Tire Test Results

Tires Tested

• What We Liked: Feels sporty and comfortable on the road and composed on the track in the dry or wet.
• What We’d Improve: It could be a little sharper, a little more playful.
• Conclusion: Does it all at a very high level.

• What We Liked: Sharp steering on the road, strong grip in the wet.
• What We’d Improve: It can feel twitchy when pushed, and there’s a little more tread noise than we would like.
• Conclusion: A sporty performer that’s likely to satisfy.

• What We Liked: Objectively, it’s a good wet and dry performer.
• What We’d Improve: It’s a little dull for a UHP tire and could be more refined on the road.
• Conclusion: It’s capable, but doesn’t stand out from the crowd.

• What We Liked: Leads the test on the dry track and feels nimble on the road.
• What We’d Improve: Some added wet traction would help balance the performance.
• Conclusion: Very good, but not quite the complete package.

What We Learned on the Test Track

Our 1/3-mile per lap test track course includes 90-degree street corners, a five-cone slalom and simulated expressway ramps. Run in both dry and wet conditions, the test track allows our team to experience the traction, responsiveness, handling and drivability normally only encountered during abrupt emergency avoidance maneuvers or competition events.

In our dry track testing, the four tires in this group were fast and fun, but it’s important to note Ultra High Performance Summer tires are designed to be sporty on the road. While they may handle the occasional autocross or some open lapping, they’re not intended for extended track use.

Considering how tightly spaced the dry lap times can be within our test groups, the ADVAN Fleva V701 led the field by a solid margin, and it was the highest-rated with our test team, too. The sharp steering and quick reflexes allowed the vehicle to dance through fast transitions, and test-leading lateral grip meant the driver could carry significant speed through larger turns, as well. The Azenis FK510 was composed, stable and secure around the track, and with a tendency to understeer when pushed beyond the limit, it felt like the driver could never get in over his or her head. This personality scored highly with our team, and the average lap times were a solid third, but to the enthusiasts in our group, it felt a little cold and clinical. The G-MAX RS was much livelier, with strong front-end authority and a tendency to rotate under power and through transitions. Strong traction helped to keep everything under control, but the tire felt quite twitchy when pushed. Fortunately, short stopping distances succinctly brought the speeds down when necessary. If you break the HTR Z5’s dry performance down into its individual components, it looks very good objectively, tying for the shortest braking distance and setting the second highest lateral Gs. The disconnect came when trying to put it all together for fast laps, as we found similar characteristics on the track as we did on the road. The tire feels a little dull and not quite as coordinated as the other options, and stubborn understeer from mid-corner to corner exit hurt its lap times and subjective ratings.

The Azenis FK510 felt secure and stable in the wet, too, which built a lot of confidence with our drivers. Even though it essentially tied with the General for top objective figures, the Azenis FK510 earned subjective scores that led the test by a significant margin. The G-MAX RS demonstrated it has very good wet traction, as evidenced by its braking distance, lateral Gs and lap times. The slightly nervous behavior we felt in the dry was present in the wet, as well, so while it had strong grip, it wasn’t as easy to drive as its objective stats may imply. Once again, the HTR Z5’s braking and skid pad results were competitive with the best in the test, but the lap times were closer to the back of the pack. On the wet surface, the slower steering response helped to not upset the vehicle’s balance, but it still didn’t like to be pushed. Driven appropriately, in a more relaxed, less aggressive manner, the tire was poised and capable, with no troubling behavior. The wet traction of the ADVAN Fleva V701 would likely feel strong on the street during normal, everyday driving. Compared to this competitive set, though, it was noticeably behind in objective metrics, and when pushed on the track, it had some unsettling tendencies. The quick steering that felt so good in the dry took on a different nature in the wet. It would either overwhelm the available traction of the front tires and lead to massive understeer, or if the front tires had enough bite to respond, it could potentially overpower the rear axle and lead to some snappy oversteer. In all, the tire was reasonably capable, but it was best to always be mindful of your inputs.

Fuel Consumption Results

Our Real World Road Ride features a relatively flat 6.0-mile loop of 65-mph expressway, 55-mph state highway and 40-mph county roads along with three stop signs every lap. Our team drove each tire approximately 500 miles over the course of several days. Since we wanted to compare fuel consumption results that typical drivers would experience, our drivers were instructed to maintain the flow of traffic by running at the posted speed limits and sustain the vehicle’s speed using cruise control whenever possible. They did not use hypermiling techniques to influence vehicle fuel economy.

Fuel economy is a consideration for most drivers, even when considering performance tires, and within this group we found a minor, .6-mile per gallon disparity between our lowest and highest observed fuel economy. This difference would result in an additional 10.1 gallons of premium gasoline used per year for a vehicle driven 15,000 miles annually.

It’s important to note our test’s fuel consumption measurements follow consistent procedures designed to minimize variables that could influence the results; however, they do not represent an exhaustive long-range fuel consumption study. While our procedures require the test vehicles in each convoy to run under the same prevailing conditions, the week-to-week differences in ambient temperatures, barometric pressures and wind speeds that we experience over a season of testing can influence vehicle fuel consumption and prevent the absolute mpg values of this test from being compared directly against those of others.

Larger differences in consumption between tires may indicate a difference that might be experienced on the road, while smaller differences should be considered equivalent. As they say, your mileage may vary.

Summary

All four tires in our test would be fun additions to a sporty car for some enthusiastic back-road driving. Some are better at that mission than others, though, and in this instance, it was the old guard that did it a little better than the new additions in the category.

The Falken Azenis FK510 feels well put together and solid on the road or the track, and it really is an all-around impressive performer. The tire delivers a blend of sport and refinement that would nicely complement nearly any performance vehicle, plus sure-footed wet traction. The General G-MAX RS is very capable in the dry and the wet, and it feels athletic on the road, too. Some minor handling imbalance makes it a little twitchy when pushed, and there is some noticeable tread growl on the road. Yokohama’s new ADVAN Fleva V701 tops the charts on the dry track and is taut and responsive during normal, everyday driving. The wet traction is a significant step behind the best here, though, which doesn’t mix well with the tire’s fast reflexes when pushing to the limit. The Sumitomo HTR Z5 is a good tire that is unfortunately outmatched in this company. Moderate tread noise and a ride that could use some additional damping keep it from scoring better on the road, and steering that is a little slow, a little vague, and noticeably non-linear hurt its performance credentials on the road and the track. Positives include 50-0 mph braking and steady-state cornering grip that are at or near the top in both dry and wet testing.