Autobild tested eight summer tires in size 215/55 R18, with a focus on electric vehicle compatibility. The test vehicle was a Hyundai Kona, chosen for its popularity in the EV segment and representative weight and drivetrain layout. Testing was conducted under controlled conditions on both dry and wet tracks, with additional focus on ride comfort, noise, rolling resistance, and wear performance. Two tires in the test — Hankook iON evo and Falken e.Ziex — were developed specifically for EVs, while the others were standard aftermarket models labeled as “EV compatible” by the manufacturers.
The test highlighted a familiar trade-off: rolling resistance helps extend range, but often at the cost of wet grip and braking performance. The best tires managed to strike a safe and usable balance. Others showed clear compromises.
Dry
In the dry braking test, the Hankook iON evo and Continental PremiumContact 7 were nearly equal, both stopping the Hyundai Kona with reassuring consistency. Goodyear followed closely, while Michelin and Falken remained within acceptable limits. Goodride, however, required significantly longer to come to a stop — a disadvantage in any emergency scenario.
Dry Braking
- Hankook
- Firestone
- Yokohama
- Goodyear
- Michelin
- Falken
- Continental
- Goodride
Info! Dry braking score (3+ = worst).
Dry Handling
- Hankook
- Falken
- Firestone
- Yokohama
- Goodyear
- Michelin
- Continental
- Goodride
Info! Dry handling score (3 = worst).
Subjective dry handling favored Hankook and Continental, which delivered direct steering response, good lateral stability, and confident behavior in quick transitions. Michelin felt softer and more comfort-oriented, while Firestone and Goodride lagged behind, showing limited grip under load and longer recovery times after sudden steering inputs.
Wet
Wet braking distances once again confirmed the strengths of Hankook and Continental. Both tires provided short stopping distances and predictable grip on soaked asphalt. Goodyear performed solidly, while Michelin lost ground — its tuning for efficiency showing clear compromises in grip. Goodride was again the weakest in this category, with extended stopping distances that raised safety concerns.
Wet Braking
- Hankook
- Continental
- Michelin
- Firestone
- Goodyear
- Falken
- Yokohama
- Goodride
Info! Wet braking score (4 = worst).
Wet Handling
- Hankook
- Continental
- Michelin
- Firestone
- Yokohama
- Goodyear
- Goodride
- Falken
Info! Wet handling score (3+ = worst).
Wet handling highlighted differences in lateral grip and steering precision. Hankook led here with quick lap times and stable behavior in corners. Continental and Goodyear stayed close, while Falken was noticeably more prone to understeer. Hydroplaning tests exposed the strengths of Firestone in curved water conditions, but its overall wet braking remained behind the leaders. Michelin and Yokohama began to float earlier than expected, limiting driver confidence in deep water. Goodride once again showed the earliest loss of control in both straight and lateral hydroplaning scenarios.
Straight Hydroplaning
- Firestone
- Continental
- Falken
- Goodyear
- Hankook
- Yokohama
- Michelin
- Goodride
Info! Straight hydroplaning score (3+ = worst).
Lateral Hydroplaning
- Firestone
- Hankook
- Continental
- Falken
- Goodyear
- Goodride
- Michelin
- Yokohama
Info! Lateral hydroplaning score (3+ = worst).
Comfort & Noise
Electric vehicles amplify tire noise due to the lack of engine sound. In this area, Yokohama BluEarth-XT stood out for its low cabin noise, followed by Goodyear and Hankook. Michelin and Continental delivered average levels, while Firestone and Goodride transmitted more road harshness into the cabin.
Noise
- Goodyear
- Yokohama
- Continental
- Firestone
- Hankook
- Michelin
- Falken
- Goodride
Info! Lower values = quieter, better for EVs (2+ = worst).
Subjective ride comfort was rated during everyday driving simulations. Goodyear and Hankook showed good impact absorption and rolling smoothness. Michelin also offered a plush ride but lacked lateral precision. Falken and Yokohama were firm but tolerable. Firestone and Goodride felt harsher over uneven pavement and road joints.
Energy Efficiency
Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV earned AUTO BILD’s Green Tire 2025 title for its strong overall efficiency. It combined low rolling resistance, long wear life, and quiet operation — all without major compromises in dynamic safety. Hankook followed closely, showing well-rounded efficiency and mileage. Falken delivered the lowest rolling resistance in the group, but wear rates were higher, limiting long-term value. Michelin’s efficiency remained strong, but its high purchase cost reduced overall value. Yokohama and Firestone showed higher consumption figures and faster wear. Goodride performed near the bottom in both categories.
Mileage
- Michelin
- Goodyear
- Continental
- Hankook
- Yokohama
- Goodride
- Falken
- Firestone
Info! Mileage score (4+ = worst).
Rolling Resistance
- Falken
- Goodyear
- Firestone
- Goodride
- Hankook
- Michelin
- Yokohama
- Continental
Info! Rolling resistance score (3+ = worst).
Conclusion
Hankook’s iON evo proved that EV-specific tire development delivers tangible advantages. It led the test in both wet and dry safety disciplines, showed good aquaplaning resistance, remained quiet and comfortable in daily use, and maintained solid efficiency. A clear winner.
Continental’s PremiumContact 7 offered similar dynamic performance, though with slightly higher rolling resistance. Still, it remains a strong aftermarket choice, even for demanding EV applications.
Goodyear’s EfficientGrip 2 SUV delivered the best overall economy and wear performance. Its balance of comfort, safety, and sustainability earned it the Green Tire 2025 designation and a deserved place on the podium.
Michelin and Falken brought their own strengths — ride comfort and low rolling resistance, respectively — but neither could fully overcome limitations in wet performance or longevity. Firestone, Yokohama, and Goodride landed at the back of the group. Of these, only Firestone showed isolated strengths in aquaplaning, but all three were let down by poor grip or short tread life. Goodride, in particular, demonstrated safety concerns that make it unsuitable for modern EVs.
Results
1st Place: Hankook / iON evo
Quick Take
Hankook iON evo
Purpose-built for EVs, the Hankook iON evo delivered best-in-class results in both dry and wet handling. Braking distances were consistently short, steering feel was confident, and comfort levels remained high. Noise was well suppressed, and efficiency was competitive. A clear all-round winner for safety and control.
2nd Place: Continental / PremiumContact 7
Quick Take
Continental PremiumContact 7
Strong across nearly every metric, the Continental impressed with precise handling, solid wet performance, and excellent dry road behavior. Rolling resistance was slightly higher than the leaders, but overall balance and predictability made it a top choice for dynamic driving.
3rd Place: Goodyear / EfficientGrip 2 SUV
Quick Take
Goodyear EfficientGrip 2 SUV
This tire achieved the best wear rating and longest projected range. Quiet and composed on the road, it offered good aquaplaning resistance and acceptable grip levels in all conditions. A cost-effective, long-lasting option with no major weaknesses.
4th Place: Michelin / Primacy 4+
Quick Take
Michelin Primacy 4+
Refined and smooth in day-to-day driving, the Michelin tire offered excellent comfort and efficiency. However, it showed limitations in wet grip and aquaplaning stability. A premium touring option for those prioritizing rolling resistance over outright traction.
5th Place: Falken / e.Ziex
Quick Take
Falken e.Ziex
Impressive rolling resistance and confident dry road feel helped Falken stand out. However, wear performance was only average, and wet braking distances were longer than expected. A decent efficiency pick with some dynamic compromises.
6th Place: Firestone / Roadhawk 2 Enliten
Quick Take
Firestone Roadhawk 2 Enliten
Showed strong aquaplaning resistance in curves and stable handling under load. However, it had the shortest projected tread life and middling wet braking performance. A solid mid-budget tire with limited longevity.
7th Place: Yokohama / BluEarth-XT AE61
Quick Take
Yokohama BluEarth-XT AE61
Quiet and well-behaved on dry roads, but its limited mileage and poor aquaplaning scores affected overall value. A good match for urban use at lower speeds, though wet road confidence is lacking.
8th Place: Goodride / Solmax 1
Quick Take
Goodride Solmax 1
Offers decent comfort and low-speed noise, but critical safety metrics fell short. Long wet braking distances, low grip, and reduced aquaplaning stability make this tire a poor fit for modern electric vehicles. Best suited only for temporary or emergency use.
