Segment
1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Upper-middle2. Firestone Roadhawk Upper-middle
Comparison: Kumho Ecsta HS52 vs. Firestone Roadhawk
Table of contents:
| # | Kumho Ecsta HS52
| Firestone Roadhawk
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R14 - R18 | R15 - R21 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
Today, we will be comparing two popular summer tyres, Kumho Ecsta HS52 by Kumho Tire and Firestone Roadhawk by Firestone. These tyres have been tested extensively, and our verdict takes into account data from countless tests.
The Kumho Ecsta HS52 scored impressively in our rating, boasting 78%. This tyre has a rich pedigree, following its successful predecessor, the Kumho Ecsta HS51. In the Autobild test, the HS52 ranked high in 3rd position among 51 tested tyres. Its strength lies in dry braking and dry handling, with additional commendations in price and value. However, slight weaknesses were found in terms of efficiency and sustainability, and its environmental impact could use some improvements.
On the other hand, the Firestone Roadhawk received a rating of 59% from our team. This tyre shows strengths in dry roadway efficiency and less tyre wear, making a positive impact on its environmental rating. One of the downsides, however, is that it didn't perform well in wet conditions, affecting its overall ranking in the Autobild test, securing the lowly 30th position.
When compared directly in mutual test positions across various platforms, the Kumho Ecsta HS52 comes out on top. For instance, the HS52 was ranked 13th in the Autoklub ČR test while the Roadhawk was ranked 11th. Furthermore, in the autobild 2022 test, the HS52 was praised for its new summer profile with balanced performance potential, short wet and dry braking distances, and good comfort. However, it was criticised for slightly sluggish steering response.
In conclusion, the Kumho Ecsta HS52 appears to outperform the Firestone Roadhawk in overall test data, largely owing to its superior dry handling and braking, as well as its cost-effectiveness. The Firestone Roadhawk, while efficient and light, shows weaknesses in wet conditions that affect its ranking negatively.
Both tyres have their merits and areas for improvement, and the choice will depend on your individual driving conditions and priorities. Stay tuned for more in-depth tyre reviews and comparisons.
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 5.67
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Firestone Roadhawk Exemplary2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good
Worst rating in test
1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good2. Firestone Roadhawk Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Aquaplaning - cross
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet braking
Wet circle cornering
Wet handling
Wet braking according to EU label
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Comfort
Outside noise accoring to EU label
Costs
(Overall rating)Rolling resistance
Mileage
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Dry handling
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | |||||||
| Firestone Roadhawk Rating: Good | |||||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 35,4 | 25,8 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 35,4 | 26,1 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 36,6 | 28,7 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Points total | Wet | Dry | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 104,7 | 106 | 103,4 | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 96,9 | 94,3 | 99,5 | ||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Enviromental impact | Driving safety | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,3 | 1,8 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | 2,7 | 2,3 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk Rating: Good | 2,7 | 2,8 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 35,7 | 27,5 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 35,7 | 28,6 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 37,7 | 32,8 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
