Segment
1. Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Upper-middle2. Nokian WR Snowproof P Upper-middle3. Barum Polaris 5 Lowcost4. Fulda Kristall Control HP2 Lowcost
Comparison: Kumho WinterCraft WP52 vs. Nokian WR Snowproof P vs. Barum Polaris 5 vs. Fulda Kristall Control HP2
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
4. Barum Polaris 5 15.15
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Fulda Kristall Control HP2 Exemplary2. Barum Polaris 5 Good3. Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Satisfactory4. Nokian WR Snowproof P Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Fulda Kristall Control HP2 Satisfactory2. Nokian WR Snowproof P Satisfactory3. Barum Polaris 5 Sufficient4. Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Sufficient
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Snow
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
1. Nokian WR Snowproof P 70 dB
Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Offroad
(Overall rating)Dry
(Overall rating)Add to comparison
Mutual Tests Available
These tyres were tested together in 2 test(s). Click to view detailed head-to-head results.
2
Mutual tests
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,8 | 25,4 | |||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP52 | 35,9 | 27,3 | |||||
| Nokian WR Snowproof P | 36 | 26,2 | |||||
| Barum Polaris 5 | 37,5 | 26,9 | |||||
| Fulda Kristall Control HP2 | 36,8 | 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 | |||
| Nokian WR Snowproof P Rating: Satisfactory | 3+ | 2 | 2- | 2 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
