Segment
1. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Upper-middle2. Fulda SportControl 2 Lowcost
Comparison: Kumho Ecsta PS71 vs. Fulda SportControl 2
Table of contents:
| # | Kumho Ecsta PS71
| Fulda SportControl 2
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R16 - R22 | R17 - R20 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
In this review, we compare two popular summer tyres: the Kumho Ecsta PS71 and Fulda SportControl 2. Manufactured by Kumho Tire and Fulda respectively, these models have been clubbed together in various tests, delivering results that highlight their strengths and weaknesses.
The Kumho Ecsta PS71 has an overall rating of 68% in our database. It impresses with its balanced high-performance potential and good handling qualities. Notably, it ensures short braking distances on both wet and dry roads, which is crucial for safety during summer showers. However, its performance is slightly let down by an elevated driving noise.
On the other hand, the Fulda SportControl 2 holds a higher rating of 74% on our site. While it showcases balanced and safe handling characteristics on wet roads, it lags behind in terms of wet braking distance. Slightly delayed steering response is another minor concern users might notice.
In overall testing, it’s worth noting that the Fulda SportControl 2 stands out with a lower exterior noise. Comfort and rolling resistance are other areas where the tyre outshines its counterpart. It also performs better in the Autobild test, securing the 12th position out of 53 tyres, opposed to the Kumho Ecsta PS71 that ranked 18th.
Moreover, drivers choosing the Fulda SportControl 2 would be delighted with its remarkable resistance to Aquaplaning, both longitudal and cross. In contrast, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 shines noticeably in the categories of Wet Braking and Wet Handling - significant aspects considering the unpredictability of summer weather conditions.
Even though neither of these tyres has a newer replacement model, their performances make them contenders worth considering. The Fulda SportControl 2 takes the lead in overall tests performance but the Kumho Ecsta PS71 should not be dismissed either as it gives a commendable competition in terms of comfort, wet braking, and handling. The choice between these two depends on your priorities and driving requirements.
Looking at the data from the tests, the definitive strengths of the Kumho Ecsta PS71 are its balance, performance, and short braking distances, with its increased driving noise being its main weakness. The Fulda SportControl 2 presents strong resistances to aquaplaning, rolling, and noise, but falls short in the wet braking distance and steering response time. Both models offer a reliable option for your summer driving needs.
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
2. Fulda SportControl 2 11.07
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Fulda SportControl 2 Exemplary2. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Highly recommended
Worst rating in test
1. Fulda SportControl 2 Satisfactory2. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet handling
Wet braking
Aquaplaning - cross
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet circle cornering
Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Dry handling
Offroad
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
Costs
(Overall rating)Rolling resistance
Mileage
Price/value
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32.6 | 27.4 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 34.2 | 27.4 | |||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 | 36.2 | 33.9 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2+ | 1- | 1 | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Good | 2 | 2- | 2- | ||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 Rating: Satisfactory | 2- | 2- | 2- | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 58.1 | 24.8 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 61.7 | 26.6 | |||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 | 63.9 | 29 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 1- | 1 | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 1 | 2 | 3- | ||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 Rating: Good | 2 | 2+ | 2- | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,1 | 28,7 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 34,9 | 29 | |||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 | 34,2 | 31,7 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Satisfactory | 2 | 2- | 3- | ||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 Rating: Exemplary | 2 | 2+ | 2 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 34,2 | 28,7 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 37,1 | 31,6 | |||||
| Fulda SportControl 2 | 35,1 | 32 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
