Continental UltraContact vs Michelin Primacy 4+: Continental recently released a new product in 2022 with mileage as its main focus called the Continental UltraContact. This tire line’s product goes hand in hand with Continental’s Premium Contact 7, which has a similar size offering. Its main tagline, “Made to endure,” clearly outlines what Continental sets out to achieve while having an “A” wet label rating. Usually, wear is an extremely rare test to be done due to its enormous cost. However, lucky for us, ADAC managed to include a wear test in its test plan for us to investigate Continental UltraContact’s wear claims.
This time around, we would like to compare the UltraContact with the updated version of the Michelin Primacy 4, called “Michelin Primacy 4+.” The Primacy 4 has a well-known legacy of having the best wet braking and wear balance in the market, and it will be intriguing to know whether the Continental UltraContact can challenge the almighty juggernaut, aka Primacy 4+. Without further ado, let’s put both tires head-to-head to see who comes out on top!
Table of Contents
Results
Results below were taken from the 2023 ADAC Summer Tire Test which includes an outstanding 50 top tires in the market (something so outrageous only ADAC will do it). As mentioned at the introduction, wear test results are included in the comparison to get a complete overall performance picture. The graph below shows the comparison between Continental UltraContact vs Michelin Primacy 4+ based on the relevant performance category. The UltraContact was set as a reference hence at the 100% mark.
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 standard VW Golf 8.
Wet
Safety has always been the primary concern when it comes to the need for good wet performance in tires. Wet performance has always been a top priority in the touring segment, as demonstrated by the Primacy 4. ADAC has tested two wet braking surfaces this time around to give us a more representative road surface simulation based on your daily needs. Due to its structural composition, the contact between asphalt and rubber has a much higher coefficient of friction compared to concrete/rubber. This is the reason why you see a much longer braking distance on concrete compared to asphalt. The Primacy 4+ outperformed the UltraContact when it comes to wet braking as it managed to brake 1.6m (on Asphalt) and 1m (on Concrete) earlier.
Aquaplaning was also in favor of the Primacy 4+, as it managed a slipping speed of 83.5 km/h compared to the UltraContact’s slipping speed of 76.5 km/h. UltraContact’s poor aquaplaning performance was clearly evident as it was in the bottom 5 out of the 50 tires tested. The results were also similar when it came to lateral aquaplaning, with the Primacy 4+ having a +0.7 m/sec2 deficit in terms of lateral acceleration. Overall, it is clear that the Primacy 4+ performs significantly better than the UltraContact when it comes to wet performance.
Primacy 4+ :
- +4% in wet braking (Asphalt)
- +3% in wet braking (Concrete)
- +9% in straight aquaplaning
- +24% in curved aquaplaning
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. The Primacy 4+ took a slight lead in dry braking by out braking the UltraContact by 0.2 meters.
Primacy 4+ :
- +1% in dry braking
Noise
The Primacy 4+ was 0.5 dB quieter than the UltraContact as both tires finish in the mid pack when it comes to exterior noise ranking.
Primacy 4+ :
- +1% in exterior noise (-0.5 dB)
Fuel Consumption
Instead of measuring the tire’s rolling resistance, ADAC measured the vehicle’s fuel consumption instead. As previously mentioned in the e.Primacy vs Primacy 4+ comparison, there were not many differences in the test results, with only a small spread of 5.5 liters/100 km to 5.9 liters/100 km! This result was similar to the previous test we covered, where lower rolling resistance tires had only a minimal effect on the vehicle’s overall fuel consumption. The UltraContact took a slight lead with an overall fuel consumption of 5.7 liters/100 km compared to the Primacy 4+’s 5.8 liters/100 km.
Primacy 4+ :
- -2% in fuel consumption
Wear
As mentioned at the start, mileage tests are extremely rare, and we are pleased that ADAC decided to conduct it for all 50 tires. The UltraContact finished the mileage test with a projected mileage of 55,900 KM, which is lower than the 61,300 KM achieved by the Primacy 4+. While the UltraContact finished in a respectable top 5 in the mileage charts, unfortunately, it is no match for the mighty Michelin Primacy 4+. Despite the defeat to the Primacy 4+, UltraContact’s “made to endure” tagline still holds some weightage with a 5th place finish.
As pollution from micro rubber particles has been a concern lately, ADAC also measured the tire’s abrasion, which is a measure of how much weight loss your tire has undergone with respect to your mileage. The UltraContact was the better abrasion tire, with an abrasion level of 52.5 mg/km/t, compared to the Primacy 4+’s 53.7 mg/km/t.
Overall, the Primacy 4+ showed great performance in the mileage test and demonstrated excellent wear vs wet braking target conflict management, which other competitors lack.
Primacy 4+ :
- +10% in mileage
- –2% in abrasion
Price
Michelin being Michelin with no surprises as it commands one of the highest priced tire in the market relative to its competitors. The Primacy 4+ was found to be €8 more expensive than the UltraContact.
Tire size: 205/55 R16
Primacy 4+ : €99
UltraContact: €91
Difference: +8% more expensive for Primacy 4+
Summary
Overall, the Primacy 4+ showed extremely well-balanced performance by outperforming the UltraContact in wet, dry, and mileage tests. The only silver lining for the UltraContact is its slightly cheaper price and abrasion values. From our point of view, the Michelin Primacy 4+ is clearly the winner of this comparison. There would be no harm in Michelin stealing the “made to endure” tagline for its own marketing campaign 🙂