12 winkels · 123.162+ producten

Vergelijking: GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2 vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52 vs. Continental WinterContact TS 870 vs. Bridgestone Blizzak 6

Testprofiel

GoodYear
Efficientgrip Performance 2
Kumho
Ecsta HS52
Continental
WinterContact TS 870
Bridgestone
Blizzak 6
Aantal tests
4
10
17
14
Beste positie
#2
#2
#1
#1
Gemiddelde positie
3.3
6.0
1.7
3.6
Laatste test
2026
2026
2025
2025
Beschikbare maten
40
109
80
194

Deze banden zijn niet samen in dezelfde test beoordeeld. de onderstaande scores zijn samengesteld uit verschillende onafhankelijke tests, dus directe vergelijking dient met voorzichtigheid te worden geïnterpreteerd.

Nat
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
82%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
79%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
87%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
80%
Remmen op nat wegdek
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
84%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
85%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
88%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
80%
Behandeling op nat wegdek
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
81%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
80%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
91%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
81%
Aquaplaning - longitudinaal
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
71%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
77%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
94%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
72%
Aquaplaning - kruisen
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
73%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
68%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
93%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
68%
Natte cirkelbochten in de bochten
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
81%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
72%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
95%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
83%
Prestaties op nat wegdek
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
80%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
95%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
83%
Droog
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
79%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
85%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
90%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
73%
Droogremmen
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
82%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
91%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
87%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
61%
Droge behandeling
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
80%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
79%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
91%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
82%
Droog rijgedrag
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
65%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
78%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
67%
Prestaties op droog wegdek
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
81%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
78%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
59%
Droge rijstrook wisselen
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
75%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
95%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
92%
Droge stuurrespons
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
88%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
90%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
74%
Soelaas
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
78%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
80%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
89%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
81%
Buitengeluid
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
80%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
81%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
89%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
66%
Soelaas
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
90%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
76%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
85%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
79%
Inwendig geluid
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
73%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
79%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
98%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
92%
Kosten
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
88%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
69%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
86%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
71%
Rolweerstand
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
81%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
70%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
89%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
85%
Kilometrage
GoodYear Efficientgrip Performance 2
99%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
54%
Continental WinterContact TS 870
90%
Bridgestone Blizzak 6
41%

Afmetingen en prijzen

Vergelijk prijzen voor alle beschikbare maten van deze banden.

Voeg toe aan vergelijking

Populaire merken
Nieuwe vergelijking

Bandenlab.be

Gratis — in de App Store

DOWNLOAD

Bandenlab.be

Gratis — in de App Store

Vergelijk banden, lees testresultaten en vind de beste prijzen — alles in één app.

Bekijk in de App Store