Continental PremiumContact 7 vs Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco: The tire industry is witnessing a showdown between established brands and emerging market players, exemplified by the Continental PremiumContact 7 and the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco. As electric vehicles (EVs) grow in popularity, both tires are EV-ready, with Continental offering premium features and Goodride providing a budget-friendly alternative from China. This raises the question: Are cheap, budget tires from China worth buying despite their attractive price? Do they compromise on safety and performance? This comparison between the two tires seeks to explore the balance of value versus quality in the evolving tire market.
Table of Contents
Results: Continental PremiumContact 7 vs Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco
Results below were taken from 2024 Auto Bild EV Summer tire test with a total of 9 tires tested, The graph below shows the comparison between Continental PremiumContact 7 vs Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco based on the relevant performance category. The Continental PremiumContact 7 was set as a reference hence at the 100% mark.
Note that for both wet & dry handling evaluation, the average lap speed was used instead of the standard lap time & subjective rating. The tire size of interest is 235/35 R19 which is a common tire size for Audi R8 & Volkswagen Golf R. You can check out our latest tire size table for more information. The testing vehicle is a KIA EV6 which is an compact electric powered crossover SUV.
Battery Range
For electric vehicle (EV) drivers, battery range is a paramount concern, often topping the list of tire performance requirements. The rolling resistance and energy consumption of tires are critical in this respect because they directly impact how far an EV can travel on a single charge.
Comparing the Continental PremiumContact 7 and the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco, the Continental tire shows superior performance in both parameters. It has a lower rolling resistance at 6.64 N/kN compared to 7.71 N/kN for the Goodride, which suggests that the PremiumContact 7 requires less energy to roll and therefore extends the vehicle’s range.
In terms of energy consumption, the Continental tire also leads with 18.46 kWh per 100 km, which is lower than the 19.88 kWh per 100 km consumed by the Goodride tire. This difference further translates to the PremiumContact 7 potentially offering a more efficient drive, using less battery power and providing a longer range on a single charge.
Z 107 ZuperEco:
- -14% in rolling resistance
- -7% in energy Consumption
Wet
Wet performance is a crucial safety aspect for tires, especially under challenging driving conditions. In comparing the Continental PremiumContact 7 and the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco, significant differences emerge that highlight the superior capabilities of the Continental tire.
In wet braking, the Continental PremiumContact 7 stops from 100 km/h to 0 in 37.7 meters, outperforming the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco, which requires 48.1 meters. This substantial 10.4 meters difference is critical for safety, providing shorter stopping distances in rainy conditions. When it comes to wet handling, where maneuverability and grip are tested, the Continental tire achieves an average speed of 57.6 km/h, compared to 54.3 km/h for the Goodride. This advantage in speed indicates better control and responsiveness on wet surfaces.
Furthermore, in the wet circle test, which measures the time to complete a circle on a wet track, the Continental completes the course in 12.88 seconds, faster than the Goodride’s 13.95 seconds, underscoring better agility and traction. Interestingly, in straight aquaplaning scenarios, where tires are tested for their ability to maintain contact with the road at high speeds in wet conditions, the Goodride tire slightly exceeds the Continental, achieving 94.7 km/h compared to 93.4 km/h. This suggests that while the Goodride may perform well in resisting aquaplaning, it falls behind in more critical safety-related aspects of wet performance.
These differences mark the Continental PremiumContact 7 as a notably superior tire in wet conditions, offering enhanced safety and performance compared to the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco.
Z 107 ZuperEco:
- -22% in wet braking
- -6% in wet handling (average speed)
- -8% in wet circle
- +1% in straight aquaplaning
Mileage
Mileage performance is a significant factor for drivers considering the longevity and cost-effectiveness of their tires. When examining the Continental PremiumContact 7 and the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco, the disparity in their durability is pronounced.
The Continental PremiumContact 7 offers a significantly higher mileage, with a wear limit of 36,885 kilometers, compared to the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco, which lasts for 27,155 kilometers. This means the Continental tire provides about 9,730 kilometers more usage than the Goodride, which can translate to extra months or even years of service depending on driving habits.
Additionally, the abrasion test, which measures the amount of rubber worn away, further emphasizes the durability of the Continental tire. It shows 1069 grams of rubber loss compared to 1211 grams for the Goodride. The lower abrasion rate of the Continental suggests that its rubber compound is more resistant to wear and tear, enhancing the tire’s lifespan.
These results indicate that the Continental PremiumContact 7 not only lasts longer but also withstands road conditions better, making it a more reliable and economical choice over the long term compared to the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco.
Z 107 ZuperEco:
- -26% in mileage
- -12% in abrasion
Dry
In dry conditions, the Continental PremiumContact 7 significantly outperforms the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco. The Continental stops from 100 km/h in 33.2 meters, four meters shorter than the Goodride’s 37.2 meters. Additionally, in dry handling, the Continental achieves an average speed of 71.3 km/h, which is 4.2 km/h faster than the Goodride’s 67.1 km/h. These differences highlight the Continental’s superior safety and control on dry roads, making it a more reliable choice for drivers who prioritize performance and safety.
Z 107 ZuperEco:
- -11% in dry braking
- -6% in dry handling (average speed)
Noise
When it comes to exterior noise, the Continental PremiumContact 7 and the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco perform almost identically, with only a marginal difference between them. The Continental tire produces noise at 70.3 decibels, while the Goodride tire is slightly louder at 70.5 decibels. This minor difference of 0.2 decibels is effectively negligible, indicating that both tires offer similar levels of noise comfort. This aspect makes them comparably suitable for drivers who value a quieter ride.
Z 107 ZuperEco:
- ~0% in exterior noise (+0.2 dB)
Price
The Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco significantly undercuts the Continental PremiumContact 7 in terms of price, making it a compelling choice for budget-conscious drivers. With the Goodride priced at only €58 compared to the Continental’s €178 for the tire size 235/35 R19, the Goodride is considerably more affordable, costing 206% less.
This vast price difference positions the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco as an economical alternative, especially appealing to those who prioritize upfront savings over potential long-term benefits such as durability and performance enhancements.
Tire size: 235/35 R19
Difference: -206% more cheaper for Z 107 ZuperEco.
Summary
As a tire expert, I often advise against opting for budget tires despite the appealing upfront savings. While tires like the Goodride Z 107 ZuperEco offer significant cost advantages, the trade-offs in safety, performance, and durability cannot be overlooked. High-quality tires such as the Continental PremiumContact 7, though initially more expensive, provide superior braking distances, better handling, and longer wear life. These attributes enhance overall vehicle safety and can lead to fewer replacements over time.
Ultimately, investing in premium tires means investing in your vehicle’s performance and your safety on the road—two areas where compromise should be minimal. The upfront savings from budget tires might be substantial, but the potential costs from compromised safety and frequent replacements could outweigh these initial savings in the long run.
Dr Edwin Pang