• 14 shops, 56 847 products

Comparison: Kumho Ecsta HS52 vs. Firestone Roadhawk

Mutual tests overview

Detailed head-to-head comparison based on actual test results

Tests used in comparison (2)

Organization Season Year Dimension Action
Autobild Autobild
Summer
2024 205/55 R16 View
Autoklub ČR Autoklub ČR
Summer
2023 205/55 R16 View

Today, we will be comparing two popular summer tyres, Kumho Ecsta HS52 by Kumho Tire and Firestone Roadhawk by Firestone. These tyres have been tested extensively, and our verdict takes into account data from countless tests.


The Kumho Ecsta HS52 scored impressively in our rating, boasting 78%. This tyre has a rich pedigree, following its successful predecessor, the Kumho Ecsta HS51. In the Autobild test, the HS52 ranked high in 3rd position among 51 tested tyres. Its strength lies in dry braking and dry handling, with additional commendations in price and value. However, slight weaknesses were found in terms of efficiency and sustainability, and its environmental impact could use some improvements.


On the other hand, the Firestone Roadhawk received a rating of 59% from our team. This tyre shows strengths in dry roadway efficiency and less tyre wear, making a positive impact on its environmental rating. One of the downsides, however, is that it didn't perform well in wet conditions, affecting its overall ranking in the Autobild test, securing the lowly 30th position.


When compared directly in mutual test positions across various platforms, the Kumho Ecsta HS52 comes out on top. For instance, the HS52 was ranked 13th in the Autoklub ČR test while the Roadhawk was ranked 11th. Furthermore, in the autobild 2022 test, the HS52 was praised for its new summer profile with balanced performance potential, short wet and dry braking distances, and good comfort. However, it was criticised for slightly sluggish steering response.


In conclusion, the Kumho Ecsta HS52 appears to outperform the Firestone Roadhawk in overall test data, largely owing to its superior dry handling and braking, as well as its cost-effectiveness. The Firestone Roadhawk, while efficient and light, shows weaknesses in wet conditions that affect its ranking negatively.


Both tyres have their merits and areas for improvement, and the choice will depend on your individual driving conditions and priorities. Stay tuned for more in-depth tyre reviews and comparisons.

Performance comparison

Averaged from 2 tests

Wet Performance
Kumho Ecsta HS52
74%
Kumho
Ecsta HS52
Firestone Roadhawk
81%
Firestone
Roadhawk
Wet Braking
Kumho Ecsta HS52
72%
Firestone Roadhawk
65%
Wet Handling
Kumho Ecsta HS52
87%
Firestone Roadhawk
89%
Best: Vredestein Ultrac (98.0%)
Wet Circle Cornering
Kumho Ecsta HS52
83%
Firestone Roadhawk
83%
Aquaplaning Longitudinal
Kumho Ecsta HS52
73%
Firestone Roadhawk
85%
Best: Vredestein Ultrac (96.0%)
Aquaplaning Cross
Kumho Ecsta HS52
55%
Firestone Roadhawk
84%
Best: Vredestein Ultrac (100.0%)
Best in category: Vredestein Ultrac (92.6%)
Dry Performance
Kumho Ecsta HS52
89%
Kumho
Ecsta HS52
Firestone Roadhawk
84%
Firestone
Roadhawk
Dry Braking
Kumho Ecsta HS52
89%
Firestone Roadhawk
85%
Best: Nokian Wetproof (96.0%)
Dry Handling
Kumho Ecsta HS52
89%
Firestone Roadhawk
83%
Best in category: Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance (94.5%)
Comfort & Noise
Kumho Ecsta HS52
88%
Kumho
Ecsta HS52
Firestone Roadhawk
75%
Firestone
Roadhawk
Noise Exterior
Kumho Ecsta HS52
88%
Firestone Roadhawk
75%
Best: Nokian Wetproof (100.0%)
Best in category: Nokian Wetproof (100.0%)
Economy
Kumho Ecsta HS52
66%
Kumho
Ecsta HS52
Firestone Roadhawk
76%
Firestone
Roadhawk
Rolling Resistance
Kumho Ecsta HS52
65%
Firestone Roadhawk
78%
Mileage
Kumho Ecsta HS52
66%
Firestone Roadhawk
73%
Best in category: Bridgestone Turanza T005 (100.0%)

Performance spider chart

Visual comparison of all performance categories from mutual tests.

Dimensions and prices

Compare prices across all available dimensions for these tyres.

Loading...

Add to comparison