Test Summary
Wet Braking	Yokohama W Drive
Dry Braking	Dunlop Winter Sport 5 SUV
Wet Handling	Michelin Latitude Alpin 2
Wear	Michelin Latitude Alpin 2
Rolling Resistance	Continental Winter Contact TS 850 P SUV
Noise	Bridgestone Blizzak LM80 EVO
Snow Handling	Dunlop Winter Sport 5 SUV

For 2018, the German publication Auto Zeitung have tested nine SUV / 4X4 winter tyre patterns in the popular 235/60 R18 size using an Audi Q5.

The tyres on test covered the premium and midrange segments, with a single budget tyre included, the Wanli Snowgrip S1083. The Wanli tyre was less than half the price of the most expensive tyres on test, so it will be interesting to see whether the Chinese manufactured tyre can improve on past performances.

Dry

The top two tyres during dry braking testing also happened to be the worst two tyres overall on test, with the Wanli and Yokohama tyres drawing in first place. There was a larger than normal spread across the dry braking testing, with nearly 4 meters covering the best to worst on test.

The dry handling testing was much closer, with less than one second covering all nine tyre patterns. This time the Nokian WR SUV3 proved to be the best of the group.

Wet

The all important wet testing was dominated by the Michelin Latitude Alpin 2, which had both the shortest wet braking distance and the quickest wet handling lap.

After winning the dry braking test, the Wanli budget tyre proved that in the wet, you still get what you pay for, finishing a long distance behind the pack in both tests.

The straight aquaplaning test brought the first win for the Dunlop Winter Sport 5 SUV.

Snow

The Bridgestone LM80 EVO proved to be the most effective tyre during the snow braking testing.

While the Michelin Latitude Alpin 2 won the snow handling test.

Environment

The Continental WinterContact TS850 P proved to have the lowest fuel use on test.

During internal noise testing, all nine tyres were within just two decibels of each other.

The Nokian proved to be good value, finishing third place overall but significantly cheaper than the most expensive tyres on test.

Results

1st: Michelin Latitude Alpin 2
235/60 R18 3PMSF: no	Total: 843 Dry: 120 Wet: 143 Snow: 143 Comfort: 7 Rolling Resistance: 15 Noise: 9 Overall: 406 Victory for the Michelin, very strong on snow and in the wet. Read Reviews
2nd: Continental Winter Contact TS 850 P SUV
235/60 R18 3PMSF: no	Total: 838 Dry: 134 Wet: 132 Snow: 132 Comfort: 8 Rolling Resistance: 25 Noise: 9 Overall: 398 A very well balanced performance for the TS850P SUV, strong in all categories. Read Reviews
3rd: Nokian WR SUV 3
235/60 R18 3PMSF: no	Total: 810 Dry: 128 Wet: 131 Snow: 131 Comfort: 7 Rolling Resistance: 15 Noise: 8 Overall: 390 A third place for Nokian thanks you balanced and consistent results. Read Reviews
4th: Dunlop Winter Sport 5 SUV
235/60 R18 3PMSF: no	Total: 817 Dry: 127 Wet: 147 Snow: 115 Comfort: 5 Rolling Resistance: 16 Noise: 18 Overall: 389 The Dunlop is a proven wet specialist with good dry properties. Read Reviews    Buy from £167.71
5th: Pirelli Scorpion Winter
235/60 R18 3PMSF: no	Total: 788 Dry: 129 Wet: 116 Snow: 130 Comfort: 8 Rolling Resistance: 21 Noise: 9 Overall: 375 Good in the dry and on snow. Slight weakness in the wet. Read Reviews
6th: Bridgestone Blizzak LM80 EVO
235/60 R18 3PMSF: no	Total: 746 Dry: 123 Wet: 97 Snow: 135 Comfort: 9 Rolling Resistance: 17 Noise: 10 Overall: 355 Good results for the Bridgestone on snow and dry roads, but too little grip in wet. Read Reviews
7th: Toyo Snowprox S954 SUV
235/60 R18 3PMSF: no	Total: 730 Dry: 123 Wet: 121 Snow: 104 Comfort: 8 Rolling Resistance: 18 Noise: 8 Overall: 348 Mid pack in the dry and wet, poor snow performance. Read Reviews
8th: Yokohama W Drive
235/60 R18 3PMSF: no	Total: 679 Dry: 136 Wet: 108 Snow: 80 Comfort: 7 Rolling Resistance: 15 Noise: 9 Overall: 324 Reasonable in the dry, but very poor snow performance. Read Reviews
9th: Wanli Snowgrip S1083
235/60 R18 3PMSF: no	Total: 669 Dry: 134 Wet: 59 Snow: 123 Comfort: 7 Rolling Resistance: 22 Noise: 8 Overall: 316 Acceptable on snow and in the dry, but dangerously poor performance in the wet. Read Reviews