Segment
1. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Upper-middle2. Nokian Powerproof Upper-middle
Comparison: Kumho Ecsta PS71 vs. Nokian Powerproof
Table of contents:
In this comparison, we are comparing a tyre from a manufacturer from South Korea (Kumho) against a tyre from a manufacturer from Finland (Nokian). Generally, Nokian summer tyres are slightly better rated (81%) than Kumho (66%). In this particular case, the Nokian Powerproof has a better rating of 85% compared to 79% of the Kumho Ecsta PS71. The first tyre test of Kumho Ecsta PS71 was done in 2018, compared to 2019 when was the Nokian Powerproof first tested. Important for this comparison is also the Autobild 2020 245/45 R18 test, where both the Ecsta PS71 and the Powerproof were tested. See more mutual tests below. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 79% of Kumho Ecsta PS71 dimensions has A wet grip rating. Most (100%) of the Nokian Powerproof also have A wet ratings.
| # | Kumho Ecsta PS71 | Nokian Powerproof | Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R16 - R22 | R17 - R20 | |
| 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
1. Nokian Powerproof 7.452. Kumho Ecsta PS71 9.55
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Nokian Powerproof Exemplary2. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Recommended
Worst rating in test
1. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Conditionally recommended2. Nokian Powerproof Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet handling
Aquaplaning - cross
Wet braking
Wet circle cornering
Wet braking according to EU label
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Interior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
1. Nokian Powerproof 72 dB2. Kumho Ecsta PS71 ? dB
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Dry handling
Dry driving behavior
Costs
(Overall rating)Rolling resistance
Mileage
Price/value
Fuel efficiency
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 | |||||||