2025 AMS Sustainability Tire Test

6 Premium Touring Summer tires tested in 215/55 R17 |   Published March 19th, 2025 by Jonathan Benson

Auto Motor Und Sport always pushes traditional tire testing in new directions, and this years summer tire test has a new twist - sustainability. The test focused on the 215/55 R17 size, suitable for midsize sedans, station wagons, and compact SUVs, with particular attention paid to tires achieving at least a "B" rating for rolling resistance on the EU tire label.

Test Size: 215/55 R17
Tires Tested: 6 tires
Test Categories:
4 categories (9 tests)
Similar Tests

Test Category Best Performer Worst Performer Difference
Dry (2 tests)
Dry Braking Falken e.Ziex: 35.2 M Insa-Turbo EcoEvolution: 41.6 M6.4 M (15.4%)
Dry Handling Falken e.Ziex: 107.4 Km/H Insa-Turbo EcoEvolution: 104.6 Km/H2.8 Km/H (2.7%)
Wet (5 tests)
Wet Braking Continental UltraContact NXT: 31.5 M Insa-Turbo EcoEvolution: 42.6 M11.1 M (26.1%)
Wet Handling Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2: 78.9 Km/H Insa-Turbo EcoEvolution: 69.6 Km/H9.3 Km/H (13.4%)
Wet Circle Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2: 8.63 m/s Insa-Turbo EcoEvolution: 6.99 m/s1.6 m/s (23.5%)
Straight Aqua Bridgestone Turanza 6: 78.2 Km/H Insa-Turbo EcoEvolution: 67.5 Km/H10.7 Km/H (15.9%)
Curved Aquaplaning Bridgestone Turanza 6: 2.94 m/sec2 Insa-Turbo EcoEvolution: 2.26 m/sec20.7 m/sec2 (30.1%)
Comfort (1 tests)
Noise Michelin e.Primacy: 70.5 dB Insa-Turbo EcoEvolution: 73.7 dB3.2 dB (4.3%)
Value (1 tests)
Rolling Resistance Michelin e.Primacy: 5.7 kg / t Insa-Turbo EcoEvolution: 10.4 kg / t4.7 kg / t (45.2%)

The Sustainability Challenge

The test went beyond traditional performance metrics to evaluate sustainability through in three categories: manufacturing processes, logistics, and fuel efficiency. The testers awarded extra points for innovative sustainable production methods and use of recycled or renewable materials. They also factored in the carbon footprint of transportation by measuring the distance between production facilities and the German market. Most significantly, they heavily weighted the real-world impact of rolling resistance on fuel consumption.

To practice what they preached, the testers even used synthetic e-fuels and HVO diesel during the evaluation process to minimize the test's own carbon footprint.

Sustainability Champions

The sustainability scoring revealed clear differences in manufacturers' approaches to eco-friendly tire production:

Michelin emerged as the sustainability leader with the e.Primacy, which is produced carbon-neutrally in Germany. The tire achieved a perfect score in manufacturing innovation (10 points), logistics (0 km, as it's produced locally), and most impressively, demonstrated zero additional fuel consumption compared to the test benchmark.

Continental took a different path to sustainability with its UltraContact NXT. While it scored slightly lower overall than Michelin, it led the field in manufacturing innovations, earning a perfect 10 points for its comprehensive use of sustainable materials. The tire incorporates natural rubber, bio-based silica derived from rice husk ash, recycled PET bottles, and reclaimed steel. This material-focused approach represents a significant advancement in reducing the tire's environmental footprint from production. Its slightly higher 1.0% fuel consumption increase and 2400 km logistics distance were the only factors preventing it from matching Michelin's overall sustainability score.

Falken's e.Ziex also performed admirably in the sustainability metrics, particularly with its 29% content of sustainable and recycled materials. Although manufactured in Turkey, creating a longer logistics chain for the test in Germany, it maintained excellent fuel efficiency with just a 1.3% increase in consumption compared to the benchmark.

Goodyear and Bridgestone both approached sustainability primarily through longevity and efficiency rather than revolutionary material changes. Both brands scored well for relatively short transportation distances but couldn't match the leaders in overall environmental impact.

The Insa Turbo EcoEvolution, despite being a retreaded tire that theoretically should excel in sustainability through material reuse, surprisingly performed poorly. While it earned top marks for manufacturing due to the inherent sustainability of retreading, its dramatically higher rolling resistance resulted in an 11.4% increase in fuel consumption—negating much of its environmental advantage.

Dry

Dry braking remains a critical safety test, with the Falken e.Ziex delivering the best stopping performance at 35.2 meters from 100 km/h. Interestingly, this shows that sustainability doesn't necessarily compromise dry braking, as the Falken combines good environmental credentials with class-leading dry braking. The retreaded Insa Turbo struggled significantly here, requiring an additional 6.4 meters (18%) more distance to stop.

In the dry handling test, which measures average lap speeds around a challenging course, the Falken e.Ziex again took top honors with 107.4 km/h, closely followed by the Continental. This test demonstrates that eco-friendly compounds can still deliver the responsiveness and grip needed for confident handling, though the high-efficiency Michelin ranked fifth, suggesting some compromises in ultimate handling performance.

Wet

Continental's UltraContact NXT demonstrated its wet weather prowess by delivering the shortest wet braking distance at 31.5 meters from 80 km/h. Wet performance is often where eco-focused tires sacrifice grip to achieve lower rolling resistance, yet Continental managed to balance both priorities effectively. The alarming 42.6-meter stopping distance of the Insa Turbo represents a dangerous compromise in wet safety.

Bridgestone and Goodyear tied for first place in wet handling with identical 78.9 km/h lap speeds. The Michelin e.Primacy, despite leading in sustainability metrics, fell behind here, suggesting its focus on rolling resistance may have required some concessions in wet performance.

The Bridgestone was best in both aquaplaning tests.

Comfort

Michelin's e.Primacy delivered the quietest performance at 70.5 dB

Value

The Michelin e.Primacy demonstrated its efficiency focus with a class-leading rolling resistance measurement of just 5.7 kg/t. This test directly impacts fuel consumption and vehicle range, especially for electric vehicles, making it perhaps the most relevant sustainability metric. The stark contrast with the Insa Turbo (10.4 kg/t) explains why the retreaded tire's theoretical environmental advantage was undermined by its poor real-world efficiency.

Results

The Continental UltraContact NXT emerged as the most well-rounded product, blending sustainability with excellent safety features. For value-conscious buyers, the Falken e.Ziex offers comparable performance with minimal environmental compromise at a lower price point. 

1st: Continental UltraContact NXT

Continental UltraContact NXT
  • 215/55 R17 98W
  • EU Label: A/A/69
  • 3PMSF: no
  • Price: 180.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking2nd36.3 M35.2 M+1.1 M96.97%
Dry Handling2nd107.1 Km/H107.4 Km/H-0.3 Km/H99.72%
Wet Braking1st31.5 M100%
Wet Handling4th78.4 Km/H78.9 Km/H-0.5 Km/H99.37%
Wet Circle2nd8.49 m/s8.63 m/s-0.14 m/s98.38%
Straight Aqua3rd73.8 Km/H78.2 Km/H-4.4 Km/H94.37%
Curved Aquaplaning3rd2.78 m/sec22.94 m/sec2-0.16 m/sec294.56%
Noise2nd71 dB70.5 dB+0.5 dB99.3%
Rolling Resistance2nd6.1 kg / t5.7 kg / t+0.4 kg / t93.44%
The Continental emerged as a joint test winner, featuring an exceptionally balanced overall performance. It achieves sustainability through innovative production methods, using natural rubber, bio-based silica from rice husk ash, recycled PET bottles, and reclaimed steel. It delivers the shortest wet braking distances and offers safe, balanced handling in wet conditions. On dry surfaces, it provides secure, predictably understeering behavior with high cornering stability. The tire features low rolling resistance, though it shows slight weaknesses in dry braking. Continental achieves its sustainability profile through material innovation rather than just optimizing rolling resistance, making it the top choice when safety, dynamics, and sustainability are all important.
Read Reviews

2nd: Falken e.Ziex

Falken e.Ziex
  • 215/55 R17 98V
  • EU Label: A/A/71
  • 3PMSF: no
  • Price: 125.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking1st35.2 M100%
Dry Handling1st107.4 Km/H100%
Wet Braking2nd31.6 M31.5 M+0.1 M99.68%
Wet Handling3rd78.6 Km/H78.9 Km/H-0.3 Km/H99.62%
Wet Circle3rd8.46 m/s8.63 m/s-0.17 m/s98.03%
Straight Aqua5th73.7 Km/H78.2 Km/H-4.5 Km/H94.25%
Curved Aquaplaning5th2.59 m/sec22.94 m/sec2-0.35 m/sec288.1%
Noise4th71.9 dB70.5 dB+1.4 dB98.05%
Rolling Resistance3rd6.2 kg / t5.7 kg / t+0.5 kg / t91.94%
The Falken e.Ziex is the co-winner and value champion of the test, delivering outstanding safety performance with minimal compromises in sustainability. It uses up to 29% sustainable and recycled materials and is manufactured in Turkey to reduce shipping distances. The tire excels in both wet and dry braking tests, achieving the best dry braking performance of all tested tires. It features dynamic yet safe cornering behavior on wet surfaces and has low rolling resistance combined with good wet grip. Its only notable weakness is slightly reduced aquaplaning protection. For drivers seeking maximum safety with reasonable sustainability, the Falken represents an excellent value option.
Read Reviews

3rd: Bridgestone Turanza 6

Bridgestone Turanza 6
  • 215/55 R17 98W
  • EU Label: B/A/70
  • 3PMSF: no
  • Price: 154.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking3rd36.7 M35.2 M+1.5 M95.91%
Dry Handling3rd106.8 Km/H107.4 Km/H-0.6 Km/H99.44%
Wet Braking4th32.7 M31.5 M+1.2 M96.33%
Wet Handling1st78.9 Km/H100%
Wet Circle4th8.45 m/s8.63 m/s-0.18 m/s97.91%
Straight Aqua1st78.2 Km/H100%
Curved Aquaplaning1st2.94 m/sec2100%
Noise5th72.6 dB70.5 dB+2.1 dB97.11%
Rolling Resistance4th6.8 kg / t5.7 kg / t+1.1 kg / t83.82%
The Bridgestone Turanza 6 derives its sustainability primarily from increased longevity and improved fuel efficiency. It features innovative profile, rubber compound, and construction technologies to enhance both performance and sustainability. The tire excels in wet conditions, providing exceptional grip in corners and the best aquaplaning protection of all tested tires. Despite slightly longer braking distances, it offers outstanding traction and safety reserves in wet curves. On dry roads, it provides secure, understeer-neutral handling. Weaknesses include slightly reduced self-damping properties, comfort, and more noticeable rolling noise, particularly in corners. The Bridgestone scored "very good" overall.
Read Reviews

4th: Michelin e.Primacy

Michelin e.Primacy
  • 215/55 R17 98W
  • EU Label: A/B/70
  • 3PMSF: no
  • Price: 178.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking5th37.8 M35.2 M+2.6 M93.12%
Dry Handling5th106.1 Km/H107.4 Km/H-1.3 Km/H98.79%
Wet Braking5th35 M31.5 M+3.5 M90%
Wet Handling5th76.3 Km/H78.9 Km/H-2.6 Km/H96.7%
Wet Circle5th8.39 m/s8.63 m/s-0.24 m/s97.22%
Straight Aqua3rd73.8 Km/H78.2 Km/H-4.4 Km/H94.37%
Curved Aquaplaning4th2.77 m/sec22.94 m/sec2-0.17 m/sec294.22%
Noise1st70.5 dB100%
Rolling Resistance1st5.7 kg / t100%
The Michelin e.Primacy stands out for having the highest efficiency and comfort ratings while maintaining good overall performance. It's produced CO2-neutrally in Germany and features extremely low rolling resistance, long life, and minimal wear. The tire provides well-balanced dynamics and precision on dry surfaces with direct steering response and high safety during evasive maneuvers. It's exceptionally comfortable and quiet with the highest fuel efficiency of all tested tires. Its main compromises are longer braking distances on both wet and dry surfaces, and reduced dynamics and corner grip in wet handling. For electric vehicles, it excels by maximizing range and minimizing rolling noise.
Read Reviews

5th: Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2

Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
  • 215/55 R17 98W
  • EU Label: B/A/70
  • 3PMSF: no
  • Price: 147.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking4th37 M35.2 M+1.8 M95.14%
Dry Handling4th106.5 Km/H107.4 Km/H-0.9 Km/H99.16%
Wet Braking3rd32 M31.5 M+0.5 M98.44%
Wet Handling1st78.9 Km/H100%
Wet Circle1st8.63 m/s100%
Straight Aqua2nd74.7 Km/H78.2 Km/H-3.5 Km/H95.52%
Curved Aquaplaning2nd2.84 m/sec22.94 m/sec2-0.1 m/sec296.6%
Noise3rd71.8 dB70.5 dB+1.3 dB98.19%
Rolling Resistance5th6.9 kg / t5.7 kg / t+1.2 kg / t82.61%
The Goodyear defines its sustainability through its Mileage-Plus technology, which provides 50% more longevity than its predecessor—particularly beneficial for heavier electric vehicles. The tire has been optimized in structure, compound technology, and sidewall aerodynamics for improved efficiency. It performs exceptionally well in wet conditions, providing excellent braking performance and very high precision and safety on wet tracks. On dry roads, it offers secure, reliable handling but shows weaknesses in dry braking distances and has somewhat increased rolling resistance. Overall, the Goodyear earned a "very good" rating with particular strengths in wet performance.
Read Reviews    Buy from £119.99

6th: Insa Turbo EcoEvolution

Insa Turbo EcoEvolution
  • 215/55 R17 94V
  • 3PMSF: no
  • Price: 77.00
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking6th41.6 M35.2 M+6.4 M84.62%
Dry Handling6th104.6 Km/H107.4 Km/H-2.8 Km/H97.39%
Wet Braking6th42.6 M31.5 M+11.1 M73.94%
Wet Handling6th69.6 Km/H78.9 Km/H-9.3 Km/H88.21%
Wet Circle6th6.99 m/s8.63 m/s-1.64 m/s81%
Straight Aqua6th67.5 Km/H78.2 Km/H-10.7 Km/H86.32%
Curved Aquaplaning6th2.26 m/sec22.94 m/sec2-0.68 m/sec276.87%
Noise6th73.7 dB70.5 dB+3.2 dB95.66%
Rolling Resistance6th10.4 kg / t5.7 kg / t+4.7 kg / t54.81%
The Insa Turbo EcoEvolution is a retreaded tire that performed poorly across nearly all test categories. While the concept of reusing tire carcasses is fundamentally sustainable, the execution failed to meet basic safety standards. The tire exhibited extremely poor grip on both wet and dry roads with dangerously long braking distances. It showed unsafe, heavily understeering, and unpredictable handling dynamics. The tire had poor construction quality with uneven surfaces causing vibrations and loud interior noise. Despite its low price, its extremely high rolling resistance caused over 10% increased fuel consumption. It failed the high-speed test and received a "deficient" overall rating with the recommendation not to use it on passenger cars.
Read Reviews

comments powered by Disqus