18 Shops · 56,847+ Products

Comparison: Michelin Energy Saver + vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52 vs. GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2

Test Profile

Michelin
Energy Saver +
Kumho
Ecsta HS52
GoodYear
Efficientgrip Performance 2
Number of tests
4
10
3
Best position
#5
#2
#2
Average position
10.3
6.0
3.3
Latest test
2018
2026
2026
Available sizes
104
40

Wet

Wet
Michelin Energy Saver +
87%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
77%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
77%
Wet circle cornering
Michelin Energy Saver +
95%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
89%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
61%
Wet handling
Michelin Energy Saver +
90%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
79%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
74%
Aquaplaning - cross
Michelin Energy Saver +
62%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
66%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
69%
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Michelin Energy Saver +
90%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
73%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
66%

Costs

Costs
Michelin Energy Saver +
80%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
76%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
83%
Mileage
Michelin Energy Saver +
94%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
79%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
99%
Rolling resistance
Michelin Energy Saver +
79%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
70%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
72%

Dry

Dry
Michelin Energy Saver +
96%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
87%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
75%
Dry handling
Michelin Energy Saver +
96%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
85%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
77%

Comfort

Comfort
Michelin Energy Saver +
84%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
77%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
70%
Exterior noise
Michelin Energy Saver +
84%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
73%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
67%

Dimensions and prices

Compare prices across all available dimensions for these tyres.

Add to comparison

Popular brands
New comparison