Segment
1. Vredestein ULTRAC Premium2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Upper-middle
Comparison: Vredestein ULTRAC vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52
Table of contents:
| # | Vredestein ULTRAC
| Kumho Ecsta HS52
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R15 - R21 | R14 - R18 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
Let's compare two popular summer tyres; the Vredestein ULTRAC and the Kumho Ecsta HS52.
The Vredestein ULTRAC, manufactured in HU and coming as first equipment on BMW 2-series Active Tourers, ranked 4th in the Autobild test out of 51 tyres. The evaluation highlighted excellent driving dynamics and short wet and dry braking distances. Notably, the tyre exhibited very good aquaplaning properties, which can enhance safety and control during summer rain storms. However, drawbacks included lower tyre lifespan due to increased tread wear and higher rolling resistance, which could imply less fuel economy.
On the other hand, the Kumho Ecsta HS52, an upgrade from the previous Kumho Ecsta HS51, outperformed the Vredestein taking the 3rd position in the Autobild test. The HS52 excelled particularly in dry braking, dry handling, wet braking, and price/value ratio. Despite the lack of indication of where this tyre is made, it got noticed favourably for favourable mileage and wet circle cornering capability in the ADAC test, where it also ranked 3rd out of 16 tyres.
Crucially, the Ecsta HS52 performed very well in wet conditions as noted by TyreReviews.com, offering good dry handling, short dry braking distances, good aquaplaning resistance and impressively, had low external noise. The only notable weakness was the average wet grip.
Comparatively, the Vredestein ULTRAC offered superior wet handling, aquaplaning resistance and good dry braking, though was criticised for high rolling resistance and external noise.
Overall, both tyres show strengths and weaknesses. While the Vredestein ULTRAC offers impressive wet and dry performance, its shortened lifespan and higher rolling resistance may affect long term usability and fuel costs. The Kumho Ecsta HS52, whilst not as strong in wet grip conditions, makes up for it with remarkable dry performance, long predicted lifespan, and general fuel efficiency. Given that it also came in higher on most test rankings and the better price/value ratio, the HS52 might be the better overall option.
Learn more about these tyres at their respective manufacturer pages, Vredestein and Kumho.
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 5.672. Vredestein ULTRAC 7.25
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Vredestein ULTRAC Highly recommended2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good
Worst rating in test
1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good2. Vredestein ULTRAC Sufficient
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking
Wet handling
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Aquaplaning - cross
Wet circle cornering
Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Dry handling
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Comfort
Outside noise accoring to EU label
Offroad
(Overall rating)Costs
(Overall rating)Rolling resistance
Mileage
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vredestein ULTRAC Rating: Conditionally recommended | |||||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | |||||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 35,4 | 25,8 | |||||
| Vredestein ULTRAC | 36,1 | 26,6 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 35,4 | 26,1 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Enviromental impact | Driving safety | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,6 | 1,7 | |||||
| Vredestein ULTRAC Rating: Sufficient | 3,83 | 2,3 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | 2,8 | 2,1 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Points total | Wet | Dry | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 104,7 | 106 | 103,4 | ||||
| Vredestein Ultrac | 101,3 | 103,3 | 99,2 | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 96,9 | 94,3 | 99,5 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | ||||||
| Vredestein Ultrac Rating: Recommended | 1 | ||||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Recommended | 1 | ||||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 2+ | 1+ | ||||
| Vredestein Ultrac Rating: Satisfactory | 1- | 2 | 3 | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 35,7 | 27,5 | |||||
| Vredestein Ultrac | 36,1 | 28,2 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 35,7 | 28,6 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
