Michelin Pilot Sport 4S vs Nitto NT555 G2 — a showdown in the ultra ultra high performance (UUHP) arena. On one side, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S, a benchmark tire that’s dominated premium performance tests since 2017. On the other, the Nitto NT555 G2, Nitto’s bold challenger built for aggressive street and track use at a more accessible level. It’s precision and pedigree versus raw attitude and value. Let the battle begin.
Table of Contents
Results: Michelin Pilot Sport 4S vs Nitto NT555 G2
Results below were taken from Tire Rack’s Ultra High Performance vs. Max Performance Summer Tires Test. A total of 11 tires were tested on Tire Rack’s proving ground including the max & ultra high performance summer tires. The graph below shows the comparison between Michelin Pilot Sport 4S vs Nitto NT555 G2 based on the relevant performance category. The Michelin Pilot Sport 4S was set as a reference hence at the 100% mark.
The tire size of interest is a 275/35R19 which is a common tire size for BMW M2 & M3. You can check out our latest tire size table for more information. The testing vehicle for this tire test is a 2024 BMW M2.
Wet
In wet braking, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S stops in 143.9 feet, while the Nitto NT555 G2 takes 163 feet — a difference of 19.1 feet or 12% longer. For wet handling, the Pilot Sport 4S completes the lap in 31.18 seconds, compared to 33.86 seconds for the NT555 G2, making it 2.68 seconds or 8% faster. Subjectively, the Michelin also scores higher at 7.38 out of 10, versus Nitto’s 6.69 — a 3% gap in driver confidence.
Overall, the Pilot Sport 4S clearly outperforms the NT555 G2 in all wet conditions with better braking, faster lap times, and stronger subjective grip.
NT555 G2 :
- -12% in wet braking
- -3% in wet handling (subj)
- -8% in wet handling (lap time)
Dry
In dry braking, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S stops in 103.1 feet, while the Nitto NT555 G2 needs 114.1 feet — a difference of 11 feet or 10% longer. On the handling course, the Pilot Sport 4S completes the lap in 28.62 seconds compared to 30.01 seconds for the NT555 G2, making it 1.39 seconds or 5% faster. Subjectively, the Michelin scores 8.00 out of 10 in dry handling, whereas the Nitto trails at 6.44 — a 8% difference in perceived grip and control.
In summary, the Pilot Sport 4S holds a strong lead in dry performance with shorter braking, quicker laps, and better driving feel.
NT555 G2 :
- -10% in dry braking
- -8% in dry handling (subj)
- -5% in dry handling (lap time)
Noise/Comfort/Ride Quality
In terms of noise, comfort, and ride quality, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S scores 7.08 out of 10, while the Nitto NT555 G2 scores 6.33 — a difference of 0.75 points or 4% in favor of the Michelin.
NT555 G2 :
- -4% in average of Noise, Comfort & Ride Quality.
UTQG ratings
The Michelin Pilot Sport 4S has a UTQG treadwear rating of 300, while the Nitto NT555 G2 is rated slightly higher at 320 — a 7% difference in favor of the Nitto. However, Michelin backs the Pilot Sport 4S with a 30,000-mile treadwear warranty, whereas the Nitto NT555 G2 offers no treadwear warranty at all.
| Brand | Tireline | Size | Tread Wear | Traction | Temperature |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michelin | Pilot Sport 4S | All | 300 | AA | A |
| Nitto | NT555 G2 | All | 320 | AA | A |
Price
In 275/35R19, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S costs $349, while the Nitto NT555 G2 is priced at $302 — making the Nitto $47 cheaper, or 16% less. For buyers focused on budget, the NT555 G2 offers a clear price advantage.
Tire size: 275/35R19
- Pilot Sport 4S : $ 349
- NT555 G2 : $ 302
Difference: -16% more cheaper for NT555 G2.
Summary
As a tire expert, I appreciate the value the Nitto NT555 G2 brings — it’s noticeably cheaper and has a slightly higher UTQG rating. However, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S simply delivers far superior performance across the board. It brakes shorter, handles faster in both wet and dry, rides more comfortably, and comes with a 30,000-mile treadwear warranty. For those seeking true ultra high performance without compromise, the clear winner here is the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S.
Dr Edwin Pang