Segment
2. Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Upper-middle
In this comparison, we are comparing a tyre from a manufacturer from South Korea (Kumho) against a tyre from a manufacturer from Germany (Continental). Generally, Continental winter tyres are slightly better rated (96%) than Kumho (61%). But when it comes to comparing Kumho WinterCraft WP51 and Continental WinterContact TS 860, the rating is the same - 0%. The first tyre test of Kumho WinterCraft WP51 was done in 2015, compared to 2016 when was the Continental WinterContact TS 860 first tested. Important for this comparison is also the ADAC 2021 195/65 R15 test, where both the WinterCraft WP51 and the WinterContact TS 860 were tested. See more mutual tests below. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 94% of Kumho WinterCraft WP51 has C wet grip rating, whereas 99% of Continental WinterContact TS 860 has B rating. If you wonder where the tyres in question are made, the WinterCraft WP51 is made in Korea and WinterContact TS 860 is made in Portugal/Slovakia.
# | Kumho WinterCraft WP51
| Continental WinterContact TS 860
| Add to comparison |
---|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ||
Dimensions | R13 - R17 | R13 - R17 | |
Price | |||
Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
2. Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Upper-middle
1. Continental WinterContact TS 860 Very good2. Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Satisfactory
2. Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Sufficient
Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Noise | Wear | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Best values in test | 1,6 | 1,9 | 1,9 | 2,0 | 2,6 | 2,0 | |
Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Rating: Sufficient | 3,0 | 3,6 | 2,5 | 2,4 | 2,7 | 3,0 | |
Continental WinterContact TS 860 Rating: Satisfactory | 1,6 | 2,7 | 1,9 | 2,5 | 2,9 | 2,5 | |
Show test details |
Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Best values in test | 1,8 | 2,1 | 1,9 | 2,2 | 2,6 | 1,5 | 1,6 |
Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Rating: Recommended | 2,8 | 2,7 | 3,2 | 2,4 | 3,2 | 3,0 | 2,3 |
Continental WinterContact TS 860 Rating: Recommended | 1,8 | 2,5 | 2,2 | 2,6 | 2,6 | 2,5 | 1,9 |
Show test details |
Name | Points total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Best values in test | 9,1 | ||||||
Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 6,4 | ||||||
Continental WinterContact TS 860 Rating: Highly recommended | 9,1 | ||||||
Show test details |
Name | Points total | Winter | Wet | Dry | Rolling resistance | Noise | Running costs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Best values in test | 206 | 67 | 68 | 43 | 19 | 8 | 10 |
Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Rating: Recommended | 183 | 60 | 56 | 40 | 13 | 5 | 9 |
Continental WinterContact TS 860 Rating: Test winner | 206 | 66 | 68 | 43 | 16 | 7 | 6 |
Show test details |
Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Best values in test | 2,1 | 2,0 | 1,8 | 2,3 | 3,0 | 1,0 | 1,7 |
Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Rating: Satisfactory | 3,3 | 3,2 | 2,2 | 2,5 | 3,4 | 2,0 | 2,6 |
Continental WinterContact TS 860 Rating: Good | 2,1 | 2,5 | 1,9 | 2,5 | 3,0 | 2,0 | 1,7 |
Show test details |
Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Best values in test | 34,3 | 27 | |||||
Kumho WinterCraft WP51 | 38,8 | 28 | |||||
Continental WinterContact TS 860 | 34,5 | 27,6 | |||||
Show test details |
Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Best values in test | 1,8 | 1,7 | 1,7 | 2,1 | 3,0 | 1,5 | 1,7 |
Kumho WinterCraft WP51 Rating: Satisfactory | 3,3 | 2,4 | 2,6 | 2,4 | 3,6 | 2,5 | 2,3 |
Continental WinterContact TS 860 Rating: Good | 1,8 | 2,2 | 1,9 | 2,5 | 3,4 | 2,5 | 1,9 |
Show test details |
Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Best values in test | 34,2 | 25 | |||||
Kumho WinterCraft WP51 | 41,0 | - | |||||
Continental WinterContact TS 860 | 34,2 | 25,6 | |||||
Show test details |