Every tyre is tested using calibrated instrumented measurement and structured subjective assessment. Reference tyres are retested throughout each session to correct for changing conditions, ensuring fair, repeatable comparisons. Multiple reference sets are used where needed so that control tyre wear does not affect accuracy.
We use professional-grade testing equipment including GPS data loggers, accelerometers, and calibrated microphones. All tyres are broken in and conditioned before testing begins. For full details on our equipment, preparation process, and calibration procedures, see our complete testing methodology.
Categories Tested
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.
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.
Snow Handling
For snow handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated snow handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tyres are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly than asphalt, control runs are carried out more frequently — typically every two candidate test sets.
Fuel Consumption
For real-world fuel consumption testing, I use matched vehicles on the same route under stabilised conditions, comparing candidate tyres with reference tyres. When an oval is not used, fuel use is measured over repeated runs in both directions to minimise the influence of wind and gradient. The result is reported in litres per 100 km, and the difference in consumption between candidate and reference is attributed to the difference in rolling resistance.
The Michelin CrossClimate 2 has finally been launched in Europe, and Tyre Reviews has the exclusive first test comparing the new Michelin CrossClimate 2 to the outgoing Michelin CrossClimate+.
In this test we look at the improvements made in dry grip, including dry braking which was already very impressive, the step forward in wet grip and aquaplaning resistance, the huge improvement in rolling resistance meaning lower fuel consumption / better MPG for your car, and the serious step forward Michelin have made in the snow performance of the new tyre.
Watch the video to see how the new Michelin CrossClimate 2 is better than the Michelin CrossClimate+ in nearly every way!
Dry
Dry Braking
Spread: 1.81 M (5.3%)|Avg: 35.06 M
Dry braking in meters (60 - 3 MPH) (Lower is better)
Dry Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tyre
Dry Handling
Spread: 1.74 s (2.2%)|Avg: 81.30 s
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Michelin CrossClimate 2
80.43 s
Michelin CrossClimate Plus
82.17 s
Wet
Wet Braking
Spread: 1.43 M (4.9%)|Avg: 29.92 M
Wet braking in meters (50 - 5 MPH) (Lower is better)
Wet Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tyre
Wet Handling
Spread: 0.03 s (0.1%)|Avg: 49.02 s
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Michelin CrossClimate 2
49.00 s
Michelin CrossClimate Plus
49.03 s
Snow
Snow Handling
Spread: 2.70 s (3%)|Avg: 92.65 s
Snow handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Michelin CrossClimate 2
91.30 s
Michelin CrossClimate Plus
94.00 s
Environment
Fuel Consumption
Spread: 0.11 l/100km (2%)|Avg: 5.61 l/100km
Fuel consumption in Litres per 100 km (Lower is better)
Michelin CrossClimate 2
5.55 l/100km
Michelin CrossClimate Plus
5.66 l/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
How each category is weighted in the overall score:
The Michelin CrossClimate 2 is a worthy upgrade on the original CrossClimate+. It improves the outgoing tyres grip in nearly all conditions, it makes a significant step forward in the snow, and has significantly lower rolling resistance.
All in all, the CrossClimate 2 is a very impressive all season tyre.
The Michelin CrossClimate+ has been testing well since 2017, rarely finishing out of the top five, even in 2020. The replacement Michelin CrossClimate 2 was launched in September 2021, and improves on the CrossClimate plus in the dry, wet, snow and rolling resistance.