Segment
1. Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Upper-middle2. Viking WinTech Lowcost3. Tristar Snowpower HP Lowcost
Comparison: Viking WinTech vs. Kumho WinterCraft WP52 vs. Tristar Snowpower HP
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
2. Viking WinTech 20.83
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Viking WinTech Recommended2. Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Viking WinTech Conditionally recommended2. Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Sufficient
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Snow
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Ice
(Overall rating)Add to comparison
Mutual Tests Available
These tyres were tested together in 3 test(s). Click to view detailed head-to-head results.
3
Mutual tests
| Name | Winter | Wet | Dry | Enviromental impact | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1.7 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 2.7 | 1.6 | 1.3 |
| Viking WinTech Rating: Satisfactory | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 4.3 | 3.0 | 2.2 |
| Kumho WinterCraft WP52 Rating: Sufficient | 2.3 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 1.5 |
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 31,4 | 29,2 | |||||
| Viking WinTech | 36,0 | 31,0 | |||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP52 | 36,9 | 31,4 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,8 | 25,4 | |||||
| Viking WinTech | 37,1 | 27,1 | |||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP52 | 35,9 | 27,3 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
