Menu
Mohawk M105 View Gallery (2)
185-255/35-65 R14-20 56 sizes 2021

Mohawk M105

Mohawk Tyres High Performance Summer

The Mohawk M105 is a High Performance Summer tyre designed to be fitted to Passenger Cars.

6.3
Tyre Reviews Score Based on User Reviews
Limited Confidence View Breakdown
Dry Grip
73%
Wet Grip
64%
Road Feedback
60%
Handling
49%
Wear
74%
Comfort
56%
Buy again
41%
9 Reviews
60% Average
43,857 miles driven
Mohawk M105

Mohawk M105

Summer Budget
BETA
6.3 / 10
Based on User Reviews · Limited Confidence · Updated 30 Jan 2026

The Tyre Reviews Score is the most comprehensive tyre scoring system available. It aggregates professional test data from multiple independent publications, user reviews, and consistency analysis using Bayesian statistical methods, weighted normalisation, and recency-adjusted scoring to produce a single, reliable performance rating.

Learn more about our methodology
Score Components
Professional Tests
Weight: 80%
Tests: 0
Publications: 0
User Reviews
Weight: 15%
Reviews: 9
Avg Rating: 59.6%
Min Required: 5
Consistency
Weight: 5%
Score Std Dev: 1.9
History Points: 10
Methodology & Configuration
Scoring Process
  1. Collect Test Data: Gather results from professional tyre tests across multiple publications. Minimum 1 test(s) required.
  2. Normalize Positions: Convert test positions to percentile scores using exponential weighting (factor: 1.2).
  3. Apply Recency Weighting: More recent tests are weighted higher with a decay rate of 0.95.
  4. Incorporate User Reviews: Factor in user review data (minimum 5 reviews). Weight: 15%.
  5. Bayesian Smoothing: Apply Bayesian prior (score: 7, weight: 1.5) to prevent extreme scores with limited data.
  6. Calculate Final Score: Combine all components using normalization factor of 1.1. Max score with limited data: 9.5.
Component Weights
Test Data
80%
User Reviews
15%
Consistency
5%
All Configuration Parameters
ParameterValueDescription
safety_weight 0.7 Weight multiplier for safety-related metrics
performance_weight 0.55 Weight multiplier for performance metrics
comfort_weight 0.4 Weight multiplier for comfort metrics
value_weight 0.45 Weight multiplier for value-for-money metrics
user_reviews_weight 0.15 How much user reviews contribute to the final score
test_data_weight 0.8 How much professional test data contributes to the final score
consistency_weight 0.05 How much score consistency contributes to the final score
recency_decay_rate 0.95 Rate at which older test results lose influence (higher = slower decay)
min_test_count 1 Minimum number of professional tests required
min_review_count 5 Minimum number of user reviews required
score_version 1.8 Current version of the scoring algorithm
score_normalization_factor 1.1 Factor used to normalize raw scores to the 0-10 scale
confidence_factor_weight 0.2 How much data confidence affects the final score
position_penalty_weight 0.2 Penalty applied for poor test positions
gap_penalty_threshold 8 Score gap (%) that triggers additional penalties
min_metrics_count 2 Minimum number of test metrics needed per test
limited_data_threshold 2 Number of tests below which data is considered limited
single_test_penalty 0.1 Score multiplier when only one test is available
critical_metric_penalty 0.7 Penalty for poor performance on critical safety metrics
critical_metric_threshold 70 Score below which a critical metric penalty applies
position_exponential_factor 1.2 Exponent used to amplify position-based scoring
position_exponential_threshold 0.9 Position percentile below which exponential scoring applies
gap_multiplier_critical 3 Multiplier for critical gap penalties
max_category_weight 2 Maximum weight any single category can have
max_score_limited_data 9.5 Score cap when data is limited
bayesian_prior_weight 1.5 Weight of the Bayesian prior in smoothing
bayesian_prior_score 7 Prior score used for Bayesian smoothing
evidence_test_multiplier 1.9 Multiplier for test evidence in confidence calculation
evidence_metric_divisor 3 Divisor for metric count in evidence calculation
evidence_review_divisor 10 Divisor for review count in evidence calculation
All Tests

Sorry, we don't currently have any magazine tyre tests for the Mohawk M105

Size Fuel Wet Noise
15 inch
195/55R15 85 V D C 69
195/65R15 91 V D C 69
16 inch
205/55R16 94 V XL D C 70
205/60R16 96 H XL D C 72
215/60R16 99 V XL D C 72
205/55R16 94 V XL C C 70
View All Sizes and EU Label Scores for the Mohawk M105 >>

Questions and Answers for the Mohawk M105

Ask a question
Sorry, we don't currently have any questions and answers for the Mohawk M105. Why not submit a question to our tyre experts using the form below!
Ask a question

We will never publish or share your email address

captcha

To verify you are human please type the word you see in the box below.

Top 3 Mohawk M105 Reviews

Given 58% while driving a Ford Fiesta Zetec S (205/40 R17) on a combination of roads for 4,000 average miles
Had several of these tyres the main issue is the compound of the rubber seems degrade very quickly after a year or two they start to crack both in the tread and the sidewall, when taking them back to the fitting centre, usual excuses, temperature fluctuations or low inflation issues .
After two sets of these tyres I think I can rule out this and put it down to very poor manufacturers,
Never ever buy this brand you will regret it.
Tread wear is very good , price budget, but very poor value overall.
Mohawk M105 image
Ask a question | Helpful 743
March 6, 2024
Given 10% while driving a Ford 05 Mondeo 185 (modded) diesel (205/40 R17) on a combination of roads for 4,000 easy going miles
We’re on the wife’s car when we brought it, less than 4000 miles the inner sidewalls were cracked around 90% of the wall down to the cords.
Who checks the inner sidewall of a tyre ?

Do NOT buy these tyres they are dangerous.
Ask a question | Helpful 775
June 22, 2023
Given 50% while driving a BMW 325i M Sport (255/35 R18) on mostly town for 14,000 average miles
On the rear of a bmw m sport 325i When I bought the car passed 1st mot But failed 2nd mot as split on inner wall Lots of tred left Hard wearing tyres Let down with splitting inner walls
Ask a question | Helpful 826
August 8, 2021
Have you driven on the Mohawk M105 tyre?

Have YOU got experience with the Mohawk M105? Help millions of other tyre buyers

Review your Mohawk M105 >

Latest Mohawk M105 Reviews

Given 87% while driving a Ford Kuga (235/50 R18 W) on a combination of roads for 3,201 average miles
New front tyres to replace OE fitment Continental SportContact 5 at 14,734 mi mixed urban commute and motorway miles. Tyre depot had a range of tyres in 235 50 18 including all-season and winter. I chose a set of Mohawk M105 based on EU tyre label wet weather C rating mainly. Garage guy said it was a popular choice and hard wearing plus it was half the cost of Continental. So far so good with 3,201 mi of motoring on the Mohawks. Wet grip is good and more importantly handling is sharper over original fitment tyres. Dry grip and comfort same as Continental. Why pay more?
Ask a question | Helpful 785
November 14, 2019
Given 87% while driving a (225/45 R17) on for 0 miles
Just replaced the Mohawks today. They have been on the car over the past 3 years since May 23rd 2016, covering 50000mll till today, May 22nd 2019!
I'm very impressed with their performance, considering they were on the driving axle of my C220 CDI estate.
Overall value for money has been great considering I bought the pair of them for £106.- fitted.
Overall grip has proven to be more than adequate from this "budget" tyre and longevity has been astounding.
Ask a question | Helpful 740
May 22, 2019
Check out how the BEST all seasons tyres perform against premium summer and winter tyres!
Given 39% while driving a Ford 05 Mondeo 185 (modded) diesel (235/40 R18 W) on mostly town for 4,000 average miles
Don't buy these!!

12 months (4,000 miles) down the line still with 7mm tread = MOT Failure. Several splits all the way round on the inner tyre wall.

These could have been V.dangerous afterall who checks the inner wall.
Ask a question | Helpful 895
May 4, 2018
Given 80% while driving a Volvo S80 2.4 petrol (225/50 R17 W) on a combination of roads for 4,356 average miles
Bought a set of budget Mohawk M105 225/50 R17 tyres for my Volvo as I couldn't afford premium/mid range tyre brand this time. Garage recommended them on the basis that the local taxi drivers swear by them due to high wear rate (like Michelin) and low price. Garage said every big tyre company has one or more sub brands and Mohawk are made by Hankook. Very pleased so far. Tyres are made in China. Wearing better than previous Bridgestone's and wet handling is better too. Coped well in recent cold spell including snow and ice although ride comfort got worse in cold weather. I am happy to recommend this budget summer tyre for normal roads/daily commute/average driving style.
Ask a question | Helpful 766
April 30, 2018
Given 46% while driving a Volkswagen Passat (215/55 R17 W) on mostly country roads for 10,000 easy going miles
These were the worst tyres I have ever had. They came on the car I bought second hand and I couldn't wait to get rid. They are very hard and ruin the comfort of the car. Poor grip in the wet. The only positive thing about them is they last forever.
Ask a question | Helpful 552
March 6, 2018