Segment
1. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Premium2. Sava Eskimo HP2 Lowcost
Comparison: Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 vs. Sava Eskimo HP2
Table of contents:
In this comparison, we are comparing a tyre from a manufacturer from Japan (Bridgestone) against a tyre from a manufacturer from Slovenia (Sava). Sava is a brand that belongs to the GoodYear group. Generally, Sava winter tyres are slightly better rated (61%) than Bridgestone (46%). In this particular case, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 has a better rating of 92% compared to 75% of the Sava Eskimo HP2. The first tyre test of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 was done in 2019, compared to 2017 when was the Sava Eskimo HP2 first tested. Important for this comparison is also the ADAC 2023 225/45 R17 test, where both the Blizzak LM-005 and the Eskimo HP2 were tested. See more mutual tests below. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 98% of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 has A wet grip rating, whereas 57% of Sava Eskimo HP2 has C rating. We also know where Blizzak LM-005 is made - Italy/Hungary/Poland.
| # | Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | Sava Eskimo HP2 | Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R14 - R22 | R15 - R18 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
2. Sava Eskimo HP2 14.31
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Very good2. Sava Eskimo HP2 Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Sava Eskimo HP2 Satisfactory2. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Conditionally recommended
Snow
(Overall rating)Snow braking
Snow traction
Snow handling
Snow cornering
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet handling
Aquaplaning - cross
Wet circle cornering
Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Dry handling
Dry driving behavior
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Comfort
Interior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
1. Sava Eskimo HP2 71 dB
Costs
(Overall rating)Rolling resistance
Mileage
Price/value
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Ice
(Overall rating)Ice braking
Ice lateral guidance
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Enviromental impact | Driving safety | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,8 | 2,0 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Satisfactory | 3,1 | 3,2 | |||||
| Sava Eskimo HP2 Rating: Satisfactory | 2,2 | 3,4 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,8 | 25,4 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | 32,8 | 26,3 | |||||
| Sava Eskimo HP2 | 37,6 | 26,1 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Rolling resistance | Noise | Wear |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2,0 | 1,8 | 1,4 | 1,8 | 1,5 | 2,7 | 1,5 |
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Satisfactory | 2,0 | 1,8 | 2,7 | 2,4 | 2,1 | 3,4 | 2,5 |
| Sava Eskimo HP2 Rating: Satisfactory | 3,0 | 2,5 | 2,3 | 2,0 | 1,7 | 3,5 | 1,5 |
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Rolling resistance | Wear | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2+ | 2+ | 1 | 1- | 1 | ||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Good | 1- | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2+ | ||
| Sava Eskimo HP2 Rating: Satisfactory | 3 | 2- | 2 | 2 | 2+ | ||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Noise | Wear | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,6 | 1,9 | 1,5 | 2,1 | 2,7 | 1,5 | |
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Satisfactory | 1,6 | 1,9 | 2,8 | 2,4 | 3,3 | 3,0 | |
| Sava Eskimo HP2 Rating: Satisfactory | 3,1 | 3,0 | 2,2 | 2,4 | 4,0 | 2,5 | |
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,1 | 27,3 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | 32,1 | 28,1 | |||||
| Sava Eskimo HP2 | 36,5 | 28 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 30,3 | 24,3 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | 30,3 | 24,5 | |||||
| Sava Eskimo HP2 | 36,3 | 25,1 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,3 | 2,0 | 1,8 | 2,1 | 2,5 | 1,0 | 1,8 |
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Good | 1,3 | 2,1 | 2,1 | 2,4 | 2,9 | 2,5 | 2,0 |
| Sava Eskimo HP2 Rating: Satisfactory | 3,1 | 3,1 | 2,5 | 2,3 | 3,0 | 2,0 | 1,9 |
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2+ | 2+ | 1 | 1- | |||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Rating: Exemplary | 1- | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||
| Sava Eskimo HP2 Rating: Satisfactory | 3+ | 3 | 1- | 2 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 29,2 | 24 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 | 29,2 | 24,6 | |||||
| Sava Eskimo HP2 | 33,6 | 24,1 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||