Sava Intensa UHP 2 is a summer tyre made in total of 75 sizes, ranging from R17 to R17 - this particular dimension is R17, which means it fits to a 17 inch/431.8mm diameter wheel. 225/50 R17 is 20mm wider than the narrowest dimension (205) and 30mm narrower than the widest one (255). This tyre profile of 50 means the sidewall height of the tyre is 50% of the tyre width (225mm), which results in 112.5mm sidewall height. In 225/50 R17, there is only one possible speed index for Sava Intensa UHP 2 - "Y", which is good for speeds up to 300 km/h. In 225/50 R17, Intensa UHP 2 usually competes against SportControl 2, which is a tyre from Fulda with a rating of 69%, compared to 67% of the Sava in question. Latest test in 225/50 R17 was held by Autobild in 2017, where Intensa UHP 2 received rating "Satisfactory" and finished on the 12. place. It was tested on a .
Autobild Summer tyre test 2023 225/45 R18 satisfactory Ranked #9 of 20Securing the 9th position among 20 competitors, the Sava Intensa UHP 2 earned a 'Satisfactory' rating. Highlighted for its short braking distances on dry surfaces, low rolling resistance, and affordable pricing, this tire stood out in key aspects of performance and value. However, critiques were directed at its tendency for understeer in both wet and dry conditions, and a moderate risk of aquaplaning was noted. This mixed review reflects a tire that offers certain strengths, particularly for budget-conscious drivers, while also suggesting areas for potential improvement.
ADAC Summer tyre test 2021 225/50 R17 satisfactory Ranked #12 of 17Finishing 12th out of 17 competitors, the Sava Intensa UHP 2 secured a final rating of 'Satisfactory'. This tyre stood out for its excellent performance on dry surfaces, where it provided direct and precise handling combined with a consistently good grip level and manageable reactions at the limit. Testers praised its performance in dry conditions. Another commendable feature was its relatively low external noise, making it the quietest tyre in the test, which highlights its superiority in comfort. However, it showed increased wear and weaknesses when it came to wet conditions. Its braking capabilities on wet asphalt and concrete were among the poorest, and it proved challenging to handle near the limit on wet surfaces, despite good water displacement abilities both laterally and longitudinally. Fuel consumption findings placed it in the middle range, whereas wear performance saw it lag towards the lower end of the competitors, yet it still managed a satisfactory assessment.
