Menu

Yokohama Geolandar G98A

The Yokohama Geolandar G98A is a Premium Touring Summer tyre designed to be fitted to SUV and 4x4s.

6.1
Tyre Reviews Score Based on User Reviews
Limited Confidence View Breakdown
Dry Grip
74%
Wet Grip
67%
Road Feedback
68%
Handling
68%
Wear
49%
Comfort
61%
Buy again
32%
15 Reviews
60% Average
209,000 miles driven
Yokohama Geolandar G98A

Yokohama Geolandar G98A

Summer Mid-Range
BETA
6.1 / 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: 15
Avg Rating: 59.7%
Min Required: 5
Consistency
Weight: 5%
Score Std Dev: 1.85
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 Yokohama Geolandar G98A

Questions and Answers for the Yokohama Geolandar G98A

Ask a question
Sorry, we don't currently have any questions and answers for the Yokohama Geolandar G98A. 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 Yokohama Geolandar G98A Reviews

Given 52% while driving a Honda 2009 CRV (225/65 R17) on a combination of roads for 10,000 easy going miles
These were not as good as my original tyres didn’t grip as well, but when it snowed , they were absolutely rubbish. Nearly had two accidents because I couldn’t stop, and I wasn’t going too fast, having to change them after only 10,000 miles because I feel they unsafe if it’s snows it was in snow that I have my problems. Do not know if I could stop if it was icy after a few days my vehicle is a 4x4 never had trouble stopping when it snowed before. These are not cheap budget tires, expected them to be much better, will be replacing in the next two weeks when there’s still lots of tread left
Ask a question | Helpful 674
October 13, 2023
Mazda (225/45 R17) on mostly country roads for 20,000 easy going miles
Factory fitted to a Mazda CX8, disappointed with the wear, 30,000km and down to 2.omm tread. Will purchase Cooper CS5 to replace.
June 11, 2020
Given 76% while driving a Mazda CX8 (225/65 R17) on mostly country roads for 7,000 spirited miles
Fitted to Mazda CX8 as their OEM tyre in New Zealand. Good grip and feed back through steering, sure footed in both wet and dry conditions with my driving being mostly open road on hilly twisting roads around the coast line. Recommend
May 9, 2019
Have you driven on the Yokohama Geolandar G98A tyre?

Have YOU got experience with the Yokohama Geolandar G98A? Help millions of other tyre buyers

Review your Yokohama Geolandar G98A >

Latest Yokohama Geolandar G98A Reviews

Given 76% while driving a Mazda cx5 (225/55 R17 V) on mostly country roads for 19,000 easy going miles
They spend very fast 31000 Kms: 3mm front axle, 2,5mm rear axle.
Good grip in dry, in wet at 20000 Kkms passing through a small puddle at 90 Kms / h the rear wheels slid sideways.
I would not buy them again.
December 31, 2018
Given 73% while driving a Mazda cx5 (225/65 R17 V) on a combination of roads for 23,000 average miles
I got the car with this tyres, at 30.000km. They were OEM issue. The thread was ~3.5mm when I got the car, so on it's end of their life. After 7k km, they got down to 2-2.5mm. I drove with them either fast and slow, on various roads, highways and country roads. In general, they acted fine, pretty grippy for a worn down tire, quite difficult to make burnouts if you wanted.
Only issue I observed was in moderate and heavy rain, the car would became unstable and the tires would slip to left and right at over 80km/h on the motorway (although I was the fastest driver around :) ). So not that safe in this regard, although we could attribute this bad performance to the lack of remaining thread.
The noise level was ok, nothing to write home about. I just took the car with them, maybe I was used to that specific noise of the car. The wear is fine from my point of view, 35-40k km from a pair of tires is more than adequate.
As comparison, on a Civic, a high performance tire as Goodyear F1 Eagle Asymmetric 2 would worn almost completely in 20-25k kms.
Unfortunately, in the CX-5 size, 225/65R17 there are not many performance tires to chose from, so I find the Geolandars G98A perfectly adequate for the job, and I would happily get them again.

This one being a company lease car, they replaced them with Bridgestone Ecopia EP850, as the programme is arranged. I just drove 15km with the new Bridgestones, so not enough to get an opinion, but I kind of already miss the Geolandars. With the Bridgestones I can break traction at each start from the stoplights, a thing that would be hardly achievable in the Geolandars. Maybe they are new, I'll give them time to settle in.
December 8, 2017
Check out how the BEST all seasons tyres perform against premium summer and winter tyres!
Given 44% while driving a Honda CRV (225/65 R17 V) on mostly motorways for 10,000 easy going miles
Quiet but very very stiff ride...

You can feel the slightest road bump. Don't buy as you will regret it.
September 11, 2017
Given 63% while driving a Subaru Outback (225/65 R17) on mostly motorways for 23,000 average miles
These came stock with my Subaru Outback Turbo Diesel.
I was relatively happy with them for the 18 months or so, with decent comfort, pretty quiet, good fuel efficiency and okay wet and dry performance given they are a stock set of tyres from purchase.
At the 18months service, I was alerted to the fact that the tyres had about 3mm of tread left, which was a complete surprise to me, as I have only driven 33,000km or 20,500 miles of mostly high speed (100km/h-110km/h) highway driving.
I have since done another 5,000km of driving, and it's coming to the end of the tyre's life.
I am happy with every aspect of the tyre other than the wear, but I just can not afford to be changing tyres so often and the grip performance have saved me from a few sticky situations where the people in front of me suddenly stopped etc... but I won't be buying the same tyres, given they are very expensive to replace with the same types. I might try the G055 and see how they go.
September 7, 2017
Given 37% while driving a Mazda cx5 (225/45 R17) on mostly town for 0 easy going miles
I wont be buying these tyres again 27000km and worn out absolutely the worst tyres in driving history!
March 19, 2017
Given 39% while driving a Mazda cx5 (225/45 R17) on a combination of roads for 8,000 spirited miles
I have got it on Mazda CX 5. To slippery on wet. Otherwise just ok! Not buy again !
March 11, 2017
Given 51% while driving a Mazda cx5 (225/45 R17) on mostly motorways for 20,000 easy going miles
Very poor wearing bought on a new Mazda CX5; 28,000klms and the tyres were bald except for the main tread channels. Will not be purchasing again.
December 1, 2016
Given 44% while driving a (225/45 R17) on for 0 miles
The absolute downside of these tyres is the wear factor !!! 40,000 kms and not safe to drive anymore-considering I only do local school runs and local shopping runs this is very unexceptable !! NEVER AGAIN!
October 20, 2016
Given 56% while driving a Mazda cx5 (225/65 R17) on mostly town for 20,000 easy going miles
These tyres were fitted from stock on our Mazda CX-5. The car has driven aprox 20000 miles now and the tyres are full of bursts/cracks. This is the first time we see this happening with an tyre. So for wear, we give it a 4. Everything else, a 6. Cause it's an "OK" tyre to drive, nothing special. But because of the wear and price of the tyre, we wouldn't buy it again and rather go for another brand.
October 12, 2016
Given 60% while driving a Mazda cx5 (225/65 R17) on mostly town for 19,000 average miles
Factory tyres on MazdaCX5 do most things OK, but @ 30000 km no tread left on the tyres, despite the fact that the wear indicators still have approximately 1 - 2 mm left above them.
December 7, 2015
Given 96% while driving a Subaru Outback (225/55 R17) on mostly motorways for 30,000 average miles
Current set have done 33000 miles with normal and motorway driving - still 6mm left.
July 14, 2015