Segment
1. Nokian Powerproof Upper-middle2. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Upper-middle
Comparison: Nokian Powerproof vs. Kumho Ecsta PS71
Table of contents:
| # | Nokian Powerproof
| Kumho Ecsta PS71
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R17 - R20 | R16 - R22 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
The comparison at hand is between two summer tyres, the Nokian Powerproof and the Kumho Ecsta PS71. These tyres were put to the test against multiple other contenders and our findings are based on the accumulated data. Let's explore their strengths, and weakness regarding their performance.
Made in Finland, the Nokian Powerproof shows an impressive overall performance with an aggregate rating of 71%. Noteworthy is its wet braking capability making it a reliable choice for variable summer weather conditions. The tyre managed to earn the 2nd position in the Autobild test among 50 other tyres. In the ADAC test, it landed the 11th spot performing exceptionally well in terms of quietness with a diminished interior noise.
The Kumho Ecsta PS71, on the other hand, boasts a slightly higher overall rating of 72%. It is particularly known for its aquaplaning resistance, both cross and longitudinal, which was additionally recognized in the ADAC test where it bagged the 10th position. In the Autobild test, it managed the 5th position making it one of the top contenders there too.
Both of these tyres are part of the summer collection of their respective manufacturers, Nokian and Kumho. At present, neither Nokian Powerproof nor Kumho Ecsta PS71 have been replaced by newer models, making them current and relevant choices for summer tyres.
Despite their separate strengths, these tyres offer a reasonably close performance with their overall ratings only being 1% apart. While the Nokian Powerproof excels in terms of wet braking and reduced noise, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 stands out for its resistance against aquaplaning. Considering their performance in both tests, although Kumho fared better than Nokian in the ADAC test, Nokian outperformed Kumho in the Autobild.
In conclusion, if you prioritize lower noise and better wet braking performance, the Nokian Powerproof would be an ideal pick. Conversely, if stronger resistance against aquaplaning is what you seek, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 might be a better option.
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
1. Nokian Powerproof 7.452. Kumho Ecsta PS71 9.33
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Nokian Powerproof Exemplary2. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Highly recommended
Worst rating in test
1. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Conditionally recommended2. Nokian Powerproof Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Offroad
(Overall rating)Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Rating | Wet | Dry | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | příkladné | 1 | 1- | 1 | |||
| Nokian Powerproof Rating: Good | dobré | 1- | 2+ | 2- | |||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Conditionally recommended | podmíněně doporučeno | 1 | 2 | 3- | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,1 | 28,7 | |||||
| Nokian Powerproof | 32,9 | 29,1 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 34,9 | 29 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Rating | Wet | Dry | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | dobré | 1,7 | 1,3 | 2,8 | 2,0 | 1,6 | |
| Nokian Powerproof Rating: Satisfactory | uspokojivé | 2,4 | 2,4 | 2,8 | 3,0 | 2,0 | |
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Satisfactory | uspokojivé | 2,3 | 2,4 | 3,3 | 3,0 | 2,0 | |
| Show test details | |||||||