Segment
1. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Upper-middle2. Sava Intensa UHP 2 Lowcost
Comparison: Sava Intensa UHP 2 vs. Kumho Ecsta PS71
Table of contents:
| # | Sava Intensa UHP 2
| Kumho Ecsta PS71
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R17 - R20 | R16 - R22 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
When comparing high-rated summer tyres, such as the Sava Intensa UHP 2 and Kumho Ecsta PS71, it is crucial to weigh their strengths and weaknesses. In below comparison, based on test data from Autobild and ADAC, we can determine the tyre most suitable for your needs.
Sava Intensa UHP 2 replaces the previous model, Sava Intensa UHP, and is known for its excellent aquaplaning resistance and low-cost profile. Its strengths lie in noise reduction, fuel efficiency, and mileage, as noted in its 6th position in an ADAC test of 16 tyres. Despite these benefits, the tyre has demonstrated slight deficiencies in handling under unfavorable wet conditions. This, along with slightly increased wear, detracts from its otherwise satisfactory rating.
On the other hand, Kumho Ecsta PS71, available at Kumho's official website, also displays remarkable performance. Even though it doesn't replace any previous models, it already stands out. In the Autobild test, its strengths are seen in aquaplaning - both longitudinal and cross, comfort, wet handling, and braking. Moreover, it achieves an impressive 10th place in the ADAC test out of 16 tyres and is lauded for a more balanced performance. The tyre is particularly efficient on wet surfaces; however, it can be slightly noisier than other tyres.
With our rating system, the Sava Intensa UHP 2 has earned a favourable score of 67%, while the Kumho Ecsta PS71 has scored just slightly higher, at 68%. In the Autobild test of 53 tyres, Sava Intensa UHP 2 and Kumho Ecsta PS71 stood respectively in 17th and 18th places. Below average placing suggests that there are better-performing tyres on the market.
In conclusion, both tyres have their strengths and drawbacks. If you value quiet and cost-effective driving, the Sava Intensa UHP 2 should meet your needs. But if you value performance on wet surfaces more and are ready to tolerate slightly more noise, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 could be a better choice. Remember to make a decision based on your needs and priorities for a satisfactory purchase.
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
2. Sava Intensa UHP 2 12.86
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Highly recommended2. Sava Intensa UHP 2 Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Conditionally recommended2. Sava Intensa UHP 2 Still recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet circle cornering
Wet handling
Aquaplaning - cross
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet braking
Wet braking according to EU label
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Interior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Dry handling
Dry driving behavior
Costs
(Overall rating)Mileage
Rolling resistance
Price/value
Fuel efficiency
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 | |||||
| Sava Intensa UHP 2 | 35.9 | 34.4 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 34.2 | 27.4 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2+ | 1- | 1 | ||||
| Sava Intensa UHP 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 | |||||
| Sava Intensa UHP 2 | 61.7 | 27.4 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 61.7 | 26.6 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Noise | Wear | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2,0 | 1,5 | 2,6 | 1,5 | |||
| Sava Intensa UHP 2 Rating: Satisfactory | 3,1 | 2,0 | 2,6 | 2,5 | |||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Good | 2,2 | 2,5 | 3,2 | 2,0 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,1 | 28,7 | |||||
| Sava Intensa UHP 2 | 34,7 | 35,5 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 34,9 | 29 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,7 | 1,3 | 2,8 | 2,0 | 1,6 | ||
| Sava Intensa UHP 2 Rating: Satisfactory | 2,7 | 1,8 | 3,1 | 2,0 | 1,6 | ||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Satisfactory | 2,3 | 2,4 | 3,3 | 3,0 | 2,0 | ||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Sava Intensa UHP 2 Rating: Good | 2- | 2+ | 1- | ||||
| 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 | |||||
| Sava Intensa UHP 2 | 35,7 | 32,8 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 37,1 | 31,6 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
