Menu

Best HT All Season Tyres for 2026 Tested!

Jonathan Benson
Tested and written by Jonathan Benson
11 min read
Below are all the data points for the Best HT All Season Tyres for 2026 Tested!, displaying how each tyre performed across all test categories. The spider chart below provides a complete overview of performance, where one hundred percent represents the best performance in each category. The larger the area covered by each tyre's plot, the better its overall performance.
How to read these charts: For each test category, data is presented relative to the best performing tire. The direction indicates whether lower or higher values are better - pay close attention to this when interpreting results.

Performance Overview

This radar chart shows relative performance across all test categories, with 100% representing the best performance in each category. Reference tires may have gaps where data is not available.

Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
Kumho Crugen HT51
Westlake SU318 HT
Cooper Endeavor Plus
Michelin Defender LTX MS2
General Grabber HT
Firestone Destination LE3

Quick Navigation

Dry Performance Overview

Dry Braking (M)

Spread: 2.95 M (7.4%) | Avg: 41.26 M

Dry braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was General Grabber HT with a result of 39.89 M. The difference between best and worst was 6.9%.
  1. General Grabber HT
    39.89 M
  2. Firestone Destination LE3
    40.43 M
  3. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    40.81 M
  4. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    41.1 M
  5. Westlake SU318 HT
    41.6 M
  6. Kumho Crugen HT51
    42.12 M
  7. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    42.84 M

Dry Handling (s)

Spread: 1.10 s (1.9%) | Avg: 59.29 s

Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: All the tyres in the dry handling test finished less than 3% apart.
  1. Westlake SU318 HT
    58.6 s
  2. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    59.2 s
  3. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    59.2 s
  4. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    59.3 s
  5. General Grabber HT
    59.4 s
  6. Kumho Crugen HT51
    59.6 s
  7. Firestone Destination LE3
    59.7 s

Wet Performance Overview

Wet Braking (M)

Spread: 4.99 M (9.1%) | Avg: 57.15 M

Wet braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was General Grabber HT with a result of 54.75 M. The difference between best and worst was 8.4%.
  1. General Grabber HT
    54.75 M
  2. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    55.1 M
  3. Firestone Destination LE3
    56.17 M
  4. Kumho Crugen HT51
    56.18 M
  5. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    58.66 M
  6. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    59.43 M
  7. Westlake SU318 HT
    59.74 M

Wet Handling (s)

Spread: 6.77 s (8.4%) | Avg: 82.94 s

Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was General Grabber HT with a result of 80.41 s. The difference between best and worst was 7.8%.
  1. General Grabber HT
    80.41 s
  2. Firestone Destination LE3
    80.49 s
  3. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    82.12 s
  4. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    82.55 s
  5. Kumho Crugen HT51
    83.15 s
  6. Westlake SU318 HT
    84.7 s
  7. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    87.18 s

Subj. Wet Handling ( Points)

Spread: 1.70 Points (20.5%) | Avg: 7.74 Points

Subjective Wet Handling Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Michelin Defender LTX MS2 with a result of 8.3 Points. The difference between best and worst was 20.5%.
  1. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    8.3 Points
  2. General Grabber HT
    8.2 Points
  3. Firestone Destination LE3
    8.1 Points
  4. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    8 Points
  5. Kumho Crugen HT51
    7.7 Points
  6. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    7.3 Points
  7. Westlake SU318 HT
    6.6 Points

Wet Circle (s)

Spread: 1.02 s (7.3%) | Avg: 14.47 s

Wet Circle Lap Time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was General Grabber HT with a result of 13.95 s. The difference between best and worst was 6.8%.
  1. General Grabber HT
    13.95 s
  2. Firestone Destination LE3
    14.06 s
  3. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    14.4 s
  4. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    14.49 s
  5. Kumho Crugen HT51
    14.59 s
  6. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    14.83 s
  7. Westlake SU318 HT
    14.97 s

Straight Aqua (Km/H)

Spread: 1.88 Km/H (2.1%) | Avg: 89.34 Km/H

Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)

Key Insight: All the tyres in the straight aqua test finished less than 3% apart.
  1. General Grabber HT
    90.24 Km/H
  2. Firestone Destination LE3
    89.71 Km/H
  3. Kumho Crugen HT51
    89.63 Km/H
  4. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    89.63 Km/H
  5. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    89.03 Km/H
  6. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    88.77 Km/H
  7. Westlake SU318 HT
    88.36 Km/H

Curved Aquaplaning (m/sec2)

Spread: 0.44 m/sec2 (12.8%) | Avg: 3.26 m/sec2

Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Cooper Endeavor Plus with a result of 3.44 m/sec2. The difference between best and worst was 12.8%.
  1. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    3.44 m/sec2
  2. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    3.38 m/sec2
  3. Kumho Crugen HT51
    3.34 m/sec2
  4. Firestone Destination LE3
    3.24 m/sec2
  5. Westlake SU318 HT
    3.22 m/sec2
  6. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    3.19 m/sec2
  7. General Grabber HT
    3 m/sec2

Snow Performance Overview

Snow Braking (M)

Spread: 1.29 M (7.1%) | Avg: 18.82 M

Snow braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Firestone Destination LE3 with a result of 18.14 M. The difference between best and worst was 6.6%.
  1. Firestone Destination LE3
    18.14 M
  2. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    18.16 M
  3. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    18.67 M
  4. General Grabber HT
    18.8 M
  5. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    19.11 M
  6. Kumho Crugen HT51
    19.43 M
  7. Westlake SU318 HT
    19.43 M

Snow Traction (s)

Spread: 1.38 s (45.1%) | Avg: 3.71 s

Snow acceleration time (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Kumho Crugen HT51 with a result of 3.06 s. The difference between best and worst was 31.1%.
  1. Kumho Crugen HT51
    3.06 s
  2. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    3.26 s
  3. Firestone Destination LE3
    3.31 s
  4. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    3.82 s
  5. General Grabber HT
    3.94 s
  6. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    4.13 s
  7. Westlake SU318 HT
    4.44 s

Snow Handling (s)

Spread: 4.14 s (4.7%) | Avg: 89.37 s

Snow handling time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Michelin Defender LTX MS2 with a result of 87.23 s. The difference between best and worst was 4.5%.
  1. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    87.23 s
  2. Firestone Destination LE3
    87.72 s
  3. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    88.75 s
  4. General Grabber HT
    89.44 s
  5. Kumho Crugen HT51
    89.89 s
  6. Westlake SU318 HT
    91.19 s
  7. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    91.37 s

Subj. Snow Handling ( Points)

Spread: 1.20 Points (14%) | Avg: 8.00 Points

Subjective Snow Handling Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Michelin Defender LTX MS2 with a result of 8.6 Points. The difference between best and worst was 14%.
  1. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    8.6 Points
  2. Firestone Destination LE3
    8.5 Points
  3. General Grabber HT
    8.3 Points
  4. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    8.1 Points
  5. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    7.6 Points
  6. Kumho Crugen HT51
    7.5 Points
  7. Westlake SU318 HT
    7.4 Points

Snow Cornering (g)

Spread: 0.03 g (9.6%) | Avg: 0.33 g

Average Lateral Acceleration in G (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Firestone Destination LE3 with a result of 0.344 g. The difference between best and worst was 9.6%.
  1. Firestone Destination LE3
    0.344 g
  2. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    0.336 g
  3. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    0.335 g
  4. General Grabber HT
    0.325 g
  5. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    0.32 g
  6. Kumho Crugen HT51
    0.311 g
  7. Westlake SU318 HT
    0.311 g

Off road Performance Overview

Dirt Handling (s)

Spread: 1.82 s (3%) | Avg: 60.92 s

Dirt handling time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: All the tyres in the dirt handling test finished less than 3% apart.
  1. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    60.2 s
  2. Kumho Crugen HT51
    60.44 s
  3. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    60.65 s
  4. Firestone Destination LE3
    60.66 s
  5. General Grabber HT
    60.91 s
  6. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    61.53 s
  7. Westlake SU318 HT
    62.02 s

Subj. Dirt Handling ( Points)

Spread: 1.50 Points (17.6%) | Avg: 7.97 Points

Subjective Dirt Handling Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Michelin Defender LTX MS2 with a result of 8.5 Points. The difference between best and worst was 17.6%.
  1. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    8.5 Points
  2. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    8.4 Points
  3. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    8.2 Points
  4. General Grabber HT
    8.2 Points
  5. Kumho Crugen HT51
    7.9 Points
  6. Firestone Destination LE3
    7.6 Points
  7. Westlake SU318 HT
    7 Points

Comfort Performance Overview

Subj. Comfort ( Points)

Spread: 0.70 Points (10.3%) | Avg: 6.44 Points

Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was General Grabber HT with a result of 6.8 Points. The difference between best and worst was 10.3%.
  1. General Grabber HT
    6.8 Points
  2. Kumho Crugen HT51
    6.6 Points
  3. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    6.6 Points
  4. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    6.4 Points
  5. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    6.3 Points
  6. Firestone Destination LE3
    6.3 Points
  7. Westlake SU318 HT
    6.1 Points

Noise (dB)

Spread: 3.40 dB (4.7%) | Avg: 74.26 dB

External noise in dB (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Westlake SU318 HT with a result of 72.4 dB. The difference between best and worst was 4.5%.
  1. Westlake SU318 HT
    72.4 dB
  2. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    73 dB
  3. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    74.2 dB
  4. Firestone Destination LE3
    74.4 dB
  5. General Grabber HT
    74.9 dB
  6. Kumho Crugen HT51
    75.1 dB
  7. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    75.8 dB

Value Performance Overview

Value (Price/1000)

Spread: 1.48 Price/1000 (66.1%) | Avg: 2.98 Price/1000

Dollars/1000 miles based on mileage warranty (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Westlake SU318 HT with a result of 2.24 Price/1000. The difference between best and worst was 39.8%.
  1. Westlake SU318 HT
    2.24 Price/1000
  2. Kumho Crugen HT51
    2.63 Price/1000
  3. General Grabber HT
    2.97 Price/1000
  4. Firestone Destination LE3
    3.01 Price/1000
  5. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    3.06 Price/1000
  6. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    3.22 Price/1000
  7. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    3.72 Price/1000

Rolling Resistance (kg / t)

Spread: 2.39 kg / t (34.4%) | Avg: 8.23 kg / t

Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Michelin Defender LTX MS2 with a result of 6.94 kg / t. The difference between best and worst was 25.6%.
  1. Michelin Defender LTX MS2
    6.94 kg / t
  2. Firestone Destination LE3
    7.7 kg / t
  3. Kumho Crugen HT51
    7.93 kg / t
  4. Cooper Endeavor Plus
    8.35 kg / t
  5. General Grabber HT
    8.43 kg / t
  6. Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
    8.92 kg / t
  7. Westlake SU318 HT
    9.33 kg / t

Overall Findings

Based on the weighted scoring from all tests, here are the overall results:

Position Tyre Score
General Grabber HT 97%
2 Firestone Destination LE3 96.5%
3 Cooper Endeavor Plus 96.2%
4 Kumho Crugen HT51 95.7%
5 Michelin Defender LTX MS2 94.3%
6 Westlake SU318 HT 93.5%
7 Yokohama Geolandar HT G056 93.4%

Test Winner

Yokohama Geolandar HT G056
Yokohama Geolandar HT G056

93.4%

Similar Tyre Tests

Show All all season tyre tests
2025 Autobild Crossover SUV All Season Test
December 2025 215/50 R18 Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6 12 tyres
Which is Best? BFGoodrich All Terrain KO3 vs Bridgestone AT Ascent vs Cooper Stronghold AT
February 2026 275/65 R18 BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3 3 tyres
2025 Tire Rack All Terrain Tyre Test
October 2025 265/70 R17 Continental TerrainContact AT 9 tyres
2025 Autobild SUV All Season Tyre Test
October 2025 215/55 R17 Vredestein Quatrac 13 tyres
2025 Autobild EV All Season Mini-Test
August 2025 245/45 R19 Hankook iON FlexClimate 3 tyres
2025 ADAC All Terrain Tyre Test
July 2025 225/65 R17 Yokohama Geolandar AT G015 9 tyres
comments powered by Disqus