Kumho Ecsta 4x tires...

[E Showell]

My experience with the MXV4s is that while they last a good long time, the tread seems to get very hard after a bit of wear and they lose grip. I also had hydroplaning issues with them. After a bit of wear they are hideously bad in the snow. In contrast, the Generals (which also have a somewhat soft sidewall, by the way) are much grippier in corners and far better in rain and snow. I run them at the optional higher inflation pressure for increased fuel economy and they seem to perform better when inflated to the optional higher pressure. I also thought they were a bit quieter than the Michelins. They are far more affordable than the Michelins as well. The Generals get relatively good reviews on the Tire Rack site. My mechanic runs them on his cars.

[erikv11]

"Better than" is kind of a fuzzy phrase. The MXV4 is called a Grand Touring All-Season tire while the Kumho 4X is an Ultra High Performance All-Season tire. They belong to different categories. If a Grand Touring tire is what you are after (very long life, nice ride, softer sidewall, zero road noise) then it is better for you. If you like the feel of a higher performance tire then it isn't better for you.

The MXV4 is a great tire and tops in its category. I was happy with them but it makes compromises in the performance area (plus it's expensive). I was careful to say that I liked the Kumho better than the Michelin, not that it was better.

I agree. And "tops in its category" only means the people gave it higher numbers than other tires on the list. That doesn't make it the "best" tire in the category either, just the one with the highest score in surveys. You don't know if those numbers are based on people who drive the same way as you or different, heavy or light vehicles (e.g. history on a Mini Cooper means very little when considering a tire for a Volvo wagon!), etc.

[Volvo Manic]

I put four of these Kumho Ecsta's on my S60 AWD when I bought it. Absolutely terrible tires. Awful even for the right price. Had two tires blow in the first year and a half or less than 20K miles. After the first one I had to get the replacement shaved down to match the AWD. After the second one disintegrated the other 2 "good" tires had to go. Replaced with Pirelli P6's now for over a year and couldn't be happier.

[instarx]

Just got my $50 rebate from Kumho and thought I would update this post. I still love the tires. They're very responsive, have incredible grip, mpg did not decrease at all from the Michelins, and they provide a great ride. (no, lol, I'm not being paid by Kumho).

I only have 3,000 miles on them, but no sign of wear at all. They do get a brown tint on the sidewalls after a while, but it wipes right off with a rag. I assume it is some additive in the rubber. Not bothersome.

If I have a complaint it would be that Kumho took ten weeks to get my rebate to me, and then only after a call. But TireRack even made that call for me and got the rebate card sent right out. TireRack is really a first class operation.

[matthew1]

Thanks for the update. I agree on Tire Rack, really "on the ball" business. Disclaimer: MVS is a Tire Rack affiliate. Please buy via those links and you help this site.

[bugleg]

I put a set on my XC a year and about 10,000 miles ago. Still love them. I've been known to dispose of tires prematurely due to deterioration in traction and handling, but I think I've got alot of miles left with these.

I loose alot of tires to road damage (NYC roads) and sub $300 for a set that drives as well as the $500 set I put on previously is good looking for sure.

[instarx]

I promised an update on these tires after some miles.

Overall Performance: I have not had a single issue with the tires in 10k miles of use. There were some comments about how Kumho's were failure-prone, but I have seen no evidence of that. There are no sidewall or tread issues. Tread wear is even across the face of the tire with no extra outside edge-wear (something no Michelin has ever done for me). The tires are still smooth-riding, competent and corner like no tires I have ever owned. They still soak up those small little bumps on the road. The brown dust I noticed on the sidewalls after I first put them on has disappeared.

Tire Wear: The only thing that might be a concern is tread wear. After 10k miles there is 7.5/32 of tread left of the original 11/32. This is only about 2/3 of the tread left that should be there to get 40,000 miles.* This doesn't concern me much for two reasons. First, the tires have a 40,000 miles warranty so I will get some pro-rated compensation from Kumho, and secondly the tires are inexpensive to begin with.

Cost Analysis: The Ecsta 4X tires are currently selling for $79 each at Tire Rack, less a $60 rebate per set. That puts them at a ridiculously inexpensive $63, or $252 for a set of four. Comparable Michelin and Yokohama tires (even with their rebates) are $438, $468 and $564 - a huge difference. By changing the tires more often I will have an additional $100 in mounting and shipping costs, but the Kumhos will still be cheaper to run over 40,000 miles.

So in summary: Superior riding and handling tires. Very confident feel. No defects. Tire wear could be better, but nevertheless still significantly cheaper to run per mile than comparable Michelin or Yokohama. Very satisfied.

*Blue font has been edited to correct an error I made - thanks for finding it ericv11.

[matthew1]

Good update, thanks.

Another point in your favor is frequency of new rubber. Rubber ages and becomes slightly brittle. Two new rubber events in the same timespan is better than one.

[mecheng]

I had Kumhos but I found they developed a very loud drone with age despite the thread being okay. I like the Dunlop Direzza much better. It was only slightly more expensive, but still much cheaper than Michelin, Yokes, or Bridgestone. They are Made in Japan and for an extra $15 each, they are wearing and grip better than the Kumhos.

[erikv11]

I agree this is great info, thanks for following up instarx. Your cost analysis tells me the Kumhos are at least the same cost to run as touring Michelins, probably more expensive. They are apples and oranges in terms of other features, I'm just looking at the cost comparison facts.

The 60%-80% comparison vs a Michelin is not accurate, you certainly aren't going to run either tire to 0/32! Might make more sense to just compare mileage life. I get pretty uneasy if I let a tire get to 4/32, these Kumhos will be there by 18k at the current rate. Or do they wear more slowly once the soft outer rubber is gone, like a lot of snow tires? Michelins really do last 40,000 miles before getting down near 4/32, seems doubtful you will get 20k out of these. So granted this is only a sample of one but it looks like Kumhos are half the initial cost (or more!) but wear out twice as fast (and probably faster) - a wash or more expensive. And a 2-year tire creates mountains of tire waste at twice the rate, for some this is not to be ignored.

This does not factor in any pro-rating for the tires falling short of the mileage warranty, but it also ignores the extra mounting and shipping costs, so again it is close to a wash. Who handles warranty, your installer? Do you have to take the car in and have tire rotations logged to get the warranty? Ouch, the Kumho web site says you would have to run them all the way to 2/32 to use the tread life warranty, that's just mean.

Anyway, hey a high performance driving experience is always a bit more costly, maybe they are worth it!