Comparison: Falken EuroWinter VAN01 vs. Kumho PorTran CW51 vs. Michelin AGILIS ALPIN vs. Bridgestone Blizzak W810

Upper-middle

Falken

EuroWinter VAN01

R14 – R17

VS

Upper-middle

Kumho

1 mutual test(s) with detailed data

Also compare with

Turanza T005

Test Profile

EuroWinter VAN01

PorTran CW51

AGILIS ALPIN

Blizzak W810

Number of tests

1

2

1

Best position

#6

#8

#3

#7

Average position

6.0

8.0

3.0

7.0

Latest test

2019

Available sizes

32

21

23

56

Performance comparison

Wet Performance

67%

Falken

EuroWinter VAN01

65%

Kumho

PorTran CW51

73%

Michelin

AGILIS ALPIN

56%

Bridgestone

Blizzak W810

Wet Braking

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

71%

Kumho PorTran CW51

49%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

80%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

40%

Wet Handling

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

57%

Kumho PorTran CW51

46%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

70%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

34%

Wet Circle Cornering

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

72%

Kumho PorTran CW51

72%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

72%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

61%

Aquaplaning Longitudinal

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

67%

Kumho PorTran CW51

78%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

67%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

67%

Aquaplaning Cross

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

67%

Kumho PorTran CW51

78%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

78%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

78%

Dry Performance

89%

Falken

EuroWinter VAN01

78%

Kumho

PorTran CW51

78%

Michelin

AGILIS ALPIN

78%

Bridgestone

Blizzak W810

Dry Braking

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

89%

Kumho PorTran CW51

78%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

78%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

78%

Snow Performance

49%

Falken

EuroWinter VAN01

70%

Kumho

PorTran CW51

80%

Michelin

AGILIS ALPIN

79%

Bridgestone

Blizzak W810

Snow Braking

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

56%

Kumho PorTran CW51

78%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

78%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

78%

Snow Traction

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

50%

Kumho PorTran CW51

72%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

83%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

83%

Snow Handling

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

40%

Kumho PorTran CW51

60%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

80%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

76%

Ice Performance

86%

Falken

EuroWinter VAN01

78%

Kumho

PorTran CW51

84%

Michelin

AGILIS ALPIN

74%

Bridgestone

Blizzak W810

Ice Braking Abs

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

86%

Kumho PorTran CW51

81%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

81%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

74%

Ice Lateral Guidance

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

86%

Kumho PorTran CW51

74%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

86%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

74%

Comfort & Noise

81%

Falken

EuroWinter VAN01

71%

Kumho

PorTran CW51

67%

Michelin

AGILIS ALPIN

56%

Bridgestone

Blizzak W810

Noise Exterior

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

91%

Kumho PorTran CW51

71%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

62%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

44%

Noise Interior

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

71%

Kumho PorTran CW51

71%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

71%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

67%

Economy

89%

Falken

EuroWinter VAN01

76%

Kumho

PorTran CW51

87%

Michelin

AGILIS ALPIN

76%

Bridgestone

Blizzak W810

Fuel Efficiency

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

89%

Kumho PorTran CW51

84%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

84%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

84%

Mileage

Falken EuroWinter VAN01

89%

Kumho PorTran CW51

67%

Michelin AGILIS ALPIN

89%

Bridgestone Blizzak W810

67%

Tests used in comparison

Organization	Season	Year	Dimension
ADAC	Winter	2019	205/65 R16	View

Dimensions and prices

Compare prices across all available dimensions for these tyres.

View general comparison

Comparison: Falken EuroWinter VAN01 vs. Kumho PorTran CW51 vs. Michelin AGILIS ALPIN vs. Bridgestone Blizzak W810

EuroWinter VAN01

PorTran CW51

AGILIS ALPIN

Blizzak W810

Test Profile

Performance comparison

Tests used in comparison

Dimensions and prices

Add to comparison