Test Charts / Tyre Reviews

The BEST Performance Summer Tyres for 2026 Tested!

Name: The BEST Performance Summer Tyres for 2026 Tested!
Creator: Tyre Reviews
Published: 2026-03-16

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: 235/35 R19
Tyres tested: 8
Disciplines: 10
Test vehicle: VW Golf 8 GTI ClubSport

Read the measurements, not just the rank

Lower is better for braking distances and lap times; higher is better for subjective scores and aquaplaning speed. Bars start at zero. Read the gap alongside the position: adjacent tyres can be separated by very different margins.

Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tyres does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Pirelli P Zero R	31.7 m	Best	0 km/h
2Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2	32.97 m	+1.27 m	26 km/h
3Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	33.2 m	+1.50 m	28 km/h
4Continental SportContact 7	33.39 m	+1.69 m	29 km/h
5Hankook Ventus S1 Evo Z K129	33.93 m	+2.23 m	33 km/h
6Falken Azenis RS820	34.05 m	+2.35 m	34 km/h
7Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	34.18 m	+2.48 m	35 km/h
8Kingboss G866	38.92 m	+7.22 m	56 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 22.8% (7.22 m ≈ 1.6 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Kingboss G866 would still be travelling at 56 km/h when the Pirelli P Zero R 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
1Pirelli P Zero R	76.48 s	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2	76.8 s	+0.32 s
3Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	77.38 s	+0.90 s
4Continental SportContact 7	78.42 s	+1.94 s
5Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	78.66 s	+2.18 s
6Hankook Ventus S1 Evo Z K129	79.15 s	+2.67 s
7Falken Azenis RS820	79.17 s	+2.69 s
8Kingboss G866	82.21 s	+5.73 s

The difference between best and worst was 7.5% (5.73 s).

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2	8.75 Points	Best
1Pirelli P Zero R	8.75 Points	Best
3Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	8.5 Points	-0.25 Points
4Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	8.25 Points	-0.50 Points
5Continental SportContact 7	8 Points	-0.75 Points
5Falken Azenis RS820	8 Points	-0.75 Points
7Hankook Ventus S1 Evo Z K129	7.75 Points	-1.00 Points
8Kingboss G866	7 Points	-1.75 Points

The difference between best and worst was 20% (1.75 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental SportContact 7	24.54 m	Best	0 km/h
2Pirelli P Zero R	24.89 m	+0.35 m	15 km/h
3Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	24.96 m	+0.42 m	17 km/h
4Hankook Ventus S1 Evo Z K129	25.71 m	+1.17 m	28 km/h
5Falken Azenis RS820	26.29 m	+1.75 m	34 km/h
6Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	26.95 m	+2.41 m	39 km/h
7Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2	28.04 m	+3.50 m	46 km/h
8Kingboss G866	31.48 m	+6.94 m	61 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 28.3% (6.94 m ≈ 1.5 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Kingboss G866 would still be travelling at 61 km/h when the Continental SportContact 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
1Pirelli P Zero R	99.38 s	Best
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	102.58 s	+3.20 s
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	102.7 s	+3.32 s
4Continental SportContact 7	104.4 s	+5.02 s
5Hankook Ventus S1 Evo Z K129	105.19 s	+5.81 s
6Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2	107.09 s	+7.71 s
7Falken Azenis RS820	107.59 s	+8.21 s
8Kingboss G866	117.14 s	+17.76 s

The difference between best and worst was 17.9% (17.76 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	8 Points	Best
1Pirelli P Zero R	8 Points	Best
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	8 Points	Best
4Hankook Ventus S1 Evo Z K129	7.75 Points	-0.25 Points
4Continental SportContact 7	7.75 Points	-0.25 Points
6Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2	7.5 Points	-0.50 Points
7Falken Azenis RS820	7.25 Points	-0.75 Points
8Kingboss G866	6 Points	-2.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 25% (2 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook Ventus S1 Evo Z K129	78.2 km/h	Best
2Continental SportContact 7	78 km/h	-0.20 km/h
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	77.6 km/h	-0.60 km/h
4Falken Azenis RS820	77 km/h	-1.20 km/h
5Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	76.9 km/h	-1.30 km/h
6Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2	76.1 km/h	-2.10 km/h
6Pirelli P Zero R	76.1 km/h	-2.10 km/h
8Kingboss G866	75 km/h	-3.20 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 4.1% (3.2 Km/H).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	7.25 Points	Best
2Continental SportContact 7	7 Points	-0.25 Points
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	7 Points	-0.25 Points
2Kingboss G866	7 Points	-0.25 Points
5Hankook Ventus S1 Evo Z K129	6.75 Points	-0.50 Points
5Falken Azenis RS820	6.75 Points	-0.50 Points
5Pirelli P Zero R	6.75 Points	-0.50 Points
8Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2	6.25 Points	-1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 13.8% (1 Points).

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2	71.3 dB	Best
2Falken Azenis RS820	71.6 dB	+0.30 dB
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	72.4 dB	+1.10 dB
4Pirelli P Zero R	73.2 dB	+1.90 dB
5Hankook Ventus S1 Evo Z K129	73.3 dB	+2.00 dB
6Continental SportContact 7	73.6 dB	+2.30 dB
6Kingboss G866	73.6 dB	+2.30 dB
8Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	73.7 dB	+2.40 dB

The difference between best and worst was 3.4% (2.4 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Continental SportContact 7	8.8 kg/t	Best	£0
1Kingboss G866	8.8 kg/t	Best	£0
3Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2	9.2 kg/t	+0.40 kg/t	£20
4Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo	9.5 kg/t	+0.70 kg/t	£35
5Falken Azenis RS820	9.6 kg/t	+0.80 kg/t	£40
6Pirelli P Zero R	9.8 kg/t	+1.00 kg/t	£50
7Hankook Ventus S1 Evo Z K129	9.9 kg/t	+1.10 kg/t	£55
8Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	10.4 kg/t	+1.60 kg/t	£80

The difference between best and worst was 18.2% (1.6 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport uses about 55 L (£80) more fuel than the Continental SportContact 7.

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.

Tyre Pressures (as recorded): 2.5
Test Driver: Jonathan Benson

Show full testing methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 100 → 10 km/h
Dry Handling: 15–16 °C
Wet Braking: 80 → 10 km/h
Wet Handling: 18–20 °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 · 45%
Dry Braking	30%	13.5%
Dry Handling	50%	22.5%
Subj. Dry Handling	20%	9%
Wet · 45%
Wet Braking	30%	13.5%
Wet Handling	50%	22.5%
Subj. Wet Handling	10%	4.5%
Straight Aqua	10%	4.5%
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	50%	2.5%
Noise	50%	2.5%
Value · 5%
Rolling Resistance	100%	5%

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.

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.

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