Highway terrain all season tyres are probably the most important category of tyre I've never tested. They're one of the biggest selling segments in North America, so it was about time I gave them the same treatment every other category gets.

For this test I picked seven of the most popular HTs on sale today, all in 265/65 R18, spanning pretty much every price point you'll find at a US tyre shop. There's the segment benchmark - the Michelin Defender LTX M/S2 - alongside the brand-new General Grabber HT, mid-range options from Cooper (Endeavor Plus), Firestone (Destination LE3), Kumho (Crugen HT51) and Yokohama (Geolandar HT G056), and a budget tyre in the Westlake SU318 HT to find out how far cheap has come. The question I wanted to answer is the one I think most truck owners are asking: does spending more money actually mean a better tyre?

The dry, wet and dirt sessions were run on a Ford Raptor at the proving ground. For snow I flew the set to northern Sweden and bolted them to a Tahoe. Every tyre was then scored on dry braking and handling, wet braking, handling, straight and curved aquaplaning, snow braking, traction, handling and cornering, comfort, noise, rolling resistance, and cost per 1,000 miles based on the tread warranty. The full results are below - and as always, you can change the score weighting to match your own driving conditions to find the right HT for you.

Test setup & methodology

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

Test Driver: Jonathan Benson

Show full testing methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 100 → 0 km/h
Wet Braking: 80 → 0 km/h
Wet Handling: 19–21 °C
Snow Braking: 40 → 5 km/h · -18–-14 °C
Snow Traction: 0 → 20 km/h · -21–-19 °C
Snow Handling: -22–-20 °C
Snow Cornering: -14–-13 °C
Dirt Handling: 18–23 °C

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 · 30%
Dry Braking	60%	18%
Dry Handling	40%	12%
Wet · 40%
Wet Braking	50%	20%
Wet Handling	20%	8%
Subj. Wet Handling	5%	2%
Wet Circle	10%	4%
Straight Aqua	10%	4%
Curved Aquaplaning	5%	2%
Off road · 5%
Dirt Handling	50%	2.5%
Subj. Dirt Handling	50%	2.5%
Snow · 10%
Snow Braking	40%	4%
Snow Traction	20%	2%
Snow Handling	30%	3%
Subj. Snow Handling	5%	0.5%
Snow Cornering	5%	0.5%
Comfort · 7.5%
Subj. Comfort	50%	3.75%
Noise	50%	3.75%
Value · 7.5%
Value	60%	4.5%
Rolling Resistance	40%	3%

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.

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.

Snow Braking

For snow braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 50 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a groomed, compacted snow surface, measuring 45-5 km/h. I generally use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tyre ever brakes on the same piece of snow twice. My standard programme is twelve runs per tyre set, although the sequence can extend further if the data justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. To correct for changing snow surface conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly — typically every two candidate test sets.

Snow Traction

For snow traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a groomed snow surface with traction control active and measure speed and time using GPS telemetry. I typically use a 5–35 km/h measurement window to reduce the influence of launch transients and powertrain irregularities. I use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tyre ever accelerates on the same piece of snow twice. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I complete multiple runs per tyre set and average the valid results. Reference tyres are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing snow surface conditions.

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.

Subj. Snow Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated snow handling circuit. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tyres are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I score steering precision, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence on snow 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.

Snow Cornering

For snow cornering, I drive the test vehicle through dedicated snow cornering sections at progressively increasing speeds. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. Lateral acceleration is measured using GPS telemetry and accelerometers. Multiple runs are averaged. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly, the control tyre is retested frequently to account for changing conditions.

Dirt Handling

For dirt handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated dirt handling course with ESC typically disabled. I complete multiple timed laps per tyre set, excluding laps affected by driver error or environmental inconsistency. Because natural surfaces are inherently variable, I place particular emphasis on repeat runs, careful reference tracking, and averaged results. The control tyre is retested at regular intervals.

Subj. Dirt Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment on a dedicated dirt course. I score steering feel, traction, stability, 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.

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 →

Dry Braking

The General Grabber HT had the shortest dry stop at 39.89 metres, with the Firestone Destination LE3 just over half a metre behind. The Michelin Defender LTX M/S2 was the surprise here, slipping to seventh - though best-to-worst was less than three metres, so the spread isn't huge.

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1General Grabber HT	39.89 m	Best	0 km/h
2Firestone Destination LE3	40.43 m	+0.54 m	15 km/h
3Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	40.81 m	+0.92 m	20 km/h
4Cooper Endeavor Plus	41.1 m	+1.21 m	22 km/h
5Westlake SU318 HT	41.6 m	+1.71 m	26 km/h
6Kumho Crugen HT51	42.12 m	+2.23 m	30 km/h
7Michelin Defender LTX MS2	42.84 m	+2.95 m	34 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 7.4% (2.95 m ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Michelin Defender LTX MS2 would still be travelling at 34 km/h when the General Grabber HT had stopped.

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

Dry Handling

I didn't run dry handling myself - the Raptor really wasn't the right tool for the job - so a colleague drove the laps. The Westlake SU318 HT was actually the fastest tyre, with the Yokohama and Cooper tied a tenth behind, and the entire field covered just 1.1 seconds. Dry lap time was not where this test was decided.

Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Westlake SU318 HT	58.6 s	Best
2Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	59.2 s	+0.60 s
2Cooper Endeavor Plus	59.2 s	+0.60 s
4Michelin Defender LTX MS2	59.3 s	+0.70 s
5General Grabber HT	59.4 s	+0.80 s
6Kumho Crugen HT51	59.6 s	+1.00 s
7Firestone Destination LE3	59.7 s	+1.10 s

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

Wet Braking

As with dry braking, the General Grabber HT topped the chart in the wet, this time with the Cooper Endeavor Plus close behind. The Westlake and Michelin sat at the bottom of the field, both around five metres adrift of the General - for a benchmark premium tyre, the Michelin's wet braking result is genuinely disappointing.

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1General Grabber HT	54.75 m	Best	0 km/h
2Cooper Endeavor Plus	55.1 m	+0.35 m	10 km/h
3Firestone Destination LE3	56.17 m	+1.42 m	21 km/h
4Kumho Crugen HT51	56.18 m	+1.43 m	21 km/h
5Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	58.66 m	+3.91 m	34 km/h
6Michelin Defender LTX MS2	59.43 m	+4.68 m	36 km/h
7Westlake SU318 HT	59.74 m	+4.99 m	38 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 9.1% (4.99 m ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Westlake SU318 HT would still be travelling at 38 km/h when the General Grabber HT had stopped.

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

Wet Handling

Wet handling told a clear story. The General Grabber HT and Firestone Destination LE3 were essentially tied at the top - both were fabulous to drive, with the General slightly easier thanks to a wider window of grip when sliding.

The Michelin came third with a progressive, easy-to-drive character, but it felt a touch lazy on the steering and didn't have the outright grip of the top two. The Cooper and Kumho posted nearly identical times, but I preferred the Cooper - the Kumho let go a little more abruptly, which made it harder to read at the limit. The Westlake's outright grip was actually OK for its price point, but it was the hardest tyre to drive in the field: when it broke away, it broke away suddenly and without much warning. The Yokohama was the worst, and was the real surprise of the day - I was running semi-blind and within two corners had assumed I was on the budget tyre. It spun up easily, slid early, and took a long time to recover. Yokohama needs to improve this tyre's wet grip.

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HT	80.41 s	Best
2Firestone Destination LE3	80.49 s	+0.08 s
3Michelin Defender LTX MS2	82.12 s	+1.71 s
4Cooper Endeavor Plus	82.55 s	+2.14 s
5Kumho Crugen HT51	83.15 s	+2.74 s
6Westlake SU318 HT	84.7 s	+4.29 s
7Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	87.18 s	+6.77 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.4% (6.77 s).

Straight Aquaplaning

The General Grabber HT was first off the floats at 90.24 km/h, with the Firestone, Kumho and Michelin clustered just behind. The Westlake floated earliest, with the Yokohama not far ahead of it.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HT	90.24 km/h	Best
2Firestone Destination LE3	89.71 km/h	-0.53 km/h
3Kumho Crugen HT51	89.63 km/h	-0.61 km/h
3Michelin Defender LTX MS2	89.63 km/h	-0.61 km/h
5Cooper Endeavor Plus	89.03 km/h	-1.21 km/h
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	88.77 km/h	-1.47 km/h
7Westlake SU318 HT	88.36 km/h	-1.88 km/h

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

Curved Aquaplaning

A near-complete reversal of the straight aquaplaning order - the Cooper Endeavor Plus held the most lateral grip on standing water, with the Michelin and Kumho close behind. The General, dominant in straight-line aqua and wet handling, was actually last in this test, which is worth knowing if you regularly drive flooded curves.

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Cooper Endeavor Plus	3.44 m/sec2	Best
2Michelin Defender LTX MS2	3.38 m/sec2	-0.06 m/sec2
3Kumho Crugen HT51	3.34 m/sec2	-0.10 m/sec2
4Firestone Destination LE3	3.24 m/sec2	-0.20 m/sec2
5Westlake SU318 HT	3.22 m/sec2	-0.22 m/sec2
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	3.19 m/sec2	-0.25 m/sec2
7General Grabber HT	3 m/sec2	-0.44 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 12.8% (0.44 m/sec2).

Snow Braking

The Firestone Destination LE3 just edged the Michelin to win snow braking, separated by only 0.02 of a metre. The Westlake and Kumho tied at the back, more than a metre adrift of the leaders.

Snow Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Firestone Destination LE3	18.14 m	Best	0 km/h
2Michelin Defender LTX MS2	18.16 m	+0.02 m	4 km/h
3Cooper Endeavor Plus	18.67 m	+0.53 m	22 km/h
4General Grabber HT	18.8 m	+0.66 m	24 km/h
5Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	19.11 m	+0.97 m	29 km/h
6Kumho Crugen HT51	19.43 m	+1.29 m	33 km/h
6Westlake SU318 HT	19.43 m	+1.29 m	33 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 7.1% (1.29 m). From 130 km/h, the Westlake SU318 HT would still be travelling at 33 km/h when the Firestone Destination LE3 had stopped.

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

Snow Traction

The Kumho Crugen HT51 was on another level here, posting a traction time 0.2 seconds clear of the Michelin in second - its straight-line acceleration on snow was unbelievable compared to anything else in the test. The Westlake was last, with the Yokohama and General both further down the field than I'd have liked to see.

Snow Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Kumho Crugen HT51	3.06 s	Best
2Michelin Defender LTX MS2	3.26 s	+0.20 s
3Firestone Destination LE3	3.31 s	+0.25 s
4Cooper Endeavor Plus	3.82 s	+0.76 s
5General Grabber HT	3.94 s	+0.88 s
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	4.13 s	+1.07 s
7Westlake SU318 HT	4.44 s	+1.38 s

The difference between best and worst was 45.1% (1.38 s).

Snow Handling

The Michelin Defender LTX M/S2 took the snow handling lap time, with the Firestone right behind - the Firestone surprised me by running the Michelin that close, as I'd expected the Michelin to walk away with this one.

The Cooper and General were both happy in winter conditions for all-season tyres, with the General slightly more chuckable past the limit. The Kumho was a strange one to drive - straight-line traction was incredible, but as soon as you arrived at a corner the front end just didn't want to turn. Straight to the scene of the accident, as I put it at the time. The Westlake was actually surprisingly grippy for its price point, with a rounded grip circle and predictable breakaway. The Yokohama was last by a clear margin and was a nervous, low-confidence tyre throughout the snow programme. Worth keeping in mind these are all-season tyres - if you live anywhere with serious winter, a dedicated winter tyre will absolutely embarrass any of them.

Snow Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Defender LTX MS2	87.23 s	Best
2Firestone Destination LE3	87.72 s	+0.49 s
3Cooper Endeavor Plus	88.75 s	+1.52 s
4General Grabber HT	89.44 s	+2.21 s
5Kumho Crugen HT51	89.89 s	+2.66 s
6Westlake SU318 HT	91.19 s	+3.96 s
7Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	91.37 s	+4.14 s

The difference between best and worst was 4.7% (4.14 s).

Snow Cornering

The Firestone, Michelin and Cooper held the highest cornering G on snow and were tightly grouped at the top. The Kumho slipped to joint last with the Westlake - exactly what its handling lap suggested, with the strong straight-line traction undone by weak lateral grip.

Snow Cornering
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Firestone Destination LE3	0.34 g	Best
1Michelin Defender LTX MS2	0.34 g	Best
1Cooper Endeavor Plus	0.34 g	Best
4General Grabber HT	0.33 g	-0.01 g
5Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	0.32 g	-0.02 g
6Kumho Crugen HT51	0.31 g	-0.03 g
6Westlake SU318 HT	0.31 g	-0.03 g

The difference between best and worst was 8.8% (0.03 g).

Dirt Handling

Dirt handling was tight across the board, but a few tyres stood out. The Cooper Endeavor Plus posted the fastest objective lap, with the Kumho and Michelin a couple of tenths behind - though subjectively, the Michelin Defender LTX was the nicest to drive by a wide margin. It didn't have any more outright grip than the others, but the truck steered exactly as much as you asked it to and slid in a rounded, predictable way.

The General was the best of the rest subjectively, with good traction and lateral grip. The Yokohama had the most reactive steering of the field but didn't have the traction to back it up, and I caught it half-spinning a couple of times because I just couldn't read what the tyre was doing underneath. The Westlake was easy to drive but plainly didn't have the grip - it was significantly down on lap time despite feeling rounded. Honestly, on reflection I don't think dirt handling is the most relevant test for a highway terrain tyre - for future tests I'll be moving to a traction-focused off-road test instead.

Dirt Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Cooper Endeavor Plus	60.2 s	Best
2Kumho Crugen HT51	60.44 s	+0.24 s
3Michelin Defender LTX MS2	60.65 s	+0.45 s
4Firestone Destination LE3	60.66 s	+0.46 s
5General Grabber HT	60.91 s	+0.71 s
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	61.53 s	+1.33 s
7Westlake SU318 HT	62.02 s	+1.82 s

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

Subjective Comfort

The General Grabber HT scored highest for ride comfort, with the Kumho and Cooper close behind, and the Westlake last. Worth flagging that comfort testing on an old Raptor is far from the cleanest data point, which is why I cross-checked it against a colleague's scores.

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1General Grabber HT	6.8 Points	Best
2Kumho Crugen HT51	6.6 Points	-0.20 Points
2Cooper Endeavor Plus	6.6 Points	-0.20 Points
4Michelin Defender LTX MS2	6.4 Points	-0.40 Points
5Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	6.3 Points	-0.50 Points
5Firestone Destination LE3	6.3 Points	-0.50 Points
7Westlake SU318 HT	6.1 Points	-0.70 Points

The difference between best and worst was 10.3% (0.7 Points).

Noise

The Westlake measured quietest on the external pass-by test at 72.4 dB, with the Michelin the loudest at 75.8 dB. From inside the cabin during my own subjective drives, I honestly didn't pick out any of the tyres as noticeably louder than each other - external noise figures don't always translate to what you actually hear behind the wheel.

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Westlake SU318 HT	72.4 dB	Best
2Cooper Endeavor Plus	73 dB	+0.60 dB
3Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	74.2 dB	+1.80 dB
4Firestone Destination LE3	74.4 dB	+2.00 dB
5General Grabber HT	74.9 dB	+2.50 dB
6Kumho Crugen HT51	75.1 dB	+2.70 dB
7Michelin Defender LTX MS2	75.8 dB	+3.40 dB

The difference between best and worst was 4.7% (3.4 dB).

Value

The Westlake's low purchase price gives it a clear win on cost per 1,000 warranted miles - assuming it actually reaches its 50,000-mile warranty. The Michelin is the most expensive tyre on this metric, mostly because of its high purchase price, even though it carries the longest 75,000-mile warranty in the test.

Value
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	cost per 1,000 miles
1Westlake SU318 HT	2.24 Price/1000	Best	$18.98
2Kumho Crugen HT51	2.63 Price/1000	+0.39 Price/1000	$15.16
3General Grabber HT	2.97 Price/1000	+0.73 Price/1000	$18.28
4Firestone Destination LE3	3.01 Price/1000	+0.77 Price/1000	$15.88
5Cooper Endeavor Plus	3.06 Price/1000	+0.82 Price/1000	$18.45
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	3.22 Price/1000	+0.98 Price/1000	$20.99
7Michelin Defender LTX MS2	3.72 Price/1000	+1.48 Price/1000	$15.95

The difference between best and worst was 66.1% (1.48 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tyre to own (Kumho Crugen HT51) works out $146 cheaper than the most expensive (Yokohama Geolandar HT G056).

How this is calculated

Tyre life here is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, NOT measured wear - treat it as the maker's promise, not a test result.

Tyre life is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, not measured wear. Assumes a typical car using 8 l/100km (rolling resistance causing 20% of fuel use), fuel at $0.95 per litre and $80 fitting per set of four. US prices are from the time of the 2026 test; financing costs are excluded.

Rolling Resistance

The Michelin Defender LTX M/S2 had the lowest rolling resistance of the field, with the Firestone Destination LE3 second - so the Michelin's high purchase price is partly offset by lower fuel use over the life of the tyre. The Westlake has the highest rolling resistance in the test, working against its already-cheap purchase price the longer you keep it on the truck.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Michelin Defender LTX MS2	6.94 kg/t	Best	£0
2Firestone Destination LE3	7.7 kg/t	+0.76 kg/t	£48
3Kumho Crugen HT51	7.93 kg/t	+0.99 kg/t	£63
4Cooper Endeavor Plus	8.35 kg/t	+1.41 kg/t	£90
5General Grabber HT	8.43 kg/t	+1.49 kg/t	£95
6Yokohama Geolandar HT G056	8.92 kg/t	+1.98 kg/t	£126
7Westlake SU318 HT	9.33 kg/t	+2.39 kg/t	£152

The difference between best and worst was 34.4% (2.39 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Westlake SU318 HT uses about 105 L (£152) more fuel than the Michelin Defender LTX MS2.

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.

Results

The new General Grabber HT takes the overall win on the strength of class-leading wet and dry braking and the best wet handling, narrowly ahead of an all-round Firestone Destination LE3. The Yokohama Geolandar HT G056 finishes last after struggling in the wet and the snow, and while the Westlake SU318 HT was last in most performance disciplines, its strong value score lifted it out of the bottom spot.

Best HT All Season Tyres for 2026 Tested!Watch the full video of this test on YouTube Watch on YouTube

The new General Grabber HT takes the win by a small margin by acing dry and wet braking, having the best wet lateral grip, being good enough in the snow, though I would like to see a little more snow traction, and by having good comfort levels. It's rolling resistance is a little high and it didn't do great in curved aquaplaning, but both objectively and subjectively it's a really nice on road product.

Dry99.5%

Wet99.3%

Off road97.7%

Snow92.9%

Comfort98.3%

Value78.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (19)

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 / 7	39.89 m	Best in this discipline
Dry HandlingLower is better	5^th / 7	59.4 s	+0.80 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 7	54.75 m	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 7	80.41 s	Best in this discipline
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 7	8.2 Points	-0.10 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	1^st / 7	13.95 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 7	90.24 km/h	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	7^th / 7	3 m/sec2	-0.44 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 7	18.8 m	+0.66 m
Snow TractionLower is better	5^th / 7	3.94 s	+0.88 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	4^th / 7	89.44 s	+2.21 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 7	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
Snow CorneringHigher is better	4^th / 7	0.325 g	-0.02 g
Dirt HandlingLower is better	5^th / 7	60.91 s	+0.71 s
Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 7	8.2 Points	-0.30 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	1^st / 7	6.8 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 7	74.9 dB	+2.50 dB
ValueLower is better	3^rd / 7	2.97 Price/1000	+0.73 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	5^th / 7	8.43 kg/t	+1.49 kg/t

Origin: USA
Weight: 18.76 kgs
Tread: 9.2 mm
Price: 207.99

Highly Recommended — Firestone Destination LE3 — 2026

The Firestone Destination LE3 is a very strong tyre. It was the best overall in the wet, good in all braking tests with the best snow braking AND the second lowest rolling resistance. On dirt it wasn't quite as drivable as some of the other tyres but I don't really think that matters for this catoroy of tyre. Fantastic product.

Dry98.5%

Wet98.2%

Off road94.3%

Snow98.3%

Comfort95%

Value80.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (19)

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 / 7	40.43 m	+0.54 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	7^th / 7	59.7 s	+1.10 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 7	56.17 m	+1.42 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 7	80.49 s	+0.08 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 7	8.1 Points	-0.20 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	2^nd / 7	14.06 s	+0.11 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 7	89.71 km/h	-0.53 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	4^th / 7	3.24 m/sec2	-0.20 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 7	18.14 m	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionLower is better	3^rd / 7	3.31 s	+0.25 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 7	87.72 s	+0.49 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 7	8.5 Points	-0.10 Points
Snow CorneringHigher is better	1^st / 7	0.344 g	Best in this discipline
Dirt HandlingLower is better	4^th / 7	60.66 s	+0.46 s
Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 7	7.6 Points	-0.90 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	5^th / 7	6.3 Points	-0.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 7	74.4 dB	+2.00 dB
ValueLower is better	4^th / 7	3.01 Price/1000	+0.77 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 7	7.7 kg/t	+0.76 kg/t

Origin: Canada
Weight: 16.79 kgs
Tread: 7.9 mm
Price: 210.99

Recommended — Cooper Endeavor Plus — 2026

The Cooper Endeavor Plus worked its way into the top 3 not by excelling in any single area, but by just being a really solid all round tyre. Good in the dry, good in the wet with very good wet braking and great aquaplaning resistance, and while it didn't really excel in the snow it also it didn't have any massive red marks against it. It was also great in the dirt and had good comfort. Recommended.

Dry97.8%

Wet98.5%

Off road98.2%

Snow93.9%

Comfort98.1%

Value77.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (19)

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 / 7	41.1 m	+1.21 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 7	59.2 s	+0.60 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 7	55.1 m	+0.35 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 7	82.55 s	+2.14 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 7	8 Points	-0.30 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	3^rd / 7	14.4 s	+0.45 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 7	89.03 km/h	-1.21 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 7	3.44 m/sec2	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 7	18.67 m	+0.53 m
Snow TractionLower is better	4^th / 7	3.82 s	+0.76 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 7	88.75 s	+1.52 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 7	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
Snow CorneringHigher is better	3^rd / 7	0.335 g	-0.01 g
Dirt HandlingLower is better	1^st / 7	60.2 s	Best in this discipline
Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 7	8.2 Points	-0.30 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 7	6.6 Points	-0.20 Points
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 7	73 dB	+0.60 dB
ValueLower is better	5^th / 7	3.06 Price/1000	+0.82 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	4^th / 7	8.35 kg/t	+1.41 kg/t

Origin: USA
Weight: 16.52 kgs
Tread: 9.1 mm
Price: 198.99

The Kumho Crugen HT51 is a solid tyre, if not a little inconsistent. It struggled in the dry tests and was a little tricky to drive in the wet, and while it had good comfort and was good value overall, it's amazing snow traction and average snow everything else made for an interesting experience. Like the Michelin it's a good tyre, it just needs some refining to be at the front of tests.

Dry96.2%

Wet97.1%

Off road96.3%

Snow95.3%

Comfort96.7%

Value86.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (19)

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 / 7	42.12 m	+2.23 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	6^th / 7	59.6 s	+1.00 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 7	56.18 m	+1.43 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 7	83.15 s	+2.74 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 7	7.7 Points	-0.60 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	5^th / 7	14.59 s	+0.64 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 7	89.63 km/h	-0.61 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 7	3.34 m/sec2	-0.10 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 7	19.43 m	+1.29 m
Snow TractionLower is better	1^st / 7	3.06 s	Best in this discipline
Snow HandlingLower is better	5^th / 7	89.89 s	+2.66 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 7	7.5 Points	-1.10 Points
Snow CorneringHigher is better	6^th / 7	0.311 g	-0.03 g
Dirt HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 7	60.44 s	+0.24 s
Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 7	7.9 Points	-0.60 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 7	6.6 Points	-0.20 Points
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 7	75.1 dB	+2.70 dB
ValueLower is better	2^nd / 7	2.63 Price/1000	+0.39 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	3^rd / 7	7.93 kg/t	+0.99 kg/t

Origin: Vietnam
Weight: 16.88 kgs
Tread: 9.4 mm
Price: 184.21

Recommended — Michelin Defender LTX MS2 — 2026

The Michelin Defender LTX M/S2 is a strong product, easy to drive in all conditions, has mega snow grip for its class and uses the least fuel. Even with all those strengths, it was outclassed in the wet and dry, noticeably the braking tests which are so critical in test scoring, and from a purchase price to warranted value proposition, it's by far the most expensive here. It's a refined tyre with strong winter grip I'd still recommend to people, but I want to see more wet grip for the next version of it.

Dry95.4%

Wet95.1%

Off road99.6%

Snow98.6%

Comfort94.8%

Value76.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (19)

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 / 7	42.84 m	+2.95 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	4^th / 7	59.3 s	+0.70 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 7	59.43 m	+4.68 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 7	82.12 s	+1.71 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 7	8.3 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet CircleLower is better	4^th / 7	14.49 s	+0.54 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 7	89.63 km/h	-0.61 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 7	3.38 m/sec2	-0.06 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 7	18.16 m	+0.02 m
Snow TractionLower is better	2^nd / 7	3.26 s	+0.20 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	1^st / 7	87.23 s	Best in this discipline
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 7	8.6 Points	Best in this discipline
Snow CorneringHigher is better	2^nd / 7	0.336 g	-0.01 g
Dirt HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 7	60.65 s	+0.45 s
Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 7	8.5 Points	Best in this discipline
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	4^th / 7	6.4 Points	-0.40 Points
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 7	75.8 dB	+3.40 dB
ValueLower is better	7^th / 7	3.72 Price/1000	+1.48 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	1^st / 7	6.94 kg/t	Best in this discipline

Origin: USA
Weight: 17 kgs
Tread: 9.7 mm
Price: 278.99

The Westlake SU318 HT was included as I thought it would highlight how bad cheap tyres are, which it did to a point, but it was WAY better than I expected it to be. That said, it was still last overall in the wet, last overall in snow, last overall in dirt, the worst subjective comfort, the highest rolling resistance. But it was the fastest around the dry handling lap! The value result really helped not finish in last place overall, And honestly while it isn't a great tyre, assuming it doesn't wear out very quickly, it does present a somewhat interesting value proposition.

Dry97.5%

Wet92.6%

Off road89.7%

Snow88.6%

Comfort94.9%

Value89.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (19)

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 / 7	41.6 m	+1.71 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	1^st / 7	58.6 s	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 7	59.74 m	+4.99 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 7	84.7 s	+4.29 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 7	6.6 Points	-1.70 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	7^th / 7	14.97 s	+1.02 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 7	88.36 km/h	-1.88 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	5^th / 7	3.22 m/sec2	-0.22 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 7	19.43 m	+1.29 m
Snow TractionLower is better	7^th / 7	4.44 s	+1.38 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	6^th / 7	91.19 s	+3.96 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 7	7.4 Points	-1.20 Points
Snow CorneringHigher is better	6^th / 7	0.311 g	-0.03 g
Dirt HandlingLower is better	7^th / 7	62.02 s	+1.82 s
Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 7	7 Points	-1.50 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	7^th / 7	6.1 Points	-0.70 Points
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 7	72.4 dB	Best in this discipline
ValueLower is better	1^st / 7	2.24 Price/1000	Best in this discipline
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	7^th / 7	9.33 kg/t	+2.39 kg/t

Origin: Thailand
Weight: 18.76 kgs
Tread: 8.9 mm
Price: 112.00

In last place was the Yokohama Geolander HT G056. Sadly it never really recovered from its wet performance where it really struggled, and the story was mostly the same in the snow too. In fact, it wasn't super comfortable, it had a high rolling resistance, and its warranted price per 1000 miles was also on the higher side. Not a great test for this tyre, I've come to expect more from Yokohama but at this point it is a very old tyre.

Dry98.2%

Wet93.4%

Off road98.3%

Snow90.5%

Comfort95.1%

Value72.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (19)

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 / 7	40.81 m	+0.92 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 7	59.2 s	+0.60 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 7	58.66 m	+3.91 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 7	87.18 s	+6.77 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 7	7.3 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	6^th / 7	14.83 s	+0.88 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 7	88.77 km/h	-1.47 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 7	3.19 m/sec2	-0.25 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 7	19.11 m	+0.97 m
Snow TractionLower is better	6^th / 7	4.13 s	+1.07 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	7^th / 7	91.37 s	+4.14 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 7	7.6 Points	-1.00 Points
Snow CorneringHigher is better	5^th / 7	0.32 g	-0.02 g
Dirt HandlingLower is better	6^th / 7	61.53 s	+1.33 s
Subj. Dirt HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 7	8.4 Points	-0.10 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	5^th / 7	6.3 Points	-0.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 7	74.2 dB	+1.80 dB
ValueLower is better	6^th / 7	3.22 Price/1000	+0.98 Price/1000
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 7	8.92 kg/t	+1.98 kg/t

Origin: USA
Weight: 17.74 kgs
Tread: 9.1 mm
Price: 225.11

Discussion

11 comments

Marcus 3d ago

I've had a few sets of Defenders in the XL load rating on a 2006 LX470 and 2014 LX570. The Defenders on the 570 (285/55R20 XL) performed amazingly in every condition Northern Virginia had to offer in the last 3 years, with virtually zero cabin noise at any speed. Unfortunately, I just installed a new set on my 470 (265/70R18 XL) and the low-frequency/vibrational road noise is extremely noticeable even compared to the worn-down and howling Falken WP AT3Ws they replaced. The experience is causing me some great buyer’s remorse and I am currently weighing having Discount Tire replace them altogether with a better rated option. I should also add that I had to have Discount Tire replace a brand-new set this morning that were installed 1 week ago due to the noise. I have about an hour of highway time on the clock at this point and this new set is better than the set they replaced, but the noise is definitely still there, and I am still greatly considering leaving the Defender lineup altogether now.

This website and the YouTube channel have been immensely helpful in my decision analysis these days, such an insanely great resource of information.

#10846
1. TyreReviews Marcus 2d ago
  
  Sorry about your luck with the defenders. That's pretty unusual. Sometimes you just get an odd vehicle tire combination that resonates poorly.
  
  In your situation and vehicle I would be curious to try the Bridgestone AT Ascent.
  
  #10850
  1. Marcus TyreReviews 2d ago
    
    It is unusual and unfortunate. When I first purchased the LX470 it came with the original LTX M/S in 275/60R18, those also were about as close to perfection for daily driving a Land Cruiser as one can get. The Bridgestone is an interesting suggestion, my immediate contingency was leaning towards the Continental TerrainContact H/T, although from what I read the possible decrease in tire noise is likely to be negligible. Still, I am disappointed enough in the Michelin product at this point that I am willing to try something new.
    
    #10851
    1. TyreReviews Marcus 2d ago
      
      The silver linging is that new tires are always fun :)
      
      #10852
      1. Marcus TyreReviews 1d ago
        
        This is true. Now for a secondary, semi-related question. Are the results from this test able to overlayed with the results from say "The BEST All Terrain Tyres for 2026 Tested and Rated" test? Like can the individual tests, wet / dry braking for example, be compared across all the tires in these 2 tests?
        
        #10854
        
        TyreReviews Marcus 1d ago
        
        Unfortunately you cannot do that as vehicles, surfaces, and even measured speeds can be different.
        
        #10855
DRE Apr 30, 2026

Would love to see more of these HT reviews.
Especially this little guy.

Michelin Defender Ltx Platinum

#10617
1. TyreReviews DRE May 11, 2026
  
  I believe the problem with the Platinum is a very limited size range. It's really for the big stuff. But I'll try to keep doing more of these in the future.
  
  #10628
Marc Valme Apr 27, 2026 archived

I have not watched the YouTube video yet, I'm at work. But man, Michelin barely made the recommendation cutoff. Which is wild! I suspect their focus is too much on longevity.

#10612
1. Jonathan Marc Valme Apr 27, 2026
  
  I agree. I suspect if wear had actually been tested, Michelin would have been very strong there. They also lean into snow quite a lot more than some of the other products, which hurts wet and dry braking in particular which is so important in test score weighting
  
  #10613
  1. marcvalme Jonathan Apr 29, 2026
    
    A confusing choice by Michelin. No 3 peak rating ( which it would easily qualify for), Guessing to not compete with cross climate. But they are dealing with the tradeoffs of stellar winter performance.
    
    #10616

Menu

Tyre shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Score Weighting

Our standard methods

Dry Braking

Dry Handling

Wet Braking

Wet Handling

Subj. Wet Handling

Wet Circle

Straight Aqua

Curved Aquaplaning

Snow Braking

Snow Traction

Snow Handling

Subj. Snow Handling

Snow Cornering

Dirt Handling

Subj. Dirt Handling

Subj. Comfort

Noise

Rolling Resistance

Dry Braking

Dry Handling

Wet Braking

Wet Handling

Straight Aquaplaning

Curved Aquaplaning

Snow Braking

Snow Traction

Snow Handling

Snow Cornering

Dirt Handling

Subjective Comfort

Noise

Value

Rolling Resistance

Results

Cross-check this test