2010 Evo Tyre Test - now with added KU31.

[TW]Fox

[TW]Fox

[TW]Fox

Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
160,256
Evo dropped through the door today and in it is the latest performance tyre test.

Interestingly alongside the usual names they've elected to test the Kumho KU31 - a tyre many are arguing is genuinelly decent and isn't raved about just because its cheap.

So, I thought it would be interesting to see how the Kumho stacks up against the established performance tyres.

Summarised results are as follows:

1st ContiSport Contact5
2nd Eagle F1 Assymetric
3rd Pirelli PZero K1
4th Michelin Plot Sport PS2
...
9th Kumho Ecsta KU31.

Oops. 9th.

Evo said:
Kumho trailed in most of the wet tests and ranked lowest subjectively. It felt OK on the road and you can certainly do worse - pretty much any Chinese brand - but with the Kumhos budget price comes cut price ability, especially in the wet
Click to expand...

Not a particularly great showing. Infact in the wet braking test the KU31 stopped almost a car length further down the road than the Assymetric. And in the dry braking test it was also rank bottom.

Doh!

Oh and a special one just for you MikeHiow, following your criticisms of my opinion regarding what I found with F1 fuel economy:

Rolling Resistence (ie fuel economy)

9th Eagle F1 Assymetric.

This result was so much poorer than everyone else its probably the reason it didnt win the test - out of 9 tyres the top 6 were within 10% on rolling reistence whereas the F1 was over 20% worse than the tyre with the least rolling resistence.
 
Last edited:
They seriously did. I'm guessing the test size was an issue again. All the rest are there, though. Good to see the new CS5 as well.

The Pilots came typically middle of the road again as always.
 
I'm needing at least 2 new tyres soon, so I'm just thinking of changing all 4, as currently I have 3 different types of tyres on the car, lol.

Was going to give the Eagle F1's a try, still worth a shot, anyone who's had them?
 
Actually I've even surprised myself here - I think the Michelin PS2 is over 6 years old! A quick Google brings up people posting about prices in October 2004!

I think the fact it manages a 4th place, despite a successor being available for over 10 months, is a reasonably good performance, at least. Especially as the successor is supposed* to perform much better in the areas that let the PS2 down.

*according to Michelin, ofc
 
Last edited:
Any chance of a scan of the review? What car were the reviews done on?

I expect I'll be down to a couple of mm on the back tyres mid winter so have casually started looking for replacement tyres and have no idea as to what to get. :(
 
Only a car length doesn't seem a huge amount for a tyre that costs what, half the price of the F1?

Any chance of uploading the full results rather than select pieces that emphasise your point best?

edit - nvm, OllyM has linked it
 
This isn't exactly a news flash is it?

Only the most deluded amongst us would argue that the Kumhos were premium tyre beaters. Their selling point really is being the middle of premium tyres and ditchfinders in terms of quality and price, which is more or less what evo seem to have said?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom