Segment
1. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Premium2. Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Upper-middle
Comparison: Kumho WinterCraft WP52 vs. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005
Table of contents:
In this comparison, we are comparing a tyre from a manufacturer from South Korea (Kumho) against a tyre from a manufacturer from Japan (Bridgestone). Generally, Bridgestone winter tyres are slightly better rated (87%) than Kumho (63%). In this particular case, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 has a better rating of 82% compared to 55% of the Kumho WinterCraft WP52. The first tyre test of Kumho WinterCraft WP52 was done in 2022, compared to 2019 when was the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 first tested. Important for this comparison is also the Autobild 2023 225/40 R18 test, where both the WinterCraft WP52 and the Blizzak LM-005 were tested. See more mutual tests below. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 94% of Kumho WinterCraft WP52 has B wet grip rating, whereas 95% of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 has A rating. If you wonder where the tyres in question are made, the WinterCraft WP52 is made in Korea and Blizzak LM-005 is made in Italy/Hungary/Poland.
| # | Kumho WinterCraft WP52
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R0 - R21 | R14 - R22 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
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 LM-005 Very good2. Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Conditionally recommended2. Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Sufficient
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Aquaplaning - cross
Wet handling
Wet circle cornering
Wet braking according to EU label
Snow
(Overall rating)Snow traction
Snow braking
Snow cornering
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
Costs
(Overall rating)Rolling resistance
Mileage
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Offroad
(Overall rating)Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Dry handling
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual Tests Available
These tyres were tested together in 6 test(s). Click to view detailed head-to-head results.
6
Mutual tests
| Name | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Rating: Good | |||||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Good | |||||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kumho WinterCraft WP52 | |||||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Test winner | |||||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Enviromental impact | Driving safety | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,8 | 2,0 | |||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Rating: Satisfactory | 2,8 | 2,7 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Satisfactory | 3,1 | 3,2 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 31,4 | 29,2 | |||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP52 | 36,9 | 31,4 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | 31,4 | 30,9 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,8 | 25,4 | |||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP52 | 35,9 | 27,3 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | 32,8 | 26,3 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2+ | 2+ | 2+ | 2+ | |||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Rating: Satisfactory | 3+ | 2 | 2- | 2 | |||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Good | 1- | 2+ | 2 | 3+ | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
