Drivers

2016 Most Wanted – The Longest Drivers

BY MyGolfSpy
Jun 17th 2016
Read all comments

Support our Mission. We independently test each product we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.

Over the last couple of days we’ve broken down the results of our 2016 Most Wanted Driver Test a couple of different ways. These results are derived from data generated by 20 testers who, combined, hit more than 7,000 shots and spent more than 120 hours testing drivers.

Today we’re presenting a slightly different look at our results. While we admittedly lean towards a comprehensive view of performance, we know there are a substantial number of you who want one thing, and one thing only out of your driver: DISTANCE.

About These Rankings

We all love the long ball, so today we’re ranking the drivers in our test on what we’ve taken to calling Peak Distance. To arrive at our averages we take the combined average of the longest 3 shots hit with each driver by each tester. Forget about forgiveness for a moment, the intent of our Peak Distance metric is to provide you with a sense of which drivers will produce the longest drives when contact is perfect…or at least near-perfect.

What Else to Consider

Note that the yardage gaps between the clubs on the top on this list and the clubs on the bottom are more pronounced than they are when we look at the overall averages.

Above and beyond the difference between drivers, what we find interesting is the gap between our Peak Distance average and the Overall (Total Yards) average. That gap, which can rise above 15 yards, suggests there’s plenty of opportunity for manufacturers to improve consistency across more of the face. Of course, opportunity does not necessarily equate to ability, so it will certainly be interesting to see if these gaps can be narrowed.

Here are the rankings.

Top 5 Drivers of 2016 – Peak Distance

Performance Highlights:

The longest driver for 2016.
Peak Distance average more than 13 yards longer than this club’s overall average
Peak Distance average is 19.8 yards longer than the lowest ranked club on this list

View On Amazon View in Pro Shop

Performance Highlights:

Peak average only 1 yard less than M1 430
Peak Distance average more than 12 yards longer than this club’s overall average

View On Amazon View in Pro Shop

Performance Highlights:

Peak Distance more than 13 yards longer than this club’s overall average
Completes TaylorMade sweep of top 3 positions on this list

View On Amazon View in Pro Shop

Performance Highlights:

Strongest showing for Cobra’s Flagship Driver
Nearly 13 yards longer than overall average for this club

View on Amazon View in Pro Shop

Performance Highlights:

Nearly 12 yards longer than overall average for this club
#5 position on this list is still 14 yards longer than lowest ranked club

View On Amazon View in Pro Shop

The Data

We’ve updated our tables to include the Peak Distance column. To make it easier to compare Peak Distance with the Average Total Distance, we’ve placed those columns side by side. Everything else is the same as it is in the previous tables. We’ve once again included a filter that will allow you to show only specified clubs.

Finally, we’ve also included the filter that will allow you to rank clubs for swing speeds above 100MPH and speeds below 100MPH.

For a limited time, all MyGolfSpy referred customers can get an additional 10% trade-in bonus on the value of their clubs when they use the code SPYTRADE. Valid 06/14/16-06/30/16.

More 2016 Most Wanted

Support Unbiased Testing.

DID YOU KNOW: If only 1% of MyGolfSpy readers donated $25, we would be able to become completely independent in 12-months. With every donation, you create change.

Would you be willing to help by giving a donation? Every dollar will help. Make a donation to support our independent and expert golf equipment research. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

comments

Join The Discussion

Berniez40

6 years ago

Granted this is a Zombie thread, but it deserves this post based on the fact that the 2016 M2 is in my bag based on personal experience with the fitter, and re-affirmation from this post. Here we are, with the 2019s about to be released in a couple of months, and the M2 is still in my bag. Thanks for running these tests as well as the data. 2016 was a good year. I got my TaylorMade M2 Driver, and Srixon Z- 355 Irons thanks to a professional fitting, and a little re-affirmation from MGS. Admittedly, I bag a different putter than what was recommended by MGS back then, but putting is a very personal part of the game, where one man’s trash very well could be another’s treasure. Thanks MGS for all you do. My bag and game are grateful.

mp-4

7 years ago

There’s enough denial in these responses for a psychology dissertation. lol

Amir Ansari

Really great service – love all the data that you guys put together and kudos. I’ve been looking at Golf Digest results for years with a ton of skepticism. One thing I would love to see in future tests or if you have it is get the specs of the tested drivers – Length, shaft used (i.e. the TM, Callaway and Ping come with 3 or 4 shafts with no up charge), any adjustments, weight etc… Again, I know the TM plays heavier than the Ping. Thanks again.

Jeff Clark

8 years ago

Oh by the way 2.9 index 115 mph driver swingspeed . Cleveland 588tt face forged irons Titelest Prov 1x

Shawn Johnson

So why do the top guys in the World Long Drive contest use Callaway XR or Krank drivers?
Joe Miller won 2016 competition with several drives well over 400 yds with a Callaway XR head, longest was 439 yds

MyGolf Spy

Great question Shawn Johnson – I will give you a quick example: one year Krank won the World Long Drive that same driver finished almost last in our testing. Those heads are made SPECIFICALLY for long drive. Face thicknesses are different, lofts are as low as 3 degrees, etc. Slow swing speeds fail to produce enough speed to come close to maximizing the potential of those heads.

Think of those drivers as something that might look like what you see in stores with the same logo and product name but performing nothing like what you see at retail.

Steve Lanham

Love my Nike vapor fly pro. Just my personal opinion

Lee Huff Maybe you’re right and the actual experts are wrong. By all means state whatever credentials you have above and beyond “stuff that makes sense to Lee”. I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I’d like you understand that once upon a time we believed robot testing was the ‘right way’ to test clubs. It’s what made sense to us too. So we talked to Callaway, and PING, and TaylorMade, and Cobra, and Tom Wishon, and Dick DeLaCruz, and every last one agreed that robot testing isn’t the right way to test performance.

We educated ourselves.

I suggest you dig up the 9 point robot test that Edwin Watts did several years ago. The drivers that performed best in robot testing were, with very few individual exceptions, were among the poorest performing in human hands. There’s a reason why robots are used to make claims…it’s because you can program them to operate under the narrow conditions that benefit your product, but that seldom translates to the real world. Believe whatever makes you happy, I suppose, but the industry consensus is clear (literally every R&D guy at every golf company we’ve spoken with on the topic) and unanimous; for actual performance testing, robots are a poor substitute for humans.

If your club delivery is robotic, and if we ignore the differences in key variables like dynamic loft and angle of attack between humans and robots that occur because of differences in shaft deflection, toe droop etc., (robots don’t deflect shafts like humans) between humans and robots, then maybe just maybe robot testing is right for you. Basically, if you’re an actual robot then robot testing is probably more relevant for your game.

We should also point out that humans adjust to things. There are concrete, none subjective, things (MOI, CG, Weight) that change and humans react accordingly. Dr. Sasho Mackenzie authored a fascinating study on the influence of shaft flex and how humans react and adapt to it. Those things are 100% real and 100% relevant, and robots don’t reflect any of it. It’s highly technical paper, but maybe worth a read.

It’s also clear from your comment you’ve made absolutely no effort to look into our test procedures. Which is odd, because we’ve published them. We go to great lengths to avoid fatigue, among other things that could bias the results. Our methodologies were developed after extensive consultation with multiple R&D departments. I doubt you’d find anyone in the industry who would quibble with our procedures. Big picture…maybe do some research, or even ask a few questions before making broad statements about how we’re doing it wrong. I assure you, we’re not.

Regarding the impact of subjective factors:

We always find the I can’t hit white, blue, blah blah clubs interesting. You’re not alone, but for both putters and drivers we’ve found basically no correlation between subjective perceptions (how it looks, how it feels), and actual performance. It’s almost certainly more accurate to say that how you subjectively perceive a product influences how you perceive the results – which is to say there’s a tendency to look at segments of data that confirm the predetermined bias rather than considering the comparative data as a whole. In a big box fitting scenario this might manifest itself as focus on a single longest driver (for a driver you like), or in disqualifying a driver you don’t like based on a single shot that went 50 yards offline.

We published something about this relating to putters not long ago, but to give you an example from our recent driver test…the Cobra F6+ was one of our testers least favorites. It’s loud…unpleasant sounding, and plenty of testers said, “I hate the sound, I just can’t hit it”. Subjective perceptions would have placed it 23rd…24th. Actual performance…it finished a clear 3rd overall.

In another cases – admittedly smaller sample size – way back when we tested the PowerPod II, one tester (who like all of our testers, hated the way it looked) told us it was the absolute worst performing driver he’d ever hit…and this is a guy literally watching numbers pop up on the launch monitor on each and every shot. When all was said and done we went back and compared the data to the dozen or so drivers he had tested for us previously. The Pod demolished all of them…and it wasn’t close. This is anything but a rare occurrence.

At the end of the day each of has a choice to make. We can assume we know everything and draw a line in the sand, or we can keep an open mind and continue to learn. We choose the latter which is why our tests are constantly evolving. We’ve never said human testing is perfect. We will say that it’s absolutely preferable to robot testing and as we continue to gather data we’re confident we’re going to be able to take what we learn and make it meaningful for each of you on an individual basis. -TC

Wendell Olson

So play a longer driver that is more accurate with the Ping.

I play the new Ping G LS Tec. I watched several test videos posted on the Golf Channel website that compared my driver to the Taylor Made models. The TM carried the ball farther but the Ping was longer overall by 7-8 yards but disparity was much tighter with the Ping.

Cory Codere

Just get a PING anyone in golf circles knows the deal!

Steven Roglen

They typically include this information, and yes they always use the same ball for all testers

David Street

Mike I think I was getting at it doesn’t matter how far you hit it. Getting it in the hole is what matters.

Mike Derosier

That would definitely work for me anyday

Andrew Gwinup

Mike I actually hit the G30. The newest one is a bit too much “Batman” for me. I agree the look is a bit much.

I’m sure the LS Tec performance is great. Unfortunately for ME i can’t get past the looks of the club head. Just my opinion. Enjoy what works for YOU.

Another highly interesting MGS article. Thanks!

Adam Shields

I had a feeling the Taylor Made drivers were going to be on top

Josh Waller

How come when I look at the data on how far you guys hit them they are really low? How fast was club head speed on your testers? I want to know how I can be a tester for you?

You can change the swing speeds to above 100mph and numbers will change. There is a link at the bottom of the article.

Eric P

I am curious about the Knuth High Heat driver. In your testing it was near the bottom in all testing but tested well in independent testing by Golf Lab. Any thoughts?

Ebb Yates

They should have called Jack Hamm to bring the Hammer. BOOM!!!!

Tom

Well i just purchased the m1 460 with a rogue 3.4 torque stiff,,, swing speed is 110 and i am starting to wonder here who is tm paying here because my callaway razr fit extreme still hits further than the m1 by at least 15 yards ,,, way to much hype here for sure,,, i got fooled reading all the posts and got sucked in on the m1 hype ,, oh well lesson learned , sticking with my razr

Es

love the most wanted article! thanks for the hard work.
since you already have a donation section. maybe make it a free bee that you get a physical copy of the the Most Wanted articles (like magazine style). This way I feel like I’m getting a bonus for donating and I have something to take with me to the restroom – golf and golf digest equipment guide always seems to hang around the magazine rack for a long time.

Double Mocha Man

Physical copy? What’s that? You mean like paper? It’s 2016.

James T.

You are lucky your toilet paper in the bathroom isn’t electronic.

jeff gubernick

I have used a Ping G SF model and Nike in the past four years. My club head speed is between 92 and 94. I recently purchased an M1 driver. It seems to be much heavier then any driver I have ever used. It feels like there is a cement block at the end. That being said my distance has increased by about 15 yards. The only problem that I am presently having is figuring out what the correct setting is that I should be using.

Large chris

I haven’t brought a new driver for years, and I won’t now, but you have to say hats off to the TM engineers on a dominant performance. Whatever the corporate TM and Adidas morons at the top of the food chain are doing, the TM workers have knuckled down and produced a great couple of products there in an incredibly competitive environment.

Tony Covey

20 Testers is more than anyone else in industry who publishes data uses. That said…breaking down in 5PMH segments is an inadequate sample size, and we’re not comfortable misrepresenting the data.

Jason Geraci

I will grant you, that 20 golfers is a bigger sample size than anyone else in the industry. With that said, good scientific method (APA), requires a control group of at least 175 participants and a test group of the same size.

If we are going to start doing better research, then we need to have higher standards.

Kenny B

So, a clean sweep for TaylorMade. Given the current diss between TaylorMade and MGS, how long will it be before they hit the streets with the news that MGS confirms that M1/M2 are the longest drivers in golf? Most companies would have put out ads the day after winning the test. Aren’t they going to take the free advertising?

Alan

I think the test results were OBJECTIVE AND ACCURATE and show a valid controlled testing process.
As for the nay sayers who do not like the test results or think they are invalid, the facts are the facts !!!
To put it another way, I know the R&D of the major club manufacturers spend thousands of testing hours on head designs with hundreds of shaft combinations until they find the best combo for distance and forgiveness. Cali or TM or Ping, etc. have no predetermined notion of what shaft will go into what head. They are simply trying to give the consumer the best combo.
after all, they want to come up with a competitive advantage.
That is why so many now offer as a no up-charge option, three of four shaft alternatives for their drivers.
So a brute or a smooth swinger or a senior can all take advantage of the new head design.

Grow up and learn from the results and stop hating TM so much. Yes, they overdue the marketing hype and their new product cycle is soon going to be one week, but they make the number one driver for 2016 !!!!!!!

aaron merritt

This years driver testing is outstanding. I tested many of these drivers at store simulators over the past few months and the results here are very similar to what I have experienced in store simulators. With that being said, I echo the suggestion of Bill Perry above.
The fact that I can isolate low swing speed (under 100) and high swing speed (over 100) is great. My issue is that I, and some of my former baseball-player buddies are swinging up around 120 consistently. So…in the future it would be nice to include a very high swing speed (over 115). Without this there is no real way I can compare my current driver (my average carry is 20 yd longer than the longest carry on the chart). If you need people swinging over 115 for the testing, I am always available and local (Newport News).

Hitting on some others’ comments about Krank heads (and other LD heads presumably)….they never test well in typical testing conditions. No matter what Krank says about playability of their heads with slower swinging players, they are designed for SS over 120, period. Long drive specific heads thrive at over 120 SS, so testing a Krank head at average-player SS seems doomed from the start (for Krank’s reputation). Reason? Long drive heads actually have slightly thicker or stronger club faces to prevent early cave-ins and therefor require very high SS to achieve the desirable face flex that a mainstream driver achieves when swung by average SS players (this is why every year, major OEM clubfaces are getting “thinner” or “hotter”; makes it longer hitting for the majority of players)
end of rant – this years testing was awesome and I look forward to more valuable information like this!

Ryan McCarthy

None of the typical long drive heads either, krank, mutant, geek, etc?

We have tested them in the past they have yet to perform well.

Aaron Merritt

see the end of my comment above which references the likely reason why Krank heads are not tested and have never tested well in any test I have seen

The best performer out of the long drive group we’ve had was the Sinister Agent Orange. Not the most forgiving, but as far as Peak Distance is concerned, it’s a beast…even in the hands of average golfers.

The M1 seems to always be the longest, that isn’t a surprise. Was more surprised by the clean sweep with the M2 in 3rd.

Kimberly Abels

Not much difference between the #1 #2 and #3 drivers…only a few yards

Benjamin Lee

You can’t really make blanket statements about which driver is longest. It really comes down to what driver and shaft combo fits your swing best to give you maximum distance.

We test how the majority of consumers purchase drivers: Off The Rack.

We tested 28 drivers with the shafts available to the consumer. For each head. 120 hours of testing and 7,500 swings later these are the longest drivers available to the general public.

All manufacturers still make their driver heads with maximum COR (coefficient of restitution) of .830. So, the ball still will have the same maximum rebound with all drivers. What causes the driver to go farther is the driver shaft combo that fits well to allow the player to swing the club faster.

Simply not true at all Benjamin. I will give you a specific example as an analogy. Take the exact same head with same COR and change just one variable (Center of Gravity or CG) these identical heads will now not perform the same even though head and COR are identical. And CG is only one mass properties variable.

It is still depends on the player and how he releases the club, strength, tempo, physical strengths, physical limitations, etc. I agree that changing the characteristics of the driver head can definitely influence the characteristics of the ball flight. However, those settings may be optimal for one player but ill fit for another. Fitting is extremely important for maximizing distance. One driver may be long for a player but short for another.

This is the exact reason for using 20 golfers with the different swing type characteristics we employ. Also the reason we provide the data to drill down to the specific characteristics that most closely relate to your personal swing type. No test is perfect, this is the closest thing to that in golf.

Every golfer is totally different. Has a totally different physical makeup. No two players are the same. I just think 20 players is a very small sample size to make blanket statements of the longest driver. It is like the golf companies saying they have the longest driver every year. It still comes down to fitting. Agree to disagree. Cheers.

“Every golfer is totally different. Has a totally different physical makeup. No two players are the same. I just think 20 players is a very small sample size to make blanket statements of the longest driver. ”
While this statement is true, the results here come from the passing of a club face through about a 5 inch space (2.5 front and back of center ball) and the resulting action of the ball after impact. Physical makeup and swing style do not matter as much as some in the industry would like you to believe. There is an efficient way to pass the club face through the ball and it can be accomplished thousands of ways. The goal of most golfers is to hit a reasonably straight ball or a fade (not slice) or draw (not hook); this is achieved with reasonably efficient contact. The data above shows that shots were hit with reasonably efficient contact (evident by the relationships between ball speed, spin and carry) so IMHO this does appear to be the most accurate, honest and useful test data in the golf industry.

Dino Datu

Is there a test where all driver heads are fitted with the same shaft? And vice versa, where one head is used on different shafts of the same length and flex. The combination of the two tests should result in a true longest driver.

That is actually a poor way to test OEM equipment. We test how the majority of consumers purchase drivers: Off The Rack.

My point is just that a manufacturer may be using a better shaft or has a longer shaft which can alter the results. Just like longer irons which just have stronger lofts, it’s not very accurate representation. You are correct in saying that the majority will purchase off the rack. But imagine, what if the M1’s shaft is installed in a different head and it produces better numbers? It’s not an impossibility. I know that your tests are rigorous. But OEM combinations may have restrictions that the purchasing public doesn’t. If golfers are willing to spend 500 for a driver, then maybe getting the longest possible head/shaft combo is well worth a couple hundred more.

Also, is there no shaft common to all manufacturers? That would solve your first issue of testing only off the rack clubs. Don’t get me wrong, I am asking only because like every golfer, I want to know which is the longest out there. Just like in every experiment, you’d like to have as many constants as possible (shafts when testing heads/ heads when testing shafts) from which comparissons can be made from.

If we tested you with a $500 shaft and it showed it was the longest in our test it would be a disservice to golf consumers to claim that the winner. This driver would not be available to the masses nor would it be the driver the masses by in the largest %’s. This is the most accurate test for the buying public. Your test is not a test for the masses it is a fitting for an individual.

Actually, I am looking to be objective. I am in no way saying more expensive shafts are longer. That is not the point. I only mentioned a price (500) because top drivers cost that much. If someone pays 500 for a driver, would he not pay an additional 200 for a better shaft? That is all I was pointing out when I mentioned $$$.

My main point is that for a test to be conclusive, you’ve got to eliminate variables as much as possible. I don’t care of you put a $50 shaft on the heads of all the drivers. Same shaft = more even testing. Let’s say, each manufacturer carried project x or aldila nv or whatever inexpensive shaft in their lineup. Test the heads with a common shaft, with a common flex and length is all I am suggesting. It just seems more even. Say you tested M1 on fujikura motore and then King Cobra on diamana white and then titleist D2 on project x. Whichever wins might be down to the shaft. Why not test them all on a single shaft? Isn’t that more accurate?

The test is Longest Driver, not longest driver head.

SouthBayZ

Are you so dense that you’re missing the point of all of this? They are trying to provide a service to golfers around the world. They’re trying to answer a very basic question “Which product in the marketplace is the best?”. They are not trying to prove which head does this or that. They are testing a product that can be purchased, and they are testing it in the setup that most consumers will purchase it. Stock. So that you can go to your local Trackman, hit some shots, write down your numbers and then, with some diligence, determine which product will fit your game the best. From there you can go buy whatever aftermarket or $50 shaft you want and stick it up your…driver. So what if the winner is based on the shaft, thats the product thats available to the most consumers. If you weren’t so busy blowing this comment section up with foolishness, by now you could have read the article, picked the head that fit your numbers, and gone and got fitted with every shaft available and figured out what works for you.

We love constructive criticism and always look for ways to improve our testing methodologies although at this point we feel we have eliminated all known variables that increase the accuracy and consistency of the test for what we think most closely relates to how consumers purchase drivers.

The Club Nut

Agreed. Knowing that this is an “off the rack” test, it’s about as data centric as you can possibly get. People are getting hung up on the lack of that information in the title. It’s the longest driver that you can go to a box store right now and buy right off the rack. Still, I think a “hottest head” would definitely be a cool test to have though. All other variables aside. It would definitely be more resource consuming than anything else though.

Charlie Dietz

You need to have an additional testing group for us slower swingers.(below 90 mph)…..we probably buy 40% of all drivers every year, and need better information on what would work better for us. Obviously higher lofts, more flex in the shaft, less dispersion.

We need clubs that give a 90 mph swinger a launch angle above 14 degrees, with a bit more spin than the bombers. And we generally need more help with the banana ball.

Please help.
Charlie

Thomas Amore

Total BS. Was the PXG even tested?

PXG declined to participate in our test. We chose to go out and buy those that decline if they are market leaders. PXG does not make up even 1% of the market for driver purchases. I do think they would have finished well but more than confident they would not have beat the Taylormade M1.

Well since we covered 99% of the drivers purchased by golfers I think that is why we bother. Come on Thomas, I hope you got better than that.

MyGolf Spy ?. Just sick of the TM hype. Every driver goes “20 yards more”. If that is the case my drives should be about 400 yards .

We understand the frustration consumers have and have had for the Taylormade brand. Although, we don’t concern ourselves with names, only performance. And when it comes to performance we can say for a fact that Taylormade made the best driver in 2016. They have been making some of if not the best performing driver almost every year we have been eating products.

James

Were you hungry as you wrote that last line?

Brian Smith

The survey and its classifications are misleading. Firstly how many other drivers were tested e.g. Cleveland Black or Grenade etc….Most importantly any driver will perform better if it is set up correctly for the user e.g. I have a 12* Forgan with a stiff shaft 1/2″ longer than standard which I can hit further than any driver I’ve ever owned even when I was 30 years younger, sure technology has made a difference in that time but the importance for results is in the set-up.

Al

This guy… Negative nancy.

Forgan??? Forgan??? I made the mistake 4 years ago of buying their winter golf boots. Within 18 holes both boots had split wide open. Returned them. Without a doubt the single most rubbish thing or pair of things I have ever brought, by some distance.

Cleveland submitted the Black last year for testing outside of Most Wanted as it’s designed for a small – and specific – percentage of golfers, and wouldn’t perform well in a large group test.

As for the Grenade…Sully ducked us again this year. It’s in his best interest to promote the mythology of the Grenade as he’ll surely sell more with that message than the reality of the Grenade.

This just shows the importance of getting properly fit. Fitting a player into the optimum clubs is one of the best parts of job.

No Grenade in the top 5?

Ell

It would be helpful if you included a column showing the average cost of each driver tested. With some drivers going for almost $500, I doubt seriously they would improve the distance of someone with a handicap over 15. But some people are so vain in that they honestly believe that a $500 driver will improve their game by 5 strokes. Remember Bobby Jones regularly drove the ball over 280 yards with a wooden shafted driver with a wooden head, leather grips and balls that weren’t always circular.
It would be quite a sight to see to have one pro tournament held in which the pros or low handicap amateurs had to use solid persimmon or laminated maple woods with steel shafts and 3 piece balata golf balls. Let’s see if these young Turks can play like Ouimet, Vardon, Hogan, Snead, Nicklaus, Casper, Palmer, Nelson, etc. did when this was the only equipment available.

Guy Crawford

The previous year Most Wanted vs this year’s Most Wanted?

Tom54

I really need to get a fitting at some point. When I’ve gone on the launch monitors myself, I hit the Callaway offerings further than the M1. In fact, my M1 numbers are the least consistent, just all over the map.

Looper4life

I found when in my fitting the Taylormade driver line was 3rd best. The Ping G LS and Cobra Both ranked ahead of Taylormade. I picked the Ping due to a lower spin rate and have gotten numerous comments about my driving this year….KNOW YOUR SWING.

Fullyb

If the fitter did not tell you about the M1 driver needing a piece of foil over the fitting pieces, he should have. The numbers can be all over it without that. For whatever reason it reads the fitting in the head and not the overall head.

Bill Perry

Need to classify according to swing speeds, 85-95, 95-105, 105-115, 115+ need more data than just ball speeds. Thank you

I agree. More of us are in the below 100 MPH, and there should be two classifications below 100, Also, you are not listing ? the loft and shaft and the settings on the adjustable drivers….that information would be very handy.

For slower swingers, below 90 mph, we need lofts above 11 degrees, to give higher launch angles. was any testing done in this area?

Thanks,
Charlie

Robert

they literally have another post saying best driver for under 100 mph and one for above 100. DOES ANYONE EXPLORE A LITTLE?

Clay

Interesting how the results change for high swing speeds where again the M2 becomes the #1 driver for distance. I am very happy with the M2 and love the simplicity, if a driver is extremely adjustable I find myself tinkering with it and causing more problems than I solve. I also like that it is $100 less expensive :D

I thought that was very interesting as well.
I swing a little faster than the high SS in the data and the M2 launched higher and spun more than the 430 M1 (8.5 neutral L/R, Cg weight all the way forward). The 430 M1 was an absolute monster for me and averaged noticeably longer than anything I have ever hit (not including sub 8.5 loft long drive clubs). I have never been a fan of taylormade and have frequently said that I will never play a taylormade club but this one is for real.

Troy Vayanos

I just bought the Cobra King LTD and pleased it made the top 4 in distance as it didn’t rate much in other tests.

So far I love the driver and is performing as well as expected.

chris embardino

Nice, thought i’d link from the email and see how it is. Little blurb at the bottom of the email asked how my driver was comparing to those on the list… It’s carrying 16 yards farther on average and total distance +20. NIce that the M1 fits the testers well this time around.

Sean Brady

No surprise in the top 3

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Driver Ping G30	Hybrids PXG 0317
3/4 IRON PXG 0311XF	5-GW Srixon Z 565
SW PXG 0317	LW PXG 0311
Putter EVNROLL

Drivers

2016 Most Wanted – The Longest Drivers

About These Rankings

What Else to Consider

Top 5 Drivers of 2016 – Peak Distance

Performance Highlights:

Performance Highlights:

Performance Highlights:

Performance Highlights:

Performance Highlights:

The Data

More 2016 Most Wanted

Support Unbiased Testing.

Donate to MGS

For You

For You

Buyer's Guides

Apr 12, 2024

Best Spikeless Golf Shoes of 2024

First Look

Apr 12, 2024

Under Armour’s Cheesy Take on the Masters

News

Apr 12, 2024

PING WebFit: Get Fit From your Phone

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

comments

Berniez40

mp-4

Amir Ansari

Jeff Clark

Shawn Johnson

MyGolf Spy

Steve Lanham

MyGolf Spy

Wendell Olson

Wendell Olson

Cory Codere

Steven Roglen

David Street

Mike Derosier

Andrew Gwinup

Mike Derosier

Mike Derosier

Adam Shields

Josh Waller

MyGolf Spy

Eric P

Ebb Yates

Tom

Es

Double Mocha Man

James T.

jeff gubernick

Large chris

Tony Covey

Jason Geraci

Kenny B

Alan

aaron merritt

Ryan McCarthy

MyGolf Spy

Aaron Merritt

Tony Covey

Steven Roglen

Kimberly Abels

Benjamin Lee

MyGolf Spy

Benjamin Lee

MyGolf Spy

Benjamin Lee

MyGolf Spy

Benjamin Lee