Tests – · none yet Owners 73 · 11 reviews
BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler looks discontinued: no new owner reviews or road tests in five years and no current EU tyre label.
Head-to-head
Updated
BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler vs Kumho Ecsta HS52 — Compared
Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews (comfort 40/60). Based on 0 + 7 road tests and 11 + 2,372 owner reviews. How we score
Ecsta HS52 is ahead, 80–71
Add your size for an exact match
/R
Both Amazon links then search this exact size.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Tests 84 · 7 tests Owners 74 · 2,372 reviews
Best test result: #1 of 21 in 2022 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test (dry braking)
“I have kuhmo ecsta hs52's on my renault megane during spring and summer and they are really good. No complaints at all. My milage did go up a little bit but that's it”
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
-
70
Dry
Ecsta HS52 +1383Why this score
Source g-Force Profiler Ecsta HS52 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 7 tests ≈ 70 (est.) 86 Reviews found online 72 79 g-Force Profiler: 60% × 69.6 (est.) + 40% × 71.6 = 70
Ecsta HS52: 60% × 86.4 + 40% × 78.7 = 83
No road tests of dry for g-Force Profiler. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.42).
-
73
Wet
Ecsta HS52 +1285Why this score
Source g-Force Profiler Ecsta HS52 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 7 tests ≈ 72 (est.) 90 Reviews found online 74 77 g-Force Profiler: 60% × 72.3 (est.) + 40% × 73.6 = 73
Ecsta HS52: 60% × 89.9 + 40% × 76.5 = 85
No road tests of wet for g-Force Profiler. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
-
67
Comfort
Level67Why this score
Source g-Force Profiler Ecsta HS52 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 69 (est.) ≈ 69 (est.) Reviews found online 66 66 g-Force Profiler: 40% × 68.5 (est.) + 60% × 65.8 = 67
Ecsta HS52: 40% × 68.6 (est.) + 60% × 66 = 67
No road tests of comfort for g-Force Profiler or Ecsta HS52. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.
-
–
Noise
No comparison65Why this score
Source g-Force Profiler Ecsta HS52 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 3 tests – 64 Reviews found online – ≈ 67 (est.) Ecsta HS52: 60% × 63.8 + 40% × 66.6 (est.) = 65
No owner ratings of noise for Ecsta HS52. The owner half is the owners’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests, so the tests say nothing about how owners would rate it.
-
74
Treadwear
Ecsta HS52 +175Why this score
Source g-Force Profiler Ecsta HS52 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 5 tests ≈ 71 (est.) 80 Reviews found online 79 67 g-Force Profiler: 60% × 70.7 (est.) + 40% × 79.2 = 74
Ecsta HS52: 60% × 80.1 + 40% × 67.1 = 75
No road tests of treadwear for g-Force Profiler. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.35).
-
67
Handling (owners)
Ecsta HS52 +1077Why this score
Source g-Force Profiler Ecsta HS52 Reviews found online 67 77 -
–
Efficiency
No comparison43Why this score
Source g-Force Profiler Ecsta HS52 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 5 tests – 43
Scores at a glance
| Category | BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler | Kumho Ecsta HS52 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 71 | 80 |
| Dry | 70 | 83 |
| Wet | 73 | 85 |
| Comfort | 67 | 67 |
| Noise | – | 65 |
| Treadwear | 74 | 75 |
| Handling (owners) | 67 | 77 |
| Efficiency | – | 43 |
Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.
Weight the categories that matter to you
Wet grip starts at “Important”. Treadwear starts at “Neutral” here: road tests measured it for at most one of the two tires, so it rests on owner reviews. Move the sliders and the scores update instantly.
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Not important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Recomputed
Headline score
71
/ 100
g-Force Profiler
80
/ 100
Ecsta HS52
Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.
The professional test results behind the scores
Per discipline: the average % of the best tire over every test both tires were in, and how many of those tests each one won. “Different tests” rows compare results from separate tests.
| Discipline | Category | g-Force Profiler | Ecsta HS52 | Δ | Head-to-head |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Also published by the testers (not in the score) | |||||
| Overall Ranking | Overall | #9/44 2012 Autobild 50 Tyre Braking Test | #9/16 2026 ADAC Summer Tyre Test | – | Different tests |
Pros, cons & observations
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
Tire A g-Force Profiler
Pros
- Excellent dry and wet grip across a range of temperatures
- Impressive tread life and long-lasting durability
- High value for money at an affordable price point
Cons
- Poor traction and handling in heavy snow and winter weather
- Can be noisy on wet tarmac
- Firm or crashy ride quality over rough road surfaces
Tire B Ecsta HS52
Pros
- Excellent wet and dry weather traction
- Low road noise and quiet operation
- Smooth and comfortable ride quality
Cons
- A few reports of accelerated or abnormal tread wear
- Slightly sensitive to tire pressure regarding comfort
- Occasional complaints of high-speed vibration or imbalance early on
What real owners are saying
From Reddit, forums and review threads. Not part of our score
Tire A
BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler
We haven't collected enough community discussion about this tire yet.
Tire B
Mixed
Kumho Ecsta HS52
The Kumho Ecsta HS52 receives a polarized mix of reviews from the community, praised by many for its rigid sidewalls, strong dry grip, sharp steering responsiveness, and great value compared to premium alternatives. However, some users report disappointing wet weather performance, potential issues with aquaplaning resistance, and inconsistent test results across different sizes. Overall, it is viewed as a solid mid-range option, though experiences with wet traction and longevity vary significantly among drivers.
r/tires
·3 upvotes ·2025-09-23
“What’s up with these tyres? Kumho ectsa hs52 date code 3923, tyres are (UK) legal regards tread but I can’t imagine this damage is normal. Both front tyres have this, looks like the tread is tearing apart in multiple places. I did not fit these tyres but it was mot’d 3 months ago and has done 2k miles since. I’ve owned the car 11 months but only noticed this very recently. I am getting them replaced on Monday with little use before then but I’m curious how this has happened. Is it just a shit brand? Wear is even across the face so I don’t think it would be the alignment or anything to do with the car and the damage is random across the contact patch. It’s a Peugeot 508 2l diesel so quite a bit of weight on the nose. Fitting Bridgestone Turanza 6. Rear tyres are good, but a different brand (horizon horace 2122 date)”
r/CarTalkUK
·1 upvote ·2025-01-11
“I have kuhmo ecsta hs52's on my renault megane during spring and summer and they are really good. No complaints at all. My milage did go up a little bit but that's it”
r/Mazda323
·6 upvotes ·2026-06-14
“Mini review of the Kumho Ecsta HS52 I was running some Hankook's on my GT before and the tire wall not stiff enough. Now I've mounted these Kumho Ecsta HS52's and I highly recommend them: The tire wall is nicely rigid and they grip great in the dry, took quite some intent to make them loose traction. Additionally, I've accidentally ran over a pretty big sharp looking rock at decent speed that aimed right in a tread groove (thinnest part) and the thing shrugged it off no problem. And all of this for a damn good price too! So if anyone's looking for good tires, now you know.”
Top themes
#Dry grip and handling#Wet weather performance#Sidewall stiffness#Price and value#Comparison with competitors#Fuel economy and weight#Tread wear and durability
Based on 17 community posts
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler | B · Kumho Ecsta HS52 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | — | 53 |
| Rim diameters | — | 14″ – 20″ |
Which one should you actually buy?
71
/ 100
BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler
80
/ 100
Kumho Ecsta HS52
Winner: Kumho Ecsta HS52 — better dry, wet and handling. It leads or ties in every category we score. BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 11 reviews), so read this result as provisional.
Pick tire B
You want the most grip on dry roads
Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores 83 vs 70 on dry.
Pick tire B
Your priority is wet-weather safety
Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores 85 vs 73 on wet.
Pick tire B
You enjoy sharp, responsive handling
Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores 77 vs 67 on handling.
Tire A · BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler
Tire B · Kumho Ecsta HS52
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
g-Force Profiler or Ecsta HS52?
Which is better in the wet, g-Force Profiler or Ecsta HS52?
Kumho Ecsta HS52, 85 vs 73 on our wet score.
Which grips better on dry roads, g-Force Profiler or Ecsta HS52?
Kumho Ecsta HS52, 83 vs 70 on our dry score.
Which is more comfortable, g-Force Profiler or Ecsta HS52?
Neither, by our numbers: 67 vs 67 on the comfort score, within 3 points.
Which lasts longer, g-Force Profiler or Ecsta HS52?
Neither, by our numbers: 74 vs 75 on the treadwear score, within 3 points.
How do we compare tires?
Every category score blends two independent signals. 60% comes from professional tire tests (braking distances, lap times, noise measurements), each result compared with every other tire in the same test and newer tests counting more. 40% comes from owner reviews found online, adjusted for how generously each site rates. Both use one scale: the average tested tire gets 70, the best 100. When a tire has only one of the two, the missing half is estimated from the other and the score stays closer to average; with no road test and fewer than five owner reviews it gets no score yet.
Handling is the exception: road tests measure it inside the dry and wet scores, so its own row comes from owner ratings only and starts as less important.
Community buzz from Reddit and forums is shown for context only — it never changes the score. Full methodology