Segment
2. Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Upper-middle
Comparison: Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO vs. Kumho WinterCraft WP51
Table of contents:
In this comparison, we are comparing a tyre from a manufacturer from Japan (Bridgestone) against a tyre from a manufacturer from South Korea (Kumho). Generally, Kumho winter tyres are slightly better rated (48%) than Bridgestone (46%). In this particular case, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO has a better rating of 52% compared to 47% of the Kumho WinterCraft WP51. The first tyre test of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO was done in 2018, compared to 2015 when was the Kumho WinterCraft WP51 first tested. Important for this comparison is also the AutoMotorSport 2018 205/55 R16 test, where both the Blizzak LM-001 EVO and the WinterCraft WP51 were tested. See more mutual tests below. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 100% of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO has B wet grip rating, whereas 98% of Kumho WinterCraft WP51 has C rating.
| # | Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO | Kumho WinterCraft WP51 | Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R15 - R17 | R13 - R17 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Satisfactory2. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO Still recommended2. Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Sufficient
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Wet
(Overall rating)Aquaplaning - cross
Wet braking
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet circle cornering
Wet handling
Wet braking according to EU label
Snow
(Overall rating)Snow handling
Snow traction
Snow braking
Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
Ice
(Overall rating)Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Points total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 9,1 | ||||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO Rating: Still recommended | 7,8 | ||||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 6,4 | ||||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2,1 | 2,0 | 1,8 | 2,3 | 3,0 | 1,0 | 1,7 |
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO Rating: Satisfactory | 2,4 | 2,1 | 2,9 | 2,3 | 3,6 | 1,0 | 1,9 |
| Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Rating: Satisfactory | 3,3 | 3,2 | 2,2 | 2,5 | 3,4 | 2,0 | 2,6 |
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 34,3 | 27 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 EVO | 34,3 | 29,8 | |||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP51 | 38,8 | 28 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||