AUTO BILD (2020): SUMMER TIRES 245/45 R18 TEST
When selecting candidates for test the magazine also focused on tires of subsidiary brands, produced by known tire concerns and manufacturers.
Prior to the basic test the journalists have carried out the safety check for all 50 sets of tires. That particular qualifying stage consisted of two disciplines: dry breaking from 100 to 0 km/h; wet breaking from 80 to 0 km/h.
As a result of the qualifying stage 30 models dropped out and the rest 20 went to storm the following test disciplines (handling, resistance to aquaplaning, and etc.).
«SAFETY CHECK» RESULTS
■ — bad, ■ — satisfactory, ■ — good
| Place | Tires | Dry braking, meters | Wet braking, meters |
| DROPPED OUT | |||
| 50 | King Meiler Sport 3 (восст.) | 43,2 | 41,0 |
| 49 | EP-Tyres Accelera Phi-R | 40,5 | 37,4 |
| 48 | Imperial Ecosport 2 | 38,7 | 37,3 |
| 47 | GT Radial SportActive | 39,1 | 36,8 |
| 46 | Nankang Ultra Sport NS-2 | 38,2 | 36,5 |
| 45 | Federal Evoluzion ST-1 | 39,4 | 35,3 |
| 44 | Seiberling Touring 2 | 37,0 | 37,0 |
| 43 | Marshal MU12 | 37,4 | 36,6 |
| 42 | Barum Bravuris 5 HM | 36,1 | 37,7 |
| 41 | Dayton Touring 2 | 37,2 | 36,4 |
| 40 | Tristar Sportpower 2 | 37,0 | 36,5 |
| 39 | Rotalla Setula S-Race RU01 | 35,7 | 37,2 |
| 38 | Minerva Radial F 205 | 36,0 | 36,9 |
| 37 | Tracmax X-Privilo TX3 | 35,4 | 37,0 |
| 36 | Viking ProTech HP | 34,8 | 37,3 |
| 35 | Radar Dimax R8 | 36,7 | 35,1 |
| 34 | General Altimax One S | 35,4 | 36,4 |
| 33 | 35,7 | 36,0 | |
| 32 | Saetta Touring 2 | 34,9 | 36,8 |
| 31 | 33,9 | 37,5 | |
| 30 | Avon ZZ5 | 35,2 | 36,2 |
| 29 | Cooper Zeon CS Sport | 34,5 | 36,0 |
| 28 | Sava Intensa UHP 2 | 35,5 | 34,7 |
| 27 | Mabor Sport-Jet 3 | 34,3 | 35,9 |
| 26 | Yokohama Advan Sport V105 | 34,7 | 35,3 |
| 25 | Pirelli P Zero | 34,6 | 34,8 |
| 24 | Debica Presto UHP2 | 32,8 | 36,1 |
| 23 | Semperit Speed-Life 2 | 32,2 | 36,2 |
| 22 | Giti GitiSport S1 | 32,9 | 35,5 |
| 21 | Infinity Ecomax | 32,6 | 35,7 |
| GRANTED ACCESS TO OTHER DISCIPLINES | |||
| 20 | Maxxis Victra Sport 5 | 33,4 | 34,8 |
| 19 | Uniroyal RainSport 3 | 32,4 | 35,7 |
| 18 | Zeetex HP 2000 vfm | 31,8 | 36,0 |
| 17 | Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2 | 33,0 | 34,3 |
| 16 | Toyo Proxes Sport | 31,5 | 35,4 |
| 15 | Falken Azenis FK510 | 30,7 | 36,0 |
| 14 | Laufenn S Fit EQ+ | 32,6 | 34,0 |
| 13 | Kleber Dynaxer UHP | 32,3 | 34,1 |
| 12 | Fulda SportControl 2 | 31,7 | 34,2 |
| 11 | Firestone Roadhawk | 30,8 | 34,3 |
| 10 | Hankook Ventus S1 evo³ | 30,3 | 34,7 |
| 9 | Apollo Aspire XP | 30,3 | 34,7 |
| 8 | Vredestein Ultrac Vorti | 31,3 | 33,4 |
| 7 | Nexen N´Fera Sport | 30,9 | 33,2 |
| 6 | Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 | 30,8 | 33,2 |
| 5 | Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 29,0 | 34,9 |
| 4 | Continental PremiumContact 6 | 30,2 | 33,2 |
| 3 | Bridgestone Potenza S001 | 28,7 | 33,5 |
| 2 | Nokian Powerproof | 29,1 | 32,9 |
| 1 | Michelin Pilot Sport 4 | 29,8 | 32,1 |
WET BRAKING RESULTS
To view an enlarged image of the test results, click on the picture
Wet braking Braking distance on wet surface with the speed of 100 km/h, in meters
Handling on wet surface
Average speed at a ring road with wet surface, km/h
Lateral stability on wet surface
Lateral acceleration on a ring road with wet surface, m/sec2
Resistance to aquaplaning
Grip loss rate on wet surface, km/h
DRY BRAKING RESULTS
To view an enlarged image of the test results, click on the picture
Dry braking. Braking distance on dry surface with the speed of 100 km/h, in meters
Dry handling
Average speed of driving through a ring road with dry surface, km/h
COMFORT AND RUNNING LIFE
To view an enlarged image of the test results, click on the picture
External rolling noise of tires. External noise at the speed of 80 km/h, in dB
Rolling resistance
Rolling resistance, kg/t
Projected mileage
Projected mileage up to the critical tread wear, in km
RESULTS
| 1st place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Dry braking | 3 | +1.1 m | |
| Dry handling | 2 | -0.2 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 5 | +2.3 m | |
| Wet handling | 6 | -1.6 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 15 | -5.5 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 19 | +2.5 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 1 | ||
| Rolling resistance | 7 | +0.5 kg/t | |
| Merits: High handling and responsiveness to steering turns; short braking distance; the best wear resistance in the test; good fuel efficiency. | |||
| Demerits: Not observed | |||
| Verdict: Exemplary | |||
| 1st place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Dry braking | 3 | +1.1 m | |
| Dry handling | 5 | -0.8 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 9 | +3.2 m | |
| Wet handling | 2 | -0.3 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 14 | -5.2 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 15 | +1.8 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 2 | -5 837 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 5 | +0.42 kg/t | |
| Merits: Sporty handling on wet and dry surfaces; responsiveness to steering turns; short braking distances on dry and wet surfaces; excellent wear resistance; affordable price. | |||
| Demerits: Not observed | |||
| Verdict: Exemplary | |||
| 3rd place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Dry braking | 1 | ||
| Dry handling | 3 | -0.6 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 4 | +1.6 m | |
| Wet handling | 9 | -2.7 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 1 | ||
| External rolling noise of tires | 14 | +1.5 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 5 | -11 674 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 12 | +0.96 kg/t | |
| Merits: Sporty responsiveness to steering turns; excellent dynamic motion; good resistance to aquaplaning; short braking distances on all surfaces. | |||
| Demerits: Relatively high price | |||
| Verdict: Exemplary | |||
| 4th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Vredestein Ultrac Vorti | Dry braking | 6 | +1.3 m |
| Dry handling | 1 | ||
| Wet braking | 12 | +4 m | |
| Wet handling | 10 | -3.1 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 8 | -3.6 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 15 | +1.8 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 7 | -12 572 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 19 | +2.03 kg/t | |
| Merits: Good grip and excellent handling on all surfaces; responsiveness to steering turns; good resistance to aquaplaning; acceptable price. | |||
| Demerits: Low fuel efficiency | |||
| Verdict: Exemplary | |||
| 5th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Apollo Aspire XP | Dry braking | 13 | +2.6 m |
| Dry handling | 9 | -1.6 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 6 | +2.4 m | |
| Wet handling | 11 | -4 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 5 | -2.5 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 2 | +0.2 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 5 | -11 674 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 4 | +0.3 kg/t | |
| Merits: Good handling; short braking distance on all surfaces; good wear resistance; reasonably good value for money. | |||
| Demerits: Not observed | |||
| Verdict: Exemplary | |||
| 6th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 | Dry braking | 3 | +3.4 m |
| Dry handling | 9 | -4.6 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 11 | -4.1 km/h | |
| Wet handling | 13 | ||
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 13 | -14 817 km | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 1st | +0.2 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 9 | -11674 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 17 | +1.85 kg/t | |
| Merits: Safe behavior and short braking distance on dry and wet surfaces; low noise level; good level of comfort. | |||
| Demerits: Low fuel efficiency | |||
| Verdict: Exemplary | |||
| 7th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Falken Azenis FK510 | Dry braking | 19 | +3.9 m |
| Dry handling | 15 | -2.2 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 8 | +3.1 m | |
| Wet handling | 16 | -5.4 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 8 | -3.6 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 8 | +1.1 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 2 | -5 837 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 15 | +0.64 kg/t | |
| Merits: Safe behavior and short braking distance on wet surface; low noise level; good wear resistance; excellent value for money. | |||
| Demerits: Not observed | |||
| Verdict: Exemplary | |||
| 8th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Nokian PowerProof | Dry braking | 2 | +0.8 m |
| Dry handling | 8 | -1.1 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 3 | +0.5 m | |
| Wet handling | 3 | -0.7 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 17 | -6.4 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 17 | +2.2 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 13 | -17 511 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 9 | +0.64 kg/t | |
| Merits: Good handling and short braking distance on wet and dry surfaces; accuracy of steering control. | |||
| Demerits: Medium wear resistance | |||
| Verdict: Good | |||
| 9th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Firestone RoadHawk | Dry braking | 11 | +2.2 m |
| Dry handling | 9 | -1.6 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 9 | +3.2 m | |
| Wet handling | 7 | -2.3 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 5 | -2.5 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 17 | +2.2 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 13 | -17 511 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 10 | +0.7 kg/t | |
| Merits: Relatively inexpensive tires with balanced behavior on wet and dry surfaces; good resistance to aquaplaning. | |||
| Demerits: Medium wear resistance | |||
| Verdict: Good | |||
| 9th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Fulda SportControl 2 | Dry braking | 10 | +2.1 m |
| Dry handling | 13 | -2 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 14 | +4.6 m | |
| Wet handling | 12 | -4.1 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 19 | -7.4 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 5 | +0.5 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 13 | -17 511 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 1 | ||
| Merits: Stable behavior on wet surface; short braking distance on dry surface; good level of comfort; low rolling resistance. | |||
| Demerits: Relatively high price; medium wear resistance | |||
| Verdict: Good | |||
| 11th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Bridgestone Potenza S001 | Dry braking | 7 | +1.4 m |
| Dry handling | 12 | -1.7 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 1 | ||
| Wet handling | 1 | ||
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 7 | -3.3 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 20 | +2.6 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 11 | -17 062 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 20 | +2.69 kg/t | |
| Merits: Excellent behavior on wet surface; good balance of grip and handling; good resistance to aquaplaning; short braking distance on all surfaces. | |||
| Demerits: Medium wear resistance; low fuel efficiency | |||
| Verdict: Satisfactory | |||
| 12th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Hankook Ventus S1 evo3 | Dry braking | 13 | +2.6 m |
| Dry handling | 5 | -0.8 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 6 | +2.4 m | |
| Wet handling | 8 | -2.5 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 10 | -3.7 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 11 | +1.2 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 16 | -18 858 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 13 | +1.02 kg/t | |
| Merits: Sufficient performance on wet and dry surfaces; short braking distance; good resistance to aquaplaning. | |||
| Demerits: Medium wear resistance | |||
| Verdict: Satisfactory | |||
| 13th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Laufenn S Fit EQ + | Dry braking | 8 | +1.9 m |
| Dry handling | 7 | -0.9 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 18 | +6.1 m | |
| Wet handling | 17 | -5.7 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 12 | -3.9 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 3 | +0.3 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 11 | -17 062 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 8 | +0.52 kg/t | |
| Merits: Sporty handling; good grip on dry surface; good fuel efficiency | |||
| Demerits: Poor control accuracy on wet surface; medium wear resistance | |||
| Verdict: Satisfactory | |||
| 14th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2 | Dry braking | 11 | +2.2 m |
| Dry handling | 16 | -2.4 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 19 | +6.7 m | |
| Wet handling | 18 | -5.8 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 16 | -5.9 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 8 | +1.1 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 10 | -15 266 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 3 | +0.27 kg/t | |
| Merits: Good riding stability on wet surface; short braking distance on dry surface; high fuel efficiency | |||
| Demerits: Poor wet handling and braking performance | |||
| Verdict: Satisfactory | |||
| 15th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Kleber Dynaxer UHP | Dry braking | 9 | +2 m |
| Dry handling | 18 | -2.8 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 16 | +5.6 m | |
| Wet handling | 19 | -5.9 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 18 | -6.6 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 11 | +1.2 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 10 | -13 021 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 11 | +0.81 kg/t | |
| Merits: Short braking distance on dry surface; low wear; good fuel efficiency; low price | |||
| Demerits: Poor performance on wet surface | |||
| Verdict: Satisfactory | |||
| 16th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Uniroyal Rainsport 3 | Dry braking | 18 | +3.6 m |
| Dry handling | 19 | -3.3 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 17 | +5.7 m | |
| Wet handling | 20 | -6.9 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 11 | -3.8 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 7 | +0.8 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 4 | -8 980 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 6 | +0.43 kg/t | |
| Merits: Low wear; good fuel efficiency | |||
| Demerits: Poor steering and difficult to handle on wet surface | |||
| Verdict: Satisfactory | |||
| 17th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | Dry braking | 16 | +2.8 м |
| Dry handling | 17 | -2.7 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 2 | +0.4 м | |
| Wet handling | 5 | -1.4 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 2 | -0.6 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 13 | +1.4 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 20 | -22 450 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 18 | +1.92 kg/t | |
| Merits: Good resistance to aquaplaning; short braking distance on wet surface | |||
| Demerits: Low control accuracy on dry surface; medium wear resistance; low fuel efficiency | |||
| Verdict: Conditionally recommended | |||
| 18th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Maxxis Victra Sport 5 | Dry braking | 15 | +2.7 m |
| Dry handling | 4 | -0.7 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 20 | +7.3 m | |
| Wet handling | 4 | -1.3 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 3 | -1.9 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 8 | +1.1 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 18 | -21 552 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 16 | +1.73 kg/t | |
| Merits: Sporty handling; good level of safety on wet surface; short braking distance on dry surface | |||
| Demerits: Long braking distance on wet surface; low wear resistance | |||
| Verdict: Conditionally recommended | |||
| 19th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Toyo Proxes Sport | Dry braking | 17 | +3.3 m |
| Dry handling | 14 | -2.1 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 13 | +4.3 m | |
| Wet handling | 14 | -5 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 4 | -2.4 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 3 | +0.3 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 17 | -21 103 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 14 | +1.17 kg/t | |
| Merits: High resistance to aquaplaning; short braking distance on wet and dry surfaces. | |||
| Demerits: Poor wet handling; low wear resistance | |||
| Verdict: Conditionally recommended | |||
| 20th place | Discipline | Place in discipline | Difference with the discipline leader |
| Zeetex HP2000 vfm | Dry braking | 19 | +3.9 m |
| Dry handling | 20 | -4.5 km/h | |
| Wet braking | 15 | +4.8 m | |
| Wet handling | 15 | -5.1 km/h | |
| Resistance to aquaplaning | 20 | -8.4 km/h | |
| External rolling noise of tires | 6 | +0.7 dB | |
| Wear resistance | 18 | -21 552 km | |
| Rolling resistance | 2 | +0.21 kg/t | |
| Merits: Short braking distance on wet and dry surfaces; low price; high fuel efficiency | |||
| Demerits: Poor handling on wet and dry surfaces; low resistance to aquaplaning; low wear resistance | |||
| Verdict: Conditionally recommended | |||
26.03.2020