57 Shops · 190,948+ Produkte

Vergleich: Michelin Energy Saver + gegen GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2 gegen Kumho Ecsta HS52

Testprofil

Michelin
Energy Saver +
GoodYear
Efficientgrip Performance 2
Kumho
Ecsta HS52
Anzahl der Tests
4
3
10
Optimale Position
#5
#2
#2
Durchschnittliche Position
10.3
3.3
6.0
Neuester Test
2018
2026
2026
Verfügbare Größen
40
104

Nass

Nass
Michelin Energy Saver +
87%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
77%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
77%
Handling - nass
Michelin Energy Saver +
90%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
74%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
79%
Aquaplaning - quer
Michelin Energy Saver +
62%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
69%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
66%
Aquaplaning - längs
Michelin Energy Saver +
90%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
66%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
73%
Kreisbahn nass
Michelin Energy Saver +
95%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
61%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
89%

Kosten

Kosten
Michelin Energy Saver +
80%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
83%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
76%
Kilometerstand
Michelin Energy Saver +
94%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
99%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
79%
Rollwiderstand
Michelin Energy Saver +
79%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
72%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
70%

Komfort

Komfort
Michelin Energy Saver +
84%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
70%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
77%
Außengeräusch
Michelin Energy Saver +
84%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
67%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
73%

Trocken

Trocken
Michelin Energy Saver +
96%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
75%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
87%
Handling - trocken
Michelin Energy Saver +
96%
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
77%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
85%

Abmessungen und Preise

Preise in allen verfügbaren reifendimensionen dieser reifen vergleichen.

Zum Vergleich hinzufügen

Beliebte Marken
Neuer Vergleich