	90 Points	-10.00 Points
3King Meiler Sport 1 KM	85 Points	-15.00 Points
3Tomket Sport Series 1	85 Points	-15.00 Points
5Triangle SporteX TH201	80 Points	-20.00 Points
6Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1	75 Points	-25.00 Points
6Nankang Econex NA1	75 Points	-25.00 Points
8Davanti DX390	70 Points	-30.00 Points
9Double Coin DC99	30 Points	-70.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 70% (70 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental PremiumContact 7	31.58 m	Best	0 km/h
2Tomket Sport Series 1	38.69 m	+7.11 m	56 km/h
3Nankang Econex NA1	39.61 m	+8.03 m	59 km/h
4Davanti DX390	40.75 m	+9.17 m	62 km/h
5Winrun R330	40.91 m	+9.33 m	62 km/h
6Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1	43.45 m	+11.87 m	68 km/h
7Triangle SporteX TH201	43.6 m	+12.02 m	68 km/h
8King Meiler Sport 1 KM	43.93 m	+12.35 m	69 km/h
9Double Coin DC99	46.04 m	+14.46 m	73 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 45.8% (14.46 m ≈ 3.2 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Double Coin DC99 would still be travelling at 73 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.

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	84.85 s	Best
2Tomket Sport Series 1	89.21 s	+4.36 s
3Nankang Econex NA1	89.36 s	+4.51 s
4Davanti DX390	92.19 s	+7.34 s
5Winrun R330	92.25 s	+7.40 s
6Triangle SporteX TH201	93.11 s	+8.26 s
7Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1	93.93 s	+9.08 s
8King Meiler Sport 1 KM	95.24 s	+10.39 s
9Double Coin DC99	96.27 s	+11.42 s

The difference between best and worst was 13.5% (11.42 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	100 Points	Best
2Tomket Sport Series 1	90 Points	-10.00 Points
3Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1	75 Points	-25.00 Points
4Winrun R330	70 Points	-30.00 Points
4Nankang Econex NA1	70 Points	-30.00 Points
4Triangle SporteX TH201	70 Points	-30.00 Points
7King Meiler Sport 1 KM	65 Points	-35.00 Points
7Davanti DX390	65 Points	-35.00 Points
9Double Coin DC99	50 Points	-50.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 50% (50 Points).

Wet Circle
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	11.5 s	Best
2Nankang Econex NA1	11.9 s	+0.40 s
3Tomket Sport Series 1	12 s	+0.50 s
4Winrun R330	12.4 s	+0.90 s
4Davanti DX390	12.4 s	+0.90 s
6Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1	12.7 s	+1.20 s
6King Meiler Sport 1 KM	12.7 s	+1.20 s
6Triangle SporteX TH201	12.7 s	+1.20 s
9Double Coin DC99	12.8 s	+1.30 s

The difference between best and worst was 11.3% (1.3 s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	74.91 km/h	Best
2Nankang Econex NA1	74.13 km/h	-0.78 km/h
3Davanti DX390	70.98 km/h	-3.93 km/h
4Winrun R330	70.83 km/h	-4.08 km/h
5Tomket Sport Series 1	70.52 km/h	-4.39 km/h
6King Meiler Sport 1 KM	69.61 km/h	-5.30 km/h
7Triangle SporteX TH201	69.51 km/h	-5.40 km/h
8Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1	67.3 km/h	-7.61 km/h
9Double Coin DC99	64.55 km/h	-10.36 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 13.8% (10.36 Km/H).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	3.3 m/sec2	Best
2Nankang Econex NA1	3.2 m/sec2	-0.10 m/sec2
3Davanti DX390	3.1 m/sec2	-0.20 m/sec2
4Winrun R330	3 m/sec2	-0.30 m/sec2
5King Meiler Sport 1 KM	2.8 m/sec2	-0.50 m/sec2
5Tomket Sport Series 1	2.8 m/sec2	-0.50 m/sec2
7Triangle SporteX TH201	2.7 m/sec2	-0.60 m/sec2
8Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1	2.6 m/sec2	-0.70 m/sec2
9Double Coin DC99	2.3 m/sec2	-1.00 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 30.3% (1 m/sec2).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Winrun R330	100 Points	Best
2Continental PremiumContact 7	92 Points	-8.00 Points
3Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1	91 Points	-9.00 Points
3King Meiler Sport 1 KM	91 Points	-9.00 Points
3Davanti DX390	91 Points	-9.00 Points
3Tomket Sport Series 1	91 Points	-9.00 Points
3Triangle SporteX TH201	91 Points	-9.00 Points
8Nankang Econex NA1	90 Points	-10.00 Points
8Double Coin DC99	90 Points	-10.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 10% (10 Points).

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Double Coin DC99	70.2 dB	Best
2Davanti DX390	70.3 dB	+0.10 dB
3Nankang Econex NA1	71.9 dB	+1.70 dB
4Continental PremiumContact 7	72 dB	+1.80 dB
5Winrun R330	72.2 dB	+2.00 dB
6Tomket Sport Series 1	72.6 dB	+2.40 dB
7King Meiler Sport 1 KM	72.9 dB	+2.70 dB
8Triangle SporteX TH201	73.2 dB	+3.00 dB
9Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1	74.4 dB	+4.20 dB

The difference between best and worst was 6% (4.2 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Tomket Sport Series 1	8.28 kg/t	Best	£0
2Winrun R330	8.37 kg/t	+0.09 kg/t	£5
3Continental PremiumContact 7	8.38 kg/t	+0.10 kg/t	£5
4Davanti DX390	8.56 kg/t	+0.28 kg/t	£15
5Double Coin DC99	8.63 kg/t	+0.35 kg/t	£19
6Triangle SporteX TH201	8.71 kg/t	+0.43 kg/t	£23
7Nankang Econex NA1	9.18 kg/t	+0.90 kg/t	£48
8King Meiler Sport 1 KM	9.42 kg/t	+1.14 kg/t	£61
9Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1	9.82 kg/t	+1.54 kg/t	£82

The difference between best and worst was 18.6% (1.54 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Maxtrek MAXIMUS M1 uses about 57 L (£82) more fuel than the Tomket Sport Series 1.

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.

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%
Wet Circle	5%	2.5%
Straight Aqua	5%	2.5%
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.

Wet Circle

For wet lateral grip testing, I use a circular track of fixed radius, typically between 30 and 50 metres, broadly aligned with ISO 4138 principles. The surface is wetted in a controlled and repeatable manner. I progressively increase speed until the maximum sustainable cornering speed is reached. I normally record multiple laps in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions to reduce the influence of camber, banking, or directional track bias. I then calculate average lateral acceleration and compare the result with the reference tyre.

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.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tyre shortlist →Read the test →

More tyre tests