Continental TrueContact Tour vs Michelin Defender2: All season tires have always been the go to tires for the American market and this segment has been well established across the years. There are 2 types of all season tires, one with 3 peak mountain & one with only M+S. We have covered these 2 types of tire head to head with Michelin’s Defender T+H (M+S) vs Cross Climate 2 (3 peak mountain) and the M+S all season tires usually are worst in winter performances but excel much better in mileage.
This time around we were happy to pick up the latest successor of the highly popular Defender T+H called Michelin Defender2 ! The defender series has been a household name in the M+S all season touring market by providing one of the highest UTQG wear rating compared to its competitors. This tireline was just launched in 2022 and covers a large range of passenger cars and crossovers. On the other side of the equation, we have Continental’s TrueContact Tour which was launched in 2018 and also falls into the M+S and high UTQG wear rating category. Let’s put the latest Defender2 and see how well it performs against its arch rival TrueContact Tour !
Table of Contents
Results
Results below were taken from the Tire Rack’s “Testing Standard Touring All-Season Tires 2022” test. A total of 3 tires were tested this time around in Tire Rack’s own proving ground. The graph below shows the comparison between Continental TrueContact Tour vs Michelin Defender2 based on the relevant performance category. The TrueContact Tour was set as a reference hence at the 100% mark. Note that for subjective evaluation, we equate 1 point as 5%. Hence for example if tire A is graded 7 while tire B is graded 6, A is better than B by 5%.
As both tires are categorized as all season tires, Tire Rack has included snow & ice in its testing portfolio but it would only be tested by the end of the 2022/23 winter season. A detailed testing on snow including acceleration, braking & handling is expected. The tire size of interest is 205/55R16 which is a common tire size for Volkswagen Golf (2018) and the Toyota Corolla Altis (2018). You can check out our latest tire size table for more information. The testing vehicle is a sporty 2022 Subaru BRZ Limited.
Wet
The friction of coefficient of the tire/road dramatically decreases in wet roads compared to dry roads. Hence it is more likely to get into a road accident during wet conditions rather than on a sunny day. It was so important that the EU label has wet braking as one of its three criteria. The biggest margin came in the form of wet braking as TrueContact Tour totally out-brake Defender2 with a margin of 30.3 feet (9.2m) !
With such a large deficit in wet braking, TrueContact Tour continued its dominance in wet handling with a 3.12 seconds advantage in lap time against Defender2. For the subjective wet handling rating, TrueContact Tour fared better with a subjective score of 6.47/10 compared to 5.82/10 of Defender2. Below are some of the subjective feedback from the wet handling course:
TrueContact Tour:
Braking from fifty miles per hour was achieved a commanding, twenty-five feet shorter than its closest rival. Lateral traction came in over 6 hundredths of a g higher, which on paper, might not seem like much, but around the skidpad, the difference was readily apparent. Unsurprisingly, this traction advantage yielded the quickest laps of the test
Test driver feedback on TrueContact Tour
Defender2:
The braking disparity was, however, hard to mask, and our drivers could feel it was obviously working with less traction, but it was utilizing what grip was available efficiently, clearly communicating its limits. While also doing a commendable job of communicating its limits, the Defender2 simply had considerably lower levels of grip around our course.
Test driver feedback on Defender2
Overall, TrueContact Tour dominated Defender2 in all wet performances.
Defender2:
- -19.9% in wet braking
- -3.3% in wet handling (subj)
- -7.9% in wet handling (lap time)
Dry
As for dry, safety is usually not an issue as the braking distance is much longer than wet. However this is the default daily usage and the tires have to perform at a very consistent level. While things overwhelmingly favored TrueContact Tour in wet, Defender2 was slightly better in dry. Defender2 managed to out brake TrueContact Tour by 2 feet (0.6m) from a speed of 50mph (80km/h) down to 0.
In dry handling, both tires perform marginally the same with Defender2 having a small advantage with a subjective rating of 6.53/10 over TrueContact Tour’s 6.32/10. In regards to the lap times, Defender2 was 0.16 seconds faster per lap relative to TrueContact Tour. Overall, both tires showed similar performances in dry with Defender2 having a tiny advantage. Below are some of the feedback from the drivers on the dry handling track:
Defender2:
The Defender2 also delivered competitive, objective results, and around the track defaulted to safe understeer as it slowly exceeded grip. While maybe not the optimum behavior for fast laps, its understeer-prone handling was consistent and easily correctable for the unpredictable public streets.
Test driver feedback on Defender2
TrueContact Tour:
The TrueContact Tour delivered competitive objective results as well, but our team found its steering lacked some of the directness and accuracy of the other two. While still more than capable for public roadways, our team thought a moderate increase in front end response would have helped it sync up with our test car’s chassis a little more.
Test driver feedback on TrueContact Tour
Defender2:
- +2.2% in dry braking
- +1.1% in dry handling (subj)
- +0.5% in dry handling (lap time)
Noise/Comfort/Ride Quality
Ride comfort, noise & comfort was tested and as in dry & wet performances. Defender2 came out slightly ahead at 6.88/10 rating compared to the 6.58/10 rating of TrueContact Tour with noise being the main differences.
Defender2:
- +1.5% in average of Noise, Comfort & Ride Quality.
Snow
When comparing the snow performance of the Continental TrueContact Tour and the Michelin Defender2 tires, several differences are evident. For snow braking, the Continental TrueContact Tour is more efficient, requiring only 51.60 feet to stop from 25 mph, whereas the Michelin Defender2 needs 61.10 feet, indicating a significant advantage for the Continental in terms of braking efficiency on snow.
In terms of snow acceleration, the Continental tire also leads, covering the distance in 27.60 feet when accelerating to 12 mph on snow, in contrast to the 37.20 feet required by the Michelin tire. This shorter distance for the Continental suggests better traction and acceleration performance in snowy conditions.
Regarding subjective snow handling, the test driver rated the Continental TrueContact Tour higher at 5.58 out of 10, compared to 3.83 for the Michelin Defender2. This implies greater control and stability with the Continental tire during snow handling. Lastly, in snow handling measured by lap time, the Continental tire shows superior performance, completing a lap in 58.23 seconds, faster than the Michelin’s 63.07 seconds. This quicker lap time by the Continental demonstrates better overall handling and agility on snow-covered tracks.
Overall, the Continental TrueContact Tour consistently outperforms the Michelin Defender2 across various aspects of snow performance, including braking, acceleration, and handling.
Defender2:
- -15.5% in Snow braking
- -25.8% in Snow Acceleration
- -8.8% in Snow handling (subj)
- -7.7% in Snow handling(lap time)
Ice
In comparing the ice performance of the Continental TrueContact Tour and the Michelin Defender2 tires, there are noticeable differences in both ice braking and acceleration. On ice braking, the Michelin Defender2 has a slight advantage. It takes 73.20 feet to stop from 12 mph on ice, while the Continental TrueContact Tour requires 76.50 feet. This means the Michelin tire stops approximately 3.3 feet shorter than the Continental, indicating slightly better braking efficiency on ice.
For ice acceleration, the difference is quite narrow. The Michelin Defender2 completes the rolling start to 60 feet in 7.69 seconds, marginally quicker than the 7.97 seconds taken by the Continental TrueContact Tour. This indicates that the Michelin tire has a slightly better grip and acceleration capability on ice, although the difference is less than half a second.
Overall, while the Continental TrueContact Tour performs exceptionally well in snow conditions, the Michelin Defender2 shows a slight edge in ice performance, with marginally better braking and acceleration on icy surfaces.
Defender2:
- +4.5% in Ice braking
- +3.6% in Ice acceleration
Wear/UTQG rating
We have previously shown that UTQG tread wear rating can be a good indication of your expected mileage. Below are the UTQG values of both of the tirelines.
| Brand | Tireline | Size | Tread Wear | Traction | Temperature |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Continental | TrueContact Tour | All | 800 | A | A (B) |
| Michelin | Defender2 | All | 840 | B | B |
The mileage warranty for both tires were the same at 80,000 miles. However when compared to the predecessor of Defender T+H, its new Defender2 has managed to increase 20 points up from 820 to 840 in terms of UTQG tread wear rating. Apart from the UTQG tread wear rating, based on Michelin’s own test report, it was reported that the expected mileage of Defender2 is at 94,400 miles vs Continental’s TrueContact Tour at 59,400 miles. This in terms provided an 58% advantage in wear for Defender2 !
Defender2:
- +58.9% in wear
Price
Being the undisputed technology leader, we would expect Michelin to command the highest priced tire in the market. This was in alignment as Defender2 was 19 dollars more expensive than TrueContact Tour.
Tire size: 205/55R16
- Defender2: $159
- TrueContact Tour : $140
Difference: +12% more expensive for Defender2.
Summary
As a tire expert, I’ve observed that the Continental TrueContact Tour excels in wet conditions, showing clear superiority. In contrast, the Michelin Defender2 performs better in dry conditions and has advantages in terms of noise and wear. Adding to this, the tests in snow and ice conditions revealed further differences. The TrueContact Tour outperformed the Defender2 in snow, demonstrating better braking, acceleration, and handling. However, on ice, the Defender2 had a slight edge, with marginally better braking and acceleration.
In conclusion, there’s no definitive winner between these two tires. The choice largely depends on specific needs: the TrueContact Tour for better wet and snow performance, and the Defender2 for dry conditions, noise control, wear, and slightly better performance on ice. The trade-off between wet & snow (TrueContact Tour) vs mileage & ice(Defender2) is a key consideration for consumers.
Dr Edwin Pang