Segment
1. Michelin Primacy 4 Premium2. Bridgestone Turanza 6 Premium3. Vredestein ULTRAC Premium4. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Upper-middle5. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun Upper-middle
Comparison: Michelin Primacy 4 vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52 vs. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun vs. Bridgestone Turanza 6 vs. Vredestein ULTRAC
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
2. Kumho Ecsta HS52 5.675. Vredestein ULTRAC 7.25
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun Exemplary2. Bridgestone Turanza 6 Exemplary3. Vredestein ULTRAC Highly recommended4. Michelin Primacy 4 Highly recommended5. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good
Worst rating in test
1. Kumho Ecsta HS52 Good3. Michelin Primacy 4 Recommended4. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun Still recommended5. Vredestein ULTRAC Sufficient
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Offroad
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
1. Michelin Primacy 4 68 dB
Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
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 | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 2+ | 1+ | ||||
| Michelin Primacy 4 Rating: Exemplary | 2 | 1- | 1- | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 Rating: Good | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun Rating: Good | 1- | 2+ | 2- | ||||
| Vredestein Ultrac Rating: Satisfactory | 1- | 2 | 3 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 35,7 | 27,5 | |||||
| Michelin Primacy 4 | 36,2 | 29,3 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 35,7 | 28,6 | |||||
| Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun | 36,1 | 28,2 | |||||
| Vredestein Ultrac | 36,1 | 28,2 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
