Segment
1. Toyo Proxes CF2 Upper-middle2. Apollo Alnac 4G Lowcost3. Riken Road Performance Lowcost4. Maxxis Mecotra 3 Lowcost
Comparison: Apollo Alnac 4G vs. Riken Road Performance vs. Maxxis Mecotra 3 vs. Toyo Proxes CF2
| # | Apollo Alnac 4G
| Riken Road Performance
| Maxxis Mecotra 3
| Toyo Proxes CF2
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |  |  |  | ||
| Dimensions | R14 - R17 | R15 - R16 | R13 - R20 | R14 - R18 | |
| Price | |||||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
2. Toyo Proxes CF2 17.53. Apollo Alnac 4G 18.88
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Apollo Alnac 4G Exemplary2. Maxxis Mecotra 3 Satisfactory3. Toyo Proxes CF2 Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Maxxis Mecotra 3 Satisfactory2. Toyo Proxes CF2 Satisfactory3. Apollo Alnac 4G Satisfactory
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Mutual Tests Available
These tyres were tested together in 2 test(s). Click to view detailed head-to-head results.
2
Mutual tests
| Name | Enviromental impact | Driving safety | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,3 | 1,8 | |||||
| Apollo Alnac 4G Rating: Good | 3,5 | 3,0 | |||||
| Riken Road Performance Rating: Poor | 3,1 | ||||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 34,1 | 29,6 | |||||
| Apollo Alnac 4G | 36,8 | 33,2 | |||||
| Riken Road Performance | 37,8 | 39,7 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
