Segment
1. Nokian cLine VAN Upper-middle2. Kumho PorTran KC53 Upper-middle
Comparison: Nokian cLine VAN vs. Kumho PorTran KC53
Table of contents:
In this comparison, we are comparing a tyre from a manufacturer from Finland (Nokian) against a tyre from a manufacturer from South Korea (Kumho). Generally, Nokian summer tyres are slightly better rated (60%) than Kumho (58%). But when it comes to comparing Nokian cLine VAN and Kumho PorTran KC53, the rating is the same - 0%. Important for this comparison is also the ADAC 2019 215/65 R16 test, where both the cLine VAN and the PorTran KC53 were tested. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 100% of Nokian cLine VAN has A wet grip rating, whereas 89% of Kumho PorTran KC53 has C rating.
| # | Nokian cLine VAN
| Kumho PorTran KC53
| Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R14 - R17 | R12 - R17 | |
| 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. Nokian cLine VAN Satisfactory2. Kumho PorTran KC53 Sufficient
Worst rating in test
1. Nokian cLine VAN Satisfactory2. Kumho PorTran KC53 Sufficient
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual Tests Available
These tyres were tested together in 1 test(s). Click to view detailed head-to-head results.
1
Mutual tests
| Name | Wet | Dry | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2,8 | 2,1 | 2,7 | 0,5 | 1,7 | ||
| Nokian cLine VAN Rating: Satisfactory | 3,3 | 3,0 | 2,9 | 2,5 | 2,1 | ||
| Kumho PorTran KC53 Rating: Sufficient | 3,8 | 3,2 | 2,7 | 2,0 | 2,0 | ||
| Show test details | |||||||
