Segment
1. Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Upper-middle2. Nokian WR Snowproof P Upper-middle3. Matador MP93 Nordicca Lowcost4. Fulda Kristall Control HP2 Lowcost
Comparison: Kumho WinterCraft WP52 vs. Nokian WR Snowproof P vs. Matador MP93 Nordicca 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. Matador MP93 Nordicca 23.75
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Fulda Kristall Control HP2 Exemplary2. Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Satisfactory3. Matador MP93 Nordicca Satisfactory4. Nokian WR Snowproof P Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Fulda Kristall Control HP2 Satisfactory2. Matador MP93 Nordicca Satisfactory3. Nokian WR Snowproof P Satisfactory4. 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 | |||||
| Matador MP93 Nordicca | 37,8 | ||||||
| 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 | |||||||
