Segment
1. Bridgestone Blizzak W810 Premium2. Kumho PorTran CW51 Upper-middle3. Matador MPS530 Sibir Snow Van Lowcost
Comparison: Kumho PorTran CW51 vs. Bridgestone Blizzak W810 vs. Matador MPS530 Sibir Snow Van
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Bridgestone Blizzak W810 Conditionally recommended2. Kumho PorTran CW51 Conditionally recommended3. Matador MPS530 Sibir Snow Van Conditionally recommended
Worst rating in test
1. Bridgestone Blizzak W810 Conditionally recommended2. Kumho PorTran CW51 Conditionally recommended3. Matador MPS530 Sibir Snow Van Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Snow
(Overall rating)Dry
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Ice
(Overall rating)Add to comparison
Mutual Tests Available
These tyres were tested together in 1 test(s). Click to view detailed head-to-head results.
1
Mutual tests
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2,4 | 2,3 | 2,2 | 2,3 | 2,5 | 2,0 | 1,6 |
| Kumho PorTran CW51 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 3,6 | 4,1 | 3,0 | 2,6 | 3,0 | 3,0 | 2,0 |
| Bridgestone Blizzak W810 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 4,0 | 4,1 | 2,6 | 2,8 | 3,7 | 3,0 | 2,0 |
| Matador MPS530 Sibir Snow Van Rating: Conditionally recommended | 3,2 | 4,1 | 2,6 | 2,8 | 3,8 | 3,0 | 2,6 |
| Show test details | |||||||
