Test Charts / Tyre Reviews

The BEST Summer Tyres for 2026 Tested and Rated

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

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: 225/45 R17
Tyres tested: 12
Disciplines: 12
Test vehicle: VW Golf GTI

Dry

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.

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).

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Cinturato C3	8.4 Points	Best
1Hankook Ventus Evo	8.4 Points	Best
1Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	8.4 Points	Best
1Maxxis Premitra HP6	8.4 Points	Best
5Debica Presto UHP2	8.3 Points	-0.10 Points
6Continental PremiumContact 7	8.2 Points	-0.20 Points
6Michelin Primacy 5	8.2 Points	-0.20 Points
RefReference UHP All Season	8.2 Points	-0.20 Points
8Kleber Dynaxer HP5	8.1 Points	-0.30 Points
9Bridgestone Turanza 6	8 Points	-0.40 Points
10Vredestein Ultrac+	7.5 Points	-0.90 Points
11Davanti Protoura Sport	6.6 Points	-1.80 Points
12Goodride Solmax 1	6 Points	-2.40 Points

The difference between best and worst was 28.6% (2.4 Points).

Wet

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.

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).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook Ventus Evo	8.7 Points	Best
2Continental PremiumContact 7	8.6 Points	-0.10 Points
2Pirelli Cinturato C3	8.6 Points	-0.10 Points
4Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	8.3 Points	-0.40 Points
5Kleber Dynaxer HP5	8.2 Points	-0.50 Points
6Michelin Primacy 5	7.9 Points	-0.80 Points
7Vredestein Ultrac+	7.8 Points	-0.90 Points
8Bridgestone Turanza 6	7.4 Points	-1.30 Points
9Debica Presto UHP2	7.2 Points	-1.50 Points
10Goodride Solmax 1	6.7 Points	-2.00 Points
11Davanti Protoura Sport	6.3 Points	-2.40 Points
11Maxxis Premitra HP6	6.3 Points	-2.40 Points
RefReference UHP All Season	6.3 Points	-2.40 Points

The difference between best and worst was 27.6% (2.4 Points).

Wet Circle
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental PremiumContact 7	11.84 s	Best
2Pirelli Cinturato C3	12.09 s	+0.25 s
3Hankook Ventus Evo	12.18 s	+0.34 s
4Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72	12.22 s	+0.38 s
5Maxxis Premitra HP6	12.5 s	+0.66 s
6Debica Presto UHP2	12.52 s	+0.68 s
7Goodride Solmax 1	12.56 s	+0.72 s
8Vredestein Ultrac+	12.72 s	+0.88 s
8Kleber Dynaxer HP5	12.72 s	+0.88 s
10Bridgestone Turanza 6	12.74 s	+0.90 s
11Michelin Primacy 5	12.91 s	+1.07 s
12Davanti Protoura Sport	13.93 s	+2.09 s

The difference between best and worst was 17.7% (2.09 s).

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).

Comfort

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

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. 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): 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 →

Tyre shortlist →Read the test →

More tyre tests