Segment
1. Kleber Quadraxer 2 Upper-middle2. Viking Fourtech Lowcost
Comparison: Kleber Quadraxer 2 vs. Viking Fourtech
Table of contents:
| # | Kleber Quadraxer 2
| Viking Fourtech
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R13 - R20 | R13 - R19 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
The Kleber Quadraxer 2 and Viking Fourtech are both well-performing all-round tyres, each with their unique advantages and differing positions in various tests. The two have competed closely in the Autobild tyre test, with Kleber Quadraxer 2 taking the 11th position and Viking Fourtech securing the 15th. An overall rating has the Kleber Quadraxer 2 at 33% compared to Viking Fourtech at 32%.
Kleber Quadraxer 2 has since been replaced by Kleber Quadraxer 3. Manufactured in Poland, the Quadraxer 2 stood out for its exterior noise, snow braking, snow cornering, snow handling, and snow traction. The Quadraxer 2 received commendations for its performance on snow and short dry braking distances, as well as its quiet ride, fuel efficiency, and affordability. Its main drawback was its limited reserves while cornering on wet surfaces, indicating fewer hydroplaning capabilities.
On the other hand, the Viking Fourtech by Viking, impressed in aquaplaning - cross and rolling resistance. Data on its prominent performing features was limited, making it harder to draw an exact comparison between the two tyres.
The mutual tyre positions in the Autobild test indicate that the Kleber Quadraxer 2 tends to outperform the Viking Fourtech in many criteria, despite the Viking Fourtech holding its own quite well. The solid performance of the Viking Fourtech in aquaplaning and rolling resistance shows its worth in wet conditions and fuel efficiency respectively.
Summarizing, Kleber Quadraxer 2 leads more in snow situations while Viking Fourtech shines in wet and resistance terms. However, Kleber Quadraxer 2's replacement, Quadraxer 3, should offer an improved set of capabilities. Therefore, ultimately, the choice between the two might come down to personal preference and the specific driving conditions one expects to encounter most frequently.
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
1. Kleber Quadraxer 2 12.63
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
2. Viking Fourtech Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
2. Viking Fourtech Satisfactory
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Snow
(Overall rating)Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 37,6 | 50 | |||||
| Kleber Quadraxer 2 | 42,6 | 55,8 | |||||
| Viking Fourtech | 43,5 | 52,6 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 39,7 | 45 | |||||
| Kleber Quadraxer 2 | 43,2 | 51,2 | |||||
| Viking Fourtech | 45,3 | 51 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 39,5 | 46,3 | |||||
| Kleber Quadraxer 2 | 44,5 | 52,6 | |||||
| Viking Fourtech | 46 | 53,5 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 39,4 | 45,2 | |||||
| Kleber Quadraxer 2 | 45,1 | 52 | |||||
| Viking Fourtech | 47,4 | 50,8 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||