Segment
1. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Premium2. Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Upper-middle
Comparison: Kumho WinterCraft WP71 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%). The first tyre test of Kumho WinterCraft WP71 was done in 2016, compared to 2019 when was the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 first tested. Important for this comparison is also the Autobild 2020 225/40 R18 test, where both the WinterCraft WP71 and the Blizzak LM-005 were tested. See more mutual tests below. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 100% of Kumho WinterCraft WP71 has C wet grip rating, whereas 95% of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 has A rating.
| # | Kumho WinterCraft WP71
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R16 - R19 | 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 WP71 Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Conditionally recommended2. Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking
Wet circle cornering
Wet handling
Aquaplaning - cross
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet braking according to EU label
Snow
(Overall rating)Snow braking
Snow cornering
Snow handling
Snow traction
Costs
(Overall rating)Rolling resistance
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry handling
Dry braking
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Comfort
Outside noise accoring to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual Tests Available
These tyres were tested together in 4 test(s). Click to view detailed head-to-head results.
4
Mutual tests
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1- | 2 | 1- | ||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 2+ | 2- | 3 | ||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Exemplary | 1- | 2 | 1- | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 30,3 | 24,3 | |||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 | 35,7 | 28 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | 30,3 | 24,5 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2+ | 2+ | 1 | 2+ | |||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 2+ | 3+ | 2 | 3 | |||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Exemplary | 1- | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 29,2 | 24 | |||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 | 31,5 | 24,8 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | 29,2 | 24,6 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
