Segment
1. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Premium2. Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Upper-middle
Comparison: Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 vs. Kumho WinterCraft WP71
Table of contents:
In this comparison, we are comparing a tyre from a manufacturer from Japan (Bridgestone) against a tyre from a manufacturer from South Korea (Kumho). Generally, Kumho winter tyres are slightly better rated (48%) than Bridgestone (46%). In this particular case, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 has a better rating of 92% compared to 54% of the Kumho WinterCraft WP71. The first tyre test of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 was done in 2019, compared to 2016 when was the Kumho WinterCraft WP71 first tested. Important for this comparison is also the Autobild 2020 225/40 R18 test, where both the Blizzak LM-005 and the WinterCraft WP71 were tested. See more mutual tests below. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 98% of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 has A wet grip rating, whereas 100% of Kumho WinterCraft WP71 has C rating. We also know where Blizzak LM-005 is made - Italy/Hungary/Poland.
| # | Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | Kumho WinterCraft WP71 | Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R14 - R22 | R16 - R19 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
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. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Very good2. Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Conditionally recommended2. Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Conditionally recommended
Snow
(Overall rating)Snow braking
Snow traction
Snow handling
Snow cornering
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet handling
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
Costs
(Overall rating)Rolling resistance
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Ice
(Overall rating)Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1- | 2 | 1- | ||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Exemplary | 1- | 2 | 1- | ||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 2+ | 2- | 3 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 30,3 | 24,3 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | 30,3 | 24,5 | |||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 | 35,7 | 28 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2+ | 2+ | 1 | 1- | |||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Exemplary | 1- | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 2+ | 3+ | 2 | 3 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 29,2 | 24 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | 29,2 | 24,6 | |||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 | 31,5 | 24,8 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||