Comparação: Apollo Alnac 4G vs. Riken Road Performance vs. Gt Radial Fe2 vs. Toyo Proxes CF2 vs. Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2 vs. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

Budget

Apollo

Alnac 4G

2.3

R14 – R17

VS

Riken

Also compare with

PILOT ALPIN 5

WinterContact TS 870

PremiumContact 7

Test profile

Alnac 4G

Road Performance

Radial Fe2

Proxes CF2

Efficient Grip Performance 2

Blizzak LM-005

Número de testes

8

—

2

18

49

Best position

#2

—

#8

#1

Average position

18.9

—

17.5

6.1

3.2

Teste mais recente

2023

—

2019

2024

Tamanhos disponíveis

77

—

74

47

213

Molhado

Apollo Alnac 4G

74%

Riken Road Performance

70%

Gt Radial Fe2

75%

Toyo Proxes CF2

76%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

76%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

90%

Aquaplanagem - cruz

Apollo Alnac 4G

69%

Riken Road Performance

76%

Gt Radial Fe2

74%

Toyo Proxes CF2

67%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

73%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

84%

Aquaplanagem - longitudinal

Apollo Alnac 4G

80%

Riken Road Performance

74%

Gt Radial Fe2

75%

Toyo Proxes CF2

78%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

69%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

86%

Frenagem úmida

Apollo Alnac 4G

69%

Riken Road Performance

63%

Gt Radial Fe2

69%

Toyo Proxes CF2

88%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

72%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

95%

Curva em círculo molhado

Apollo Alnac 4G

83%

Gt Radial Fe2

79%

Toyo Proxes CF2

72%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

89%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

90%

Manuseamento em piso molhado

Apollo Alnac 4G

73%

Gt Radial Fe2

80%

Toyo Proxes CF2

66%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

75%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

93%

Seco

Apollo Alnac 4G

72%

Riken Road Performance

74%

Gt Radial Fe2

75%

Toyo Proxes CF2

74%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

75%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

82%

Travagem a seco

Apollo Alnac 4G

77%

Riken Road Performance

74%

Gt Radial Fe2

80%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

73%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

81%

Comportamento em condução seca

Apollo Alnac 4G

63%

Toyo Proxes CF2

77%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

83%

Manuseamento a seco

Apollo Alnac 4G

70%

Gt Radial Fe2

71%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

73%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

89%

Conforto

Apollo Alnac 4G

82%

Riken Road Performance

74%

Gt Radial Fe2

82%

Toyo Proxes CF2

84%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

76%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

81%

Ruído exterior

Apollo Alnac 4G

82%

Riken Road Performance

74%

Gt Radial Fe2

74%

Toyo Proxes CF2

74%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

75%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

79%

Conforto

Apollo Alnac 4G

87%

Gt Radial Fe2

79%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

60%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

83%

Ruído interior

Apollo Alnac 4G

81%

Toyo Proxes CF2

91%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

71%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

85%

Custos

Apollo Alnac 4G

66%

Riken Road Performance

67%

Gt Radial Fe2

67%

Toyo Proxes CF2

74%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

91%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

78%

Quilometragem

Apollo Alnac 4G

65%

Riken Road Performance

67%

Gt Radial Fe2

72%

Toyo Proxes CF2

70%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

100%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

64%

Resistência ao rolamento

Apollo Alnac 4G

61%

Gt Radial Fe2

65%

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2

84%

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

87%

Dimensões e preços

Compare preços em todas as dimensões disponíveis para estes pneus.

Comparação: Apollo Alnac 4G vs. Riken Road Performance vs. Gt Radial Fe2 vs. Toyo Proxes CF2 vs. Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2 vs. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005

Alnac 4G

Road Performance

Radial Fe2

Proxes CF2

Efficient Grip Performance 2

Blizzak LM-005

Test profile

Molhado

Seco

Conforto

Custos

Dimensões e preços

Contribuir para a comparação