Segment
1. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 Premium2. Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Upper-middle
Comparison: Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 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, Bridgestone winter tyres are slightly better rated (87%) than Kumho (63%). But when it comes to comparing Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 and Kumho WinterCraft WP71, the rating is the same - 0%. The first tyre test of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 was done in 2015, compared to 2016 when was the Kumho WinterCraft WP71 first tested. Important for this comparison is also the Autobild 2017 225/55 R17 test, where both the Blizzak LM-001 and the WinterCraft WP71 were tested. See more mutual tests below. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 72% of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 has B wet grip rating, whereas 100% of Kumho WinterCraft WP71 has C rating. We also know where Blizzak LM-001 is made - Poland.
| # | Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R14 - R21 | 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
2. Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
2. Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Snow
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
Ice
(Overall rating)Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual Tests Available
These tyres were tested together in 4 test(s). Click to view detailed head-to-head results.
4
Mutual tests
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1- | 2+ | 1- | ||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 Rating: Good | 2 | 2+ | 2 | ||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Rating: Satisfactory | 2- | 2- | 2 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2+ | 2+ | 1 | 2+ | |||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 Rating: Good | 1- | 2- | 2 | 2+ | |||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Rating: Satisfactory | 2- | 2- | 2 | 2+ | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,2 | 25,9 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 | 32,5 | 28,7 | |||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 | 34,8 | 29,2 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Points total | Wet | Dry | Snow | Rolling resistance | Noise | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 412 | 142 | 127 | 143 | 25 | 10 | |
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 Rating: Recommended | 341 | 100 | 114 | 127 | 19 | 8 | |
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 309 | 76 | 108 | 125 | 16 | 9 | |
| Show test details | |||||||
