Kumho Tyre

jones

Anyone ever have any experience of this brand of tyre? the local tyre place is selling them for €85 a pop and i need 2 but he was pushing them big time over the bridgestone that were €96. Any recommendations?

tossy

Had kumho ecstas before - certainly not the worst tyre i've ever had.

Ded_Zebra

Never used Kumho myself but they are fairly highly rated. However I think the Bridgestones would be significantly better (any of their tyres I have driven on have been excellent) and at that small a price difference that is what I would go for.

jones

But not the best either? ;-)

listermint

Had Kumhos before never had an issue with them at all.

jones

Thanks Ded_Zebra you could be right and if i was only getting one i definitely would go with Bridgestone but i dont really have the cash to drop 2 ton on them (just had the car serviced aswell as brake pads changed which set me back 400) so 600 spent on my car in January is really breaking the bank

Ded_Zebra

Well my view is that the price difference is about the same as 3/4 a tank of fuel (€44) if you are getting 4. As they will probably be on the car for the next 30,000km plus I think the cost difference in minimal. Also if you opt for the Kumhos and are not happy with them then it'll leave you in a hard place;)

b318isp

I had Ecsatas on our Galaxy - I didn't like them at all. They wore quickly had so-so feedback and not the same bite at the Conti's that can before and after them. However, I felt they were better than the Falken 912s I had.

Best mid-price in years of buying different types are Toyo Proxes.

bazz26

Kumho are a good mid range tyre brand whereas Bridgestone are a premium branded make. What size are they, as usually there is a substantial difference in price between the premium brands and mid range budget brands?

I'd also look at Hankook, another good mid range tyre and usually cost similar money to the Kumhos.

Neilw

Decent tyre but for €22 extra I'd be buying the bridgestones.

jones

My tyres are 16" alloys on a Golf tdi cant remember the exact tyre type now. The more i think of it i think yous are right for the sake of €22 just to go with the premium tyre which in theory at least should last longer

MetzgerMeister

I had Kumho Ecsta Spt on my last car. I was very happy with them. They gripped excellently in the wet and dry. However that car was 4WD but still a lot of that grip was down to the tyre.

hanloj1

I've kumho ku37 on the front of the audi. I reckon i made a good choice.

djimi

Have them on my Integra and am very happy with them. The wear rate might not be to everyones taste but I find they have very good grip so I guess its a tradeoff of a softer tire; better grip but faster wear. Certainly in their price range I cant complain.

dave45dave

Have 19" on wife's car. Second time buying them and no complaints.

An Ard Ri

Using Kumho at the moment as a winter tyre, Kumho iZen 27, very good so far.

Voodoomelon

I'm using Ecsta Sports in a staggered setup and to be honest see no difference between the Good Year F1s I had last year, in terms of grip in wet or dry, road noise or wear.

If anything, there might be slightly lower road noise with the Kumhos, and the GYs were 50% more expensive.

FGR

Anyone know a site that shows those new ratings (grip, noise, economy) that came in last November?

Would love to compare a few of the upmarket ones..or see the best budget ones..!

George Dalton

FGR wrote: »

Would love to compare a few of the upmarket ones..or see the best budget ones..!

Some of the ratings on certain budget brands are pure fantasy so caution would be advised. The problem is that the ratings aren't tested or verified independently, they are done by the tyre company themselves. Crazy I know but that's how it is....

HJL

Some of the tyres on eire tyres have the new ratings next to them.

In relation to the OP I had Kumho Esta SPT on my last car and found them very good. Also have Bridgestone Potenza RE040 on my current car and while they are fine I dont think I rate them as premium quality, id consider them more mid range albeit a more familiar name than most in that bracket, that is to say I dont put them in the same league as Continental or Goodyear . The last pair of tyres i got were Vredestein which i rate higher that Bridgestone, both were the same price AFAIK.

In your particular case between id probably go for the Bridgestone as i assume they will be the Turanza which should last longer than the Kumho as I have heard from other people of quick wear rate, and the Bridgestone will still give a good standard of grip. I dont think you will be disappointed with either though.

Tea 1000

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I'm using Ecsta Sports in a staggered setup and to be honest see no difference between the Good Year F1s I had last year, in terms of grip in wet or dry, road noise or wear.

If anything, there might be slightly lower road noise with the Kumhos, and the GYs were 50% more expensive.

I'm amazed at this, Good Year Eagle F1's are still the grippiest tyre I've owned. I've had Kumho Ecsta Sports on the back of a RWD and was no stranger to the traction control light. They were good, but not brilliant. Eagle F1's are brilliant however.
I'd go with Bridgestone's for €22, or price Hankooks, which I've found much better than Kumho's. The Kumho's are good, but not great.

Voodoomelon

Maybe if I was a bit more right foot heavy I'd see the difference, but honestly I don't. Theres one particular hill close to me thats around a 120 degree corner and the back will kick out even under the lightest acceleration, but the F1s did the same (and its on a 45 degree hill).

In both the wet and the dry, they both grip extremely well. Again on something with more hp and torque I might see the difference between the two, but not on my current E38. Certainly not worth the price difference in my case.

Tea 1000

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Maybe if I was a bit more right foot heavy I'd see the difference, but honestly I don't. Theres one particular hill close to me thats around a 120 degree corner and the back will kick out even under the lightest acceleration, but the F1s did the same (and its on a 45 degree hill).

In both the wet and the dry, they both grip extremely well. Again on something with more hp and torque I might see the difference between the two, but not on my current E38. Certainly not worth the price difference in my case.

I suppose different tyre sizes actually make a difference too.

Voodoomelon

True, its hard to loose grip in a 1.9 tonne car with 255s on the rear. Anything medium-high end will grip very well.

Marlow

I have Kumho winter tyres on the Audi and can't fail them at all.

Kumho is mostly into specialized or extra wide tyres. They certainly are not a discount brand. I've also driven their semi-slicks for track use and they're seriously good, too.

I'd take a Kumho tyre over a Dunlop or Conti any day. Michelin and Bridgestone are often a good tad more expensive.

I've yet to try a normal Kumho road tyre to compare to my experience I've had with Dunlop, Conti, Michelin, Bridgestone and Hankock's, but I'm definatly set for buying a set of Kumho's the next time. If they perform anything like the winter and race tyres, I'd have no problem recommending them.

I've already a set of Kumho mud terrains on order for the camper.

/M

NIMAN

I take it that big companies can do budget tyres too though.

I got 2 Bridgestones on my car the other day and they were €70 each, but came with the new ratings system, and they were both 'E' rated for fuel efficiency and wet braking. Not great on a scale of A to G.

Perhaps if the Kumho were better rated they would be a better buy?

Marlow

NIMAN wrote: »

Perhaps if the Kumho were better rated they would be a better buy?

It's always a good plan to check out the ratings for a tyre, disregardless of manufacturer.

But the big manufacturers usually brand their budget tyres differently. For example Bridgestones budget brand is Barum.

/M

NIMAN

Mine were Bridgestone badged, but there is a bit of badge snobbery when it comes to tyres, and thats what I was hinting at.

Someone may hear of a cheap unknown brand which may be rated C,C, but prefer to buy a Bridgestone or Goodyear thats rated D,D or E,E, thinking they are getting a better brand and hence a better tyre.

kdevitt

Never had a problem with Kumho's, have always found them good. (my wife have F1's on her compact and they were horrible).

In fact - Kumho are the tyre you get supplied with on the MINI Cooper S Works GP. Its the fastest MINI on the market, so its a pretty decent commendation from BMW if you ask me. I'd personally go for a good Kumho tyre than an entry level one from the likes of Bridgestone.

Marlow

kdevitt wrote: »

In fact - Kumho are the tyre you get supplied with on the MINI Cooper S Works GP. Its the fastest MINI on the market, so its a pretty decent commendation from BMW if you ask me.

Kumho are also fairly known in the motorsport world. It's just Joe Bloggs that doesn't necessarily know them.

/M

Voodoomelon

I remember when I bought my E38 in the UK, the dealer rang to say all it needed was a valet and two new front tyres. When I arrived over they had two brand new Ecsta Sports on.

Only in the UK would they drop €250-€300 (albeit less trade) on two new tyres, instead of some cheap crap, on an already 8 year old car.

Tea 1000

NIMAN wrote: »

I take it that big companies can do budget tyres too though.

I got 2 Bridgestones on my car the other day and they were €70 each, but came with the new ratings system, and they were both 'E' rated for fuel efficiency and wet braking. Not great on a scale of A to G.

Perhaps if the Kumho were better rated they would be a better buy?

To be honest, I give little thought to the fuel rating of a tyre. But wet braking should be better than E! There is more to a tyre's performance though than that. I had a set of Yokohama's on the wife's car before, wet braking in a straight line was quite good but lateral grip was shyte. Understeer'd like a bitch when pushed at all in the wet. Dry grip was average at best.

NIMAN wrote: »

Mine were Bridgestone badged, but there is a bit of badge snobbery when it comes to tyres, and thats what I was hinting at.

Someone may hear of a cheap unknown brand which may be rated C,C, but prefer to buy a Bridgestone or Goodyear thats rated D,D or E,E, thinking they are getting a better brand and hence a better tyre.

The problem is that not one tyre reseller in this country seems to know what they're talking about when it comes to tyres. They'll sell you a Bridgestone. But that's like selling someone a Ford. It could be a Mk3 Escort, one of the worst cars of all time... or it could be a Focus RS mk2. Bridgestone, Dunlop etc all have their range of tyres for a particular region. Tyres made for the Asian region probably won't perform well on Northern European roads and climate. So you could have some cheap import Bridgestones that Bridgestone never intended for the Irish Market.

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I remember when I bought my E38 in the UK, the dealer rang to say all it needed was a valet and two new front tyres. When I arrived over they had two brand new Ecsta Sports on.

Only in the UK would they drop €250-€300 (albeit less trade) on two new tyres, instead of some cheap crap, on an already 8 year old car.

That's the UK for ya! They'd look at you and say in a puzzled voice "Why would anyone want cheap tyres of a 7 series?" Whereas here they'd say "why would you put those tyres on an 8 year old car?".

enricoh

for 11 quid if you intend keeping the car i'd go with bridgestone - i got excellent mileage outta a set, kumhos are a pretty decent tyre though

NIMAN

Tea 1000 wrote: »

To be honest, I give little thought to the fuel rating of a tyre. But wet braking should be better than E! There is more to a tyre's performance though than that. I had a set of Yokohama's on the wife's car before, wet braking in a straight line was quite good but lateral grip was shyte. Understeer'd like a bitch when pushed at all in the wet. Dry grip was average at best.

The problem is that not one tyre reseller in this country seems to know what they're talking about when it comes to tyres. They'll sell you a Bridgestone. But that's like selling someone a Ford. It could be a Mk3 Escort, one of the worst cars of all time... or it could be a Focus RS mk2. Bridgestone, Dunlop etc all have their range of tyres for a particular region. Tyres made for the Asian region probably won't perform well on Northern European roads and climate. So you could have some cheap import Bridgestones that Bridgestone never intended for the Irish Market.


That's the UK for ya! They'd look at you and say in a puzzled voice "Why would anyone want cheap tyres of a 7 series?" Whereas here they'd say "why would you put those tyres on an 8 year old car?".

You make plenty of good point there, and surely this means that anyone that says "Bridgestone is a good tyre", or "Kumho is a good tyre" is talking nonsense?

When I was changing mine last week I was offered a couple of cheap brands I had never heard of but asked for their cheapest 'reputable' brand, and thats when we got to the Bridgestones, which I went for. I would like to think that even though these well known companies may do their cheapo or budget tyres you would like to think that since they are coming a company that surely must have quality control systems in place, there is a fair chance that buying a cheap Bridgestone will get you a better tyre than a cheap brand you've never heard of?

Maybe I'm wrong.