tirewheelguide

Continental PureContact looks discontinued: no new owner reviews or road tests in five years and no current EU tyre label.

Toyo NanoEnergy R38 looks discontinued: no new owner reviews or road tests in five years and no current EU tyre label.

Head-to-head Updated

Continental PureContact vs Toyo NanoEnergy R38 — 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 29 + 8 owner reviews. How we score

Too close to call: PureContact 69, NanoEnergy R38 70.

Check price on Amazon · PureContact Check price on Amazon · NanoEnergy R38
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.

Continental PureContact
Tire AContinental

PureContact

All-Season Premium Touring tires

Tests – · none yet Owners 67 · 29 reviews

Toyo NanoEnergy R38
Tire BToyo

NanoEnergy R38

Summer

Provisional

Tests – · none yet Owners 70 · 8 reviews

Category by category

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

  1. 68

    Dry

    NanoEnergy R38 +3
    71
    Why this score
    SourcePureContactNanoEnergy R38
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 68 (est.)≈ 70 (est.)
    Reviews found online6872

    PureContact: 60% × 67.7 (est.) + 40% × 67.6 = 68

    NanoEnergy R38: 60% × 69.5 (est.) + 40% × 72.2 = 71

    No road tests of dry for PureContact. 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 NanoEnergy R38. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.40).

  2. 72

    Wet

    Level
    72
    Why this score
    SourcePureContactNanoEnergy R38
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 72 (est.)≈ 72 (est.)
    Reviews found online7373

    PureContact: 60% × 71.7 (est.) + 40% × 73.2 = 72

    NanoEnergy R38: 60% × 71.7 (est.) + 40% × 73.2 = 72

    No road tests of wet for PureContact. 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 NanoEnergy R38. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.56).

  3. 63

    Snow

    No comparison
    –
    Why this score
    SourcePureContactNanoEnergy R38
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 66 (est.)–
    Reviews found online58–

    PureContact: 60% × 66 (est.) + 40% × 58.1 = 63

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

  4. 68

    Comfort

    NanoEnergy R38 +1
    69
    Why this score
    SourcePureContactNanoEnergy R38
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 69 (est.)≈ 69 (est.)
    Reviews found online6769

    PureContact: 60% × 68.8 (est.) + 40% × 67.2 = 68

    NanoEnergy R38: 60% × 69.1 (est.) + 40% × 69.1 = 69

    No road tests of comfort for PureContact or NanoEnergy R38. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.

  5. 68

    Noise

    No comparison
    –
    Why this score
    SourcePureContactNanoEnergy R38
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 67 (est.)–
    Reviews found online69–

    PureContact: 60% × 67.3 (est.) + 40% × 69.2 = 68

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

  6. 66

    Treadwear

    PureContact +1
    65
    Why this score
    SourcePureContactNanoEnergy R38
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 66 (est.)≈ 65 (est.)
    Reviews found online6665

    PureContact: 60% × 65.7 (est.) + 40% × 66 = 66

    NanoEnergy R38: 60% × 65.3 (est.) + 40% × 64.6 = 65

    No road tests of treadwear for PureContact. 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 NanoEnergy R38. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.31).

  7. –

    Handling (owners)

    No comparison
    71
    Why this score
    SourcePureContactNanoEnergy R38
    Reviews found online–71
Scores at a glance
CategoryContinental PureContactToyo NanoEnergy R38
Relative Score 69 70
Dry 68 71
Wet 72 72
Snow 63 –
Comfort 68 69
Noise 68 –
Treadwear 66 65
Handling (owners) – 71

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

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

Recomputed
Headline score

PureContact

NanoEnergy R38

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 PureContact

Pros

  • Exceptional wet and dry traction
  • Quiet and smooth ride quality
  • Great overall performance relative to price

Cons

  • Soft sidewalls can lead to reduced cornering confidence or understeer on certain light vehicles
  • Some users perceive the sidewalls as thin and vulnerable to minor punctures
  • Occasional reports of higher-than-expected road noise on specific vehicle applications
All owner themes in the PureContact review

Tire B NanoEnergy R38

Pros

  • Reliable wet and dry grip with predictable handling limits
  • Good value for money compared to premium brand alternatives
  • Solid longevity and mileage, with respectable tread wear reported

Cons

  • Slightly increased road noise reported by some users
  • Limited size or availability challenges noted by consumers wanting replacements
All owner themes in the NanoEnergy R38 review

Specs side by side

Attribute A · Continental PureContact B · Toyo NanoEnergy R38
CategoryAll-Season Premium Touring tiresSummer
Vehicle typePassenger Car / CrossoverPassenger Car / Crossover
Treadwear warranty70,000 mi—
SidewallBlackwall—
Max pressure51 psi—

Which one should you actually buy?

Continental PureContact

Toyo NanoEnergy R38

Too close to call: Continental PureContact and Toyo NanoEnergy R38 are within 2 points overall. Toyo NanoEnergy R38 is stronger on dry. Toyo NanoEnergy R38 rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 8 reviews), so read this result as provisional.

Pick tire B You want the most grip on dry roads

Toyo NanoEnergy R38 scores 71 vs 68 on dry.

Tire A · Continental PureContact
Check price on Amazon
Tire B · Toyo NanoEnergy R38
Check price on Amazon

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

PureContact or NanoEnergy R38?

Which is better in the wet, PureContact or NanoEnergy R38?

Neither, by our numbers: 72 vs 72 on the wet score, within 3 points.

Which grips better on dry roads, PureContact or NanoEnergy R38?

Toyo NanoEnergy R38, 71 vs 68 on our dry score.

Which is more comfortable, PureContact or NanoEnergy R38?

Neither, by our numbers: 68 vs 69 on the comfort score, within 3 points.

Which lasts longer, PureContact or NanoEnergy R38?

Neither, by our numbers: 66 vs 65 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