Tests – · none yet Owners 60 · 14 reviews
Continental Cross Contact A/T vs Toyo Celsius — Compared
Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews. Based on 0 + 6 road tests and 14 + 152 owner reviews. How we score
Too close to call: Cross Contact A/T 62, Celsius 63.
Add your size for an exact match
Both Amazon links then search this exact size.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
-
64
Dry
Cross Contact A/T +955Why this score
Source Cross Contact A/T Celsius Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 6 tests ≈ 66 (est.) 48 Reviews found online 62 67 Cross Contact A/T: 60% × 65.5 (est.) + 40% × 62.2 = 64
Celsius: 60% × 47.8 + 40% × 66.5 = 55
No road tests of dry for Cross Contact A/T. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.40).
-
64
Wet
Cross Contact A/T +361Why this score
Source Cross Contact A/T Celsius Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 6 tests ≈ 66 (est.) 54 Reviews found online 63 70 Cross Contact A/T: 60% × 65.7 (est.) + 40% × 62.5 = 64
Celsius: 60% × 54.1 + 40% × 70.4 = 61
No road tests of wet for Cross Contact A/T. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.56).
-
53
Snow
Celsius +2174Why this score
Source Cross Contact A/T Celsius Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 4 tests ≈ 60 (est.) 76 Reviews found online 41 70 Cross Contact A/T: 60% × 60.4 (est.) + 40% × 41.3 = 53
Celsius: 60% × 75.8 + 40% × 70.3 = 74
No road tests of snow for Cross Contact A/T. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.33).
-
65
Comfort
Celsius +469Why this score
Source Cross Contact A/T Celsius Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 68 (est.) ≈ 69 (est.) Reviews found online 60 69 Cross Contact A/T: 60% × 67.6 (est.) + 40% × 60.4 = 65
Celsius: 60% × 69.1 (est.) + 40% × 68.9 = 69
No road tests of comfort for Cross Contact A/T or Celsius. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.
-
–
Noise
No comparison56Why this score
Source Cross Contact A/T Celsius Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 4 tests – 48 Reviews found online – ≈ 67 (est.) Celsius: 60% × 48.4 + 40% × 67.3 (est.) = 56
No owner ratings of noise for Celsius. The owner half is the owners’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests, so the tests say nothing about how owners would rate it.
-
65
Treadwear
Celsius +267Why this score
Source Cross Contact A/T Celsius Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 65 (est.) ≈ 66 (est.) Reviews found online 64 67 Cross Contact A/T: 60% × 65.2 (est.) + 40% × 64.4 = 65
Celsius: 60% × 66.1 (est.) + 40% × 67.2 = 67
No road tests of treadwear for Cross Contact A/T. 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 Celsius. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.31).
-
62
Handling (owners)
Celsius +264Why this score
Source Cross Contact A/T Celsius Reviews found online 62 64
Scores at a glance
| Category | Continental Cross Contact A/T | Toyo Celsius |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 62 | 63 |
| Dry | 64 | 55 |
| Wet | 64 | 61 |
| Snow | 53 | 74 |
| Comfort | 65 | 69 |
| Noise | – | 56 |
| Treadwear | 65 | 67 |
| Handling (owners) | 62 | 64 |
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.
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Cross Contact A/T
Celsius
Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.
The professional test results behind the scores
Per discipline: the average % of the best tire over every test both tires were in, and how many of those tests each one won. “Different tests” rows compare results from separate tests.
| Discipline | Category | Cross Contact A/T | Celsius | Δ | Head-to-head |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Also published by the testers (not in the score) | |||||
| Overall Ranking | Overall | #7/7 2017 Drive Out Off Road 4x4 Tyre Test | #9/8 2022 ACE/ARBÖ/GTÜ All-Season Tire Test R17 | – | Different tests |
Pros, cons & observations
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
Tire A Cross Contact A/T
Pros
- Excellent on-road comfort and handling with acceptable noise levels
- High potential longevity and mileage for many users, with sets lasting upwards of 50,000 to 80,000 km/miles
- Competent dry and wet performance on paved surfaces
Cons
- Susceptibility to punctures and fragile sidewalls reported by some drivers
- Rapid, premature tread wear experienced by certain users
- Poor traction and spinning issues in winter conditions such as snow and ice
Tire B Celsius
Pros
- Exceptional snow and winter weather performance
- Quiet and smooth ride quality
- High value for money compared to premium brands
Cons
- Some complaints regarding wet traction and hydroplaning resistance
- Softer sidewalls can lead to a bouncy feel or slower steering response
- Faster tread wear reported by certain users compared to competitors like Michelin
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Continental Cross Contact A/T | B · Toyo Celsius |
|---|---|---|
| Category | All-Terrain tire | All Season |
| Vehicle type | SUV and 4x4 | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | — | 52 |
| Rim diameters | — | 14″ – 20″ |
| Tread depth | — | 10 - 11/32″ |
| UTQG | — | 440 A A |
| Treadwear warranty | — | 60,000 mi |
| Sidewall | — | Black Side Wall |
| Max pressure | — | 50 - 51 psi |
Which one should you actually buy?
Continental Cross Contact A/T
Toyo Celsius
Too close to call: Continental Cross Contact A/T and Toyo Celsius are within 2 points overall. Continental Cross Contact A/T is stronger on dry and wet. Toyo Celsius is stronger on snow and comfort. Continental Cross Contact A/T rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 14 reviews), so read this result as provisional.
Toyo Celsius scores 74 vs 53 on snow.
Continental Cross Contact A/T scores 64 vs 55 on dry.
Toyo Celsius scores 69 vs 65 on comfort.
Continental Cross Contact A/T scores 64 vs 61 on wet.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Cross Contact A/T or Celsius?
Which is better in the wet, Cross Contact A/T or Celsius?
Continental Cross Contact A/T, 64 vs 61 on our wet score.
Which grips better on dry roads, Cross Contact A/T or Celsius?
Continental Cross Contact A/T, 64 vs 55 on our dry score.
Which is better in snow, Cross Contact A/T or Celsius?
Toyo Celsius, 74 vs 53 on our snow score.
Which is more comfortable, Cross Contact A/T or Celsius?
Toyo Celsius, 69 vs 65 on our comfort score.
Which lasts longer, Cross Contact A/T or Celsius?
Neither, by our numbers: 65 vs 67 on the treadwear score, within 3 points.
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