tirewheelguide
Head-to-head Updated

General Grabber Arctic LT vs Kumho Crugen HT51 — 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 + 2 road tests and 7 + 164 owner reviews. How we score

Grabber Arctic LT is ahead, 69–64

Check price on Amazon · Grabber Arctic LT or Crugen HT51 on Amazon
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.

Kumho Crugen HT51
Tire BKumho

Crugen HT51

All Season

± 8

Tests 55 · 2 tests Owners 75 · 164 reviews

Best test result: #2 of 9 in 2024 Tire Rack Highway All Season Tyre Test (dry circle)

Category by category

Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.

  1. 68

    Dry

    Grabber Arctic LT +3
    65
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTCrugen HT51
    Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests≈ 68 (est.)58
    Reviews found online6976

    Grabber Arctic LT: 60% × 68.3 (est.) + 40% × 68.8 = 68

    Crugen HT51: 60% × 58.2 + 40% × 75.8 = 65

    No road tests of dry for Grabber Arctic LT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.41).

  2. 74

    Wet

    Grabber Arctic LT +7
    67
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTCrugen HT51
    Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests≈ 73 (est.)60
    Reviews found online7578

    Grabber Arctic LT: 60% × 73.3 (est.) + 40% × 75.4 = 74

    Crugen HT51: 60% × 59.5 + 40% × 78 = 67

    No road tests of wet for Grabber Arctic LT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).

  3. 70

    Snow

    Grabber Arctic LT +21
    49
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTCrugen HT51
    Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests≈ 70 (est.)36
    Reviews found online7070

    Grabber Arctic LT: 60% × 70.2 (est.) + 40% × 69.6 = 70

    Crugen HT51: 60% × 35.7 + 40% × 69.5 = 49

    No road tests of snow for Grabber Arctic LT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.32).

  4. 67

    Comfort

    Crugen HT51 +3
    70
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTCrugen HT51
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 68 (est.)≈ 69 (est.)
    Reviews found online6670

    Grabber Arctic LT: 40% × 68.1 (est.) + 60% × 66.1 = 67

    Crugen HT51: 40% × 69 (est.) + 60% × 70.4 = 70

    No road tests of comfort for Grabber Arctic LT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).

    No road tests of comfort for Crugen HT51. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).

  5. 66

    Noise

    Crugen HT51 +6
    72
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTCrugen HT51
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 66 (est.)≈ 66 (est.)
    Reviews found online6479

    Grabber Arctic LT: 60% × 66.4 (est.) + 40% × 64.2 = 66

    Crugen HT51: 60% × 66.4 (est.) + 40% × 79.1 = 72

    No road tests of noise for Grabber Arctic LT or Crugen HT51. The test half is the tested tires’ average (66): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.

  6. 65

    Treadwear

    Crugen HT51 +1
    66
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTCrugen HT51
    Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests≈ 65 (est.)58
    Reviews found online6476

    Grabber Arctic LT: 60% × 65.4 (est.) + 40% × 63.5 = 65

    Crugen HT51: 60% × 58.4 + 40% × 76.4 = 66

    No road tests of treadwear for Grabber Arctic LT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).

  7. –

    Handling (owners)

    No comparison
    74
    Why this score
    SourceGrabber Arctic LTCrugen HT51
    Reviews found online–74
Scores at a glance
CategoryGeneral Grabber Arctic LTKumho Crugen HT51
Relative Score 69 64
Dry 68 65
Wet 74 67
Snow 70 49
Comfort 67 70
Noise 66 72
Treadwear 65 66
Handling (owners) – 74

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
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less 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
± 8

Grabber Arctic LT

± 8

Crugen HT51

Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.

Pros, cons & observations

Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.

Tire A Grabber Arctic LT

Pros

  • Strong traction on packed snow, ice and freshly fallen unplowed snow, including on steep driveways
  • Marked improvement over previous all-season, all-terrain and 'no season' tires in slippery conditions
  • Improved braking and stopping in slippery conditions

Cons

  • One reviewer would like a more aggressive tread pattern
  • Tight fit when mounting on stock Ford wheels, though no leaks were reported in cold weather
  • Cost is not criticized directly, but one reviewer notes the Michelin Latitude X-Ice was 'quite expensive', implying the General is the more budget-oriented choice
All owner themes in the Grabber Arctic LT review

Tire B Crugen HT51

Pros

  • Exceptional value and lower price point compared to premium competitors
  • Smooth, quiet, and comfortable highway ride
  • Strong dry, wet, and winter/snow traction

Cons

  • Slightly vague or 'squishy' steering feel/sidewall stiffness compared to some OEM tires
  • Potential negative impact on fuel economy (decreased MPG for some truck owners)
  • Occasional reports of accelerated shoulder wear or balancing issues
All owner themes in the Crugen HT51 review

Specs side by side

Attribute A · General Grabber Arctic LT B · Kumho Crugen HT51
CategoryWinterAll Season
Vehicle typeSUV and 4x4SUV and 4x4
Sizes available644
Rim diameters16″ – 18″15″ – 22″
Tread depth16/32″12.5/32″
UTQG—720 A A
Treadwear warranty—70,000 mi
SidewallBlackwallBlackwall
Max pressure80 psi50 psi
Sizes in common66

Which one should you actually buy?

General Grabber Arctic LT

Kumho Crugen HT51

Winner: General Grabber Arctic LT — better snow, wet and dry. Pick the Kumho Crugen HT51 if noise and comfort matter most to you. General Grabber Arctic LT rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 7 reviews), so read this result as provisional.

Pick tire A You drive through snowy winters

General Grabber Arctic LT scores 70 vs 49 on snow.

Pick tire A Your priority is wet-weather safety

General Grabber Arctic LT scores 74 vs 67 on wet.

Pick tire B You want a quieter cabin

Kumho Crugen HT51 scores 72 vs 66 on noise.

Pick tire A You want the most grip on dry roads

General Grabber Arctic LT scores 68 vs 65 on dry.

Tire A · General Grabber Arctic LT
Check price on Amazon
Tire B · Kumho Crugen HT51
Check price on Amazon

TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.

Grabber Arctic LT or Crugen HT51?

Which is better in the wet, Grabber Arctic LT or Crugen HT51?

General Grabber Arctic LT, 74 vs 67 on our wet score.

Which grips better on dry roads, Grabber Arctic LT or Crugen HT51?

General Grabber Arctic LT, 68 vs 65 on our dry score.

Which is better in snow, Grabber Arctic LT or Crugen HT51?

General Grabber Arctic LT, 70 vs 49 on our snow score.

Which is quieter, Grabber Arctic LT or Crugen HT51?

Kumho Crugen HT51, 72 vs 66 on our noise score.

Which is more comfortable, Grabber Arctic LT or Crugen HT51?

Kumho Crugen HT51, 70 vs 67 on our comfort score.

Which lasts longer, Grabber Arctic LT or Crugen HT51?

Neither, by our numbers: 65 vs 66 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