Segment
2. Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Upper-middle
Comparison: Hankook Winter i*cept evo2 W320 vs. Kumho WinterCraft WP71
Table of contents:
In this comparison, both of the tyres are made by a brand from South Korea. Generally, Hankook winter tyres are slightly better rated (71%) than Kumho (48%). In this particular case, the Kumho WinterCraft WP71 has a better rating of 54% compared to 51% of the Hankook Winter i*cept evo2 W320. The first tyre test of Hankook Winter i*cept evo2 W320 was done in 2015, compared to 2016 when was the Kumho WinterCraft WP71 first tested. Important for this comparison is also the Autobild 2019 255/35 R19 test, where both the Winter i*cept evo2 W320 and the WinterCraft WP71 were tested. See more mutual tests below. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 86% of Hankook Winter i*cept evo2 W320 dimensions has C wet grip rating. Most (100%) of the Kumho WinterCraft WP71 also have C wet ratings. We also know where Winter i*cept evo2 W320 is made - Hungary.
| # | Hankook Winter i*cept evo2 W320 | Kumho WinterCraft WP71 | Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R15 - R22 | R16 - R19 | |
| 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
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Hankook Winter i*cept evo2 W320 Satisfactory2. Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Conditionally recommended2. Hankook Winter i*cept evo2 W320 Still recommended
Dry
(Overall rating)Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Snow
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Ice
(Overall rating)Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1- | 2 | 1- | ||||
| Hankook Winter i*cept evo2 W320 Rating: Good | 2 | 2- | 2+ | ||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Rating: Satisfactory | 3- | 2- | 1- | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1- | 2+ | 1- | ||||
| Hankook Winter i*cept evo2 W320 Rating: Satisfactory | 2 | 2- | 2 | ||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Rating: Satisfactory | 2- | 2- | 2 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2+ | 2+ | 1 | 1- | |||
| Hankook Winter i*cept evo2 W320 Rating: Satisfactory | 2- | 2 | 3+ | 2 | |||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Rating: Satisfactory | 2- | 2- | 2 | 2+ | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Enviromental impact | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 9,6 | 9,2 | 9,9 | 10 | |||
| Hankook Winter i*cept evo2 W320 Rating: Still recommended | 6,8 | 8,3 | 8,1 | 7,3 | |||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP71 Rating: Still recommended | 7,1 | 7,8 | 7,8 | 6,5 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||