Firestone Firehawk Sport vs Kumho Ecsta PS71
- TR Score
- 8.6/10
- Owners say
- 79% · 6
- TR Score
- 8.5/10
- Owners say
- 77% · 94
In the 3 independent tests that ran both tires, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 finished ahead 2 times and the Firehawk Sport once. The Firehawk Sport was 1.6 dB quieter; the Ecsta PS71 lasted 27.1% longer in the wear tests.
Data updated
Which should you buy?
Buy the Kumho Ecsta PS71 unless fuel economy and noise matter more to you than stopping distance and tire life; the Firestone Firehawk Sport is the efficiency specialist, and the ADAC result that flatters it comes from a scoring system that rewards exactly that.
Where the Firehawk Sport is stronger
- Lowest rolling resistance in Auto Bild's test at 7.62 kg/t, 17.1 percent better than the Kumho
- Quieter in both tests that measured noise, by 1.8dB and 2.4dB
- Lower fuel consumption at ADAC, 5.5 against 5.7 l/100km, and 7th of 18 overall there
Where the Ecsta PS71 is stronger
- Shorter braking in the dry and the wet in all three tests, by 5.9m wet at Auto Bild
- Projected to last far longer, 42,180km against 28,860km
- Cheaper per 1000km, 7.49 against 11.64, and 4th of 21 and 4th of 52 overall
The bullet points are analysis of the shared tests and of owner reviews; the measured wins in each discipline are in the tables below. Where the two disagree, the figures are right.
Firehawk Sport vs Ecsta PS71 at a glance
| Category | Firehawk Sport | Gap | Ecsta PS71 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared tests won3 shared tests | 1 | 2 | |
| Dry4 measurements | 0 | The Ecsta PS71 stopped 1.9% shorter in the dry (3 tests) | 4 |
| Wet10 measurements | 1 | The Ecsta PS71 stopped 8.8% shorter in the wet (3 tests) | 9 |
| Comfort3 measurements | 2 | The Firehawk Sport was 1.6 dB quieter (2 tests) | 1 |
| Value5 measurements | 3 | 2 | |
| Tire Reviews Scoreevery test and review we hold | 8.6/10 | The Firehawk Sport by 0.1 | 8.5/10 |
| Owner rating6 and 94 reviews | 79% | The Firehawk Sport by 2 points | 77% |
| Would buy againshare of owners | 67% | The Firehawk Sport by 4 points | 63% |
| Pricein the 2 tests that listed prices | +6.6% | The Firehawk Sport was dearer in 2 of 2 | Cheaper |
| Sizes madeEU label registrations | 35 | 31 sizes made in both | 133 |
Wins count every measurement the shared tests recorded for both tires; a tick marks the tire ahead on that line. Subjective driver scores count as wins but are never averaged, because each test uses its own scale.
Head to head in 3 tests in 2025
Each row is one published test in which both tires ran on the same car, in the same size, on the same day. The line is the whole field, winner on the left.
| Test | Firehawk Sport | Field | Ecsta PS71 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 Auto Bild Summer Performance Tire Test | P20 of 20 | P4 of 20 | |
| 2025 ADAC Summer Tire Test | P7 of 18 | P13 of 18 | |
| 2025 Summer Tire Test Shootout | P15 of 52 | P4 of 52 |
Performance profile
6 measurements from the 3 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
Firehawk Sport
Ecsta PS71
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
In each test the better of the two figures counts as 100% and the other as its share of it, so a 118 ft stop against 112 ft is 95%; each spoke averages the shared tests that recorded it. The scale stops at 90%: a point further in sits on the hub's edge, hollow. 8 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
Firehawk Sport
Ecsta PS71
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Category scores are percentiles among tires of the same season and class: 90 means this tire out-performs 90% of them, measured across every test we hold, not only the ones it appeared in.
Where owners rate each higher
Firehawk Sport
Ecsta PS71
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Owners rate the Firehawk Sport 79% from 6 reviews and the Ecsta PS71 77% from 94. Each spoke is one question owners answer out of 10; reviews are vetted by hand before publication.
Every measurement, side by side
Averages of the figures both tires posted in the same tests. The gap is the average of each test's own gap, so figures from different cars and years are never mixed. Open a discipline for its measurements, and a measurement for every test's figure.
| Measurement | Firehawk Sport | Gap | Ecsta PS71 | Wins | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 115 | 1.9% | 113 | 0-3 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 72.6 | 1.5% | 73.7 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 121 | 8.8% | 110 | 0-3 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 125 | 5.3% | 118 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 44.3 | 3.5% | 45.9 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 15.08 | 2.3% | 14.73 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 48.8 | 5% | 51.3 | 0-2 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 9.7 | 3.4% | 10 | 1-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| scored | 9.3% | scored | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 72.95 | 1.6 dB | 74.5 | 2-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 19,685 | 27.1% | 24,693 | 0-2 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 7.62 | 17.1% | 9.19 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 5.5 | 3.5% | 5.7 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 81.1 | 5.4% | 85.7 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Braking distances and lap times are better when lower; speeds, wear and grip figures when higher. A test's figures are its own: sizes, cars, surfaces and temperatures differ from one to the next, which is why the averages here are only ever of tests the two tires shared. "Scored" rows are subjective driver ratings: each test uses its own scale, so only the wins are counted.
Scores beyond the shared tests
On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Firehawk Sport scores 8.6 and the Ecsta PS71 8.5 out of 10.
| Firehawk Sport | Category | Ecsta PS71 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 86 | Dry | 73 | ||
| 66 | Wet | 92 | ||
| 54 | Comfort | 11 | ||
| 56 | Value | 18 | ||
Category scores are percentiles among tires of the same season and class: 90 means this tire out-performs 90% of them, measured across every test we hold, not only the ones it appeared in.
What owners say
| Firehawk Sport | Category | Ecsta PS71 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.8 | Dry Grip | 8.5 | ||
| 8.5 | Wet Grip | 8 | ||
| 7.8 | Road Feedback | 8 | ||
| 8.4 | Handling | 8 | ||
| 5 | Wear | 7 | ||
| 8 | Comfort | 7.4 | ||
Owners rate the Firehawk Sport 79% from 6 reviews and the Ecsta PS71 77% from 94. Reviews are vetted by hand before publication; ownership is not verified.
Firestone Firehawk Sport
- 79%from 6 reviews
- 67%would buy again
- 18,510 milesdriven by reviewers
Drivers generally report the Firestone Firehawk Sport delivers strong wet and dry grip with confident aquaplaning resistance, making it feel secure in heavy rain. Many also highlight low road noise and improved fuel economy/MPG versus prior tires, with stable handling and reduced tramlining. A smaller share of reviews raise concerns about faster-than-expected wear or durability on rough/potholed roads, though most feedback remains clearly positive.
- Excellent wet grip and rain confidence (including aquaplaning resistance)
- Strong dry grip/traction and stable handling
- Low road noise/quiet ride
- Improved fuel economy/MPG
- Some reports of faster wear or reduced durability on rough/potholed roads
Summarised by AI from 6 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 6 Firehawk Sport reviewsI came from a hankook ventus s1 evo3 . But they had pretty bad dry cracks even before the tire ran out of life . I have 245/35/20 tires . the comfort on the firestones are a little bit worse then the hankooks . i could run the hankooks on 2.5 bar , these on 2.3 for the same comfort . i think the firestones are a bit more fuel efficient , even when they are on a lower tire pressure . Dry grip is very good , never lost any traction , even in the rain . aquaplanning is also very good , never had any feel of losing controle .
So far i ran the tires around 15.000 km and lost 1.5mm out of the 5.5mm tread on the front , and only lost 0.5 on the back . so i think ill get aroud 60.000km out of it if i switch them every year . Found out they have like 0 traction on snow , keep that in mind .
Kumho Ecsta PS71
- 77%from 94 reviews
- 63%would buy again
- 686,811 milesdriven by reviewers
Most owners rate the Kumho Ecsta PS71 as a strong budget performance tire, with a clear majority praising its dry grip and handling and nearly half calling the wet grip confidence-inspiring. Value for money is a consistent highlight, with many feeling it runs pricier brands close for everyday road use. The main drawback is refinement: around a third of owners mention road noise, and opinions on tread life are mixed rather than conclusive. A smaller but notable group also report vibration/balancing niggles, with a few mentioning tramlining.
- Strong dry grip with plenty of confidence
- Very capable wet grip for the price
- Secure, enjoyable dry handling
- Excellent value for money versus premium rivals
- Road noise can be intrusive, especially at speed
- Tread life is inconsistent, with some reporting faster wear
- Can be hard to balance or develop vibrations
Summarised by AI from 87 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 94 Ecsta PS71 reviewsJust looking around for replacements in a couple of thousand miles. Unless I hear outstanding reviews from other Elroq owners I'm going to stick with Kumho Ecsta PS71 EV and stick with the different width/ profiles front and rear. These Kumhos have completely out performed the Bridgstones I had on my ID.3 - I coudln't wait to get rid of them when they had to be replaced at 8,000miles.
Sizes, EU label and lineage
From the EU label registrations for each tire: 35 sizes of the Firehawk Sport and 133 of the Ecsta PS71, 31 of them made in both.
| Category | Firehawk Sport | Ecsta PS71 |
|---|---|---|
| Season | Summer | Summer |
| Sizes made | 35 sizes, 18 to 20 inch | 133 sizes, 16 to 22 inch |
| Made in both | 31 sizes 225/40 R18225/45 R18235/40 R18245/40 R18245/45 R18255/35 R18255/40 R18265/35 R18225/35 R19225/45 R19235/35 R19235/40 R19and 19 more | |
| EU label wet grip | A100% | A71%B24%C5%D0% |
| EU label rolling resistance | B77%C20%A3% | C41%B22%D21%A17% |
| EU label noise | 70 dB B54%A46% | 68-75 dB B96%A4% |
| On the market since | 2023 | 2016 |
| Replaced | Firestone Firehawk SZ90 | - |
| Replaced by | - | Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72 |
| Price in the shared tests | The Firehawk Sport was the dearer tire in 2 of the 2 tests that listed prices, by 6.6% on average. Each test priced the tires in its own market at the time; only the gap is comparable. | |
Label grades are shown as the share of registered sizes carrying each grade, so "B (88%), C (12%)" means most sizes are B. Grades vary by size; check the label for yours.
Reading the results
Written from the test results and owner reviews above. It is analysis, not a measurement: where it and the tables disagree, the tables are right.
Two mid-range ultra high performance summer tires, three shared 2025 tests, and a set of results that looks one-sided until you notice which test disagrees. The Kumho Ecsta PS71 braked shorter than the Firestone Firehawk Sport in every dry and wet measurement across all three, and the wet gaps are the sort that change outcomes: 42.8m against 48.7m in Auto Bild's performance test, and 27.4m against 31.1m in the 52 tire braking shootout.
The Firestone answers with efficiency. It posted the lowest rolling resistance in Auto Bild's field at 7.62 kg/t, 17.1 percent better than the Kumho, used less fuel in the ADAC test, and ran quieter in both tests that measured noise.
That efficiency is why the ADAC result reads backwards. In a test that weights environmental performance alongside safety, the Firestone finished 7th of 18 and the Kumho 13th of 18, despite the Kumho braking shorter on every surface ADAC measured. It is the clearest example on this page of how much a test's weighting decides its podium.
Conclusion
On safety and longevity the Kumho Ecsta PS71 is the stronger tire, and it is not close. It stopped shorter in the dry in all three tests and in the wet in all three, with a 5.9m advantage in Auto Bild's 2025 performance test and 3.7m in the braking shootout, which is the difference between stopping at a hazard and arriving at it. It also led wet handling by 3.5 percent and straight aquaplaning by 8.0 percent at ADAC. Wear is the other landslide: 42,180km projected against 28,860km, and 7.49 per 1000km against 11.64. Auto Bild summed it up as convincing driving dynamics, secure handling and short braking distances in all conditions, and placed it 4th of 21 and 4th of 52.
The Firestone Firehawk Sport's case is running cost of a different kind. Its 7.62 kg/t rolling resistance was the lowest in Auto Bild's test and 17.1 percent better than the Kumho's, it used 5.5 l/100km against 5.7 at ADAC, and it was the quieter tire in both tests that measured it, by 1.8dB and 2.4dB. ADAC rated it good overall for driving safety while the Kumho only satisfactory, held back by its dry road behavior there.
Treat the ADAC placing as the exception it is rather than the pattern. Across the three tests the Kumho brakes shorter everywhere, lasts nearly half as long again, and costs less per 1000km, so it is the tire to buy unless fuel economy and noise genuinely outrank stopping distance for you. If they do, the Firestone is the efficiency pick, and its 20th of 21 in Auto Bild's performance test is a fair warning of what that costs elsewhere.
Firehawk Sport vs Ecsta PS71: your questions
Is the Firestone Firehawk Sport or the Kumho Ecsta PS71 the better tire?
In the 3 independent tests that ran both tires, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 finished ahead 2 times and the Firehawk Sport once. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Firehawk Sport scores 8.6 and the Ecsta PS71 8.5 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Firehawk Sport or the Ecsta PS71?
The Ecsta PS71 led 9 of the 10 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 8.8% shorter in the wet across 3 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The Ecsta PS71 led 4 of the 4 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 1.9% shorter in the dry across 3 tests.
Which lasts longer and costs less to run?
The Ecsta PS71 lasted 27.1% longer in the wear tests (2 tests). Owners rate wear 5/10 for the Firehawk Sport and 7/10 for the Ecsta PS71.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
The Firehawk Sport was 1.6 dB quieter (2 tests). Owners rate comfort 8/10 for the Firehawk Sport and 7.4/10 for the Ecsta PS71.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Firehawk Sport 79% from 6 reviews and the Ecsta PS71 77% from 94. 67% of Firehawk Sport owners would buy it again, against 63% for the Ecsta PS71.
Which is more expensive?
In the 2 tests that listed prices, the Firehawk Sport was the dearer tire in 2 of them, by 6.6% on average. Prices are the test's own at the time, in its own market.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The Firehawk Sport is made in 35 sizes (18 to 20 inch) and the Ecsta PS71 in 133 (16 to 22 inch). 31 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the Firehawk Sport is graded A for wet grip and B for rolling resistance in most sizes; the Ecsta PS71 A and C.
Which is the newer tire?
The Firehawk Sport is the newer design: it reached the market in 2023, the Ecsta PS71 in 2016. The Firehawk Sport replaced the Firestone Firehawk SZ90.
More comparisons with these tires
vs
Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 vs Kumho Ecsta PS71
4-3 in 7 shared tests
vs 
Kumho Ecsta PS71 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 5
0-5 in 5 shared tests
vs 
Kumho Ecsta PS71 vs Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
6-3 in 9 shared tests
vs
Firestone Firehawk Sport vs Michelin Pilot Sport 5
0-5 in 5 shared tests
vs
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 vs Kumho Ecsta PS71
4-1 in 5 shared tests
vs 
Kumho Ecsta PS71 vs Yokohama Advan Sport V107
3-2 in 5 shared tests
vs
Firestone Firehawk Sport vs Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
0-7 in 7 shared tests
vs
Giti GitiSportS2 vs Kumho Ecsta PS71
0-5 in 5 shared tests
Run either of these?
Your review is the part of this page no test can supply: how the tire wore, how it aged, what it was like in the rain in year three. It takes about five minutes.
Where this data comes from
Finishing positions and measurements are transcribed from each published test. A test only counts here when both tires ran in it, so every figure was recorded on the same car, size and day as the one it is compared to.
About the TR Score
The Tire Reviews Score rates each tire out of 10 from every independent test result and vetted owner review we hold, so two tires can be compared even before a test has run them together.
Who does the testing
Every test published as a Tire Reviews test is run by Jonathan Benson, who has been testing tires independently since 2007.
Discussion