Looking for a comparison of Kumho Ecsta HS52 to tyres that are made in similar dimensions? Here you can find detailed information based on tests, reviews and manufacturer's data.
The Kumho Ecsta HS52 and the Kleber Dynaxer HP4 are two excellent tyre models that offer distinct benefits for drivers. Seen as summer tyres, both these models have undergone multiple tests and reviews to measure their performance under diverse conditions. An in-depth analysis reveals across-the-board strengths and weaknesses and lets us conclude on their overall performance comparatively.
The Kumho Ecsta HS52, created by the renowned Kumho brand, excels when it comes to dry braking and handling, as well as wet braking. It is also praised for its good value for the price, according to Autobild 2024. However, it does show some weaknesses in environmental impact, efficiency, and sustainability. Additionally, some drivers have experienced delayed steering response. Despite these shortcomings, this model still garnered a commendable 6th place out of 21 in the Autobild test, and 8th out of 50 in the ADAC test.
Moving onto the Kleber Dynaxer HP4, produced by Kleber, it's particularly noted for its comfort, exterior noise control, and environmental performance. Comparatively, it also has good tyre wear and overall efficiency. However, this model might disappoint when it comes supplying balanced performance and wet road grip. It could potentially devalue due to its inferior performance on wet surfaces. It also showcases delayed steering response and understeering on dry surfaces. This model was positioned at number 13, a few places behind the Kumho Ecsta HS52, in Autobild's test and 12th in the ADAC test.
The former Kumho Ecsta HS51 model has been succeeded by the HS52 model. However, no newer tyre has replaced the Kleber Dynaxer HP4 as of now.
In conclusion, the Kumho Ecsta HS52 outperforms the Kleber Dynaxer HP4 in most aspects, although both have their individual strong points. While Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores high on dry and wet handling, the Kleber Dynaxer HP4 offers better comfort and noise control. However, the overall rating of the two models stands close with Kumho Ecsta HS52 carrying 78% and Kleber Dynaxer HP4, 76% rating.
Regardless, the ultimate choice between the two tyres should consider individual driving conditions and preferences.
1. Michelin Primacy 4+ Premium2. Bridgestone Turanza 6 Premium3. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Upper-middle4. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Upper-middle5. Kleber Quadraxer 3 Upper-middle6. Gt Radial Fe2 Lowcost7. Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 Lowcost8. Apollo Alnac 4G Lowcost9. Nexen N blue HD plus Lowcost
8. Gt Radial Fe2 11.
6. Gt Radial Fe2 22.
3. Kumho Ecsta HS52 5.675. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 11.587. Gt Radial Fe2 16.58. Apollo Alnac 4G 18.88
1. Bridgestone Turanza 6 Exemplary2. Apollo Alnac 4G Exemplary3. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Highly recommended4. Kleber Quadraxer 3 Highly recommended5. Michelin Primacy 4+ Highly recommended6. Gt Radial Fe2 Good7. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good8. Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 Satisfactory9. Nexen N blue HD plus Satisfactory
2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good4. Gt Radial Fe2 Good6. Apollo Alnac 4G Satisfactory7. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Conditionally recommended8. Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 Sufficient
4. Gt Radial Fe2 68%
6. Gt Radial Fe2 73%
6. Gt Radial Fe2 69%
5. Gt Radial Fe2 74%
4. Gt Radial Fe2 72%
5. Gt Radial Fe2 73%
| Name | Rating | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | příkladné | ||||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | dobré | ||||||
| Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Rating: Good | dobré | ||||||
| Michelin Primacy 4+ Rating: Exemplary | příkladné | ||||||
| Bridgestone Turanza 6 Rating: Exemplary | příkladné | ||||||
| Gt Radial Fe2 Rating: Good | dobré | ||||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 35,4 | 25,8 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 35,4 | 26,1 | |||||
| Kleber Dynaxer HP4 | 37,4 | 28,8 | |||||
| Michelin Primacy 4+ | 36,3 | 27,7 | |||||
| Bridgestone Turanza 6 | 36,9 | 27,9 | |||||
| Gt Radial Fe2 | 37,4 | 29,3 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Rating | Enviromental impact | Driving safety | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | dobré | 1,3 | 1,8 | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | dobré | 2,7 | 2,3 | ||||
| Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Rating: Good | chvalitebné | 2,1 | 2,8 | ||||
| Michelin Primacy 4+ Rating: Good | dobré | 1,6 | 2,3 | ||||
| Gt Radial Fe2 Rating: Good | chvalitebné | 3,0 | 2,9 | ||||
| Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 Rating: Sufficient | dostatečné | 3,9 | 2,9 | ||||
| Apollo Alnac 4G Rating: Good | chvalitebné | 3,5 | 3,0 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Rating | Wet | Dry | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | příkladné | 1 | 2+ | 1+ | |||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | dobré | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||
| Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Rating: Satisfactory | uspokojivé | 2- | 2 | 3+ | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
