Test Charts / TopTireReview

Top Tire Review 2026 UUHP Tyre Test

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: 255/35 R19
Tyres tested: 3
Disciplines: 12
Test vehicle: Audi TT

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
1Continental SportContact 7	32.1 m	Best
2Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72	33.6 m	+1.50 m
3Pirelli P Zero PZ5	34.1 m	+2.00 m

The difference between best and worst was 6.2% (2 m ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths).

Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero PZ5	47.68 s	Best
2Continental SportContact 7	48.23 s	+0.55 s
3Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72	48.35 s	+0.67 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental SportContact 7	7.5 Points	Best
2Pirelli P Zero PZ5	7.1 Points	-0.40 Points
3Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72	7 Points	-0.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 6.7% (0.5 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental SportContact 7	33.4 m	Best
2Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72	34.2 m	+0.80 m
3Pirelli P Zero PZ5	38.8 m	+5.40 m

The difference between best and worst was 16.2% (5.4 m ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths).

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental SportContact 7	81.33 s	Best
2Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72	83.1 s	+1.77 s
3Pirelli P Zero PZ5	84.8 s	+3.47 s

The difference between best and worst was 4.3% (3.47 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental SportContact 7	7 Points	Best
2Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72	6.3 Points	-0.70 Points
3Pirelli P Zero PZ5	6 Points	-1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 14.3% (1 Points).

Wet Circle
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental SportContact 7	0.91 g	Best
2Pirelli P Zero PZ5	0.9 g	-0.01 g
3Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72	0.87 g	-0.04 g

The difference between best and worst was 4.4% (0.04 g).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72	76.4 km/h	Best
2Pirelli P Zero PZ5	74.9 km/h	-1.50 km/h
3Continental SportContact 7	74.7 km/h	-1.70 km/h

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

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero PZ5	3.01 m/sec2	Best
2Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72	2.93 m/sec2	-0.08 m/sec2
3Continental SportContact 7	2.61 m/sec2	-0.40 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 13.3% (0.4 m/sec2).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72	6.5 Points	Best
2Continental SportContact 7	6 Points	-0.50 Points
2Pirelli P Zero PZ5	6 Points	-0.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 7.7% (0.5 Points).

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero PZ5	65.4 dB	Best
2Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72	65.6 dB	+0.20 dB
3Continental SportContact 7	65.7 dB	+0.30 dB

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

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Pirelli P Zero PZ5	9.15 kg/t	Best	£0
2Continental SportContact 7	9.24 kg/t	+0.09 kg/t	£4
3Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72	9.66 kg/t	+0.51 kg/t	£25

The difference between best and worst was 5.6% (0.51 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72 uses about 17 L (£25) more fuel than the Pirelli P Zero PZ5.

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.

Tyre shortlist →Read the test →

More tyre tests