Comparison Kumho WINTERCRAFT WP52 vs Kumho WINTERCRAFT WP52+

Kumho

WINTERCRAFT WP52

Passenger car Standard

Overall rating

PTI – Pneutesty Index

8,0

8,4

Discipline comparison

Snow

40 ≈ average

11 tests

90 +4 %

3 Tests

what it consists of Snow (3)

snow braking

32 ≈ average

9 tests

82 +4 %

2 Tests

snow traction

27 ≈ average

6 tests

83 +3 %

2 Tests

snow handling

54 ≈ average

5 tests

95 +3 %

1 test

Wet

77 +3 %

11 tests

91 +6 %

3 Tests

what it consists of Wet (3)

wet braking

82 +6 %

9 tests

93 +10 %

2 Tests

Aquaplaning

16 −6 %

6 tests weakness

67 −1 %

2 Tests

wet handling

61 ≈ average

5 tests

89 +3 %

1 test

Dry

94 +3 %

6 tests

87 +3 %

3 Tests

what it consists of Dry (2)

dry braking

95 +4 %

6 tests

94 +4 %

3 Tests

dry handling

84 ≈ average

4 Tests

23 ≈ average

1 test

Ice

71 +2 %

2 Tests

60 from 1 measurement

1 test

what it consists of Ice (1)

ice braking

72 +2 %

2 Tests

61 +1 %

1 test

Economy

49 +4 %

7 tests

64 +7 %

3 Tests

what it consists of Economy (2)

efficiency (rolling resistance and consumption)

7 −3 %

5 tests

35 −1 %

3 Tests

durability (wear and abrasion)

62 +7 %

4 Tests

65 +9 %

3 Tests

Noise and comfort

35 ≈ average

5 tests

1 ≈ average

2 Tests

what it consists of Noise and comfort (2)

quietness (measured and subjective noise)

63 ≈ average

4 Tests

32 ≈ average

2 Tests

ride comfort

13 Not measured.

2 Not measured.

‹

Technologies

3PMSF

–

✓ Only in some sizes

M+S

–

✓ Only in some sizes

Sound

–

✓ Only in some sizes

Suitable for EVs

–

✓ Only in some sizes

Reinforced profile

–

✓ Only in some sizes

Rim protection

–

✓ Only in some sizes iba táto

Comparison

Technologies

Highlighted in green — this tyre has these in addition to the others; grey ones are shared by all.

none

3PMSF*

M+S*

Sound*

Suitable for EVs*

Reinforced profile*

* Only in some sizes

Comparison

Discipline comparison

A higher number and a longer line always mean a better tyre — also for noise (quieter), consumption (more efficient) and wear (lasts longer). compared with 169 winter tyres

Kumho WINTERCRAFT WP52

Kumho WINTERCRAFT WP52+

Snow

40 ≈ average

11 tests

90 +4 %

3 Tests

what it consists of Snow (3)

snow braking

32 ≈ average

9 tests

82 +4 %

2 Tests

snow traction

27 ≈ average

6 tests

83 +3 %

2 Tests

snow handling

54 ≈ average

5 tests

95 +3 %

1 test

Wet

77 +3 %

11 tests

91 +6 %

3 Tests

what it consists of Wet (3)

wet braking

82 +6 %

9 tests

93 +10 %

2 Tests

Aquaplaning

16 −6 %

6 tests weakness

67 −1 %

2 Tests

wet handling

61 ≈ average

5 tests

89 +3 %

1 test

Dry

94 +3 %

6 tests

87 +3 %

3 Tests

what it consists of Dry (2)

dry braking

95 +4 %

6 tests

94 +4 %

3 Tests

dry handling

84 ≈ average

4 Tests

23 ≈ average

1 test

Ice

71 +2 %

2 Tests

60 from 1 measurement

1 test

what it consists of Ice (1)

ice braking

72 +2 %

2 Tests

61 +1 %

1 test

Economy

49 +4 %

7 tests

64 +7 %

3 Tests

what it consists of Economy (2)

efficiency (rolling resistance and consumption)

7 −3 %

5 tests

35 −1 %

3 Tests

durability (wear and abrasion)

62 +7 %

4 Tests

65 +9 %

3 Tests

Noise and comfort

35 ≈ average

5 tests

1 ≈ average

2 Tests

what it consists of Noise and comfort (2)

quietness (measured and subjective noise)

63 ≈ average

4 Tests

32 ≈ average

2 Tests

ride comfort

13 Not measured.

2 Not measured.

‹