Kumho Ecsta HS52 vs Falken ZIEX ZE320
Ahead in each discipline
The Kumho Ecsta HS52 and the Falken ZIEX ZE320 have met in one independent test so far, and the ZIEX ZE320 finished ahead. The Ecsta HS52 was stronger in wet, the ZIEX ZE320 in dry and value.
Performance profile
8 measurements from the one shared test, each tire shown as its share of the better figure.
Where each is furthest ahead
Ecsta HS52
ZIEX ZE320
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 85%: a point further in sits on the hub's edge, hollow.
Where each scores higher
Ecsta HS52
ZIEX ZE320
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
Ecsta HS52
Not ahead in any category
ZIEX ZE320
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Owners rate the Ecsta HS52 82% from 30 reviews and the ZIEX ZE320 87% from 17. Each spoke is one question owners answer out of 10; reviews are vetted by hand before publication.
Every measurement, side by side
Both tires' figures from the one test that ran them together, on the same car, in the same size, on the same day. The bar grows towards the tire that did better.
| Measurement | Ecsta HS52 | Gap | ZIEX ZE320 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry ZIEX ZE320 ahead | |||
| Dry Braking ft | 117 | 5% | 111 |
| Wet Ecsta HS52 ahead | |||
| Wet Braking ft | 102 | 9.3% | 113 |
| Wet Braking - Concrete ft | 118 | 4.8% | 124 |
| Straight Aqua mph | 48 | 2.8% | 46.7 |
| Curved Aquaplaning ft/s² | 10.5 | 3.2% | 10.2 |
| Value ZIEX ZE320 ahead | |||
| Wear miles | 26,843 | 15.2% | 23,301 |
| Fuel Consumption l/100km | 5.8 | 3.4% | 5.6 |
| Abrasion mg/km/t | 91 | 22% | 71 |
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.
Head to head in 1 test in 2026
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 | Ecsta HS52 | Field | ZIEX ZE320 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 ADAC Summer Tire Test | P9 of 16 | P5 of 16 |
Ecsta HS52 vs ZIEX ZE320: your questions
Is the Kumho Ecsta HS52 or the Falken ZIEX ZE320 the better tire?
The Kumho Ecsta HS52 and the Falken ZIEX ZE320 have met in one independent test so far, and the ZIEX ZE320 finished ahead. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Ecsta HS52 scores 9 and the ZIEX ZE320 9.4 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Ecsta HS52 or the ZIEX ZE320?
The Ecsta HS52 led 4 of the 4 wet measurements the shared tests recorded.
Which is better in the dry?
The ZIEX ZE320 led 1 of the 1 dry measurements the shared tests recorded.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
Owners rate comfort 7.1/10 for the Ecsta HS52 and 8.5/10 for the ZIEX ZE320.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Ecsta HS52 82% from 30 reviews and the ZIEX ZE320 87% from 17. 75% of Ecsta HS52 owners would buy it again, against 80% for the ZIEX ZE320.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The Ecsta HS52 is made in 54 sizes (14 to 20 inch) and the ZIEX ZE320 in 53 (15 to 18 inch). 39 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the Ecsta HS52 is graded A for wet grip and C for rolling resistance in most sizes; the ZIEX ZE320 A and C.
More comparisons with these tires
vs 
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun vs Kumho Ecsta HS52
3-4 in 7 shared tests
vs
Hankook Ventus Prime 4 vs Kumho Ecsta HS52
3-5 in 8 shared tests
vs
Falken ZIEX ZE320 vs Hankook Ventus Prime 4
2-1 in 3 shared tests
vs
Continental PremiumContact 7 vs Falken ZIEX ZE320
5-3 in 8 shared tests
vs 
Falken ZIEX ZE320 vs Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
0-3 in 3 shared tests
vs 
Falken ZIEX ZE320 vs Michelin Primacy 5
4-1 in 5 shared tests
vs 
Falken ZIEX ZE320 vs Pirelli Cinturato C3
2-3 in 5 shared tests
vs 
Falken ZIEX ZE320 vs Vredestein Ultrac
0-1 in 2 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.