Menu
Mohawk M716 View Gallery (1)
145-275/60-80 R13-22 38 sizes 2010

Mohawk M716

The Mohawk M716 is a High Performance Summer tyre designed to be fitted to Passenger Cars.

6.9
Tyre Reviews Score Based on User Reviews
Limited Confidence View Breakdown
Dry Grip
70%
Wet Grip
71%
Road Feedback
67%
Handling
64%
Wear
66%
Comfort
65%
Buy again
70%
7 Reviews
68% Average
143,050 miles driven
Mohawk M716

Mohawk M716

Summer Budget
BETA
6.9 / 10
Based on User Reviews · Limited Confidence · Updated 23 Feb 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: 7
Avg Rating: 67.7%
Min Required: 5
Consistency
Weight: 5%
Score Std Dev: 0.06
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 1.9 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 12 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 0.75 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
combined_penalty_floor 0.2
All Tests

Sorry, we don't currently have any magazine tyre tests for the Mohawk M716

Size Fuel Wet Noise
13 inch
155/80R13 79 T D D 69
14 inch
175/65R14 82 T D D 69
185/60R14 82 H D D 69
165/70R14 81 T E D 69
185/70R14 88 H D D 69
175/65R14 86 T XL D D 69
165/70R14 81 T D D 69
175/65R14 82 T D C 69
15 inch
185/65R15 88 H D D 69
195/65R15 91 H D D 69
195/65R15 95 T XL D D 69
185/65R15 88 H D C 69
195/65R15 91 H D C 69
195/65R15 95 T XL D C 69
View All Sizes and EU Label Scores for the Mohawk M716 >>

Questions and Answers for the Mohawk M716

Ask a question
Sorry, we don't currently have any questions and answers for the Mohawk M716. 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 M716 Reviews

Given 17% while driving a Nissan SUNNY (175/70 R13) on a combination of roads for 2,000 average miles
One word summarises these tyres up. Appalling. These tyres came with my car when I first bought it and the day I got rid of them for some Uniroyal RainExpert 3's was probably one of the best days of my life. The Uniroyals transformed the ride quality and handling of my car massively.

Where do I begin? The dry grip was poor and even relatively laid back driving could get them to squeal and lose traction. If you needed to get going at a junction or wanted a good set off, they'd judder and not provide good grip. The wet grip was appalling and even gentle set offs would result in heavy wheel spin and juddering. They provided 0 grip in wet and damp conditions. The handling felt imprecise and sloppy, with the grip levels being poor. I got to 60mph on a straight stretch of road and they felt very unstable! The ride quality was abysmal, making my car feel bumpy on even some of the best roads. They were very noisy as well. The wet and dry braking was poor. My fuel economy was terrible with these tyres on and they had some horribly soft sidewalls so it constantly looked like I had flat tyres, despite even bumping up the pressure slightly above what the manufacturer states. The only positive thing I can bring away is that they wore down at an alright pace, but I wouldn't even debate putting these on even if they lasted forever.

I doubt this tyre is even sold anymore, however if you find some, do avoid them.
June 2, 2024
Given 89% while driving a Citroën (195/70 R14) on a combination of roads for 8,000 spirited miles
I have driven this model on various tyres, some of them very expensive. I am utterly amazed by the Mohawks.
Compared to Michelin MXV they grip and steer just as well in the dry, are definitely quieter and less harsh on
bumps and provide quite remarkably tenacious grip on a wet road. They are stable and vibration free in high
speed cruising right up to the cars 120mph maximum. The CX carries 70% of its weight on the front wheels
so they tend to wear the front outer shoulder when driven hard. The Mohawks seem to resist this quite well so
I am expecting a life at least as long as the Michelins. If they were the same price I would still pick the Mohawks
based on performance. The fact that they are a budget tyre makes them incredible value for money. I would
buy them again in a heartbeat!
March 17, 2019
Given 86% while driving a Volkswagen (195/65 R15 H) on a combination of roads for 36,000 average miles
These were on the front when I bought my Golf TDI and I as I had not heard of them I didn't have high expectations. Now over 2 years and 36000 miles later they still have 4mm of tread and have performed really well in the dry, wet and snow. The rear Bridge stones are now in need of replacing and I am getting Mohawks to match the front. A match underrated tyre.
March 19, 2013

How would you rate the Mohawk M716?

Click a star to start your review

Latest Mohawk M716 Reviews

Given 66% while driving a Vauxhall cavalier td (195/60 R15 H) on mostly country roads for 50,000 spirited miles
For a budget tyre these are brilliant especially in the wet and cheap enough. Think my last pair cost £70 fitted. Don't last very well on the front of heavy cars. Mine did about 10k miles. Grip deteriorates as they wear obviously but the compound seems to harden as they age. Played hell with my ABS when worn down to 4mm. I wouldn't buy any other budget tyre other than these now though as I've grown to trust them.
November 8, 2012
Given 78% while driving a Fiat (175/65 R15 H) on a combination of roads for 250 spirited miles
Got an advisory warning at the M.O.T station 15 days ago so purchased 4 M716's after reading all the bad reviews! They suited my budget and am glad I got them, these tyres should be praised for there dry and especially there wet handling abilities. I just replaced all 4 Michelin Energy Saver that came with the car but at £89 each just can't afford them. I don't value safety over money just need to keep my car on the road. These really should have a “very good in the wet” branded on the sidewall.
February 27, 2012
Given 80% while driving a Toyota Corolla (175/70 R14) on a combination of roads for 800 spirited miles
Got these for my corolla diesel as they were the only ones available prior to car test. Very impressive. No traction code on the wall but the compound is very soft. I dont care if they ware fast , I drive hard and these tyres are 70% as good as my proxies I use in my integra.
November 27, 2011
Rate the Mohawk M716