20 000+ reviews 4 600+ tyres 140+ tests 470 000+ prices tracked

Comparison Kumho WINTERCRAFT WP52 vs Kumho WINTERCRAFT WP52+

8.0 Winter
WINTERCRAFT WP52
Kumho
225/65R17 106H KUMHO WINTERCRAFT WP52 ,XL ,3PMSF
Passenger car Standard
Rolling resistance C Wet grip B Noise B
from 63 485 Ft
8.4 Winter
WINTERCRAFT WP52+
Kumho
225/65R17 106H KUMHO WINTERCRAFT WP52+ ,XL ,3PMSF
SUV / 4×4 Standard
Rolling resistance C Wet grip B Noise B
from 44 111 Ft
8.0 WINTERCRAFT WP52 WINTERCRAFT WP52 from 63 485 Ft
8.4 WINTERCRAFT WP52+ WINTERCRAFT WP52+ from 44 111 Ft
Overall rating
PTI – Pneutesty Index
8,0
8,4
Price from
63 485 Ft
44 111 Ft ▲ najlacnejšia
EU štítok
Rolling resistance C Wet grip B Noise B
Rolling resistance C Wet grip B Noise B
Discipline comparison
Snow
27 ≈ average
11 tests
87 +2 % ▲
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 1 test
Wet
70 +2 %
11 tests
91 +5 % ▲
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 1 test
Dry
94 +3 % ▲
6 tests
86 +2 %
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 1 test
Ice
– Not measured.
2 Tests
– Not measured.
1 test 1 test
what it consists of Ice (1)
ice braking
72 +2 % ▲
2 Tests
61 +1 %
1 test 1 test
Economy
49 +3 %
7 tests
64 +6 % ▲
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
42 ≈ 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 3PMSF
–
✓
Reinforced profile Reinforced profile
–
✓
Suitable for EVs Suitable for EVs
–
✓ iba táto
Comparison

Technologies

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

none
3PMSF 3PMSF Reinforced profile Reinforced profile Suitable for EVs Suitable for EVs
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). PTI compared with all winter tyres · rank in size 225/65 R17 among 33 available

8.0 Kumho WINTERCRAFT WP52
tested in R17
8.4 Kumho WINTERCRAFT WP52+
tested in R17
Snow
27 ≈ average
11 tests
87 +2 % ▲
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 1 test
Wet
70 +2 %
11 tests
91 +5 % ▲
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 1 test
Dry
94 +3 % ▲
6 tests
86 +2 %
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 1 test
Ice
– Not measured.
2 Tests
– Not measured.
1 test 1 test
what it consists of Ice (1)
ice braking
72 +2 % ▲
2 Tests
61 +1 %
1 test 1 test
Economy
49 +3 %
7 tests
64 +6 % ▲
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
42 ≈ 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.