Segment
1. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Upper-middle2. Fulda SportControl 2 Lowcost
Comparison: Fulda SportControl 2 vs. Kumho Ecsta PS71
Table of contents:
| # | Fulda SportControl 2
| Kumho Ecsta PS71
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R17 - R20 | R16 - R22 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
When we compare the Fulda SportControl 2 to the Kumho Ecsta PS71, we see some slight differences that could play a significant role in your tyre choice. According to our rating, the Fulda tyre scores a bit higher with 74% compared to the Kumho tyre's rating of 68%.
Manufactured by Fulda, the SportControl 2 is a summer tyre that stands out for a couple of reasons. Its best features, as stated in the Autobild test, include its exterior noise, comfort, rolling resistance, and its ability to resist aquaplaning.
In the same test, the Fulda SportControl 2 took the 12th position out of 53 tyres, which is a quite significant achievement. However, the autozeitung 2022 testing did raise concerns over longer wet braking distances and slightly delayed steering response. Yet, the tyre received praise for its balanced and safe handling on wet roads, as well as its affordable price.
On the other hand, the Kumho Ecsta PS71, produced by Kumho, also has its strong points. In the Autobild test, this tyre found itself in 18th place out of 53. The tyre particularly shines in its performance potential, excellent handling, and short wet and dry braking distances. All these, coupled with a fair price, make it a strong contender in the tyre market.
However, one disadvantage raised in the autozeitung 2022 test was an increased level of driving noise. Despite this, the Ecsta PS71's performance and price balance still makes it an ideal choice for many.
Verdict: Overall, The Fulda SportControl 2 seems slightly superior according to the tests. The quiet drive and excellent resistance to aquaplaning give it a slight edge over the Kumho Ecsta PS71. However, both tyres perform well in their ways, and the final decision may depend on individual preferences and driving conditions.
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
2. Fulda SportControl 2 11.07
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Fulda SportControl 2 Exemplary2. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Highly recommended
Worst rating in test
1. Fulda SportControl 2 Satisfactory2. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet handling
Wet braking
Aquaplaning - cross
Wet circle cornering
Wet braking according to EU label
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry handling
Dry braking
Costs
(Overall rating)Rolling resistance
Mileage
Price/value
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32.6 | 27.4 | |||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 | 36.2 | 33.9 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 34.2 | 27.4 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2+ | 1- | 1 | ||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 Rating: Satisfactory | 2- | 2- | 2- | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Good | 2 | 2- | 2- | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 58.1 | 24.8 | |||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 | 63.9 | 29 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 61.7 | 26.6 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 1- | 1 | ||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 Rating: Good | 2 | 2+ | 2- | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 1 | 2 | 3- | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,1 | 28,7 | |||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 | 34,2 | 31,7 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 34,9 | 29 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 Rating: Exemplary | 2 | 2+ | 2 | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Satisfactory | 2 | 2- | 3- | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 34,2 | 28,7 | |||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 | 35,1 | 32 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 37,1 | 31,6 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
