Segment
1. Firestone Roadhawk Upper-middle2. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Upper-middle
Comparison: Firestone Roadhawk vs. Kumho Ecsta PS71
Table of contents:
| # | Firestone Roadhawk | Kumho Ecsta PS71 | Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R16 - R22 | ||
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
In this comparison, we are looking at two summer tyres: the Firestone Roadhawk and the Kumho Ecsta PS71. Both tyres are popular choices for drivers seeking performance, safety, and value. Here, we will highlight their strengths and weaknesses based on various tests to help you make an informed decision.
According to our ratings, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 scores a 79%, while the Firestone Roadhawk comes in slightly lower at 71%. This difference is reflected in the various tests carried out by different organizations.
In the Autobild test, the Firestone Roadhawk placed 13th out of 53 tyres, while the Kumho Ecsta PS71 landed in the 18th position. Despite being lower in the ranking, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 was praised for its consistent high-performance, good handling qualities, and short wet and dry braking distances. It also offers a fair price, but at the cost of increased road noise.
On the other hand, the Firestone Roadhawk received a lower overall ranking in the Autobild 2020 test due to its weaknesses on dry roads, slightly increased wear, and very poor performance on wet surfaces. However, it does have the advantage of lower fuel consumption.
In the ADAC test, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 vastly outperformed the Firestone Roadhawk, placing 3rd out of 17 tyres. It was particularly praised for its performance in aquaplaning tests, both cross and longitudinal. The tyre demonstrated excellent balance, especially on wet surfaces, and had no significant weaknesses.
In contrast, the Firestone Roadhawk secured a much lower position, finishing 17th in the ADAC test. The tyre showed poor results in most of the evaluated criteria.
Verdict
Overall, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 is the superior tyre in this comparison. It consistently performs well in various tests, with a focus on balance, wet surface handling, and aquaplaning resistance. Its only notable drawback is increased road noise, which may be a trade-off for its performance capabilities.
Conversely, the Firestone Roadhawk has some significant weaknesses, particularly its poor performance on wet surfaces and increased wear. However, it does excel in fuel efficiency, making it an option for drivers looking for an eco-friendly tyre.
For more information on these tyres, you can visit their respective manufacturers' websites: Firestone and Kumho.
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
1. Kumho Ecsta PS71 9.332. Firestone Roadhawk 12.21
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Firestone Roadhawk Exemplary2. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Highly recommended
Worst rating in test
1. Firestone Roadhawk Conditionally recommended2. Kumho Ecsta PS71 Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Aquaplaning - cross
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet handling
Wet braking
Wet circle cornering
Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Dry handling
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
1. Firestone Roadhawk 71 dB2. Kumho Ecsta PS71 ? dB
Costs
(Overall rating)Mileage
Rolling resistance
Price/value
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 58.1 | 24.8 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 67.7 | 30.9 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 61.7 | 26.6 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Noise | Wear | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2,0 | 1,5 | 2,6 | 1,5 | |||
| Firestone Roadhawk Rating: Poor | 4,9 | 2,8 | 3,0 | 2,5 | |||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Good | 2,2 | 2,5 | 3,2 | 2,0 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 1- | 1 | ||||
| Firestone Roadhawk Rating: Good | 2+ | 2 | 2- | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Conditionally recommended | 1 | 2 | 3- | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,1 | 28,7 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 34,3 | 30,8 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 34,9 | 29 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Firestone Roadhawk Rating: Satisfactory | 3+ | 2- | 2- | ||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 Rating: Satisfactory | 2 | 2- | 3- | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 34,2 | 28,7 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 35,2 | 32 | |||||
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | 37,1 | 31,6 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||