Tyre reviews Kumho Ecsta SPT KU31. Page 7 2129

Decided to replace the standard Michelin Energy E3A 16' with Kumho 17". Balanced well (20 grams per wheel). Immediately felt more tread and the car became a bit stiffer. Otherwise, so far for 3000 km, everything is fine. The car holds the road well in both dry and wet weather. Does not skid on turns. Not particularly noisy. Only a soft rustle is heard (but Energy was quieter, IMHO). The price-quality ratio

Excellent tire. Bought for the old car, drove a season, sold the car and bought the same one for the new one.

Pros: Excellent handling on dry and wet roads, excellent braking. Lane changes from row to row are a pleasure. Very hard to skid, even during emergency braking.

Cons: Very dislikes ruts due to stiff sidewalls, noisy when inflated to 2.3 atm. Purely asphalt tire, wet dirt and grinds on the

I bought the cheapest option and almost immediately regretted it. The tires can't compare to the German Michelin ones I had before. The wheels used to never skid when starting from a standstill or during turns, but now it's a common occurrence. The braking is terrible. Gentlemen, don't save a thousand on each wheel, save your nerves. Buy the same ones that the manufacturer installed.

I've driven almost 5000km on these 195/65-15 tires
Complete garbage, absolutely "tasteless" tires.
Traction properties, both when accelerating/braking and when turning, are worse than anything else....(I had to drive on domestic Matador tires for one summer, and even those held the road better)....When accelerating, it whines, and when braking, it slows down very reluctantly.
This tire doesn't hold a

Normal tire.

Size 185/60 R 14. On a dry road, it handles normally, on a wet road, it's also fine, and even when driving on water, it holds the road quite well. In terms of stiffness, it's average, I previously had a Good Year Eagle, of course, a good tire, but a bit too hard and, in my opinion, noisier than Kumho. I can't say anything about wear - I haven't

The only plus after Michelin Energy - much better

Installed yesterday, already drove about 300 km - quite a quiet tire, holds wonderfully, got carried away in a turn, went up to 1400 but held on :) I love to drive fast - I'll say exactly, handles better than the stock Michelin Energy and much quieter.

EXCELLENT RUBBER
Installed on Lanos 195/50/15, holds the road well, when emergency braking does not skid into a drift, pleased with the reinforced side cord!
Pros: inexpensive rubber with high performance! And most importantly, not a Chinese fake!
Cons: I don't even know, seems like there aren't any!

I'm in shock!!!!!!!!!
I recently installed them (195/50 R15), since I live up north, and oh boy!!!!The noise is incredible!!!I have no complaints about handling on dry and wet roads, but this hum is killing me!!!Is this problem only mine?What to do?!!!(((
Pros: The car "sticks" to the asphalt
Cons: It's noisy, damn it!

Good tires, but not UHP

Took after Yokohama AVS - 102, since I knew I would be selling the car, wanted to save money, but still wanted something decent. From this point of view, an excellent option. Clearly loses to Yokohama in all characteristics except noise and wear resistance, but nevertheless, quite reliable and comfortable. For normal driving, it's enough with a margin, for aggressive driving, you need to get used to the peculiarities of

I didn't like 205/50/15
on dry asphalt, they skid all the time, simply terrible, high sensitivity to ruts, plus they are hard, but they handle the road well, and on wet asphalt they are also excellent, it's not scary to drive into puddles at speed, I removed them and bought A Drive Yokohama
Pros: excellent on wet roads
Cons: hard, poor acceleration on dry asphalt, sensitive to ruts