Name: The BEST Summer Tyres for 2026 Tested and Rated
Creator: Tyre Reviews
Published: 2026-03-02

For the first of three tyre review summer tyre tests this year, I've tested 12 sets of tyres in 225/45/17 using a Volkswagen Golf GTI.

All 12 sets of tyres were purchased in the open market anonymously. As always, they have been tested in the dry, wet, noise, comfort, and rolling resistance tests to find out exactly which tyre is best for your own driving needs.

Jonathan Benson with the Test Tyres

Test setup & methodology

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

Tyre Pressures (as recorded): 35
Test Driver: Jonathan Benson

Show full testing methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 100 → 0 km/h
Dry Handling: 17–28 °C
Wet Braking: 80 → 0 km/h
Wet Handling: 16–21 °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 · 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	30%	15%
Subj. Wet Handling	10%	5%
Wet Circle	5%	2.5%
Straight Aqua	10%	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 →

Wet

The slowest tyre in the wet was the Davanti, in a group of its own, significantly behind every other tyre including the other cheap ones. It was difficult to drive, had no bite, and you really couldn't get it into or out of corners. One to avoid!

Next up were the Bridgestone and Goodride with similar lap times, though the Bridgestone was much nicer subjectively - lovely and predictable with a stable front axle. The Goodride, while posting a similar time, just wasn't as understandable and was the only tyre where I almost fell off the track. Good Ride is not yet a good ride, but last time I tested it, it was a terrible ride, so they're improving.
The Kleber and Vredestein were a step up in grip and both actually quite nice to drive. The Kleber almost felt sporty, which surprised me - as a Michelin sub-brand they've always taken on the Michelin ethos of safe, boring understeer. But while it still felt safe, it actually turned really nicely.

The Debica was an odd one. On its first lap it felt like a cheap tyre, sliding at the back and difficult to get into corners. But once it had some heat in it, the second lap was significantly better - nearly a full second quicker, which is unusual as my delta between laps is normally about a tenth. On the road, especially in cooler conditions around 15 degrees, I think the lap time is probably over-promising what you'll get on the street.

The Michelin Primacy 5 was absolutely classic Michelin - understeer-y, very safe and easy to control. As always with the Primacy range, Michelin go for total life performance and excellent tread life, and I think that often hurts them in the wet because it's never the best tyre in the wet. Once again it was just average in this group, but average and safe and very Michelin.

The Maxxis Premitra HP6 continued its recent strong wet form. My one quibble was that it was a little bit peaky around the limits of grip - you'd be turning and suddenly wouldn't get much notice about the breakaway. It took a little longer than average to recover, but its actual grip was excellent.

The Kumho Ecsta Sport did a very good job, finishing fourth in lap time. Subjectively, and this is a compliment, it didn't give me anything to worry about. I just got round the lap and thought "good job, no nasty surprises," which is one of the higher compliments I can pay a tyre.

However, the Hankook, Pirelli and Continental were in a bubble of their own, showing that the Hankook can definitely mix with the big boys. The Hankook was incredible - I finally felt like I was attacking the surface and the car was going where I wanted it to. The Pirelli was even better, about half a second quicker with slightly sharper steering response, though its window between grip and no grip was narrower than the Hankook's, which is where it falls back slightly subjectively. The Continental Premium Contact 7 was a blend of the two - maybe not quite as direct as the Pirelli, but with a wide sliding window, making it the best all-rounder. These three tyres are incredible. The Kumho did pretty well too, but anything below the top four could do with more grip to really be excellent in the wet.

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	67.7 s	Best
2Pirelli Cinturato C3	68.09 s	+0.39 s
3Hankook Ventus Evo	68.69 s	+0.99 s
4Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	70.46 s	+2.76 s
5Maxxis Premitra HP6	71.1 s	+3.40 s
6Michelin Primacy 5	71.35 s	+3.65 s
7Debica Presto UHP2	71.59 s	+3.89 s
8Vredestein Ultrac+	71.86 s	+4.16 s
9Kleber Dynaxer HP5	72.07 s	+4.37 s
10Goodride Solmax 1	72.17 s	+4.47 s
11Bridgestone Turanza 6	72.65 s	+4.95 s
RefReference UHP All Season	75.98 s	+8.28 s
12Davanti Protoura Sport	79.87 s	+12.17 s

The difference between best and worst was 18% (12.17 s).

The top four in wet braking were the same as the top four in wet handling, just in a slightly different order, which happens when everything is this close at the top. I also ran a wet circle test, which further confirms the top four.

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Hankook Ventus Evo	27.66 m	Best	0 km/h
2Pirelli Cinturato C3	27.68 m	+0.02 m	3 km/h
3Continental PremiumContact 7	27.73 m	+0.07 m	7 km/h
4Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	28.38 m	+0.72 m	21 km/h
5Kleber Dynaxer HP5	29.12 m	+1.46 m	29 km/h
6Bridgestone Turanza 6	29.47 m	+1.81 m	32 km/h
7Goodride Solmax 1	29.53 m	+1.87 m	33 km/h
7Maxxis Premitra HP6	29.53 m	+1.87 m	33 km/h
9Michelin Primacy 5	29.73 m	+2.07 m	34 km/h
10Vredestein Ultrac+	30.2 m	+2.54 m	38 km/h
11Debica Presto UHP2	30.23 m	+2.57 m	38 km/h
12Davanti Protoura Sport	34.27 m	+6.61 m	57 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 23.9% (6.61 m ≈ 1.5 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Davanti Protoura Sport would still be travelling at 57 km/h when the Hankook Ventus Evo had stopped.

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

In the deeper water of the aquaplaning test, the Hankook, Michelin and Continental all performed excellently, with a shout out to Debica, winning curved aquaplaning.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook Ventus Evo	78.81 km/h	Best
2Michelin Primacy 5	76.97 km/h	-1.84 km/h
3Pirelli Cinturato C3	76.86 km/h	-1.95 km/h
4Vredestein Ultrac+	75.36 km/h	-3.45 km/h
5Debica Presto UHP2	75.25 km/h	-3.56 km/h
6Continental PremiumContact 7	74.88 km/h	-3.93 km/h
7Maxxis Premitra HP6	74.59 km/h	-4.22 km/h
8Kleber Dynaxer HP5	73.38 km/h	-5.43 km/h
9Goodride Solmax 1	72.93 km/h	-5.88 km/h
10Bridgestone Turanza 6	72.24 km/h	-6.57 km/h
11Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	71.43 km/h	-7.38 km/h
12Davanti Protoura Sport	70.03 km/h	-8.78 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 11.1% (8.78 Km/H).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Debica Presto UHP2	3.92 m/sec2	Best
2Continental PremiumContact 7	3.85 m/sec2	-0.07 m/sec2
3Hankook Ventus Evo	3.84 m/sec2	-0.08 m/sec2
4Vredestein Ultrac+	3.76 m/sec2	-0.16 m/sec2
5Michelin Primacy 5	3.72 m/sec2	-0.20 m/sec2
6Maxxis Premitra HP6	3.68 m/sec2	-0.24 m/sec2
7Goodride Solmax 1	3.59 m/sec2	-0.33 m/sec2
7Bridgestone Turanza 6	3.59 m/sec2	-0.33 m/sec2
7Kleber Dynaxer HP5	3.59 m/sec2	-0.33 m/sec2
10Pirelli Cinturato C3	3.42 m/sec2	-0.50 m/sec2
11Davanti Protoura Sport	3.37 m/sec2	-0.55 m/sec2
12Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	3.32 m/sec2	-0.60 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 15.3% (0.6 m/sec2).

Dry

In the dry handling test, the Goodride and Davanti were bad. The Goodride should have been faster but I made a mistake, usually I exclude these laps but it was so tricky to drive subjectively I thought it was ok to keep in.

Then you have the Bridgestone to Debica group, all fine grip, but not really suited to being on track. For this class of tyre, braking and comfort is more important than dry handling, but the Debica was impressive for its pricepoint being lovely and easy to drive. If you don't know, Debica is a goodyear subbrand, I wonder if there's some old asymmetric technology in it.

The first to 5th place split by 1%.

The Maxxis was the real surprise, it didn't have the most grip as proven by the braking data, but it was the most drivable so ended up the fastest. This is the Tyre Reviews top tip I know some of you are here for, if you want a cheaper 17" road tyre that is fun on track, this might be the new product.

It's no surprise that Pirelli, Kumho, Conti and Hankook were all excellent. I'd like to give a nod to kumho. I've seen this tyre tested a lot, and it's a really nice tyre subjectively, as is the Hankook, both slightly ahead of the Pirelli dynamically, which itself was ahead of the Continental.

Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Maxxis Premitra HP6	72.83 s	Best
2Pirelli Cinturato C3	72.97 s	+0.14 s
3Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	73.15 s	+0.32 s
4Continental PremiumContact 7	73.29 s	+0.46 s
5Hankook Ventus Evo	73.48 s	+0.65 s
6Debica Presto UHP2	73.67 s	+0.84 s
7Vredestein Ultrac+	74.52 s	+1.69 s
8Michelin Primacy 5	74.56 s	+1.73 s
9Kleber Dynaxer HP5	74.83 s	+2.00 s
10Bridgestone Turanza 6	74.91 s	+2.08 s
RefReference UHP All Season	74.95 s	+2.12 s
11Davanti Protoura Sport	75.45 s	+2.62 s
12Goodride Solmax 1	76.16 s	+3.33 s

The difference between best and worst was 4.6% (3.33 s).

Pirelli led dry braking, Continental was a close second, with Kumho 3rd. Interestingly, the Maxxis, which did well in the dry handling test, only placed ninth in dry braking, 7% behind the best.

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Pirelli Cinturato C3	35.75 m	Best	0 km/h
2Continental PremiumContact 7	36.03 m	+0.28 m	11 km/h
3Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	37.11 m	+1.36 m	25 km/h
4Hankook Ventus Evo	37.33 m	+1.58 m	27 km/h
5Bridgestone Turanza 6	37.45 m	+1.70 m	28 km/h
6Kleber Dynaxer HP5	37.98 m	+2.23 m	32 km/h
7Debica Presto UHP2	38.39 m	+2.64 m	34 km/h
7Michelin Primacy 5	38.39 m	+2.64 m	34 km/h
9Maxxis Premitra HP6	38.66 m	+2.91 m	36 km/h
10Goodride Solmax 1	38.86 m	+3.11 m	37 km/h
11Vredestein Ultrac+	39.33 m	+3.58 m	39 km/h
12Davanti Protoura Sport	42.49 m	+6.74 m	52 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 18.9% (6.74 m ≈ 1.5 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Davanti Protoura Sport would still be travelling at 52 km/h when the Pirelli Cinturato C3 had stopped.

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

Comfort

Sadly, I didn't have the time to dig into the subjective comfort levels of the tyres too much. I just did one quick lap of the comfort lanes before going off to handling. However, a colleague ran the test a few days earlier, so I'm using his scoring.

Overall, if comfort is your focus, the Michelin Primacy 5 and the Debica are good choices, though the Continental is also strong in comfort, if not a little noisier in the EU label external noise test. Basically, as always, they are all incredibly close. On my brief run around the comfort course, I found it difficult to notice many differences, even on the firm GTI suspension. Comfort amongst tyres is definitely getting closer.

The only two that really struggled in comfort were the Goodride and the Davanti, but ironically they had the lowest external noise levels, so if noise is your thing, they are the ones to buy. But hopefully by now you have seen enough data to know not to buy them.

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Debica Presto UHP2	7.1 Points	Best
RefReference UHP All Season	7 Points	-0.10 Points
2Continental PremiumContact 7	6.9 Points	-0.20 Points
2Michelin Primacy 5	6.9 Points	-0.20 Points
2Kleber Dynaxer HP5	6.9 Points	-0.20 Points
5Bridgestone Turanza 6	6.6 Points	-0.50 Points
5Pirelli Cinturato C3	6.6 Points	-0.50 Points
5Maxxis Premitra HP6	6.6 Points	-0.50 Points
8Hankook Ventus Evo	6.5 Points	-0.60 Points
9Vredestein Ultrac+	6.4 Points	-0.70 Points
10Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	6.1 Points	-1.00 Points
11Goodride Solmax 1	5.9 Points	-1.20 Points
12Davanti Protoura Sport	5.6 Points	-1.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 21.1% (1.5 Points).

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Davanti Protoura Sport	70.6 dB	Best
2Goodride Solmax 1	70.7 dB	+0.10 dB
2Hankook Ventus Evo	70.7 dB	+0.10 dB
4Michelin Primacy 5	70.9 dB	+0.30 dB
5Debica Presto UHP2	71 dB	+0.40 dB
6Kleber Dynaxer HP5	72.3 dB	+1.70 dB
6Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	72.3 dB	+1.70 dB
RefReference UHP All Season	72.3 dB	+1.70 dB
8Vredestein Ultrac+	72.6 dB	+2.00 dB
9Bridgestone Turanza 6	72.8 dB	+2.20 dB
10Continental PremiumContact 7	73.1 dB	+2.50 dB
11Maxxis Premitra HP6	73.9 dB	+3.30 dB
12Pirelli Cinturato C3	74.1 dB	+3.50 dB

The difference between best and worst was 5% (3.5 dB).

Value

The rolling resistance levels, or energy use of the tyres were interesting. For some reason, Bridgestone had a 10% lead over the next best tyre, which was the Michelin Primacy 5, and that in itself was nearly 10% better than the average of the rest of the tyres. There are clearly some different opinions on the levels of rolling resistance these tyres should have, and that does explain the Bridgestone's relatively weak wet grip, as low rolling resistance and good wet grip are opposing performance qualities.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Bridgestone Turanza 6	6.46 kg/t	Best	£0
2Michelin Primacy 5	7.12 kg/t	+0.66 kg/t	£45
3Maxxis Premitra HP6	7.69 kg/t	+1.23 kg/t	£84
4Vredestein Ultrac+	7.73 kg/t	+1.27 kg/t	£87
5Kleber Dynaxer HP5	7.81 kg/t	+1.35 kg/t	£92
6Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	8.14 kg/t	+1.68 kg/t	£115
7Davanti Protoura Sport	8.16 kg/t	+1.70 kg/t	£116
8Pirelli Cinturato C3	8.27 kg/t	+1.81 kg/t	£124
9Debica Presto UHP2	8.29 kg/t	+1.83 kg/t	£125
10Continental PremiumContact 7	8.43 kg/t	+1.97 kg/t	£134
11Hankook Ventus Evo	8.84 kg/t	+2.38 kg/t	£162
12Goodride Solmax 1	8.95 kg/t	+2.49 kg/t	£170
RefReference UHP All Season	9.56 kg/t	+3.10 kg/t	£212

The difference between best and worst was 48% (3.1 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Goodride Solmax 1 uses about 117 L (£170) more fuel than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.

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

I've used the standard score weighting I've always used for this category of tyres to keep it fair and consistent, but as always, you can go to the 'Results Table' tab and adjust the score weighting for your own driving needs eg if you would prefer a more comfort bias results set or lower rolling resistance etc, you can go and do that. I've actually improved this functionality a lot in the past few months. It is well worth checking out.

The BEST Summer Tyres for 2026 Tested and RatedWatch the full video of this test on YouTube Watch on YouTube

Test Winner — Pirelli Cinturato C3 — 2026

The Pirelli Cinturato C3 finished joint wins the test with the Continental Premium Contact 7. The C3 was best in dry braking and stayed right at the front across the wet tests, including near-best wet braking and 2nd in wet handling and wet circle. Subjectively it also scored at the top for dry handling and very high in the wet, which matched how easy it was to drive quickly. The compromises were refinement and water performance: it recorded the highest measured noise in the test and only mid-pack curved aquaplaning, plus rolling resistance was only average.

Dry99.9%

Wet98.7%

Comfort94.1%

Rolling Resistance78.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 12	35.75 m	Best in this discipline
Dry HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 12	72.97 s	+0.14 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 12	8.4 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 12	27.68 m	+0.02 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 12	68.09 s	+0.39 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 12	8.6 Points	-0.10 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	2^nd / 12	12.09 s	+0.25 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 12	76.86 km/h	-1.95 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	10^th / 12	3.42 m/sec2	-0.50 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	5^th / 12	6.6 Points	-0.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	12^th / 12	74.1 dB	+3.50 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	8^th / 12	8.27 kg/t	+1.81 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/71
Production: 5124(6), 5224(2)
Origin: Romania
Shore: 66
Weight: 9.45 kgs
Tread: 7.2 mm

Test Winner — Continental PremiumContact 7 — 2026

The Continental PremiumContact 7 finished a joint test winner with the Pirelli Cinturato C3. The PC7 set the quickest wet handling time and was also 1st on the wet circle, while staying very close to the best in wet braking and near the top for curved aquaplaning. Dry results were still competitive, but it only managed 4th in dry handling and my notes describe a safe balance without the body control of the more enthusiast-focused tyres. Comfort was solid rather than standout, and rolling resistance sat towards the back of the group.

Dry99.1%

Wet99.2%

Comfort96.9%

Rolling Resistance76.6%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 12	36.03 m	+0.28 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	4^th / 12	73.29 s	+0.46 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 12	8.2 Points	-0.20 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 12	27.73 m	+0.07 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 12	67.7 s	Best in this discipline
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 12	8.6 Points	-0.10 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	1^st / 12	11.84 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 12	74.88 km/h	-3.93 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 12	3.85 m/sec2	-0.07 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 12	6.9 Points	-0.20 Points
NoiseLower is better	10^th / 12	73.1 dB	+2.50 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	10^th / 12	8.43 kg/t	+1.97 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/72
Production: 4824(4), 4724(3), 1724(1)
Origin: Portugal
Shore: 72
Weight: 9.25 kgs
Tread: 8 mm

Highly Recommended — Hankook Ventus Evo — 2026

The Hankook Ventus Evo finished 3rd overall and earned a Highly Recommended award. It delivered the best wet braking and the highest straight-line aquaplaning result, backed up by a front-running wet handling time and the highest subjective wet handling score. In the dry it stayed in the leading group, with a strong handling result and one of the top subjective dry scores. The main weakness in this dataset is efficiency, where rolling resistance was near the bottom, and it didn't match the very shortest dry braking distances.

Dry97.7%

Wet99.3%

Comfort95.7%

Rolling Resistance73.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 12	37.33 m	+1.58 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	5^th / 12	73.48 s	+0.65 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 12	8.4 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 12	27.66 m	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 12	68.69 s	+0.99 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 12	8.7 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet CircleLower is better	3^rd / 12	12.18 s	+0.34 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 12	78.81 km/h	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 12	3.84 m/sec2	-0.08 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	8^th / 12	6.5 Points	-0.60 Points
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 12	70.7 dB	+0.10 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	11^th / 12	8.84 kg/t	+2.38 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/70
Production: 5024(8)
Origin: Korea
UTQG: 340 AA A
Shore: 73
Weight: 10.11 kgs
Tread: 7.7 mm

Recommended — Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 — 2026

The Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 finished joint 4th overall and earned a Recommended award. It was consistently near the front for objective grip with top-four placements across wet and dry braking and handling, and it backed that up with one of the top subjective dry handling scores and a strong subjective wet score. My notes repeatedly mention steering and predictability, which fits the balanced results. Its clear weaknesses were aquaplaning performance, where it was low in both straight and curved tests, and comfort, where it sat towards the back on subjective scoring.

Dry98.2%

Wet95.5%

Comfort91.8%

Rolling Resistance79.4%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 12	37.11 m	+1.36 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 12	73.15 s	+0.32 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 12	8.4 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 12	28.38 m	+0.72 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 12	70.46 s	+2.76 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 12	8.3 Points	-0.40 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	4^th / 12	12.22 s	+0.38 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	11^th / 12	71.43 km/h	-7.38 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	12^th / 12	3.32 m/sec2	-0.60 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	10^th / 12	6.1 Points	-1.00 Points
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 12	72.3 dB	+1.70 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 12	8.14 kg/t	+1.68 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/72
Production: 0925(8)
Origin: Korea
UTQG: 320 AA A
Shore: 71
Weight: 9.88 kgs
Tread: 7.3 mm

Eco Specialist — Bridgestone Turanza 6 — 2026

The Bridgestone Turanza 6 finished joint 4th overall, mainly because it was 1st in rolling resistance. In braking it was mid-pack in both wet and dry, but in the wet it gave away a lot of time compared to the top tyres and my notes mention a lack of bite when turning and braking, plus a couple of hydroplaning moments. In the dry it felt touring-focused with understeer and a step down in grip once hot. If efficiency is your priority it makes sense, but it's not a wet performance choice in this group.

Dry96.2%

Wet92.4%

Comfort95%

Rolling Resistance100%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 12	37.45 m	+1.70 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	10^th / 12	74.91 s	+2.08 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	9^th / 12	8 Points	-0.40 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 12	29.47 m	+1.81 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	11^th / 12	72.65 s	+4.95 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 12	7.4 Points	-1.30 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	10^th / 12	12.74 s	+0.90 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	10^th / 12	72.24 km/h	-6.57 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	7^th / 12	3.59 m/sec2	-0.33 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	5^th / 12	6.6 Points	-0.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	9^th / 12	72.8 dB	+2.20 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	1^st / 12	6.46 kg/t	Best in this discipline

EU Label: B/A/70
Production: 0425(5), 0525(3)
Origin: Poland
UTQG: 320 A A
Shore: 65
Weight: 8.86 kgs
Tread: 7.3 mm

The Michelin Primacy 5 finished 6th overall and earned a Recommended award. It was one of the more road-leaning tyres in the test, combining 2nd best rolling resistance with good comfort results, including a strong subjective comfort score and a good measured noise reading. In wet aquaplaning it did well in the straight-line test, but objective wet grip was more mid-pack and the wet circle result was towards the back. Dry performance followed a similar pattern: safe and usable, but not a leader for braking or handling.

Dry95.6%

Wet93.9%

Comfort98.4%

Rolling Resistance90.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 12	38.39 m	+2.64 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	8^th / 12	74.56 s	+1.73 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 12	8.2 Points	-0.20 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	9^th / 12	29.73 m	+2.07 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 12	71.35 s	+3.65 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 12	7.9 Points	-0.80 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	11^th / 12	12.91 s	+1.07 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 12	76.97 km/h	-1.84 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	5^th / 12	3.72 m/sec2	-0.20 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 12	6.9 Points	-0.20 Points
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 12	70.9 dB	+0.30 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 12	7.12 kg/t	+0.66 kg/t

EU Label: B/A/70
Production: 0425(5), 0525(3)
Origin: Germany
UTQG: 420 A A
Shore: 66
Weight: 9 kgs
Tread: 7 mm

The Kleber Dynaxer HP5 finished 7th overall. It delivered a very even set of results: mid-pack in wet braking, dry braking, wet handling and dry handling, plus decent aquaplaning and a solid rolling resistance figure. Subjectively it also landed around the middle with a good wet handling score and a strong comfort score. My wet notes were positive about predictability and smooth transitions, but the lap time data shows it didn't have the final step of grip to match the tyres at the front.

Dry95.8%

Wet94.1%

Comfort97.4%

Rolling Resistance82.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 12	37.98 m	+2.23 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	9^th / 12	74.83 s	+2.00 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 12	8.1 Points	-0.30 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 12	29.12 m	+1.46 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	9^th / 12	72.07 s	+4.37 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 12	8.2 Points	-0.50 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	8^th / 12	12.72 s	+0.88 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 12	73.38 km/h	-5.43 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	7^th / 12	3.59 m/sec2	-0.33 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 12	6.9 Points	-0.20 Points
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 12	72.3 dB	+1.70 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	5^th / 12	7.81 kg/t	+1.35 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/70
Production: 0425(6), 0325(2)
Origin: Poland
Shore: 70
Weight: 8.76 kgs
Tread: 6.8 mm

The Maxxis Premitra HP6 finished 8th overall, but it had one clear highlight: it was 1st in dry handling time and also scored in the top group for subjective dry handling. It also delivered a strong rolling resistance result compared with several performance-focused tyres. In the wet, the objective results were decent in the middle group, but the subjective wet handling score was in the bottom group, which suggests the way it reached and went past the limit in the wet wasn't as confidence-inspiring as the stopwatch alone.

Dry96.6%

Wet92.2%

Comfort94.2%

Rolling Resistance84%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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	9^th / 12	38.66 m	+2.91 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	1^st / 12	72.83 s	Best in this discipline
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 12	8.4 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 12	29.53 m	+1.87 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 12	71.1 s	+3.40 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	11^th / 12	6.3 Points	-2.40 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	5^th / 12	12.5 s	+0.66 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 12	74.59 km/h	-4.22 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 12	3.68 m/sec2	-0.24 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	5^th / 12	6.6 Points	-0.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	11^th / 12	73.9 dB	+3.30 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	3^rd / 12	7.69 kg/t	+1.23 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/72
Production: 4524(8)
Origin: China
UTQG: 340 A A
Shore: 76
Weight: 9.41 kgs
Tread: 7.3 mm

The Debica Presto UHP2 finished 9th overall. It stood out for comfort and aquaplaning, with the highest subjective comfort score and the best curved aquaplaning result. Dry handling was also relatively strong for its finishing position, supported by a high subjective dry score, and my dry notes were very positive about steering response and adjustability. The weaknesses were in wet grip, where wet braking and subjective wet handling were in the lower half, and my wet notes describe very different cold versus warm behaviour, making it harder to predict in changing conditions.

Dry96.3%

Wet92.5%

Comfort99.7%

Rolling Resistance77.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 12	38.39 m	+2.64 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	6^th / 12	73.67 s	+0.84 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 12	8.3 Points	-0.10 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	11^th / 12	30.23 m	+2.57 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 12	71.59 s	+3.89 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	9^th / 12	7.2 Points	-1.50 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	6^th / 12	12.52 s	+0.68 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 12	75.25 km/h	-3.56 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 12	3.92 m/sec2	Best in this discipline
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	1^st / 12	7.1 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 12	71 dB	+0.40 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	9^th / 12	8.29 kg/t	+1.83 kg/t

EU Label: C/B/71
Production: 1825(5), 1725(3)
Origin: Poland
UTQG: 280 AA A
Shore: 76
Weight: 8.94 kgs
Tread: 8 mm

The Vredestein Ultrac plus finished 10th overall. In the wet it was generally solid, with good straight-line aquaplaning and a strong curved aquaplaning result, plus mid-pack wet handling and a sensible rolling resistance figure. Subjectively it also sat around the middle in the wet, and my notes mention good communication even if it wasn't the sharpest. In the dry it dropped back with below-average dry braking and a low subjective dry handling score, and my dry notes mention understeer and overheating quickly on track.

Dry93.8%

Wet92.9%

Comfort93.7%

Rolling Resistance83.6%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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	11^th / 12	39.33 m	+3.58 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	7^th / 12	74.52 s	+1.69 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	10^th / 12	7.5 Points	-0.90 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	10^th / 12	30.2 m	+2.54 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	8^th / 12	71.86 s	+4.16 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 12	7.8 Points	-0.90 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	8^th / 12	12.72 s	+0.88 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 12	75.36 km/h	-3.45 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	4^th / 12	3.76 m/sec2	-0.16 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	9^th / 12	6.4 Points	-0.70 Points
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 12	72.6 dB	+2.00 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	4^th / 12	7.73 kg/t	+1.27 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/69
Production: 1925(8)
Origin: Hungary
UTQG: 280 AA A
Shore: 71
Weight: 9.01 kgs
Tread: 7.4 mm

The Goodride Solmax 1 finished 11th overall. It had a couple of positives in the data, including one of the better measured noise results and a mid-pack wet braking distance. However, the core performance results were mostly towards the back: it was slowest in dry handling, last in subjective dry handling, and rolling resistance was also near the bottom. In the wet, both objective and subjective handling results were in the lower half, and my notes repeatedly mention abrupt transitions and poor communication at and beyond the limit.

Dry91.6%

Wet91.9%

Comfort91.5%

Rolling Resistance72.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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	10^th / 12	38.86 m	+3.11 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	12^th / 12	76.16 s	+3.33 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	12^th / 12	6 Points	-2.40 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 12	29.53 m	+1.87 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	10^th / 12	72.17 s	+4.47 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	10^th / 12	6.7 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	7^th / 12	12.56 s	+0.72 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 12	72.93 km/h	-5.88 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	7^th / 12	3.59 m/sec2	-0.33 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	11^th / 12	5.9 Points	-1.20 Points
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 12	70.7 dB	+0.10 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	12^th / 12	8.95 kg/t	+2.49 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/72
Production: 0425(7), 0325(1)
Origin: China
UTQG: 360 A A
Shore: 71
Weight: 9.54 kgs
Tread: 7.4 mm

The Davanti Protoura Sport finished 12th overall. It recorded the lowest measured noise, but the performance results put it at the back where it matters: last in wet handling, last on the wet circle, and 12th in wet braking, plus weak straight aquaplaning. Dry results were also towards the bottom, including low positions in dry braking and subjective dry handling. My wet notes describe weak turn-in, low braking confidence and abrupt breakaway, and the large gaps in wet lap time and braking distance show it wasn't close to the main group in this test.

Dry89.2%

Wet82.4%

Comfort89.4%

Rolling Resistance79.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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	12^th / 12	42.49 m	+6.74 m
Dry HandlingLower is better	11^th / 12	75.45 s	+2.62 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	11^th / 12	6.6 Points	-1.80 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	12^th / 12	34.27 m	+6.61 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	12^th / 12	79.87 s	+12.17 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	11^th / 12	6.3 Points	-2.40 Points
Wet CircleLower is better	12^th / 12	13.93 s	+2.09 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	12^th / 12	70.03 km/h	-8.78 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	11^th / 12	3.37 m/sec2	-0.55 m/sec2
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	12^th / 12	5.6 Points	-1.50 Points
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 12	70.6 dB	Best in this discipline
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	7^th / 12	8.16 kg/t	+1.70 kg/t

EU Label: D/B/70
Production: 4224(6), 3624(2)
Origin: China
UTQG: 400 A A
Shore: 72
Weight: 9.93 kgs
Tread: 6.6 mm

The Reference UHP All Season finished 13th overall and was used as a control tyre rather than a full competitor. It only appears in a subset of results, but where it was measured it generally sat towards the back, including low positions in wet handling and dry handling, and the lowest subjective wet handling score. My notes describe a loose, slide-prone balance in the wet and overheating on the second lap in the dry, which fits with it having different design goals to the summer tyres in this test. It did score well for subjective comfort, but it wasn't competitive on grip-based tests.

All discipline results (7)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Result
Dry HandlingLower is better	74.95 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	8.2 Points
Wet HandlingLower is better	75.98 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	6.3 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	7 Points
NoiseLower is better	72.3 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	9.56 kg/t

Discussion

16 comments

Stallion Auto Jun 18, 2026

Excellent tyre test and comparison. Real-world performance data is always valuable when choosing the right summer tyres for safety, handling, and comfort. Thanks for sharing such a detailed review.

#10661
Stallion Auto Jun 11, 2026

Nice to see actual testing instead of just marketing claims. The differences between top tyres are smaller than most people think.

#10645
Pawel May 1, 2026

I really appreciate your tests. However, after sitting in tyre comfort and stability for tens of years ... I have to emphasise that not explicitly stating or even mixing LIs (91 vs 94) is just misunderstanding of these comfort and stability issues. All the best!

#10619
Néocray Mar 29, 2026 archived

As always, excellent test.
Is it intentional to have mixed max performance and touring segments?
It’s too bad that the Asy6 wasn’t available as it’s a good bridge between the 2 segments.
I see in the results charts that the Hankook has top marks in both subjective handlings, while in the video, you seem to say that the Pirelli has a better dynamic feeling, despite being a touring tyre. Which one would you actually prefer?
In the other sizes, the Continental seems to have a better dynamic behaviour vs the Pirelli (cf. https://www.tyrereviews.com/Compare/PremiumContact-7-VS-Cinturato-C3.htm ), but you say otherwise here, and as it is the more expensive option, I ruled it out.
I’ve dug into the comparisons on the website for the Hankook vs the others (GY F1 Asy 6, PS5, Potenza Sport Evo, and also the CPC7 despite your test), and the Hankook seems to win almost always on the braking and handling. This is the only test in which the Hankook and the Pirelli are confronted, so I’m struggling to decide.

#10593
Arsenio Mar 15, 2026 archived

No Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 or F1 AS6? Why so?

#10567
1. Néocray Arsenio Mar 29, 2026 archived
  
  He said in the video that he couldn’t get the AS6 in time for the test, which is really a shame.
  
  #10591
Sasha Mar 12, 2026 archived

Which Hankook model did you use in the test??
1. Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 2 K117
2. Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 2 K117B HRS
3. Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 3 K127
4.Hankook Ventus evo K137
5. Hankook Ventus V12 Evo 2 K120

#10564
1. TyreReviews Sasha Mar 12, 2026 archived
  
  The same as is listed, the Hankook Ventus Evo
  
  #10565
2. Néocray Sasha Mar 29, 2026 archived
  
  It’s the K137A, actually, AKA the S1 Evo 4.
  
  #10592
homes Mar 6, 2026 archived

The summer tyre test I was waiting for, very useful for choosing the right tyres for my roads and driving style.
Is the reference UHP All Season the Michelin CrossClimate 3 Sport? Would’ve been nice to see it compared with the others in dry and wet braking too.

#10559
1. TyreReviews homes Mar 6, 2026 archived
  
  No it's actually an American UHP all season tyre, I should really get that deleted from the results as it was just used for evolution benchmarking.
  
  #10560
Pedro Neves Mar 4, 2026 archived

In the Youtube video and in some tyre comparisons there's a reference to a wet circle test but it doesn't show in this article.

#10555
1. TyreReviews Pedro Neves Mar 4, 2026 archived
  
  Try the "test charts" link at the top and it should be in there!
  
  #10556
  1. Pedro Neves TyreReviews Mar 4, 2026 archived
    
    Got it! Thanks!
    
    #10557
Teo Mar 4, 2026 archived

Really interesting test, what really surprises me is the diffrent category of tyres from each brand and how similar they perform. For example I would expect the Michelin pilot sport 5 to be compared to the Hankook Evo, not the primacy 5 that is a direct competitor of the Ventus Prime 4. Same with Pirelli, Kumho etc where some had their UHP offers and others their touring. Big one missing here is the Falken (either FK520 or ZE320).
What is really surprising is that the performance of UHP and touring tyres both in comfort and wet/dry is really mixed between the two categories, with no clear distinctions between the two. I'd expect the uhp tyres to strugle a bit in the comfort segment and the tourings in grip.
Good job as always looking forward for the next tests. Thanks for all the great work and data you provide to us!

#10554
Ken Mar 3, 2026 archived

One of the better comparisons i've seen. Detailed and transparent. Well done.

#10551

Menu

Tyre shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Score Weighting

Our standard methods

Dry Braking

Dry Handling

Subj. Dry Handling

Wet Braking

Wet Handling

Subj. Wet Handling

Wet Circle

Straight Aqua

Curved Aquaplaning

Subj. Comfort

Noise

Rolling Resistance

Wet

Dry

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test