сравнение: Falken EuroALL Season AS220 Pro срещу. GoodYear Vector 4Seasons Gen-3 (2026)

The same paradox that defines the dry comparison reappears in wet conditions, and with greater consequence. In the one shared wet braking test, the Falken measured 46.0 metres against the Goodyear's 48.3 metres — a 2.3-metre advantage for the Falken, again from a single measured test. From 80 km/h on a wet road, that difference represents an extra 0.1 seconds of stopping time, which in a real emergency is not trivial. Yet the Goodyear's wet performance score is 82.2 versus the Falken's 70.6 — a gap of nearly 12 points — because wet performance encompasses far more than braking distances alone.

In wet handling, the Goodyear dominates. Its wet-handling detail score of 86.2 and wet-circle-cornering score of 83.7 place it firmly in the upper tier of the all-season category, and TyreReviews identified it as the best tyre in wet handling across its 2025 evaluation. The Goodyear's wet-handling-objective score of 93 indicates that under circuit conditions, the tyre tracks precisely and generates high lateral forces with impressive consistency. The Falken's wet-handling detail score is 65 and its wet-circle-cornering is 74.5 — a significant step behind, with testers identifying understeer on wet tarmac as a recurring characteristic that narrows the driver's safety margins in cornering situations.

Aquaplaning is another area where the gap is substantial. The Goodyear scores 80.5 overall for aquaplaning, with wet-circle figures that confirm effective water evacuation under both straight-line and cornering loads — although it is worth noting that some test evaluations have flagged reduced aquaplaning resistance and Aftonbladet in particular described it as aquaplaning easily in its 2025 test, so the picture is not uniformly positive. The Falken scores 67.5 overall for aquaplaning, with a longitudinal score of just 63 — a result consistent with feedback that describes only moderate aquaplaning reserves. On a motorway in heavy rain, this is the difference between a tyre that inspires confidence at motorway speeds and one that demands more conservative inputs from the driver. The Falken was explicitly marketed for wet conditions, making its aquaplaning performance the most conspicuous gap between promise and delivery.

Across the one mutual test that measured braking distances, the Falken EuroALL Season AS220 Pro actually stopped shorter on dry asphalt than the Goodyear: 39.8 metres versus 41.8 metres — a 2.0-metre gap in the Falken's favour. From 100 km/h, that margin equates to roughly 40% of a car length, and in the 35-tyre braking shootout where this measurement was taken, the Falken finished considerably higher. That result needs context, however, because the broader picture of dry performance is considerably more nuanced than a single braking figure suggests.

The Falken's dry-handling detail score of 87.5 is solid, and testers have consistently described its behaviour on dry tarmac as dynamic and engaging — short braking distances and confident handling responses are genuine attributes. Where the Falken loses credibility in the dry is in its steering precision: a delayed steering response is a recurring criticism that undermines the otherwise capable handling metrics. The Goodyear, by contrast, records a dry-handling-objective score of 98.5 — close to the maximum — and TyreReviews described its dry handling as very good, demonstrating a compound that generates grip in a confident and linear manner. Its dry-lane-change score of 84 supports a tyre that feels planted and predictable in emergency manoeuvres. The Goodyear's acknowledged dry weakness is braking specifically, flagged in multiple evaluations as its main gap relative to the segment's best, and one that costs it meaningfully in tests where braking is heavily weighted. For most drivers, the Falken's shorter braking distance is a real-world benefit; for drivers who use their car dynamically on dry roads, the Goodyear's more complete handling profile matters more.

Looking at the overall dry scores — Falken 79.3, Goodyear 72.6 — the Falken appears stronger on paper, but this is in part a product of its braking advantage weighting heavily in the score. In the one shared complete test evaluation (Autobild 2023 on 225/45 R17), the Goodyear finished 6th in a 16-tyre field while the Falken finished last. That gap cannot be explained by dry performance alone; the Goodyear's more balanced overall package counts for a great deal in holistic test evaluations, even when the Falken edges individual braking measurements.

If aquaplaning is the Falken's most embarrassing gap given its stated positioning, snow performance is its most categorical weakness. A snow performance score of 54 against the Goodyear's 79.4 is not a marginal difference — it is a 25-point gulf that reflects fundamentally different levels of winter capability. Snow traction of 64 and snow braking of 59.5 place the Falken well below what most drivers would consider adequate for an all-season tyre intended to replace seasonal changes. Testing feedback consistently described snow and ice behaviour as only satisfactory, with understeer emerging on snow just as it does on wet roads — a compound characteristic that limits confidence when precision matters most.

The Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen-3, by contrast, has earned consistent recognition as a snow specialist across multiple test years and organisations. Its snow braking score of 84 and snow traction of 84.1 are matched by a snow-handling-objective score of 87.3, confirming that the winter capability extends beyond braking into lateral control on packed snow. Short snow braking distances and reliable winter behaviour are recurring themes in its test coverage, and real-world owners echo this — excellent snow and ice traction was the second most frequently cited praise in Heureka customer reviews, mentioned four times across 37 submissions. Both tyres carry 3PMSF certification, but the scores behind those symbols tell very different stories about the depth of winter competence each one brings to a snowy road.

For any driver in a region that experiences genuine winter conditions — regular snowfall, sub-zero mornings, or even prolonged cold rain — the snow performance gap between these two tyres should be the deciding factor. The Falken may offer adequate performance in light urban snowfall or occasional cold snaps, but its 54/100 snow score sits at a level where driver confidence in genuinely challenging winter conditions would be justified in being limited. The Goodyear's snow capability is a core part of its character, backed by test data and owner experience alike.

Comfort and refinement is another dimension where the Goodyear pulls significantly ahead. Its overall comfort score of 81.8 compares to the Falken's 71.5, and the noise scores tell a similar story — Goodyear averages 86.7 in detailed noise testing while the Falken's average comfort detail score is just 65. TyreReviews named the Goodyear the best tyre for noise and comfort levels in its 2025 evaluation, and this aligns precisely with what real-world owners report: quiet ride quality was the single most frequently mentioned positive in Heureka feedback, cited ten times. Drivers who spend long hours on motorways and value a relaxed cabin environment will find the Goodyear's refinement genuinely appreciable; the Falken is adequate in this area but unlikely to impress those who set store by ride quality.

Running costs represent perhaps the starkest performance gap of all. The Goodyear's rolling resistance score of 77.2 and mileage score of 80.7 position it as a strong long-term proposition — ADAC's 2024 evaluation specifically highlighted low fuel consumption and high predicted mileage as key strengths, and three separate Heureka reviewers mentioned long tread life. The Falken's rolling resistance score of 51 and mileage score of 51 are both notably low — test feedback explicitly flagged elevated rolling resistance and moderate mileage as weaknesses across two separate AutoBild evaluations. Over a typical tyre lifecycle, this gap in both fuel economy and wear rate translates into a meaningful difference in total cost of ownership. A driver covering 30,000 km on the Falken may well reach replacement point considerably earlier than a Goodyear user, and will pay marginally more in fuel costs along the way.

On price, the Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen-3 is positioned as a premium product — Goodyear's own expert summary notes it undercuts Michelin's pricing, which speaks to its value proposition within the premium band. High purchase price was the only complaint cited by Heureka reviewers, appearing three times, which itself says something about the overall ownership satisfaction. The Falken does not publish EU label data, making direct fuel efficiency comparison on paper impossible, but its rolling resistance performance score of 51 provides a clear indication of where it sits relative to more efficient alternatives. Buyers drawn to the Falken on price grounds should model the total cost of ownership carefully — lower initial spend offset by higher fuel costs and earlier replacement may narrow the financial gap considerably.