Segment
1. Bridgestone Turanza T005 Premium2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Upper-middle
Comparison: Bridgestone Turanza T005 vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52
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, Bridgestone summer tyres are slightly better rated (57%) than Kumho (54%). In this particular case, the Bridgestone Turanza T005 has a better rating of 89% compared to 81% of the Kumho Ecsta HS52. The first tyre test of Bridgestone Turanza T005 was done in 2018, compared to 2022 when was the Kumho Ecsta HS52 first tested. Important for this comparison is also the Autoklub ČR 2023 205/55 R16 test, where both the Turanza T005 and the Ecsta HS52 were tested. See more mutual tests below. We also know where Turanza T005 is made - Hungary/Poland/France/Italy.
| # | Bridgestone Turanza T005 | Kumho Ecsta HS52 | Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R14 - R22 | R14 - R18 | |
| 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
2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 5.67
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Bridgestone Turanza T005 Exemplary2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good
Worst rating in test
2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good
Wet
(Overall rating)Aquaplaning - cross
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet braking
Wet handling
Wet circle cornering
Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Dry handling
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 ? dB
Offroad
(Overall rating)Costs
(Overall rating)Rolling resistance
Mileage
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Points total | Wet | Dry | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 104,7 | 106 | 103,4 | ||||
| Bridgestone Turanza T005 | 102,4 | 101,3 | 103,4 | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 96,9 | 94,3 | 99,5 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | ||||||
| Bridgestone Turanza T005 Rating: Highly recommended | 1 | ||||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Recommended | 1 | ||||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Enviromental impact | Driving safety | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,3 | 1,8 | |||||
| Bridgestone Turanza T005 Rating: Good | 2,4 | 2,2 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | 2,7 | 2,3 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 2+ | 1+ | ||||
| Bridgestone Turanza T005 Rating: Good | 1 | 2+ | 2- | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 35,7 | 27,5 | |||||
| Bridgestone Turanza T005 | 35,8 | 27,5 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 35,7 | 28,6 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||