Segment
1. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Upper-middle2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Upper-middle
Comparison: Kleber Dynaxer HP4 vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52
Table of contents:
| # | Kleber Dynaxer HP4
| Kumho Ecsta HS52
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R14 - R17 | R14 - R18 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
The comparison of summer tyres brings us to Kleber Dynaxer HP4 and Kumho Ecsta HS52, with both tyres having their unique strengths and a few weaknesses.
The Kleber Dynaxer HP4 is a high-performing summer tyre that has scored an 82% rating in our tests. It does not have a direct predecessor or a replacement model. Some note-worthy strengths of this Kleber model are its great comfort and low external noise, according to Autobild tests. However, in other tests, shortfalls were seen on wet surfaces and there was slightly delayed steering response.
On the other side, the Kumho Ecsta HS52 is a touring summer tyre, which is the successor of the Kumho Ecsta HS51. This Kumho tyre model earned an 81% rating from us. Highlighted strengths of this model are its dry braking, dry handling, and wet braking, again cited from Autobild tests. Weaknesses identified include a less than ideal environmental impact, efficiency, and sustainability.
In terms of mutual test positions, in the Autobild test, Kleber Dynaxer HP4 was 13th out of 21 tested tyres while Kumho Ecsta HS52 took the 6th position. On the other hand, in the ADAC test, the positions were 12th out of 50 for Kleber Dynaxer HP4, and 8th for Kumho Ecsta HS52.
In conclusion, whilst both tyres have their strengths, the Kumho Ecsta HS52 tends to perform better in tests overall. However, if comfort and quietness are your main concerns, the Kleber Dynaxer HP4 might be a better choice for you.
Keep in mind that the Kumho Ecsta HS52 replaced the Kumho Ecsta HS51 and has not been replaced by a newer model. Similarly, the Kleber Dynaxer HP4 neither replaced an older model nor was it replaced by a newer one.
It is important to choose the tyre that suits your driving habits and conditions the best. Refer back to this review when making a decision, as every driver has their unique needs and preferences.
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. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 11.58
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Highly recommended2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good
Worst rating in test
1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good2. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Aquaplaning - cross
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet braking
Wet handling
Wet circle cornering
Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Dry handling
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
Costs
(Overall rating)Mileage
Rolling resistance
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kleber Dynaxer HP4 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 | |||||
| Kleber Dynaxer HP4 | 37,4 | 28,8 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 35,4 | 26,1 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Enviromental impact | Driving safety | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,3 | 1,8 | |||||
| Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Rating: Good | 2,1 | 2,8 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | 2,7 | 2,3 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 2+ | 1+ | ||||
| Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Rating: Satisfactory | 2- | 2 | 3+ | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
