tirewheelguide

Falken ZIEX ZE329 looks discontinued: no new owner reviews or road tests in five years and no current EU tyre label.

Head-to-head Updated

Continental ContiMaxContact MC5 vs Falken ZIEX ZE329 — Compared

Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews. Based on 0 + 0 road tests and 44 + 23 owner reviews. How we score

ContiMaxContact MC5 is ahead, 72–49

Check price on Amazon · ContiMaxContact MC5 or ZIEX ZE329 on Amazon
Add your size for an exact match
/R

Both Amazon links then search this exact size.

TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.

Falken ZIEX ZE329
Tire BFalken

ZIEX ZE329

All-Season

Tests – · none yet Owners 41 · 23 reviews

Category by category

Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.

  1. 72

    Dry

    ContiMaxContact MC5 +22
    50
    Why this score
    SourceContiMaxContact MC5ZIEX ZE329
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 71 (est.)≈ 56 (est.)
    Reviews found online7540

    ContiMaxContact MC5: 60% × 70.7 (est.) + 40% × 75.1 = 72

    ZIEX ZE329: 60% × 56.4 (est.) + 40% × 39.6 = 50

    No road tests of dry for ContiMaxContact MC5. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.40).

    No road tests of dry for ZIEX ZE329. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.40).

  2. 73

    Wet

    ContiMaxContact MC5 +22
    51
    Why this score
    SourceContiMaxContact MC5ZIEX ZE329
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 72 (est.)≈ 56 (est.)
    Reviews found online7445

    ContiMaxContact MC5: 60% × 72.3 (est.) + 40% × 74.2 = 73

    ZIEX ZE329: 60% × 55.8 (est.) + 40% × 44.8 = 51

    No road tests of wet for ContiMaxContact MC5. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.56).

    No road tests of wet for ZIEX ZE329. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.56).

  3. –

    Snow

    No comparison
    57
    Why this score
    SourceContiMaxContact MC5ZIEX ZE329
    Professional tests (TWG score)–≈ 63 (est.)
    Reviews found online–48

    ZIEX ZE329: 60% × 62.5 (est.) + 40% × 47.7 = 57

    No road tests of snow for ZIEX ZE329. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.33).

  4. 72

    Comfort

    ContiMaxContact MC5 +21
    51
    Why this score
    SourceContiMaxContact MC5ZIEX ZE329
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 70 (est.)≈ 63 (est.)
    Reviews found online7534

    ContiMaxContact MC5: 60% × 70.1 (est.) + 40% × 74.6 = 72

    ZIEX ZE329: 60% × 63 (est.) + 40% × 33.7 = 51

    No road tests of comfort for ContiMaxContact MC5 or ZIEX ZE329. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.

  5. –

    Noise

    No comparison
    62
    Why this score
    SourceContiMaxContact MC5ZIEX ZE329
    Professional tests (TWG score)–≈ 67 (est.)
    Reviews found online–53

    ZIEX ZE329: 60% × 67.3 (est.) + 40% × 53.2 = 62

    No road tests of noise for ZIEX ZE329. The test half is the tested tires’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.

  6. 67

    Treadwear

    ContiMaxContact MC5 +21
    46
    Why this score
    SourceContiMaxContact MC5ZIEX ZE329
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 66 (est.)≈ 55 (est.)
    Reviews found online6832

    ContiMaxContact MC5: 60% × 66.2 (est.) + 40% × 67.6 = 67

    ZIEX ZE329: 60% × 55.3 (est.) + 40% × 32 = 46

    No road tests of treadwear for ContiMaxContact MC5. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.31).

    No road tests of treadwear for ZIEX ZE329. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.31).

  7. 73

    Handling (owners)

    ContiMaxContact MC5 +32
    41
    Why this score
    SourceContiMaxContact MC5ZIEX ZE329
    Reviews found online7341
Scores at a glance
CategoryContinental ContiMaxContact MC5Falken ZIEX ZE329
Relative Score 72 49
Dry 72 50
Wet 73 51
Snow – 57
Comfort 72 51
Noise – 62
Treadwear 67 46
Handling (owners) 73 41

Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.

Weight the categories that matter to you

Wet grip starts at “Important”. Treadwear starts at “Neutral” here: road tests measured it for at most one of the two tires, so it rests on owner reviews. Move the sliders and the scores update instantly.

Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost

Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.

Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost

Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.

Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Recomputed
Headline score

ContiMaxContact MC5

ZIEX ZE329

Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.

Pros, cons & observations

Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.

Tire A ContiMaxContact MC5

Pros

  • Exceptional cabin noise reduction and quiet operation
  • High level of ride comfort and bump absorption
  • Strong value-for-money proposition compared to premium performance rivals

Cons

  • Tread wear can be rapid when subjected to aggressive or spirited driving
  • Sidewalls are relatively soft, which may feel less progressive at the absolute limit
  • Reports of increased puncture susceptibility once tread depth decreases
All owner themes in the ContiMaxContact MC5 review

Tire B ZIEX ZE329

Pros

  • Affordable price point offering great value
  • Good traction and grip on dry pavement
  • Balanced overall performance for everyday commuting

Cons

  • Rapid and premature tread wear, falling short of expected mileage
  • Poor wet and winter weather traction, described as dangerous in snow
  • Excessive road noise and highway hum reported by multiple users
All owner themes in the ZIEX ZE329 review

Specs side by side

Attribute A · Continental ContiMaxContact MC5 B · Falken ZIEX ZE329
CategorySummerAll-Season
Vehicle typePassenger Car / CrossoverPassenger Car / Crossover
Tread depth—6/32″
UTQG—480 A A
Treadwear warranty—60,000 mi
Sidewall—Blackwall
Max pressure—51 psi

Which one should you actually buy?

Continental ContiMaxContact MC5

Falken ZIEX ZE329

Winner: Continental ContiMaxContact MC5 — better handling, dry and wet. It leads or ties in every category we score.

Pick tire A You enjoy sharp, responsive handling

Continental ContiMaxContact MC5 scores 73 vs 41 on handling.

Pick tire A You want the most grip on dry roads

Continental ContiMaxContact MC5 scores 72 vs 50 on dry.

Pick tire A Your priority is wet-weather safety

Continental ContiMaxContact MC5 scores 73 vs 51 on wet.

Pick tire A You want the most comfortable ride

Continental ContiMaxContact MC5 scores 72 vs 51 on comfort.

Tire A · Continental ContiMaxContact MC5
Check price on Amazon
Tire B · Falken ZIEX ZE329
Check price on Amazon

TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.

ContiMaxContact MC5 or ZIEX ZE329?

Which is better in the wet, ContiMaxContact MC5 or ZIEX ZE329?

Continental ContiMaxContact MC5, 73 vs 51 on our wet score.

Which grips better on dry roads, ContiMaxContact MC5 or ZIEX ZE329?

Continental ContiMaxContact MC5, 72 vs 50 on our dry score.

Which is more comfortable, ContiMaxContact MC5 or ZIEX ZE329?

Continental ContiMaxContact MC5, 72 vs 51 on our comfort score.

Which lasts longer, ContiMaxContact MC5 or ZIEX ZE329?

Continental ContiMaxContact MC5, 67 vs 46 on our treadwear score.

How do we compare tires?

Every category score blends two independent signals. 60% comes from professional tire tests (braking distances, lap times, noise measurements), each result compared with every other tire in the same test and newer tests counting more. 40% comes from owner reviews found online, adjusted for how generously each site rates. Both use one scale: the average tested tire gets 70, the best 100. When a tire has only one of the two, the missing half is estimated from the other and the score stays closer to average; with no road test and fewer than five owner reviews it gets no score yet.

Handling is the exception: road tests measure it inside the dry and wet scores, so its own row comes from owner ratings only and starts as less important.

Community buzz from Reddit and forums is shown for context only — it never changes the score. Full methodology