Welcome everyone to the first summer tire test of 2024, where we begin with the ADAC summer tire test! This year, ADAC evaluated 16 models of size 215/55 R17, suitable for small SUVs and vehicles from the lower to middle class, with a focus on driving safety and environmental impact. Tires from Continental, Michelin, and Kumho led the pack, showcasing balanced performance in terms of safety and sustainability. The test introduced a new evaluation scheme that focuses on driving safety, accounting for 70% of the weightage, and environmental balance, making up 30% of the weightage, which includes factors such as wear, fuel consumption, noise, and other sustainability considerations.
The top performers – Continental PremiumContact 7, Michelin Primacy 4+, and Kumho Ecsta HS52 – were notable for their excellent safety scores and above-average wear resistance, indicating longer mileage and lower environmental impact due to reduced tire wear. Despite this, the Kumho tire’s environmental performance was rated only satisfactory, mainly due to its higher weight.
Other tires, including those from Debica, Dunlop, Bridgestone, and Fulda, narrowly missed the “good” rating, primarily due to slight deficiencies in wet driving safety or environmental performance. The Vredestein Ultrac, although offering safe driving characteristics, was marked down for its environmental impact, attributed to the lowest predicted mileage due to wear.
Overall, the test underscores the importance of considering both safety and environmental criteria when selecting tires, suggesting that even tires with satisfactory ratings could meet specific user requirements effectively, especially when balanced against cost. This approach aligns with a tire engineer’s focus on optimizing performance across various parameters, including safety, longevity, and sustainability.
Table of Contents
In depth Tire Engineer analysis
Wet Braking vs Wear
In the realm of tire technology, the balancing act between enhancing wet braking performance and extending mileage is a notable target conflict. Wet braking efficiency is crucial for safety, ensuring that vehicles can stop effectively on wet surfaces. Conversely, mileage, or wear resistance, determines how long a tire lasts before it needs replacing. Typically, improving wet braking performance requires softer tire compounds that can grip the road better in wet conditions but may wear out faster, leading to reduced mileage. Conversely, harder compounds may improve mileage but at the cost of reduced wet grip. A common rule of thumb in the industry suggests that a 5% reduction in wear can result in a 5% increase in mileage, demonstrating the direct trade-off between these two aspects.
Among the technology leaders who excel in managing this target conflict, the Kumho Ecsta HS52, Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2, Continental PremiumContact 7, and Michelin Primacy 4+ stand out as the top performers. These tires represent the pinnacle of technology in balancing the demands of wet braking performance and wear resistance, achieving the highest combined scores in both categories.
- Kumho Ecsta HS52: With a combined score of 250%, this tire excels in both wet braking (105%) and mileage (145%), showcasing Kumho’s expertise in compound technology and tread design.
- Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2: This tire follows closely with a combined score of 248%, demonstrating Goodyear’s commitment to safety and longevity through innovative rubber compounds and optimized tread patterns.
- Continental PremiumContact 7: Achieving a combined score of 247%, Continental’s offering stands out for its exceptional wet braking ability (121%) and respectable mileage (126%), reflecting its leading-edge technology in material science and engineering.
- Michelin Primacy 4+: With a combined score of 237%, Michelin’s tire provides a balanced performance in wet braking (111%) and mileage (126%), epitomizing its focus on comprehensive performance through advanced tread design and compound development.
| Wet Braking (asphalt) | Mileage | Combine | |
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 105% | 145% | 250% |
| Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 | 104% | 144% | 248% |
| Continental PremiumContact 7 | 121% | 126% | 247% |
| Michelin Primacy 4+ | 111% | 126% | 237% |
| Semperit Speed-Life 3 | 103% | 115% | 218% |
| Hankook Ventus Prime4 | 105% | 104% | 210% |
| Falken Ziex ZE 310 EcoRun | 106% | 97% | 203% |
| Bridgestone Turanza 6 | 100% | 100% | 200% |
| Dunlop Sport Maxx RT2 | 101% | 91% | 192% |
| Nexen N´Fera Primus | 105% | 85% | 190% |
| Debica Presto UHP 2 | 100% | 89% | 189% |
| Sailun Atrezzo ZSR2 | 106% | 79% | 185% |
| Fulda SportControl 2 | 99% | 84% | 183% |
| Linglong Sport Master | 104% | 78% | 182% |
| Goodride Solmax 11 | 99% | 74% | 173% |
| Vredestein Ultrac | 101% | 57% | 158% |
These tires exemplify the industry’s top-tier management of the inherent conflict between wet braking and wear, achieving a balanced compromise that does not significantly sacrifice one attribute for the sake of improving the other. Their performance is a testament to the manufacturers’ deep understanding of material science, engineering, and the critical importance of safety and sustainability in tire design.
Wet Braking: Asphalt vs Concrete
Analyzing the differences in wet braking performance on asphalt versus concrete surfaces from an expert tire engineer’s perspective reveals interesting insights, especially when considering the changes in ranking between the two conditions. The provided data shows how some tires perform differently on these surfaces, which is notable in cases like the Sailun Atrezzo ZSR2 and Vredestein Ultrac, which exhibit the most significant ranking changes.
Physics Behind Wet Braking Performance Differences
Wet braking performance varies between asphalt and concrete due to several factors, primarily the surface texture and porosity. Asphalt is generally softer and has a more variable texture compared to concrete, which is harder and smoother. These differences affect the tire’s ability to grip the surface, especially in wet conditions.
- Surface Texture and Porosity: Asphalt’s rougher texture and higher porosity can provide more grip in wet conditions, allowing the water to be channeled away more effectively. In contrast, concrete’s smoother, less porous surface can lead to a higher risk of hydroplaning, which reduces grip and increases braking distances.
- Tire Tread Compound and Design: Tires are engineered with specific tread compounds and designs optimized for varying conditions. Some compounds may adhere better to the rougher texture of asphalt, while others might perform better on smoother surfaces like concrete. The tread design, including the depth and pattern, also plays a crucial role in water evacuation and the tire’s ability to maintain contact with the road surface.
Analysis of Ranking Changes
- Sailun Atrezzo ZSR2: This tire showed a significant drop in performance when moving from asphalt (4th) to concrete (15th). This could be due to the tire’s tread compound and design being more suited to asphalt’s texture, where it can better channel water away and maintain grip. On concrete, the same characteristics might not be as effective at preventing hydroplaning or maintaining traction.
- Vredestein Ultrac: Conversely, this tire jumped from 11th in asphalt wet braking to 3rd in concrete. This improvement suggests that the tire’s design or compound is particularly effective on smoother surfaces like concrete, where its ability to maintain contact and grip in wet conditions outperforms its performance on asphalt.
| Ranking Change Wet Braking (asphalt vs concrete) | |
| Continental PremiumContact 7 | 0 |
| Michelin Primacy 4+ | 3 |
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | -3 |
| Debica Presto UHP 2 | -5 |
| Dunlop Sport Maxx RT2 | -3 |
| Bridgestone Turanza 6 | 1 |
| Fulda SportControl 2 | -5 |
| Hankook Ventus Prime4 | 7 |
| Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 | 1 |
| Falken Ziex ZE 310 EcoRun | 0 |
| Nexen N´Fera Primus | -1 |
| Goodride Solmax 11 | 0 |
| Sailun Atrezzo ZSR2 | 11 |
| Semperit Speed-Life 3 | 3 |
| Linglong Sport Master | -1 |
| Vredestein Ultrac | -8 |
Possible Explanations
- Tire Compound Flexibility: Tires with compounds that remain more flexible at lower temperatures might perform better on concrete, which can become particularly slick in wet conditions. The flexibility helps maintain contact with the surface.
Conclusion
The discrepancies in wet braking performance on asphalt versus concrete highlight the complexity of tire design and the challenge of optimizing for diverse conditions. Tires like the Sailun Atrezzo ZSR2 and Vredestein Ultrac exhibit significant differences in their ranking between these surfaces, emphasizing the importance of considering specific driving conditions when selecting tires. This analysis underscores the nuanced balance tire engineers must achieve between compound formulation, tread design, and overall tire construction to meet varied performance demands.
Mileage vs Abrasion
In analyzing the relationship between mileage and abrasion in tire performance, a detailed examination can reveal insights into the composition and capabilities of the tire compounds used by manufacturers. A tire’s mileage performance indicates how long the tire can last before needing to be replaced, while abrasion resistance reflects the tire’s ability to resist wear from road surfaces.
When Abrasion Performance Exceeds Mileage Performance:
- This scenario suggests that the tire compound is highly resistant to wear and tear, which is indicative of a superior wear compound. The Michelin Primacy 4+ and Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 are notable examples, with abrasion percentages exceeding their mileage percentages. This implies these tires use a compound that’s exceptionally durable and can withstand road abrasions well, contributing to a longer lifespan even under harsh driving conditions.
When Mileage Performance Exceeds Abrasion Performance:
- If a tire’s mileage performance is higher than its abrasion performance, it could be influenced by factors such as higher initial tread depth rather than solely the compound’s wear resistance. This might give an impression of longer tire life, which is not solely due to the compound’s durability but to the physical design aspect of the tire. The Kumho Ecsta HS52 is an example where the mileage outperforms abrasion, potentially indicating a combination of a good wear compound and beneficial design characteristics like tread depth.
Comparative Analysis:
- Tires like the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 and the Michelin Primacy 4+ exhibit high abrasion resistance, suggesting the use of advanced compounds that contribute significantly to the tire’s longevity and performance.
- Conversely, tires with significantly lower abrasion scores relative to mileage, such as the Kumho Ecsta HS52, could indicate lesser wear resistance, potentially offset by design features like deeper tread depths that initially mask the wear but don’t inherently indicate a better compound.
Conclusion:
- A technical analysis of tire mileage versus abrasion results provides critical insights into the material composition and design efficiency of tires. Tires exhibiting higher abrasion resistance relative to mileage likely utilize advanced compound technologies that offer enhanced durability and performance. In contrast, discrepancies where mileage outpaces abrasion resistance might suggest the influence of design features such as tread depth, contributing to perceived longevity rather than an inherent material advantage. This analysis underscores the importance of considering both metrics for a comprehensive understanding of a tire’s performance capabilities and wear characteristics.
Kumho Ecsta HS52 : A curious improvement case
The comparison between the ADAC 2023 and 2024 test results for the Kumho Ecsta HS52, with the Michelin Primacy 4+ as the reference point, reveals significant improvements in various performance aspects, most notably in mileage and abrasion resistance. This analysis suggests that Kumho has introduced a new compound or made substantial modifications to the tire’s design, leading to these enhancements.
Comparative Analysis Table: Michelin Primacy 4+ vs Kumho Ecsta HS52
| Performance Aspect | ADAC 2023 Diff | ADAC 2024 Diff |
|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | +1% | -2% |
| Wet Braking (asphalt) | -4% | -5% |
| Wet Braking (concrete) | 0% | +4% |
| Aquaplaning | -2% | -2% |
| Lateral Aquaplaning | -8% | +3% |
| Exterior Noise | -1% | -3% |
| Fuel Consumption | -2% | -2% |
| Mileage | -29% | +15% |
| Abrasion | -32% | -13% |
Analysis
Mileage and Abrasion:
- The most remarkable improvement is seen in the Mileage, where the difference relative to the Michelin Primacy 4+ shifted from -29% in 2023 to +15% in 2024. This indicates a 44 percentage points improvement, suggesting a major leap in the tire’s longevity and wear resistance. Similarly, the Abrasion performance improved significantly, from -32% to -13%, a 19 percentage points improvement. Both these changes point towards the utilization of a new compound that is more resistant to wear and capable of extending the tire’s lifespan.
Performance in Wet Conditions:
- Another noteworthy improvement is observed in Wet Braking on concrete surfaces, where the performance relative to the Michelin went from 0% in 2023 to +4% in 2024. This suggests enhanced grip and safety in wet conditions, an important aspect for drivers in rainy climates.
Other Aspects:
- While there were slight deteriorations in areas such as Dry Braking, Wet Braking (asphalt), Exterior Noise, and Fuel Consumption, these changes are relatively minor compared to the significant gains in mileage and wet performance.
Conclusion
The improvements seen in the Kumho Ecsta HS52 from 2023 to 2024, especially in terms of mileage and abrasion resistance, highlight Kumho’s successful efforts in material innovation or design optimization. This demonstrates Kumho’s capability to balance target conflicts effectively, making significant strides in tire longevity and wet weather performance. Such advancements position Kumho as a strong contender in the tire industry, showcasing their expertise in managing and excelling in critical areas of tire performance through innovative compound development.
Summary
The 2024 ADAC summer tire test, assessing 16 models sized 215/55 R17 for small SUVs and lower-middle-class vehicles, underscored the importance of driving safety and environmental impact. Continental PremiumContact 7, Michelin Primacy 4+, and Kumho Ecsta HS52 emerged as leaders, showcasing a balance of safety and sustainability.
Key Findings:
Wet Braking vs. Wear:
- Kumho Ecsta HS52, Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2, Continental PremiumContact 7, and Michelin Primacy 4+ excel in managing this conflict, with Kumho leading with a 250% combined score.
Wet Braking: Asphalt vs. Concrete:
- Performance differences on these surfaces can be attributed to texture and porosity, impacting grip and braking efficiency. For example, Sailun Atrezzo ZSR2 and Vredestein Ultrac show notable ranking changes due to these factors.
Mileage vs. Abrasion:
- Superior abrasion performance indicates a high-quality wear compound, as seen with Michelin Primacy 4+ and Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2. Conversely, higher mileage than abrasion can suggest the influence of design features like tread depth.
Kumho Ecsta HS52 Improvement:
- Between 2023 and 2024, significant improvements in mileage and abrasion for Kumho Ecsta HS52 suggest the introduction of a new compound, enhancing longevity and wet condition performance.
In conclusion, the 2024 ADAC summer tire test highlights the industry’s advancements in balancing safety, environmental impact, and performance conflicts. The improvements and innovations by manufacturers like Kumho demonstrate the continuous pursuit of excellence in tire technology.