Menu

Kumho Ecsta KU31 Test Results

Tested 2010 to 2014 2 publications

Tested 2 times by independent publications, the Kumho Ecsta KU31 averages a finish of 8th.

  • 2Independent tests
  • 0Test wins
  • 0Podium finishes
  • 8thAverage finish
  • 0%Field beaten on average
  • 2Publications
Kumho Ecsta KU31

2 tests, 2010 to 2014

The latest test

2014 Auto Review Max Performance Tire Test P7 of 7

The Kumho KU31 looks smart, but unfortunately doesn't deliver in test. On wet roads the performance is mediocre with plenty of understeer and poor aquaplaning performance, and in the dry the braking distance from 62 mph is almost 13 feet longer than the best on test, which means when the Continental had stopped, the car would still be travelling at near 20 mph! Not the best option for road or track.

Winner: Continental ContiSportContact 5 P

Performance Analysis

Drawn from 2 tests. Updated October 29, 2026.

The Kumho Ecsta KU31 finished last in both independent summer tests, with wet-road performance the recurring weakness. EVO placed it ninth of nine in its 2010 front-wheel-drive comparison, describing poor wet performance and the lowest subjective score. Auto Review placed it seventh of seven in its 2014 maximum-performance test, criticising wet grip and control, pronounced understeer and low aquaplaning resistance.

Dry results contain an unusual contrast. EVO noted good dry pace in 2010, whereas Auto Review criticised dry grip and handling in 2014 and measured a dry stop from 62 mph almost four meters longer than the best. Price was the positive in that later assessment. With the comparisons using different sizes and vehicles, the good dry-pace comment does not establish a consistent dry-road advantage, while the two wet-road verdicts are clearly unfavorable.

Performance Strengths

  • Value for money Minor
    Details
    • Auto Review 2014 listed price as a positive.

Performance Weaknesses

  • Wet grip Strong in 1 of 1 tests
    Details
    • EVO 2010 described poor wet performance and the lowest subjective score.
    • Auto Review 2014 criticised wet grip and control, with pronounced understeer.
  • Aquaplaning resistance Minor in 1 of 1 tests
    Details
    • Auto Review 2014 criticised low aquaplaning resistance.
  • Dry braking Minor in 1 of 1 tests
    Details
    • Dry stopping distance from 62 mph almost 4 m longer than best, Auto Review 2014.
  • Dry handling Minor in 1 of 1 tests
    Details
    • Auto Review 2014 criticised dry grip and handling.
    • Unusually, EVO 2010 noted good dry pace, so this was not a consistent weakness.
  • Behavior at the limit Strong in 1 of 1 tests
    Details

Every test, newest first 2

Strong = top two of the field in that measurement. Weak = bottom two.

2014 1 test
P7 of 7 Beat 0% of the field

2014 Auto Review Max Performance Tire Test

Auto Review 255/40 R19

The Kumho KU31 looks smart, but unfortunately doesn't deliver in test. On wet roads the performance is mediocre with plenty of understeer and poor aquaplaning performance, and in the dry the braking distance from 62 mph is almost 13 feet longer than the best on test, which means when the Continental had stopped, the car would still be travelling at near 20 mph! Not the best option for road or track.

WinnerContinental ContiSportContact 5 P

2010 1 test
P9 of 9 Beat 0% of the field

2010 EVO FWD Tire Test

EVO 235/35 R19

Poor wet performance, lowest subjective score.

WinnerContinental ContiSportContact 5 P

Back to the Kumho Ecsta KU31 overview

Owner reviews, sizes and EU label data, comparisons and the Tire Reviews score. All Kumho tires

Overview

Rate your tires

My tires

Saved in this browser on this site. No account needed. Clearing browser data removes your choices.

Vehicle and size

Check the size, load and speed ratings on your vehicle. Saving a size does not confirm fitment.

Saved tires

Save tires from a tire page, test or comparison to keep them here.

Select 2–8 saved tires. Ranked comparisons require at least two shared tests.