Comparison: BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER vs. Hankook ION Evo vs. Kumho Ecsta PS71

Upper-middle

BFGoodrich

ACTIVAN WINTER

R14 – R16

VS

Premium

Hankook

ION Evo

Ecsta PS71

8.3

R16 – R22

Also compare with

SportContact 7

Ventus Evo

PremiumContact 7

Test Profile

ACTIVAN WINTER

ION Evo

Ecsta PS71

Number of tests

1

15

Best position

#13

#1

#2

Average position

13.0

1.0

9.0

Latest test

2019

2025

Available sizes

15

64

225

Wet

Hankook ION Evo

89%

Kumho Ecsta PS71

79%

Wet braking

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

40%

Hankook ION Evo

97%

Kumho Ecsta PS71

79%

Wet circle cornering

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

61%

Hankook ION Evo

92%

Kumho Ecsta PS71

72%

Wet handling

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

23%

Hankook ION Evo

92%

Kumho Ecsta PS71

79%

Aquaplaning - cross

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

67%

Hankook ION Evo

87%

Kumho Ecsta PS71

87%

Aquaplaning - longitudal

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

56%

Hankook ION Evo

77%

Kumho Ecsta PS71

90%

Dry

Hankook ION Evo

92%

Kumho Ecsta PS71

72%

Dry braking

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

82%

Hankook ION Evo

91%

Kumho Ecsta PS71

76%

Dry driving behavior

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

53%

Kumho Ecsta PS71

67%

Comfort

Hankook ION Evo

72%

Kumho Ecsta PS71

67%

Exterior noise

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

71%

Hankook ION Evo

66%

Kumho Ecsta PS71

62%

Costs

Hankook ION Evo

71%

Kumho Ecsta PS71

71%

Mileage

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

89%

Hankook ION Evo

82%

Kumho Ecsta PS71

65%

Dimensions and prices

Compare prices across all available dimensions for these tyres.

Comparison: BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER vs. Hankook ION Evo vs. Kumho Ecsta PS71

ACTIVAN WINTER

ION Evo

Ecsta PS71

Test Profile

Wet

Dry

Comfort

Costs

Dimensions and prices

Add to comparison