The Big Tyre Debate

[Steve]

Which brands are good and bad in your eyes

Which has good performance

which has good wear

AVON

BRIDGESTONE

BUDGET

Continental

DUNLOP

FIRESTONE

GOODYEAR

Hankook

KLEBER

MARANGONI

MICHELIN

PIRELLI

SEMPERIT

TOYO

UNIROYAL

VREDESTEIN

YOKOHAMA

goto: http://www.tyres-online.co.uk

[Steve]

oh yeah.. i would have put these in a poll but I can only use a maximum of 10 in a poll!

The following reviews were taken from:

http://www.tyres-online.co.uk

[Steve]

Avon

CR 322 Enviro

This tyre achieved an average result in Which? Magazine's tyre test (04/00). It offered a good wet road performance but was poor in the wear test. The Enviro was one of the worst on ice and snow but it should be remembered that it is primarily a summer tyre.

ZV1

In a test by ADAC Motorwelt (03/00) this tyre was found to be weak in the wet, particularly for braking, handling and directional stability as well as slightly weak in the dry.

The ZV1 came last in Auto Bild's test (03/00) after showing lots of understeer and a lack of stability in a curve as well as poor braking. This tyre was the only one in the review to fail the magazine's speed test. However, good results were recorded for comfort and aquaplaning in a curve.

Which? Magazine (04/00) rated this tyre as average in all categories of its test apart from above par performances on the dry and for rolling resistance.

Azaro II

This sports bike tyre was voted the best out of seven brands on several tests on a variety of bikes by Motor Cycle News. When fitted to the Honda VFR800 and Triumph Sprint ST this tyre was awarded 100% marks for straight line stability and corner grip as well as maximum points from one assessor for corner stability. On the Suzuki SV650, both testers placed the tyres first, praising their grip and braking ability. On the Yamaha R1 and Honda SP-1 tests, the Azaros were placed second and on the Triumph TT600 they were only one percentage point behind the winning tyres.

[Steve]

Barum

Bravura OR58

Test Auto (04/00) were surprised when this tyre won the aquaplaning section of their test. Reviewers reported, however, that there was still room for improvement in its wet braking and dry handling performance.

According to Auto Magazine's (04/00) test results this is a fairly average tyre. It did achieve very good marks for aquaplaning and was praised for its water dispersal characteristics. However, several of its results were unsatisfactory, including dry and wet braking, dry handling, comfort and rolling resistance.

[Steve]

BF Goodrich

Profiler G

This tyre performed well in terms of driveability, dry braking and steering precision in Sport Auto's test (6/00). However, it was let down by an average performance in the aquaplaning test together with low traction and a strong tendency to under steer.

In AutoBild's 2001 tyre test the tyre was praised for its aquaplaning performance, its rolling resistance and its dry braking. Weaknesses included wet braking.

Gute Fahrt (3/2001) also found the Profiler G to be good with strengths in braking and aquaplaning. The tyre was criticised for having too large a turning curve in the dry.

Profiler GTL

Auto Motor und Sport (6/2001) found the Profiler GTL to perform well in wet braking and in aquaplaning. It was also considered to be quiet. Weaknesses were considered to be wet braking and steering precision.

[Steve]

Bridgestone

Bridgestone Potenza S-02

This tyre came joint first with two others in Sport Auto's test (6/00). The reviewers found its agile handling and precise steering with high aquaplaning resistance made it easily controllable in the wet. The S-02 also performed well in the braking test but offered low traction on the rear axle on a wet surface.

In Rallye Racing's tyre test (7/2000), the S-02 Pole Position was highly recommended and described as a highly balanced tyre.

Bridgestone ER 20

Auto Bild magazine (03/00) rated this tyre very highly after an excellent braking and good wet braking performance. It was let down by a slight tendency to understeer in the wet, however.

The ER 20 also had a middling performance in ADAC Motorwelt's test (03/00). The review found that it had no outstanding strengths or weaknesses, apart from a relatively poor performance in wet conditions.

This was one of the best tyres tested for grip in the dry according to Which? Magazine (04/00). It also did well in the wet road surface and rolling resistance tests but was considered a fairly noisy tyre.

Bridgestone B330

In size 175/70 R13T, ADAC Motorwelt (03/00) judged this tyre to be very good in the wet but relatively weak in dry conditions. In a test by the same magazine of size 175/80 R14T tyres the B330 achieved top marks due to a comfortable ride and an excellent performance in the wet. The tyre was let down by a weaker performance in dry conditions.

Although one of the best tested on the wet, the B330 was rated average for other characteristics by Which? Magazine (04/00). Unsurprisingly, this summer tyre faired badly in snow and ice.

Turanza ER70

Test Mot's reviewers (04/00) praised this tyre's sporty characteristics. They found it offered good comfort and wet grip. Handling remained precise in all conditions.

Auto Magazine (04/00) voted this tyre best for wet braking in a test of size 195/65 R15 tyres. Overall its performance was good and it had excellent scores for the straight aquaplaning and dry handling categories. Unfortunately the Turanza was one of the worst tyres in the test for rolling resistance.

Bridgestone B381 Ecopia

Tested by ADAC Motorwelt (3/2001) this tyre was considered to have only limited recommendability. Although the tyre had good rolling resistance, wet and dry performance and wear rate were also considered to be weaknesses.

Bridgestone Potenza RE 040

This tyre was tested by Gute Fahrt (3/2001) and achieved a rating of "good". The tyre was considered to be well-balanced, comfortable and quiet with good rolling resistance. Weaknesses included understeer in the wet.

Bridgestone Potenza RE 720

This tyre received excellent reviews in AutoBild (2001), ADAC Motorwelt (3/2001) and Auto Motor und Sport (6/2001). AutoBild rated the tyre as exceptional with strengths in handling, lateral stability and braking and only coming unstuck on pass-by noise.

ADAC Motorwelt also said the tyre was to be highly recommended identifying balanced performance and good dry weather performance as key characteristics. Rolling resistance was considered a weakness.

Auto Motor und Sport identified wet and dry performance, braking and aquaplaning as the tyre's main strengths. Again, pass-by noise was identified as the main weakness.

[SuperChargedL]

I've always used Bridgestone...

I have LM-22 Winter Tires and S03 Pole Position Summer Times, and I am happy with them...

[Steve]

Continental

Continental EcoContact EP

In a test by ADAC Motorwelt (3/00), in size 175/70 R 13T this tyre was voted top against eleven others of the same size. It was described as well balanced, being good on both wet and dry surfaces and did particularly well in aquaplaning tests. The tyre also got good marks for shock absorption, noise and low wear. In a separate test, the same tyre in size 175/80 R 14T also scored very highly although it was noted to be weaker on dry surfaces and noisier than average.

The same magazine tested size 175/65 R 13T in their 3/2001 issue. The tyre was again highly recommended as being extremely well balanced on both wet and dry surfaces. Average wear was quoted as a weakness.

ContiSportContact

The SportContact offered a generally average performance in Sport Auto's test (6/00). Reviewers found the tyre had a tendency to understeer and was poor at handling in the wet. It only did well in the dry braking test.

Rallye Racing (7/2000) found the 225/40 ZR 18 size to be satisfactory quoting wet performance and dry braking as areas of weakness

ContiSportContact 2

This tyre was tested in size 205/55 R 16 W by both ADAC motorwelt (3/2001) and AutoBild (Issue 11/2001). Both magazines considered the tyre to be exceptionally good. ADAC Motorwelt picked out the tyre's well balanced qualities in the wet as a particular strength whilst AutoBild praised its handling and directional stablity, whilst singling out rolling resistance and comfort as areas of weakness.

Gute Fahrt (3/2001) tested the 225/45 r 17 Y/ZR version of the tyre but unlike AutoBild considered rolling resistance to be a strength. ABS braking and wet handling also came in for praise. Despite criticisms for a lack of comnfort, the tyre came out as the test winner.

ContiPremiumContact

This tyre came second in Auto Motor Und Sport magazine's tyre test (6/00). It performed very well in both the wet and dry braking tests. The tyre was rated good for handling, aquaplaning and comfort, it also recorded low rolling resistance. The PremiumContact lost marks for a tendency to under steer on dry surfaces.

Test Mot (4/00) thought this tyre was expensive in their test of size 205/55 R16V tyres. Its emphasis was on wet weather performance, although it achieved a good breakaway delay in both wet and dry tests and the tyre's low weight was noted. The tyre was generally average in the dry and its handling was thought to be imprecise in both wet and dry conditions. The same tyre tested in size 195/65 R15H achieved a similar verdict, although its handling was found to be very good for front wheel drive.

Auto Bild's (3/00) reviewers thought this tyre performed well on both wet and dry surfaces, doing particularly well on the magazine's dry braking test. It lost marks for noise and suffered slight problems in aquaplane resistance.

Auto Magazine (8/00) tested this tyre in two sizes and both gave very similar results, all of which were above average. Size 195/65 R15 was best at wet handling, straight aquaplaning and dry braking. The strengths of the same tyre in size 205/55 R16 were wet cornering and braking as well as straight aquaplaning.

The PremiumContact was recommended by Gute Fahrt (3/00) after its summer tyre test. It was found to be especially good at wet handling but was also praised for aquaplaning performance, rolling resistance and low noise. Reviewers noted that it was easy to control when loaded.

Auto Express (8/00) put this tyre at the top of their rankings after a consistent performance throughout its test. It was one of the best tyres in most of the categories - only performing below average in wet braking - and got top marks for rolling resistance.

ADAC MNotorwelt (3/2001) tested the tyre in 205/55 R 16W and considered it to be highly recommendable. Strengths were good balance, strong performance in the wet and low rolling resistance. Wear rate was considered to be a weakness.

The 205/55 R 16V size was tested by Autobild (Issue 11/2001) and also received excellent results. Strengths were balanced handling, wet braking and comfort. Directional stability in the dry was quoted as a weakness.

[Steve]

Dunlop

SP Sport 200E

This tyre did quite well on ADAC Motorwelt's test (3/00), scoring highly for dry performance and achieving the best wear rate. However, it was let down by loud exterior noise and a relatively weak wet performance.

Test Mot (4/00) found that this tyre placed an emphasis on comfort but generally it gave a good all round performance. It offered low noise and performed well on the aquaplaning test but lost marks for a long wet braking distance.

This tyre was only recommended with reservations by Auto Bild (3/00). Good aquaplaning characteristics, a balanced dry performance and low rolling resistance were offset by the Sport 200E's lack of stability in the wet and poor wet braking.

The SP 200E was awarded the highest marks in a test by Which? Magazine (4/00) after proving to be the hardest wearing tyre in the test as well as giving one of the best dry road performances. Which? also praised its wet weather and rolling resistance properties, however it was not rated so highly for comfort and noise.

In a test by Auto (4/00) this tyre was judged to be one of the best for aquaplaning resistance. Elsewhere in the test, its results were generally good apart from below average wet handling and braking as well as high rolling resistance.

Gute Fahrt's (3/00) reviewers thought that this was a very good tyre. In its test it was shown to be easily controllable and balanced as it was very good in both the wet and dry. The tyre's braking performance was also praised.

Auto Express (8/00) found that although the SP 200E made good time in the dry handling test it was often difficult to control. The reviewers also found it slightly disappointing in the wet, although it was competent in the straight aquaplaning test. This tyre offered very low rolling resistance and was seen as good value for money.

SP10 3e

The Which? Magazine (4/00) found this tyre to be poor in ice and snow. It was good on the dry but only average on the wet and lost further marks for noise, rolling resistance and wear.

A later test in the same magazine (3/00) again gave this tyre the best mark in the dry for both sizes tested. Size 175/70 R13T was let down by a relative weakness on the wet - particularly for handling - as well as high rolling resistance and higher than average wear. The same tyre in size 175/80 R14T also suffered from high wear but was good in the wet.

ADAC Motorwelt aslo tested this tyre (3/2000 in 175/70 R 13T and 175/80 R 14 T. The tyre was recommended with some reservations. Although considered excellent in the dry, the lower profiule size was criticised for its performance in the wet and its rolling resistance, whilst both tyres were considered to have poor wear rates.

Sport 9000

German magazine, Auto Motor und Sport (6/00), ranked the Sport 9000 top out of eight popular tyre models. It was thought to be a very safe tyre with neutral handling and a good braking performance on the dry. In the wet it offered good aquaplaning resistance and very good braking. However, the test recorded slightly higher rolling resistance than average.

This tyre came joint first in the Sport Auto test (6/00), performing particularly well in the handling assessments. It was praised for its exact steering and responsiveness but lost marks for a weakness in front axle grip on the dry.

The SP 9000 came highly recommended by Sport Auto (3/00). Reviewers found it offered precise handling in all conditions, and praised it for straight acceleration, braking, comfort and aquaplaning resistance. The only weakness mentioned was in aquaplaning on a curve.

ADAC Motorwelt (3/2001) recommended this tyre highly saying it was well balanced and particularly good in the dry. It was considered average in wet conditions.

Auto Motor und Sport (6/2001) also gave the tyre a good review, saying it was sporty, precise in steering and good in wet braking, aquaplaning and rolling comfort. Braking on dry surfaces was considered to be the only weakness.

AutoBild (Issue 11/2001) also pointed to the tyre's precise steering and aquaplaning performance but criticised both rolling comfort and rolling resistance.

Gute Fahrt (3/2001) considered the tyre to be "Very Good" with ABS braking and aquaplaning performance being particularly praised.

SP Sport 2000E

Testing this tyre in size 185/60 R14H, Test Mot (4/00) found it gave a satisfactory performance, being good in the wet and balanced in the dry. In the size 205/55 R16V test the tyre gave the best all round performance from a non-directional tyre. It was found to be good when pushed to the limits on wet and dry surfaces and, being a lightweight tyre, offered low rolling resistance. It dropped marks for slight weaknesses in aquaplaning.

Auto magazine (4/00) tested this tyre in two sizes. The smaller tyre (185/60 R14) achieved satisfactory results in its size category. Although very good for handling, braking and cornering in the wet, it was let down by a poor aquaplaning performance. Tested in size 205/55 R15 the 2000 E was thought to be the best tyre in the wet, though it did suffer from aquaplaning in a curve. Both sizes showed very low rolling resistance.

[Steve]

Falken

ZE 502

In a test (6/00) by Auto Motor und Sport this tyre's performance appeared average. Although it was rated very highly for dry braking and did well in the handling and noise tests it performed poorly in wet braking as well as straight line aquaplaning. Also, the tyre's rolling resistance was judged to be too high.

Testing this tyre in two different sizes, Test Mot (4/00) found that it gave an unbalanced performance. It was good in the dry - offering agile handling, low noise and achieving the best results for braking in its size category - but its grip in wet conditions was only average and it was susceptible to aquaplaning.

Auto Magazine's (4/00) reviewers tested this tyre in two sizes and both suffered badly from aquaplaning. Size 205/55 R16 gave a generally poor performance in the wet. In comparison its dry performance was very good, including top marks for steering, braking and noise. The size 185/60 R14 tyre achieved similarly contrasting wet and dry performances.

ZE-326

This tyre came halfway down the rankings in Auto Bild's test (3/00). Despite a result that showed good breaking and a balanced performance in the wet, it displayed a tendency to understeer in the dry, a susceptibility to aquaplaning and high rolling resistance.

The ZE-326 was judged to be the worst tyre in Gute Fahrt's (3/00) summer tyre test. It failed the magazine's speed test and was criticised for its braking performance and comfort levels. The tyre's only plus points were good handling and satisfactory aquaplaning resistance.

FK 451

Sport Auto (3/00) praised this tyre's wet performance, ranking it second in a test of ten tyres. In the dry the tyre offered a good braking distance, in contrast, wet braking was thought poor. The FK 451 also lost points for noise.

Rallye Racing (7/2000) tested the tyre in 225/40 ZR 18 praising its aquaplaning and braking performance. Weaknesses were the large turning curve and strong reaction to load shifts.

FK-05 GRB

Tested by ADAC Motorwelt (3/2001) this tyre was only considered to be recommendable in limited circumstances. Although dry performance was good, wet performance was considered to be poor.

[Steve]

Firestone

F 590 Fuel Saver

This tyre was tested in ADAC Motorwelt (3/2001) in size 175/65 R 13 T and was described as comfortable and good in the wet. Rolling resistance and wear rates, however, were considered to be weaknesses.

Firehawk 700

The Firehawk 700 was one of the best on the dry in Which? Magazine's test (4/00). It also gave a good performance in wet conditions and recorded low rolling resistance. On the downside, it was one of the worst in the test for wear.

Firehawk 700 Fuel Saver

According to ADAC Motorwelt's test (3/00) this tyre, tested in size 195/65 R 15 V, was relatively good on a dry surface and slightly better in the wet but it did show a high wear rate.The tyre was included again in this year's test (3/2001) in size 205/55 R 16 W and this time showed good wear although the previous year's strengths in the wet and the dry were quoted as weaknesses.

This tyre gave an unbalanced performance in Auto Express' tyre test (8/00). It was the best tyre for dry handling but one of the worst in the wet. Reviewers were impressed by the tyre's low rolling resistance and price.

[Steve]

Fulda

Diadem Dirigo

This tyre achieved poor results in the ADAC Motorwelt tyre test (3/00) where it was judged to be the weakest tyre in the wet, especially for braking, handling and directional stability as well as being fairly poor on the dry. The tyre also lost marks for high rolling resistance.

Carat Extremo

The reviewers in Sport Auto's test (6/00) found that this tyre offered excellent dry braking and good driveability. They also noted a strong tendency to understeer, poor wet braking and an average aquaplaning performance.

In ADAC Motorwelt (3/2001) the 2055/55 ZR 16 version of this tyre was reviewed as being good in comfort and interior noise but not so good in wet and dry handling.

The V rated version of this size was also tested in Auto Motor und Sport (6/2001) who found strengths in a number of areas including aquaplaning, dry braking, rolling noise and damping although wet braking and rolling resistance were considered to be weak.

Rallye Racing (7/2000), tested the tyre in size 225/40 ZR 18 and found it to be good in the wet but with a spongy feel to it. Gute Fahrt (3/2001) praised the tyre for its aquaplaning and comfort but criticising its wet handling.

Carat Attiro

Auto Bild magazine (3/00) only rated this tyre as average. In their test the Attiro showed slight weaknesses when aquaplaning in a curve, it understeered on dry and wet surfaces and recorded a high rolling resistance. However, it was praised for its dry braking performance.

The Attiro was the best tyre for aquaplaning resistance in Auto magazine's (4/00) test of size 195/65 R15 tyres. It was rated above average in most categories but was given a lower mark for wet braking and recorded high rolling resistance.

[Steve]

Goodyear

Eagle Touring NCT 3

This tyre came top in a test of 195/65 R15V tyres in ADAC Motorwelt magazine (3/00) for being good in the wet and generally well balanced.

Eagle F1

After a very good aquaplaning and wet braking performance, Sport Auto's reviewers (3/00) recommended this tyre to consumers. On the downside, when pushed to the limit it tended to understeer, dry braking was unsatisfactory and handling was only rated average.

Eagle Ventura

ADAC Motorwelt's test (3/00) rated this tyre as the best in the wet due to very good aquaplaning and wet braking characteristics. It also produced relatively low exterior noise but lost marks for high rolling resistance.

In Which? Magazine's test (4/00) this tyre came top of its size category for wet weather performance. It scored average or above for all the criteria tested, though highlights included the dry road and rolling resistance categories.

This tyre achieved the best aquaplaning performance in Gute Fahrt's summer tyre test (3/00). However, otherwise it was judged only to be satisfactory and was found to be unstable when pushed to the limit.

Auto Express ranked the Ventura third in its tyre safety test (8/00). Although the best in the test for aquaplaning and good in the wet generally, this tyre lost marks with poor performances in dry handling and rolling resistance tests.

Auto Motor und Spot (6/2001) said the tyre was comfortable with good aquaplaning performance. Shortcomings were claimed to be handling and braking on dry surfaces.

GT2

This tyre showed weaknesses on the dry surface in ADAC Motorwelt's test (3/00), coming midway in the results table. It did record a low rolling resistance, however.

GT3

ADAC Motorwelt (3/2001) said this tyre, tested in size 175/65 R 13 T, provided good wear, comfort and low rolling resistance. The reviewers identified slight weaknesses in handling on wet and dry surfaces.

Club

ADAC Motorwelt (3/00) gave this tyre a low ranking in their test as it offered poor comfort and achieved the worst marks in the wet, particularly struggling in the braking and aquaplaning tests.

The Club gave an average performance in Which? Magazine's test (4/00). It did well on the dry but suffered in wintry conditions and was poor for both comfort and noise.

Vector 3

Two sizes of this all-season tyre were tested by ADAC Motorwelt (3/00) but neither did well in the rankings. The size 175/70 R13T tyre was judged to be weak in the dry and a relatively poor shock absorber but it did have some winter capability. When tested in size 175/80 R14T the Vector 3 offered average shock absorption and a low wear rate but lost marks for being relatively noisy and weak in dry conditions.

Eagle NCT5

Test Mot (4/00) found Goodyear's new tyre in size 185/60 R14H slightly disappointing as its braking distances were judged to be too long. On the plus side, it was shown to be a lightweight tyre offering good fuel economy. The same tyre in size 205/55 R16V gave a similar performance in the test with limited grip in the wet and only average braking in the dry, but low rolling resistance.

Although the NCT5 achieved balanced results in the wet, offered good comfort and very low rolling resistance, Auto Bild's (3/00) reviewers had some reservations about recommending this tyre due to an average aquaplaning performance and unconvincing dry and wet braking results.

Which? Magazine (4/00) awarded this tyre one of the top marks for rolling resistance as well as praising its performance in wet and dry conditions. Overall the NCT5 achieved average results or above in all categories of this test.

ADAC Motorwelt (3/2000) rated the tyre as a top recommendation, praising it for its balanced performance. The tyre was described as being particularly good in the wet.

Auto Magazine (4/00) tested this tyre in two sizes; both achieved fairly average results. The worst aspect of the size 185/60 R14 tyre was its poor wet braking performance. It was also thought to offer an uncomfortable ride, but did redeem itself with excellent marks for wet cornering and low rolling resistance. The larger tyre (205/55 R16) was considered weak in the wet, being particularly susceptible to aquaplaning. However, its braking performance in the wet was comparatively much better than in the dry.

[Steve]

Halfords

This own-brand tyre was tested against some well-known brands by Auto Express (8/00). It came last or second to last in most categories, including price and dry handling, but surprised reviewers when it came fourth, behind Michelin in the wet braking test.

[Steve]

Hankook

Optimo K406

According to Test Mot's reviewers (4/00) this tyre offers a good all round performance at a very reasonable price. In the test it recorded low rolling resistance and was praised for its dry handling and comfort characteristics, however its wet braking distance was judged to be too long.

This tyre was recommended in a test by Auto Bild Magazine (3/00) due to a good wet braking and aquaplaning result. However, it was let down by high noise, poor comfort and slight understeer.

Auto magazine's (4/00) reviewers thought the Optimo offered very good aquaplaning resistance on the curve and responsive dry braking. However, the tyre lost marks for below average performances in wet handling, wet braking and dry handling tests.

Although it gave a good performance for the aquaplaning, rolling resistance and noise tests, Gute Fahrt's reviewers (03/00) criticised this tyre for very poor braking skills and below par wet handling, as it tended to switch from understeer to oversteer.

K 701

tested by ADAC motorwelt (3/2001) in size 175/65 R 13 T, this tyre's straengths were handling on both wet and dry surfaces. However, the tyre's wear was criticised heavily and hence the tyre only received limited recommendations.

Ventus K 102

Autobild (Issue 11/2001) tested this tyre in size 205/55 R 16 V, describing it as having harmonic handling qualities, good steering response on dry surfaces and low noise. Weaknesses were directional stability and wet braking.

[Steve]

Kleber

C701 TK

ADAC Motorwelt (3/00) found this tyre offered a comfortable ride although it showed some weakness in the wet.

This tyre's performance was generally above average in Which Magazine's test (4/00), though it did particularly well in rolling resistance and dry road tests.

C801 T

This tyre gave a below average performance in the ADAC Motorwelt test (3/00) where it was described as weak in the wet, especially in the braking, handling and directional stability tests. A relatively high rolling resistance was also noted.

Dynaxer

ADAC Motorwelt tested this tyre in £/2000. It was considered to be good in wet braking but uncomfortable and noisy. Its wear rate was also considered too high.

Auto (8/2000) also commented on the tyre's wet braking qualities but disagreed on the comfort aspect. Rolling resistance was also considered to be good although the tyre's aquaplaning in a curve was singled out as a weakness.

Gute Fahrt (3/2000) said the tyre was good in the dry but criticised the comfort and wet handling.

Dynaxer DR

Tested by AutoBild (Issue 11/2001), this tyre was praised for its dry handling, rolling resistance and low noise. However, the tyre's directional stability in the wet and its rolling noise were considered to be weaknesses.

Dynaxer HP

The Dynaxer had generally average results in ADAC Motorwelt's test (3/00). Although it lost points on the comfort, noise and wear tests reviewers found it gave a good performance in the wet.

Test Mot (4/00) judged the Dynaxer to be a good all round tyre with an emphasis on comfort. For a reasonable price, it offered good shock absorption, low weight and low rolling resistance, however this tyre was found to be sensitive to aquaplaning on curves and its handling was only rated as average.

In Which? Magazine, (4/00) this tyre was judged to be one of the best in the test for rolling resistance and achieved good marks for wet and dry grip. However, it was let down by poor marks for noise and wear.

Overall, this tyre was considered good by Auto magazine (4/00), after an excellent performance on wet cornering and braking tests as well as top marks for comfort and rolling resistance. Unfortunately it lost marks for aquaplaning on a curve.

Gute Fahrt's tyre test (3/00) rated this tyre as merely satisfactory. It only just passed the speed test and was described as a hard tyre which offered light steering when loaded.

ADAC Motorwelt (3/2001) said the tyre was well balanced but was weak on dry surfaces in comparison with others.

Auto Motor und Sport (6/2001) praised the Dynaxer HP fpr its wet braking, its rolling resistance and its rolling noise but saw weaknesses in the tyre's aquaplaning, dry braking and response to load shifts in the wet.

Viaxer AS

The Viaxer came last in Test Mot's tyre review (4/00) as it was said that although it was not particularly cheap, this tyre had no special strengths. It suffered from a long braking distance in the wet, high rolling resistance, and only average aquaplaning performance. Its only plus point was its low weight.

This tyre also came last in Auto Magazine's (04/00) test as in most criteria its marks fell below average. Reviewers criticised it for its poor grip, long braking distances and high rolling resistance.

[Steve]

Kumho

Powermax 769

This was the cheapest tyre in Test Mot's review (4/00) and although it offered low noise and good comfort the Powermax 769 was found to cause problems in the wet where it produced too long a braking distance. As such it came last in the magazine's test of 195/65 R15H fitment tyres.

The Powermax again came last in a tyre test featured in Auto (4/00) involving the same tyre fitment. Although its results were mostly average, it was considered poor for wet and dry handling and was the worst in the test for wet braking.

[Steve]

Kwik-Fit

Centaur Supreme

Reviewers at Auto Express (08/00) were surprised at just how badly this tyre performed, especially as it was one of the most expensive in the test. Overall, it came last in the test rankings, and was rated worst in half of the test's categories. Its best performance was for rolling resistance, when it came fifth.

[Steve]

Matador

Elite MP 35

This was the cheapest tyre in Test Mot's review of size 185/60 14H tyres (4/00) and as such was rated as good value because it showed no major weaknesses. It achieved satisfactory results in all areas but did have somewhat higher rolling resistance.

Auto Magazine (4/00) also thought this tyre was good value for money. Overall it offered an average performance in their test, but was slightly better in the wet.

[Steve]

Michelin

Energy XT1

In a tyre test by Which? (4/00) the Energy XT1 was recommended after performing well on wet and dry surfaces as well as achieving top marks for rolling resistance.

In a test by ADAC Motorwelt (3/00) the tyre also faired well. In size 175/70 R13T it gained points for comfort, low rolling resistance and because it was the only summer tyre in the test that offered some winter capability. However the same tyre in size 175/80 R14T was not rated so highly due to a relatively weak performance in wet and dry conditions but apart from this it also offered the same benefits as the smaller tyre.

The same tyre was tested again in 3/2001. Again the tyre received a reasonable write up. this time, however, the tyre was criticised for its wet weather performance and its wear rate.

Pilot HX-MXV3A

A test by Auto Motor und Sport(6/2001) praised the tyre's safe wet handling, low rolling resistance and comfort on poor surfaces. However generally this tyre scored poorly particularly in the aquaplaning and braking tests.

Pilot Primacy

ADAC Motorwelt (3/00) rated this tyre as average. In their test it gave a comfortable ride with low interior noise and showed itself to be particularly good in the wet. The Primacy lost marks for a weak performance in the dry and a high wear rate.

By 3/2001 the magazine's judgement on the tyre had improved. The tyre was praised as being well balanced and the wear rate was now described as a strength. Wet and dry performance, however, were considered to be no better than average in comparison to the best tyres in its class.

Test Mot's reviewers (4/00) thought this tyre was expensive but also judged it to be a good all rounder with few weaknesses. It offered an excellent aquaplaning performance and low rolling resistance but had indifferent handling when pushed to the limit.

According to Auto Bild's tyre test (3/00), the Primacy has balanced dry performance characteristics, low rolling resistance and low noise but, on the downside, it was only average in the aquaplaning test and tended to understeer in the wet. In the magazine's 11/2001 tyre test, meanwhile, the Pilot Primacy was described as having good steering response in the dry and good rolling resistance but was criticised for its lateral grip in the wet and its braking.

This tyre was praised for its performance on both dry and wet roads and was thought to be one of the best tyres for rolling resistance after a test by Which? Magazine (04/00). However, it was not recommended due to average comfort and noise levels and a poor wear record.

Although in Auto's test (4/00) this tyre was thought to be one of the best in the dry, it was criticised for unstable handling. Its strengths were aquaplaning resistance on the straight, dry braking and rolling resistance.

The Pilot Primacy did not live up to the expectations of Gute Fahrt's reviewers (3/00). Although it was the best tyre tested for low rolling resistance, noise and comfort, elsewhere in the test it was only rated average. Its steering was too light, wet grip was disappointing and there was a tendency to oversteer when loaded.

Pilot Sport

The Pilot Sport only reached the middle of the rankings after Sport Auto's tyre test (3/00). Its strengths were its aquaplaning performance on a curve and short dry braking distance. Reviewers marked it down for poor noise and comfort as well as a lacklustre wet braking performance.

Rallye Racing (7/2000) recommended the tyre as being good in the dry and in aquaplaning in a curve but criticised the tyre's wet braking performance.

Gute Fahrt (3/2001) also found the tyre to be good in the dry as well as providing good rolling resistance. Perceived weaknesses were wet handling and comfort.

Energy XV1

ADAC Motorwelt (3/00) judged this to be a good tyre in their test, comfortable and with low rolling resistance as well as low wear. However, the magazine did note some weaknesses on dry and wet surfaces, particularly for aquaplaning.

This tyre was recommended by Which? Magazine (4/00) after achieving top marks for rolling resistance and performing well for grip in dry and wet conditions. It also gained good marks for wear but was judged to be a noisy tyre.

Energy XH1

Test Mot's (4/00) reviewers described this tyre as expensive, although it did offer good grip, braking and handling in the wet. Comfort and dry braking were only found to be satisfactory.

According to Auto Magazine's test (4/00), this tyre offers a satisfactory, balanced performance. Its best results were for cornering and braking in the wet but the Energy XH1 was thought to be too uncomfortable.

Pilot Exalto

This tyre came halfway down the rankings in Mot Test's sample of size 205/55 R16V tyres (4/00), mostly due to its relatively high price. Aside from this the Exalto achieved a very good performance in the aquaplaning test and was praised for its break away delay in the wet, although a raised rolling resistance was noted.

Michelin's Exalto did well in a test by Auto magazine (4/00), achieving excellent results for aquaplaning and wet braking categories. Its only real downside was its relatively high rolling resistance.

According to Auto Express' tyre test (8/00) the Exalto offers an above average performance. It was one of the best tyres for wet weather conditions but fell behind due to a lack of traction in the wet and slightly higher rolling resistance than average.

[Steve]

Nokian

NRV

The NRV came second in a test of size 195/65 R15V tyres in ADAC Motorwelt magazine (3/00) after a well balanced performance with particularly good results in the wet.

Although it was not one of their recommended tyres the NRV achieved good results in most categories of Which? Magazine's test (4/00). It performed well in wet and dry road conditions, rolling resistance and wear tests but was only average for comfort and noise.

AutoBild (Issue 11/2001) described the NRV as having balanced handling in both wet and dry conditions and a low pass-by noise. Aquaplaning and comfort, however, were criticised.

[Steve]

Pirelli

P6000

Auto Magazine (4/00) voted this tyre top in its size 185/60 R14 summer tyre test. It was slightly better in the wet but got excellent marks for steering and handling in both wet and dry conditions.

P6000 Powergy

In ADAC Motorwelt's test of 195/65 R15V tyres (3/00) the Powergy came third due to a well balanced performance. The reviewers found this tyre to be good under both wet and dry conditions. A year later (3/2001) the result was similar, the tyre being described as well balanced . The dry performance, however, was described as being inferior to the best tyres in its class.

In a summer tyre test, German magazine, Test Mot (4/00), placed this tyre top in a review of size 185/60 14H tyres. It was judged to be a good compromise, having sporty characteristics, precise handling and low noise although the magazine thought it could have done better in dry braking and comfort tests. When the same tyre in size 195/65 R15H was tested it came much further down the table due to a below average grip in the wet during braking and straight aquaplaning. However it did gain marks for good comfort and precise handling in the dry.

In Auto Bild's test (3/00), this tyre got an average rating. Its stability on curves in the wet and responsive braking was cancelled out by a tendency to understeer on a dry surface, poor aquaplane resistance on a straight line and high rolling resistance.

The Powergy was recommended in a test by Which? Magazine (4/00) after achieving top marks for dry road performance. It also did well in the wet and recorded a low rolling resistance.

Apart from a very good dry braking performance Auto magazine's (4/00) reviewers rated this tyre as average overall.

Gute Fahrt (3/00) was impressed by the Powergy's performance in its summer tyre test. It was particularly good for braking and aquaplaning resistance and its handling was easy to control.

Overall, this tyre did not perform well in Auto Express' test (8/00). Although second best for dry handling, the Powergy struggled in all the wet tests. Rolling resistance was slightly higher than average.

P7000

Auto Motor Und Sport (6/00) found that this tyre offered a very good aquaplaning performance and did well in the wet and dry handling as well as the dry braking test. However, the tyre did give very long braking distances in the wet and produced a loud rolling noise.

Due partly to its high cost the P7000 came second to last in Mot Test's sample of 205/55 R16V tyres (4/00). However reviewers noted its sporty characteristics and found it offered very good handling with good reserves in the dry as well as low weight. As well as for the price the tyre lost marks for limited comfort levels and a merely satisfactory performance in the wet.

This tyre gave a disappointing performance in Auto's (4/00) test of size 205/55 R16 tyres. Overall it was average for nearly all the categories apart from a very strong result in the dry steering test.

Sport Auto (3/00) recommended this tyre even though it was ranked third from bottom in its tyre test. It was thought to be a good tyre generally and did well for steering precision and wet handling. However it lost marks for average braking and aquaplaning results and was considered too noisy.

P3000 Energy

The P3000 came second in a test of size 175/70 R13T tyres by ADAC Motorwelt (3/00) who's reviewers judged the tyre to be very well balanced as it achieved the best marks in dry and wet conditions. It also gained the best mark for wear, but on the test car it produced a loud interior noise. The same tyre in the 175/80 R14T test got the best marks in the wet, offering a particularly good handling performance. However it was weaker in dry conditions and suffered from high wear.

ADAC motorwelt also tested the tyre in its 3/2001 issue but for some reason received a much worse overall judgement, being given only limited recommendability. Strengths were comfort, wet performance and wear, whilist interior noise was criticised.

This tyre is good in the dry and excellent in the wet according to Which? Magazine's test (4/00). However, it was also thought to offer a noisy and very uncomfortable ride.

P Zero Rosso

German magazine, Sport Auto (6/00), described this tyre's handling in all conditions as agile and harmonic. It came joint first in this test offering very precise steering with good traction and aquaplaning but was weak in the dry braking test.

Rallye Racing (7/2000) gave the tyre a particularly good recommendation, praising its dry handling in particular. Gute Fahrt (7/2000) also mentioned the tyre's "harmonic" performance in the dry but criticised wet braking.

Auto Motor und Sport (6/2001) also had criticisms for the P Zero Rosso's wet braking and the tyre's rolling resistance. The tyre's steering response and dry braking were praised.

[Steve]

Pneumant

PN 550

The PN 550 came second to last in a tyre test by ADAC Motorwelt (3/00), due to weaknesses in the wet - particularly in the braking, handling and directional stability tests. The reviewers also reported a slightly poor performance in the dry, high rolling resistance and the loudest exterior noise in the test.

In contrast this tyre was placed near the top of the results table in Test Mot's (4/00) size 185/60 R14H tyre trial because it was seen as the best value for money. The testers found it offered a good to very good performance in the wet and low noise. However, it was also felt to be a very heavy tyre giving higher rolling resistance. The same magazine tested this tyre in the 65 series and although still good value, offering comfort and improved handling, it was let down by some weaknesses in wet handling.

Which? Magazine (4/00) judged this to be a generally average tyre, good for dry grip and rolling resistance but poor for noise.

Auto Magazine (4/00) tested this tyre in two sizes, 185/60 R14 and 195/65 R15. The smaller tyre was rated one to the best tested in its size category. It achieved excellent results in the wet for handling, cornering and braking but was marked down for its comfort and rolling resistance performance. The 15" tyre was not quite as successful but still got good marks. Highlights included the straight aquaplaning, dry braking and comfort tests but mostly this tyre's results were average.

PN 950 Tritec

The Tritec came second in a test of size 205/55 R16V tyres in Test Mot magazine (4/00). It was judged to be a very good compromise, offering performance at a good price. Plus points included a good to very good result in wet grip and a comfortable drive.

Auto magazine (4/00) thought this was one of the best in a test of fitment 205/55 R16 tyres. It performed particularly well in the wet and, as one of the cheapest tyres in the test, was praised for its price/performance ratio.

Gute Fahrt (3/2001) praised the tyre's aquaplaning performance but criticised wet braking performance.

[Steve]

Semperit

Top Life 2

ADAC Motorwelt (3/00) judged this tyre to be relatively weak in the dry when size 175/70 R13T was tested. In a separate test size 175/80 R14T had a similarly poor performance and was described as uncomfortable with a high wear rate. This magazine noted that both sizes suffered from high interior noise levels.

This tyre was shown to be average on a dry surface but stronger in the wet by Which? Magazine's test (4/00). It also got a good mark for low rolling resistance but was rated poorly for comfort and winter performance.

Top Speed 2

Test Mot (4/00) placed this tyre second in their test due to the good balance between price and performance. It offered a fast ride in the wet with good reserves at the limit but on the downside braking in the dry was not thought to be optimal and rolling noise was too high.

This tyre was one of the winners of Auto Magazine's test (4/00) after achieving excellent marks in wet steering, cornering and braking, dry steering and rolling resistance. The only category where its marks fell below average was comfort.

Sport Life

This tyre was tested by ADAC Motorwelt (3/2001) in size 175/65 R 13T. The tyre received a medium result. Weaknesses were identified in dry performance, noise, rolling resistance and tread wear.

[Steve]

Toyo

Roadpro R 610

The Roadpro was judged to be the winner of a test by Gute Fahrt (3/00) when it was rated good or very good in most categories. The magazine claimed that the Roadpro demonstrated the true meaning of wet grip whilst also performing well in the dry for ABS braking and high speed tests.

In a tyre test by Autobild (3/00) this tyre came highly recommended. It achieved excellent marks in all the wet tests but lost some marks for poor comfort and slightly raised noise levels.

The Roadpro gave a mixed performance in ADAC Motorwelt's test (3/00), achieving top marks in dry conditions but offering an uncomfortable and noisy ride.

This tyre came top in Mot Test's review of size 195/65 R15H tyres (4/00) as it was judged to be a good all rounder at a fair price. It was particularly praised for excellent grip on curves in the wet test.

Overall, Which? Magazine (4/00) rated this tyre as above average. It did particularly well in the dry road test where it achieved top marks but also gave a good performance in the wet. The Roadpro tyre had low rolling resistance but was thought to be too noisy.

This tyre won Auto Magazine's (4/00) test of size 195/65 R15 tyres after achieving excellent results in all wet categories as well as good scores for the rest of the test.

The Toyo Roadpro came halfway down Auto Express' tyre rankings (08/00). It was top for wet braking and praised for its dry handling characteristics. This tyre could have been ranked much higher overall if not for its very high rolling resistance.

T1-S Proxes

The T1-S was rated above average in most sections of Auto Motor Und Sport magazine's test (6/00). It did very well in the handling and driveability tests but was considered poor for resistance to aquaplaning on a straight line and for rolling resistance.

This tyre gave a good performance under wet conditions in Sport Auto's test (6/00) where it offered excellent traction, steering precision and braking. In the dry, however, it provided imprecise steering and low traction.b Aquaplaning was also described as a weakness.

Test Mot (4/00) voted this tyre 'Best in test' in their size 205/55 R16V tyre category and described it as sporty and safe in all conditions. It showed very good braking and aquaplaning characteristics as well as precise cornering in the dry. The tyre's only disadvantages were slightly limited comfort and relatively high rolling noise.

The T1-S was joint winner in a test of 205/55 R15 size tyres featured in Auto magazine (4/00). It was excellent in the wet and good in the dry, but let down by poor comfort and noise.

Rallye Racing (7/2000) praised the Proxes T1-S for its wet performance but found the tyre's dry performance, especially braking and handling, to be wanting

Gute Fahrt (3/2001) rated the tyre "Very Good" praising wet grip and aquaplaning performance.

AutoBild (Issue 11/2001) also paised wet performance, in particular directional stability and braking. Cornering on dry surfaces was quoted as a weakness.

ADAC Motorwelt (3/2001) on the other hand saw dry performance as a particular strength, reserving its criticisms for noise and wear factors