Segment
1. BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER Upper-middle2. Kumho PorTran CW51 Upper-middle
Comparison: BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER vs. Kumho PorTran CW51
Table of contents:
In this comparison, we are comparing a tyre from a manufacturer from USA (BFGoodrich) against a tyre from a manufacturer from South Korea (Kumho). BFGoodrich is a brand that belongs to the Michelin group. Generally, BFGoodrich winter tyres are slightly better rated (75%) than Kumho (61%). But when it comes to comparing BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER and Kumho PorTran CW51, the rating is the same - 0%. Important for this comparison is also the ADAC 2019 205/65 R16 test, where both the ACTIVAN WINTER and the PorTran CW51 were tested. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 100% of BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER has B wet grip rating, whereas 67% of Kumho PorTran CW51 has C rating.
| # | BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER
| Kumho PorTran CW51
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R14 - R16 | R14 - 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 PorTran CW51 Conditionally recommended
Worst rating in test
1. Kumho PorTran CW51 Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Snow
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
Ice
(Overall rating)Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2,4 | 2,3 | 2,2 | 2,3 | 2,5 | 2,0 | 1,6 |
| BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER Rating: Not recommended | 4,9 | 3,4 | 3,1 | 2,3 | 3,3 | 2,0 | 1,7 |
| Kumho PorTran CW51 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 3,6 | 4,1 | 3,0 | 2,6 | 3,0 | 3,0 | 2,0 |
| Show test details | |||||||
