Menu
Kumho Ecsta HS51 View Gallery (1)

Kumho Ecsta HS51

Kumho Tires Premium Touring Summer Next

The Kumho Ecsta HS51 is a Premium Touring Summer tire designed to be fitted to Passenger Cars.

8.3
Tire Reviews Score Based on Professional Tests & User Reviews
High Confidence View Breakdown
Dry Grip
87%
Wet Grip
83%
Road Feedback
77%
Handling
80%
Wear
77%
Comfort
84%
Buy again
72%
38 Reviews
80% Average
606,470 miles driven
10 Tests (avg: 9th)
Kumho Ecsta HS51

Kumho Ecsta HS51

Summer Mid-Range
BETA
8.3 / 10
Based on Professional Tests & User Reviews · High Confidence · Updated 18 Jun 2026

The Tire Reviews Score is the most comprehensive tire scoring system available. It aggregates professional test data from multiple independent publications, user reviews, and consistency analysis using Bayesian statistical methods, weighted normalisation, and recency-adjusted scoring to produce a single, reliable performance rating.

Learn more about our methodology
Category Scores
Wet
76.1
2x / 9 tests
Comfort
65.7
0.32x / 2 tests
Dry
64.6
1.8x / 7 tests
Value
63.5
0.42x / 9 tests
Cross-Category Performance

Cross-category scores are derived metrics that combine data from multiple test disciplines to evaluate real-world performance characteristics.

Braking
72.6
8 tests
Handling
63
6 tests
Score Components
Professional Tests
Weight: 80%
Tests: 10
Publications: 4
Period: 2016 - 2021
User Reviews
Weight: 15%
Reviews: 38
Avg Rating: 79.9%
Min Required: 5
Consistency
Weight: 5%
Score Std Dev: 0.15
History Points: 10
Methodology & Configuration
Scoring Process
  1. Collect Test Data: Gather results from professional tire tests across multiple publications. Minimum 1 test(s) required.
  2. Normalize Positions: Convert test positions to percentile scores using exponential weighting (factor: 1.2).
  3. Apply Recency Weighting: More recent tests are weighted higher with a decay rate of 0.95.
  4. Incorporate User Reviews: Factor in user review data (minimum 5 reviews). Weight: 15%.
  5. Bayesian Smoothing: Apply Bayesian prior (score: 7, weight: 1.5) to prevent extreme scores with limited data.
  6. Calculate Final Score: Combine all components using normalization factor of 1.1. Max score with limited data: 9.5.
Component Weights
Test Data
80%
User Reviews
15%
Consistency
5%
All Configuration Parameters
ParameterValueDescription
safety_weight 0.7 Weight multiplier for safety-related metrics
performance_weight 0.55 Weight multiplier for performance metrics
comfort_weight 0.4 Weight multiplier for comfort metrics
value_weight 0.45 Weight multiplier for value-for-money metrics
user_reviews_weight 0.15 How much user reviews contribute to the final score
test_data_weight 0.8 How much professional test data contributes to the final score
consistency_weight 0.05 How much score consistency contributes to the final score
recency_decay_rate 0.95 Rate at which older test results lose influence (higher = slower decay)
min_test_count 1 Minimum number of professional tests required
min_review_count 5 Minimum number of user reviews required
score_version 1.9 Current version of the scoring algorithm
score_normalization_factor 1.1 Factor used to normalize raw scores to the 0-10 scale
confidence_factor_weight 0.2 How much data confidence affects the final score
position_penalty_weight 0.2 Penalty applied for poor test positions
gap_penalty_threshold 12 Score gap (%) that triggers additional penalties
min_metrics_count 2 Minimum number of test metrics needed per test
limited_data_threshold 2 Number of tests below which data is considered limited
single_test_penalty 0.75 Score multiplier when only one test is available
critical_metric_penalty 0.7 Penalty for poor performance on critical safety metrics
critical_metric_threshold 70 Score below which a critical metric penalty applies
position_exponential_factor 1.2 Exponent used to amplify position-based scoring
position_exponential_threshold 0.9 Position percentile below which exponential scoring applies
gap_multiplier_critical 3 Multiplier for critical gap penalties
max_category_weight 2 Maximum weight any single category can have
max_score_limited_data 9.5 Score cap when data is limited
bayesian_prior_weight 1.5 Weight of the Bayesian prior in smoothing
bayesian_prior_score 7 Prior score used for Bayesian smoothing
evidence_test_multiplier 1.9 Multiplier for test evidence in confidence calculation
evidence_metric_divisor 3 Divisor for metric count in evidence calculation
evidence_review_divisor 10 Divisor for review count in evidence calculation
combined_penalty_floor 0.2
Data Sources
TestPublicationDateSizePositionMetrics
2021 Auto Bild 16 Inch Summer Tire Test Auto Bild 2021 205/55 R16 1/20 10 metrics
2021 ADAC Summer Tire Test - 205/55 R16 ADAC 2021 205/55 R16 5/15 1 metrics
2021 53 Summer Tire Braking Test Auto Bild 2021 205/55 R16 3/53 2 metrics
2020 ADAC SUV Summer Tire Test ADAC 2020 235/55 R17 10/12 1 metrics
2019 Auto Zeitung Summer Tire Test Auto Zeitung 2019 235/45 R18 9/10 8 metrics
2018 ADAC Summer Tire Test - 205/55 R16 ADAC 2018 205/55 R16 8/16 0 metrics
2017 Auto Express Summer Tire Test Auto Express 2017 205/55 R16 4/11 0 metrics
2017 Auto Bild Summer Tire Test Auto Bild 2017 225/50 R17 20/20 5 metrics
2017 Auto Bild Summer Tire Shootout Auto Bild 2017 225/50 R17 13/43 0 metrics
2016 Market Overview - Braking Test Auto Bild 2016 205/55 R16 17/50 0 metrics
All Tests
View Test Results
10
Tests
9th
Average
1st
Best
20th
Worst
Latest Tire Test Results
2021 Auto Bild 16 Inch Summer Tire Test
205/55 R16 • 2021
1st/20
Precise steering, dynamic handling and short braking distances in the dry and wet, well priced.
High rolling resistance.
Exemplary.
2021 53 Summer Tire Braking Test
205/55 R16 • 2021
3rd/53
2021 ADAC Summer Tire Test - 205/55 R16
205/55 R16 • 2021
5th/15
Top marks for fuel consumption, good in the wet, relatively low wear.
Slightly weaker on dry roads.
The Kumho Ecsta HS51 feels less precise in the dry compared to its peers, and only has an average dry braking result. It's better in the wet, with high aquaplaning resistance, and has reasonable levels of noise.
View Test Results

Questions and Answers for the Kumho Ecsta HS51

Ask a question
July 24, 2016

Looking to have 4 new tires 215-55-16 to my Mercedes E280. Which would you recommend, HS31, HS51, or any other. Awaiting reply before purchasing.

Tire choice depends a lot on driving style and what you priorities from a tire's performance. The last test the Kumho HS51 was included in didn't go so well, so we'd suggest reading <a href="http://www.tirereviews.co.uk/Article/2015-European-Tire-Test-205-55-R16.htm">this test</a> and selecting a tire which scored a little better.

Review Summary

Based on 34 user reviews

Most drivers rate the Kumho Ecsta HS51 highly, praising its strong wet and dry grip, comfort, low noise, and good value; many report long, even wear with mileages often exceeding 25-40k. A minority cite issues such as aquaplaning, soft sidewalls with vague feedback, and shorter life on some vehicles. Overall sentiment is positive with performance and comfort outweighing the reported drawbacks.

Strengths
  • Wet grip
  • Dry grip
  • Comfort/ride quality
  • Low noise
  • Value for money
  • Durability/tread life
Areas for Improvement
  • Aquaplaning in heavy rain
  • Soft sidewalls/poor feedback
  • Short tread life for some users
  • Increased noise as tires age

Top 3 Kumho Ecsta HS51 Reviews

Given 60% while driving a Peugeot 408 1.6 HDI (215/55 R16) on a combination of roads for 0 average miles
April 2019 - all new chinese Kumho tires, 7.5mm. May 2019 - the fine tread pattern completely disappeared. August 2019 - everything was finished, on front axle 2.5mm remaining. Very-very bad in aquaplaning. About 70 km/h.
I think, for test that make of a best rubber compound, and sell to ordinary people from a cheap one.
Helpful 736
January 31, 2025
Given 41% while driving a Kia Motors Seltos S (215/55 R17) on a combination of roads for 19,000 average miles
Rubbish tires, only lasted 30,000kms. They do ok grip wise in summer but twice I've had them aquaplaning in small ruts in wet weather, the wet weather grip is terrible. They are also the noisiest tires I've ever owned. I'm looking forward to getting rid of them!
Helpful 799
May 30, 2024
Given 43% while driving a Mercedes Benz (225/50 R16) on a combination of roads for 400 average miles
The worst tire I have ever bought. Sidewalls are far too soft and dry grip is not what it should be. The rear of the car actually sways when making a sharp turn as speed above 80km/h. No, problem to get the traction control light on, never had this situation with the previous Bridgestone or Yokohama tires. After only 600 kms I had to the Kumho's replaced by Yokohama 105V's.
Helpful 964
April 9, 2023

Which tires do you drive?

Researching the Kumho Ecsta HS51? Rate the tires you actually drive — and help the next buyer choose.

Own the Kumho Ecsta HS51?
I drive something else — review any tire →
126 reviews submitted this month Earn your Contributor badge No account needed

Latest Kumho Ecsta HS51 Reviews

Given 77% while driving a Citroën c2 (185/55 R15) on a combination of roads for 27,900 average miles
Replace them today fo the HS52, made 45000kms 27900mies (aprox), and they were ok for may work car. Had Michelein before and were not that much better in wet condition were worst.
Helpful 870
April 28, 2023
Given 83% while driving a Renault (195/50 R16) on a combination of roads for 25,000 average miles
I bought a set of 4 of these in 2016, prompted by a financially painful pot-hole experience, which made me reluctant to spash out on a replacement set of Michelins, which this was - and our three other cars are - equipped with. They were just as quiet, and satisfactory in wet and dry conditions (but untested in snow), given I don't push hard in corners, but do maintain momentum while generally averaging 60+ mpg. I swapped fronts to rears, and achieved about 25,000 miles from the set, and changed when they were down to around 2mm. Much lower mileage than I get from the usual tires, but less at stake in this pot-hole strewn country. One tire recently developed cracks on the inner sidewall, which would have been an MOT failure, if I hadn't been able to swap the spare there and then. I can't be sure about the cause of the cracking, which deveIoped on a rear tire, I've repalced the front tires with Michelins again, but have just fitted HS52s to the rear axle, to see how they fare, hoping that they do as well or better than the HS51s, and will be inspecting the inner sidewall more closely on this set.
Helpful 849
April 5, 2023
Given 91% while driving a Ford Focus MK3 (215/50 R17) on a combination of roads for 47,000 average miles
After Long term review close 6 years, Done 47K miles on Ecsta HS51 version. I'm very pleased , one of the best tires *All weather conditions excellent . * The rear still have tread on them . It's time for new set of tires . I recommend these tires to all want a great Tire with a reasonable price not too expensive with high quality and durability.
Helpful 739
January 28, 2023
Given 100% while driving a Ford Focus MK3 (215/50 R17) on a combination of roads for 43,000 average miles
This will be my last update on the Escata Hs51. I have done 43K miles. All type of weather conditions are excellent: grip, handling, breaking High quality and good price. No issues with blow outs for normal high speed driving excellent. For track or extreme need a upgrade for specific tires (Track, Ultimate extreme). I recommend them for all. Winter time hopefully be updating or upgrading to the Hs52 or Ps version Will have a update and throw review on them.
Helpful 854
July 17, 2022
Given 96% while driving a Mitsubishi Lancer 1.8 (Modified) (195/55 R15) on a combination of roads for 15 spirited miles
never had any problems with it, my car has never gotten into a slide with these tires, have been running these tires for a year and still have 50% tread left. would buy again.
Helpful 807
June 1, 2022
Given 86% while driving a Honda Accord Tourer Type S (235/45 R18) on mostly country roads for 8,000 spirited miles
I've had these on for a year now, and I am very pleasantly surprised at the outright grip both wet and dry these offer. The tires that preceded these were Falken FK510, Hankook VP3 K125 and most recently Nokian Powerproof. I found the Hankooks best for wear, Nokians were good for wet grip but did not last very long and the Falkens may as well have been made from chewing gum for the service life they gave. I know the Honda Accord Type S Tourer is a fairly heavy vehicle and has a decent bit of torque and power but I have a commute that is 80km per day so wear is a factor, the remap adds some more as well. With these HS51 I can say that I am very happy with their performance so far and would definately buy them again. Wet grip/braking and wear are my two main objectives regarding tires and on these points and more they deliver. They are not the most fuel efficient tires but they are very durable and that is worth more to me than some theoretical figure of fuel saving in the long run. In summary I would say that I highly recommend these tires if you have a larger heavier car and don't want the lightweight quiet, fuel efficient tires that have the sidewall strength of a piece of overcooked pasta, these are old school tires that are heavy and solid and last while giving great grip and wear.
Helpful 772
February 23, 2022
Given 83% while driving a Kia Motors Forte (225/45 R17) on a combination of roads for 0 average miles
I think it’s very easy to use. The grip on dry and wet ground is very strong, and it’s not very noisy to walk on unsightly sections
Helpful 867
April 22, 2021
Given 90% while driving a Alfa Romeo 146 Junior (195/55 R15 V) on a combination of roads for 15,000 spirited miles
Wet grip from these tires is very impressive and inspires confidence. Dry grip is very good although perhaps slightly behind the premium Pirellis previously fitted but the Kumhos are very much quieter in terms of road noise and certainly much more comfortable than before. The car's handling qualities are compatible with the Pirellis and the Kumhos are wearing pretty consistently and at an acceptable rate. I like them. They're good value for money in my opinion and suit my style of driving.
Helpful 760
October 20, 2020
Given 69% while driving a Hyundai elantra (225/45 R17) on a combination of roads for 10,650 average miles
Have these stock on my elantra. They're pretty good for what they are. Good wet grip cuz it rains a lot and I haven't had any problems in the wet. Pretty quiet on the highway and choppy pavement. Not a driver's tire though as feedback is poor and handling at the limit is average.
Helpful 855
August 17, 2020
Given 83% while driving a Audi A4 1.9 TDI (205/55 R16 V) on a combination of roads for 9,300 spirited miles
Tires grip really well in the dry, but in the they feel a bit loose. I had them fitted in a audi a4 and have them for 15k km and they have 4.5 mm letf in them. Overall they are a pretty good tire would totally buy again.
Helpful 837
May 16, 2020
Given 56% while driving a Ford Fiesta mk7 (225/45 R17) on mostly town for 7,500 average miles
These tires on the front of a fiesta have only lasted just over 12 months. They have even wear across the tread. Tracking was done when tires were fitted. Very disappointed at the mileage done only about 7500 miles. Will pay more for a better tire next time
Helpful 902
January 3, 2020
Given 100% while driving a Ford Focus MK3 (215/50 R17 W) on a combination of roads for 32,000 average miles
I have these tires for 3 years
Done 32,000 Miles on them
Very good in all conditions like having a perineum brand fitted .
I recommend them to all because its quality & price
Helpful 752
September 11, 2019
Which tires do you drive?
Driving the Kumho Ecsta HS51?
No — review a different tire →
Rate your tires