Segment
1. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Upper-middle2. Nokian Powerproof Upper-middle
Comparison: Kumho Ecsta PS71 vs. Nokian Powerproof
Table of contents:
| # | Kumho Ecsta PS71 | Nokian Powerproof | Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R16 - R22 | R17 - R20 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
In this comparison, we will take a closer look at two summer tyres: the Kumho Ecsta PS71 and the Nokian Powerproof. Both tyres have been tested and reviewed by various sources, and we will summarize their strengths and weaknesses based on the available data.
The Kumho Ecsta PS71 is a performance-oriented summer tyre that scored a 79% rating on our website. On the other hand, the Nokian Powerproof is a Finnish-made summer tyre that scored an impressive 85% rating on our website. Both tyres are currently in production, with no newer models replacing them.
When comparing both tyres based on their performance in various tests, the Nokian Powerproof generally outperforms the Kumho Ecsta PS71. In the Autobild test, which included a total of 50 tyres, the Nokian Powerproof had an excellent performance with a second-place finish, while the Kumho Ecsta PS71 placed fifth. The Nokian Powerproof particularly excelled in wet braking, where it was noted as having the best performance in this category.
In the ADAC test, which included 16 tyres, both the Kumho Ecsta PS71 and Nokian Powerproof had relatively weaker performances, with the former ranking tenth and the latter eleventh. The Kumho Ecsta PS71's strongest features in this test were aquaplaning resistance, both cross and longitudinal. The Nokian Powerproof, on the other hand, had the best noise and interior noise performance.
Overall, it is clear that the Nokian Powerproof is the better-performing tyre in both tests. It consistently ranks higher than the Kumho Ecsta PS71 and shows a particularly strong performance in wet braking.
There are, however, some strengths in the Kumho Ecsta PS71 as well. Its resistance to aquaplaning is commendable, and it could be a suitable choice for those looking for a more budget-friendly summer tyre.
In conclusion, the Nokian Powerproof is the superior tyre when it comes to performance in various tests. However, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 may still provide decent performance for drivers with specific needs. For more information about these tyres and their manufacturers, visit the Kumho and Nokian websites.
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 handling
Aquaplaning - cross
Wet braking
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Offroad
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
1. Nokian Powerproof 72 dB2. Kumho Ecsta PS71 ? dB
Costs
(Overall rating)Mileage
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 1- | 1 | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 1 | 2 | 3- | ||||
| Nokian Powerproof Rating: Good | 1- | 2+ | 2- | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,1 | 28,7 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 34,9 | 29 | |||||
| Nokian Powerproof | 32,9 | 29,1 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,7 | 1,3 | 2,8 | 2,0 | 1,6 | ||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Satisfactory | 2,3 | 2,4 | 3,3 | 3,0 | 2,0 | ||
| Nokian Powerproof Rating: Satisfactory | 2,4 | 2,4 | 2,8 | 3,0 | 2,0 | ||
| Show test details | |||||||