Segment
1. Kumho Ecsta HS51 Upper-middle2. Firestone Roadhawk Upper-middle
Comparison: Kumho Ecsta HS51 vs. Firestone Roadhawk
Table of contents:
| # | Kumho Ecsta HS51
| Firestone Roadhawk
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R14 - R18 | R15 - R21 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
Today we bring you a comparison between two popular summer tyres: the Kumho Ecsta HS51 produced in China, and the Firestone Roadhawk. Both tyres have a good reputation in their performances, but each one has its unique strengths and weaknesses. Let's break it down.
To begin with, Firestone's Roadhawk, with an overall rating of 59%, offers appreciable dry handling, wet handling, and wet side guide, per Autobild’s testing. In fact, in a comparative pool of 53 tyres its performance was so strong that it clinched the 10th position. Likewise, in a smaller test pool of 16, held by ADAC, it secured a remarkable 4th position. However, it's important to note that there's currently no newer model that has replaced this tyre, and its country of manufacture remains undisclosed.
On the other hand, Kumho's Ecsta HS51, manufactured in China, scored 78% in our rating, which is nearly 20 percentage points higher than its Firestone counterpart. This Kumho tyre has been lauded for its exceptional prowess dealing with aquaplaning - both cross and longitudinal, its remarkable price to value ratio, and its excellent wet handling and wet side guide. In Autobild’s pool of 53 tyres, Kumho Ecsta HS51 proudly stood in the 3rd spot. Among 16 tyres in the ADAC test, it secured the 8th position. It's also worth mentioning that the HS51 has since been replaced with the new and improved Kumho Ecsta HS52.
In conclusion, while the Firestone Roadhawk delivers commendable dry and wet handling features, the Kumho Ecsta HS51 surpasses it in overall rating and shines particularly in dealing with aquaplaning and in its value for money. However, given the close competition, the choice between these two depends on drivers' specific requirements, priorities, and budget. We recommend considering the advancing HS52 model as well if you're leaning towards the offerings of Kumho.
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. Firestone Roadhawk Exemplary2. Kumho Ecsta HS51 Exemplary
Worst rating in test
1. Kumho Ecsta HS51 Satisfactory2. Firestone Roadhawk Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Rating | Wet | Dry | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | příkladné | 1- | 2+ | 1 | |||
| Kumho Ecsta HS51 Rating: Exemplary | příkladné | 1- | 2+ | 2+ | |||
| Firestone Roadhawk Rating: Good | dobré | 2+ | 2+ | 3 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 34,1 | 29,6 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS51 | 34,8 | 30,4 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 35,7 | 31,6 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Rating | Wet | Dry | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | dobré | 2,0 | 1,6 | 3,0 | 1,0 | 1,7 | |
| Kumho Ecsta HS51 Rating: Satisfactory | uspokojivé | 2,5 | 2,6 | 3,2 | 2,5 | 2,2 | |
| Firestone Roadhawk Rating: Good | dobré | 2,2 | 1,7 | 3,7 | 2,5 | 2,2 | |
| Show test details | |||||||
