Segment
1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Upper-middle2. Fulda EcoControl HP2 Lowcost
Comparison: Fulda EcoControl HP2 vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52
Table of contents:
| # | Fulda EcoControl HP2
| Kumho Ecsta HS52
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R15 - R18 | R14 - R20 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
Comparing Fulda EcoControl HP2 and Kumho Ecsta HS52 summer tyres from Fulda and Kumho respectively provides insight into the performance of these esteemed high profile products. Both tyres have proven themselves through numerous tests, with each showcasing its unique strengths and weaknesses.
Starting with the Fulda EcoControl HP2, the successor of the EcoControl HP, it earned an overall rating of 69% in our test. Key strengths highlighted in Autobild's tests were 'Exterior noise,' with two mentions. In terms of its positioning in the test, it came in 16th out of 55 tyres. Additionally, autobild 2024 noted the EcoControl HP2's pros as being good in terms of environmental balance, lifespan, abrasion, and efficiency. Nevertheless, it underperformed in wet conditions and lacks overall balance.
On the other hand, the Kumho Ecsta HS52, replacing the Ecsta HS51, earned a higher rating of 73% in our tests. This touring type tyre surpassed its counterpart in Autobild's test, claiming the second spot out of 55 tyres. Its notable strengths, as per Autobild were 'Dry braking,' 'Dry handling,' and 'Wet braking' with each being mentioned twice. Furthermore, autobild 2024 highlights the Ecsta HS52’s performance on dry and wet surfaces but criticizes its relative weakness in terms of environmental balance, efficiency, and sustainability.
The ADAC comparative test positions the Kumho Ecsta HS52 as 8th out of 50 tyres, while the Fulda EcoControl HP2 stands at the 13th spot. Evidently, the Kumho's performance is more balanced, offering good control on both dry and wet roads. However, its environmental balance and efficiency need improvement. Conversely, the Fulda tyre gets high marks for its environmental balance, lifespan, and efficiency but needs to address performance on wet surfaces.
In conclusion, although both tyres have their merits, the Kumho Ecsta HS52 seems to be the better of the two in most areas of performance. Its dry and wet braking is exceptional according to multiple tests. However, the Fulda EcoControl HP2 is certainly not to be overlooked, especially for those prioritizing environmental efficacy and lifespan.
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 5.672. Fulda EcoControl HP2 12.75
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good
Worst rating in test
1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good2. Fulda EcoControl HP2 Satisfactory
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking
Aquaplaning - cross
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
1. Fulda EcoControl HP2 70 dB
Costs
(Overall rating)Mileage
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual Tests Available
These tyres were tested together in 3 test(s). Click to view detailed head-to-head results.
3
Mutual tests
| Name | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fulda EcoControl HP2 Rating: Good | |||||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | |||||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 35,4 | 25,8 | |||||
| Fulda EcoControl HP2 | 36,8 | 29,5 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 35,4 | 26,1 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Enviromental impact | Driving safety | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,3 | 1,8 | |||||
| Fulda EcoControl HP2 Rating: Good | 2,2 | 2,8 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | 2,7 | 2,3 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
