Tough ADAC summer tyre test rates only five tyres as ‘good’

German automobile association test of 32 tyre variants over two sizes gives no tyre its top ‘very good’ rating, highlighting critical role of tyre wear

Bridgestone Turanza T005 was launched in the second half of 2017

Summer tyre tests in 2021 have highlighted the sometimes dazzling qualities of the best performing tyre products. However, the Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobilclub’s (ADAC) most recent test appears to have been particularly demanding. No tyre received ADAC’s top “very good” rating, and only five models were rated “good” over the two sizes tested – 205/55 R16 V and 225/50 R17 Y. There were some intriguing results at the top of the table. Falken confirmed its increasingly impressive performance of recent years by winning the 17” tyre test with its Azenis FK510 flagship UHP tyre. The Kumho Ecsta PS71 also achieved a “good” rating in the 17” test, while Continental group brand Semperit’s Speed-Life 3 achieved an overall result matching the Conti PremiumContact 6 in the 16” test. There was worse news for the 17” Firestone Roadhawk, which became the only tyre to receive an “inadequate” report.

The strict criteria employed by ADAC and its Austrian (ÖAMTC – Austrian Automobile, Motorcycle and Touring Club) and Swiss (TCS – Touring Club) partners is one explanation for these relatively critical results. 23 out of 32 variants were given “satisfactory” marks, including such perennial tyre test performers as the Michelin Primacy 4, Goodyear’s EfficientGrip Performance 2 and the Hankook Ventus Prime 3. All of these tyres are rightly lauded as excellent products from global premium brands, with test results elsewhere proving their quality. However, the 2021 ADAC summer tyre test found sufficient fault with their performance not to give them “good” scores.

Another aspect of the test to note with regard to the somewhat miserly rankings, is the presence of many models representing the mid-range market segment. This is not to suggest that mid-range tyres do not compete with premium equivalents; the top of the table results show how mid-range products can provide exceptional value.

Performance weighting

In part, ADAC’s scoring system this year is tough due to the way the testers weighted the five performance areas. Dry performance made up only 20 per cent of the final mark, while wet performance was 40 per cent. On the one hand, this seems a little too biased towards wet performance considering these products are specifically designed for fitment in the drier months of the year. On the other hand, the test gives more weighting to the tyres’ ability to handle more challenging conditions, which demand more of a tyre in generating grip. For UK road users, a market in which many fit summer tyres all year round – the increasing popularity of all-season tyres aside – this could prove a particularly interesting comparison.

30 per cent of each tyre’s grade also focuses on sustainability, with tyre wear counting for 20 per cent of the total grade, and fuel efficiency 10 per cent. While all but four of the 23 tyres tested scored at least a “good” rating for tyre wear, the 16” Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 stood head and shoulders above any other product in this part of the test at the very top of ADAC’s “very good” grade boundary.

The remaining 10 per cent was based on the noise and general comfort of each tyre. In this category, all but one tyre was given a “satisfactory” score. The exception was the King Meiler Sport 1 – a retread car tyre – which was only just nudged over the grade boundary in both this category, and its overall result.

“Good” rated tyres

Five tyres achieved ADAC’s “good” rating, with two achieving this distinction in both the 16 and the 17” sizes.

Continental’s PremiumContact 6

The 17” Falken Azenis FK510 was a worthy winner of the overall test, scoring 2.1 overall (lower is better in ADAC tests), and achieving scores among the top tyres in the test in four of the five categories. Its only relative weakness was its fuel efficiency, which at 2.4 was the joint-worst result in the 17” field. Even this result was considered “good” in ADAC’s score boundaries though.

Continental’s PremiumContact 6 was joint-top of the 16” category alongside the Semperit Speed-Life 3. It scooped a 2.2 overall rating in both the 16 and 17” variants. While delivering “balanced performance” in the wet and dry tests, the 16” Conti model was criticised for “relatively high fuel consumption”. As with the Falken tyre, this score was still enough to register as “good” within this part of the test.

The fact that the Semperit Speed-Life 3 matched its more heralded stablemate on 2.2 overall in the 16” test was impressive enough, but the tyre achieved better comfort and fuel efficiency results than the Conti, matched its dry performance and tyre wear, and was only 0.1 mark down on the PremiumContact 6’s performance in the wet. In this size, this test showed the mid-range tyre is a worthy competitor to its sister flagship range.

Bridgestone’s Turanza T005 also finished with a “good” rating in both the 16 and the 17” tests. The 16 and 17” models were praised for its “balanced” wet and dry performance, but criticised for “somewhat louder exterior noise.”

The Kumho Ecsta PS71 beat the T005 to the third podium step in the 17” test, mainly on the back of wet performance ranked 0.3 points better than the Bridgestone tyre, but also with slightly better results in comfort, fuel efficiency, and tyre wear. The T005 beat the Kumho tyre in the dry performance testing by 0.3 points.

“Satisfactory” rated tyres

As we noted earlier in this article, 23 of the 32 tested tyre variants were ranked “satisfactory”. For some of these tyres, the problem appears to be what ADAC considers a lack of balance in their strong characteristics. Seven of these tyres across both sizes, for example, achieved better or equal dry performance marks against the test winning Falken Azenis FK510, itself the top performer in the dry among the “good” products.

These included four premium brand tyres, the 17” Hankook Ventus Prime³ and the Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2, and the 16” Michelin Primacy 4 and the Dunlop Sport Maxx RT2. While three out of the four tyres registered “very good” dry marks (the Dunlop tyre was in the top end of the “good” ranking in the dry), each was marked down as a result of wet performance that was only considered “satisfactory”. In summer tyre tests weighted more towards dry performance, these tyres would have finished higher in the rankings.

Maxxis Premitra HP5

Three tyres by Far Eastern brands improving their global positioning also did well enough in the dry to get test-leading dry performance marks. The 16” Maxxis Premitra 5 was the top tyre in the entire test for dry performance, registering a “very good” ranking. Strikingly, it outperformed many of the premium brand “satisfactory” tyres in the wet too, getting a “good” ranking for its wet performance. Ultimately its tyre wear and fuel efficiency ratings were just short of the quality of other tyres that ranked higher in the test.

In the 17” category, Nexen’s N’Fera Sport and Giti Tire’s PremiumH1 were the other top performers in the dry, registering 1.9 and 1.8 respectively in the dry, enough to seal “good” rankings in this performance category. Both tyres registered middling results in the comfort, fuel efficiency and tyre wear categories, improving on the Maxxis. However, neither could match the Maxxis tyre’s performance in the wet, registering “satisfactory” results of 2.8 and 3.3 respectively.

One more outstanding category result among the “satisfactory” tyres deserves a special mention. The 16” Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 was marked 0.6 for tyre wear, the very top of ADAC’s “very good” grade boundary, giving it a big advantage over any of the other 31 tyres tested in this metric. While the tyre could only register “satisfactory” wet performance, its low wear, combined with “good” fuel efficiency make it the tyre with the best overall sustainable credentials in this test.

In the 16” category ADAC devalued the Kumho Ecsta HS51 because of its weaker performances on dry roads, though with an overall score matching the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2, it made a quite passable impression, making for a good test overall for the South Korean brand.

The Apollo Alnac 4G, Hankook Ventus Prime³, Fulda EcoControl HP2, and BFGoodrich Advantage were all downgraded to “satisfactory” overall because of their performance in the wet. While by no means poor, they could not quite match the leading tyres in this discipline. Joining the Maxxis Premitra 5 with a 3.0 overall grade were Nokian’s Wetproof, Pirelli’s Cinturato P7 C2, and Uniroyal’s Rainsport 5. Like the Maxxis tyre, these models suffered from higher tyre wear, the primary reason for being marked down. The Turkish brand Petlas’s Imperium PT515 was the last “satisfactory” tyre, with both wet and dry performance proving comparatively weak. It was among the best 16” tyres for longevity, though.

In the 225/50 R17 Y dimension, 12 tyres were deemed “satisfactory”, all devalued primarily by their wet or dry performance. At the top of the group, ADAC said Michelin’s Primacy 4 and Dunlop’s Sport Maxx RT2 showed “slight weaknesses in the wet”. The Michelin edged out the Dunlop due to the latter tyre’s increased wear. The ESA-Tecars Spirit Pro did not convince the testers on dry asphalt. Next come the previously discussed Nexen N’Fera Sport and Pirelli Cinturato P7 C2 before the 17” Semperit Speed-Life 3. This tyre could not match the 16” variant’s performance due primarily to its dry performance, but still shone with “top marks on wet and on wear”.

Into the bottom half of the “satisfactory” overall category, Kleber’s Dynaxer HP4, Sava’s Intensa UHP2, the Giti PremiumH1, Laufenn’s S-Fit EQ +, Barum’s Bravuris 5HM, and the Viking ProTech NewGen were not completely convincing on wet roads. They also received criticism for increased wear (Kleber, Sava, Giti, Laufenn) or for deficits in the dry too (Barum, Viking).

“Sufficient” and “Inadequate” tyres

In the 16” test, the King Meiler Sport 1 retread tyre was given a “sufficient” mark, which left it at the foot of the product comparison. ADAC said the tyre was “very weak on wet roads, weak on dry roads,” and singled out its “loud rolling noise”. The tyre scored “good” fuel efficiency marks, and was not among the worst for tyre wear, helping it to avoid the “inadequate” overall verdict.

Firestone’s 17” Roadhawk was less fortunate. ADAC deemed that the tyre’s “relatively good” fuel consumption was not enough to keep the tyre from its “inadequate” overall rating. Testers called the tyre “very weak in the wet,” in which it scored an “inadequate” mark. Testers added that the tyre also showed “weaknesses on dry roads” including increased wear.