Comparison: Continental PremiumContact 7 vs. Sailun Atrezzo ZSR 2 (2026)

Across the single shared test with measured wet braking, the Continental averages 28.3 metres and the Sailun 28.7 metres. Continental’s 0.4-metre advantage is only around a tenth of a car length, yet in an emergency it can be the difference between stopping short and making contact at residual speed. Sailun’s wet-braking score is actually higher—94 versus Continental’s 88.4—showing why conclusions should not rest on one aggregated score. In the directly comparable braking measurement, Continental was ahead, and its much broader test record supports that result.

The PremiumContact 7’s wet strength extends beyond stopping distance. It scores 98.3 for objective wet handling, 94 for measured wet handling and 88.5 for wet-circle cornering. It has also recorded a best wet-handling time of 67.70 seconds, another measured wet stop of 25.1 metres with a 1.2-metre advantage over that field, and a separate 47.1-metre class-leading result under a different test protocol. These figures cannot be compared directly because speeds, sizes and surfaces differ, but together they show repeatability. Drivers can expect neutral reactions, decisive front-axle bite and substantial safety reserves when braking or changing direction on a soaked road.

Aquaplaning is more nuanced. Continental’s overall aquaplaning score is 78.1 versus Sailun’s 74.5, and one test recorded an excellent 83.8 km/h in the longitudinal discipline. Other evaluations placed Continental only sixth or criticised its curved-aquaplaning performance. It is therefore strong rather than invulnerable in standing water. Sailun’s 74.5 suggests credible drainage, but there are no supplied tester observations separating straight-line and cornering behaviour. In sustained heavy rain, Continental remains the more convincing choice because braking, handling and limit control are all independently supported; Sailun’s encouraging scores come with greater uncertainty about how progressively it behaves when grip finally disappears.

Across the one shared test with measured dry braking, the Sailun averages 34.3 metres against 34.6 metres for the Continental. That 0.3-metre Sailun advantage is less than one tenth of a typical car length, but it is genuine and important: the budget tyre can generate highly competitive straight-line dry grip under that test’s conditions. It also explains why the tyres’ overall dry scores are close, at 86 for Sailun and 87.5 for Continental. This is not a comparison between a capable premium tyre and an obviously poor budget product.

Braking is only one part of dry performance, though. Continental’s detailed results reveal objective dry handling at 99, measured dry handling at 87.8 and steering reaction at 92.3. Its adaptive tread is designed to preserve precise responses as conditions and loads change, while the RedChili compound is intended to provide braking performance without needing a prolonged warm-up. Test feedback repeatedly describes quick turn-in, accurate steering, neutral balance, strong country-road behaviour and generous reserves near the limit. The driver therefore receives clearer information when loading the front axle and more time to correct a tightening line or abrupt manoeuvre.

No equivalent handling-detail scores or tester comments are supplied for the Sailun, so its 0.3-metre braking win should not be stretched into a claim of superior overall dry dynamics. The broader evidence points the other way: Continental finished ahead in all three mutual comparisons, including fourth versus tenth in the 13-tyre 225/40 R18 test and first versus thirteenth in the 16-tyre 215/55 R17 test. Sailun’s strong dry score suggests ample everyday grip, but Continental is the more substantiated choice for fast motorway travel, demanding roads and drivers who care about steering fidelity as much as emergency stopping.

Continental records 70.2 for comfort and 71.4 for noise, compared with Sailun’s 65.6 and 65. Testers found the PremiumContact 7 comfortable over surface imperfections and quiet in one cabin-noise assessment, while several owners also praised its ride and refinement. One owner replacing Michelin Primacy 4 tyres reported markedly better bump absorption and road feedback. The picture is not uniformly serene: other tests measured below-average noise or louder pass-by sound, and one dissatisfied owner considered the cabin noise intrusive enough to replace the tyres after a month. Continental is generally composed, but it should not be bought as a dedicated silence specialist.

Sailun trails modestly on the supplied comfort and noise scores, indicating a less polished ride-and-sound package, although the absence of owner reviews and detailed measurements prevents a confident diagnosis of whether tread roar, impact harshness or both cause the deficit. Continental’s adaptive construction and premium positioning plausibly contribute to its more rounded refinement, but its primary advantage is the way comfort coexists with accurate steering. Sailun may still be perfectly acceptable on ordinary commuting routes; the evidence simply gives less reason to expect the same isolation and consistency across coarse asphalt, expansion joints and higher motorway speeds.

Running costs reverse part of the argument. Sailun’s mileage score is an excellent 89, comfortably above Continental’s 74.6, making durability its clearest documented strength. Continental is described as having good or above-average mileage, but its rolling-resistance score is only 69.9, and one measurement of 8.33 kg/t placed it near the bottom of that field. Its EU fuel label is predominantly C—81 percent of listed fitments—with 19 percent rated B, while all listed wet-grip fitments are rated A. No equivalent EU-label figures are supplied for Sailun, so its fuel consumption cannot be quantified responsibly. Continental also carried the highest quoted test price at €317 per set. Sailun is therefore likely to offer the stronger purchase-price and mileage proposition, whereas Continental asks buyers to pay more—and potentially accept slightly higher energy use—for better-supported safety and chassis behaviour. Continental’s optional puncture-sealing technology can seal 80 percent of tread-area punctures where fitted, adding practical value, especially for EV users, but availability will depend on the exact specification.