18 shops, 56 847 products

Comparison: Kleber Dynaxer HP4 vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52 vs. Vredestein ULTRAC vs. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun

Table of contents:

Summary
Wet
Dry
Costs
Mutual tests
Buy %

#	Kleber Dynaxer HP4 /72%	Kumho Ecsta HS52 /69%	Vredestein ULTRAC /16%	Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun /67%

Dimensions	R14 - R17	R14 - R20	R15 - R21	R14 - R22
Price	Set dimension to see prices	Set dimension to see prices	Set dimension to see prices	Set dimension to see prices
Remove	Remove from comparison	Remove from comparison	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Keep in mind that the Kumho Ecsta HS52 replaced the Kumho Ecsta HS51 and has not been replaced by a newer model.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.

Segment

1. Vredestein ULTRAC Premium

2. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Upper-middle

3. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Upper-middle

4. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun Upper-middle

Number of sizes available

1. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 194

2. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 121

3. Kumho Ecsta HS52 104

4. Vredestein ULTRAC 81

Number of tests

1. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 23x

2. Vredestein ULTRAC 16x

3. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 12x

4. Kumho Ecsta HS52 9x

Best position in test

1. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 1.

2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 2.

3. Vredestein ULTRAC 2.

4. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 2.

Worst position in test

1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 13.

2. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 15.

3. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 18.

4. Vredestein ULTRAC 20.

Average position in tests

1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 5.67

2. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 6.57

3. Vredestein ULTRAC 7.25

4. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 11.58

Year of the last test

1. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 2025

2. Vredestein ULTRAC 2025

3. Kumho Ecsta HS52 2024

4. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 2023

Best rating in test

1. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun Exemplary

2. Vredestein ULTRAC Highly recommended

3. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Highly recommended

4. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good

Worst rating in test

1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good

2. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun Still recommended

3. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Conditionally recommended

4. Vredestein ULTRAC Sufficient

Wet

(Overall rating)

Vredestein
ULTRAC

89%

Falken
ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun

79%

Kumho
Ecsta HS52

74%

Kleber
Dynaxer HP4

68%

Wet braking

1. Vredestein ULTRAC 89%

2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 88%

3. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 86%

4. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 71%

Aquaplaning - cross

1. Vredestein ULTRAC 91%

2. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 81%

3. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 72%

4. Kumho Ecsta HS52 61%

Aquaplaning - longitudal

1. Vredestein ULTRAC 91%

2. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 78%

3. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 77%

4. Kumho Ecsta HS52 74%

Wet handling

1. Vredestein ULTRAC 90%

2. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 73%

3. Kumho Ecsta HS52 74%

4. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 53%

Wet circle cornering

1. Vredestein ULTRAC 86%

2. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 78%

3. Kumho Ecsta HS52 73%

4. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 65%

Wet braking according to EU label

1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 A

2. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun B

3. Vredestein ULTRAC ?

4. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 ?

Dry

(Overall rating)

Falken
ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun

86%

Kumho
Ecsta HS52

85%

Vredestein
ULTRAC

82%

Kleber
Dynaxer HP4

70%

Dry braking

1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 91%

2. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 83%

3. Vredestein ULTRAC 80%

4. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 80%

Dry handling

1. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 88%

2. Vredestein ULTRAC 84%

3. Kumho Ecsta HS52 80%

4. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 60%

Comfort

(Overall rating)

Kleber
Dynaxer HP4

87%

Falken
ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun

76%

Vredestein
ULTRAC

70%

Kumho
Ecsta HS52

70%

Exterior noise

1. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 87%

2. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 74%

3. Kumho Ecsta HS52 74%

4. Vredestein ULTRAC 65%

Outside noise accoring to EU label

1. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 ?

2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 ?

3. Vredestein ULTRAC ?

4. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun ? dB

Costs

(Overall rating)

Kumho
Ecsta HS52

77%

Kleber
Dynaxer HP4

74%

Falken
ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun

69%

Vredestein
ULTRAC

55%

Mileage

1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 71%

2. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 68%

3. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 66%

4. Vredestein ULTRAC 35%

Rolling resistance

1. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 72%

2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 63%

3. Vredestein ULTRAC 59%

4. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun 59%

Fuel consumption according to EU label

1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 C

2. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun E

3. Kleber Dynaxer HP4 ?

4. Vredestein ULTRAC ?

Add to comparison

Make

Model

Mutual Tests Available

These tyres were tested together in 4 test(s). Click to view detailed head-to-head results.

Mutual tests

Autobild Summer tyre test 2024 205/55 R16

Name
Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Rating: Good
Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good
Vredestein ULTRAC Rating: Conditionally recommended
Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun Rating: Good
Show test details

Autobild Summer tyre test 2024 205/55 R16

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
Vredestein ULTRAC	36,1	26,6
Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun	36,5	28,0
Show test details

ADAC Summer tyre test 2023 205/55 R16

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
Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun Rating: Good	2,7	2,1
Show test details

Autobild Summer tyre test 2022 215/55 R17

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
Vredestein Ultrac Rating: Satisfactory	1-	2	3
Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun Rating: Good	1-	2+	2-
Show test details

Comparison: Kleber Dynaxer HP4 vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52 vs. Vredestein ULTRAC vs. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun

Add to comparison

Add to comparison

Mutual Tests Available

Mutual tests

Summer

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Winter

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Allround

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Rankings

Tests

Brands