Tests – · none yet Owners 75 · 65 reviews
Michelin Energy Saver+ vs Kumho Ecsta HS51 — 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 + 6 road tests and 65 + 1,663 owner reviews. How we score
Too close to call: Energy Saver+ and Ecsta HS51 are level at 73.
Add your size for an exact match
Both Amazon links then search this exact size.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Tests 76 · 6 tests Owners 69 · 1,663 reviews
Best test result: #1 of 20 in 2021 Auto Bild 16 Inch Summer Tyre Test (wet handling)
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
-
72
Dry
Ecsta HS51 +274Why this score
Source Energy Saver+ Ecsta HS51 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 4 tests ≈ 70 (est.) 77 Reviews found online 73 71 Energy Saver+: 60% × 70.3 (est.) + 40% × 73.4 = 72
Ecsta HS51: 60% × 76.6 + 40% × 70.9 = 74
No road tests of dry for Energy Saver+. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.42).
-
71
Wet
Ecsta HS51 +677Why this score
Source Energy Saver+ Ecsta HS51 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 4 tests ≈ 71 (est.) 80 Reviews found online 71 73 Energy Saver+: 60% × 71 (est.) + 40% × 71.2 = 71
Ecsta HS51: 60% × 79.7 + 40% × 72.9 = 77
No road tests of wet for Energy Saver+. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
-
73
Comfort
Energy Saver+ +469Why this score
Source Energy Saver+ Ecsta HS51 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 70 (est.) ≈ 69 (est.) Reviews found online 74 69 Energy Saver+: 40% × 70.1 (est.) + 60% × 74.2 = 73
Ecsta HS51: 40% × 69.1 (est.) + 60% × 68.7 = 69
No road tests of comfort for Energy Saver+ or Ecsta HS51. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.
-
–
Noise
No comparison66Why this score
Source Energy Saver+ Ecsta HS51 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 2 tests – 65 Reviews found online – ≈ 67 (est.) Ecsta HS51: 60% × 65.2 + 40% × 66.6 (est.) = 66
No owner ratings of noise for Ecsta HS51. 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.
-
76
Treadwear
Energy Saver+ +670Why this score
Source Energy Saver+ Ecsta HS51 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 4 tests ≈ 72 (est.) 73 Reviews found online 83 65 Energy Saver+: 60% × 71.9 (est.) + 40% × 82.7 = 76
Ecsta HS51: 60% × 73.4 + 40% × 65 = 70
No road tests of treadwear for Energy Saver+. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.35).
-
73
Handling (owners)
Energy Saver+ +469Why this score
Source Energy Saver+ Ecsta HS51 Reviews found online 73 69 -
–
Efficiency
No comparison57Why this score
Source Energy Saver+ Ecsta HS51 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 2 tests – 57
Scores at a glance
| Category | Michelin Energy Saver+ | Kumho Ecsta HS51 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 73 | 73 |
| Dry | 72 | 74 |
| Wet | 71 | 77 |
| Comfort | 73 | 69 |
| Noise | – | 66 |
| Treadwear | 76 | 70 |
| Handling (owners) | 73 | 69 |
| Efficiency | – | 57 |
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.
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Energy Saver+
Ecsta HS51
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 | Energy Saver+ | Ecsta HS51 | Δ | Head-to-head |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Also published by the testers (not in the score) | |||||
| Overall Ranking | Overall | #15/47 2018 AutoBild Summer Tyre Overview | #3/11 2021 Autonavigator Summer Tire Test R16 | – | Different tests |
Pros, cons & observations
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
Tire A Energy Saver+
Pros
- Exceptional treadwear and longevity with many users reporting high mileage (30,000 to 60,000+ miles)
- Impressive fuel efficiency and low rolling resistance
- High level of ride comfort and low road noise
Cons
- Subpar wet-weather traction and slippery behavior during cornering or braking in the rain
- Prone to aquaplaning at higher speeds on wet roads
- Tendency to develop sidewall cracking or dry rot as the tires age
Tire B Ecsta HS51
Pros
- Impressive wet and dry weather traction
- Excellent value for money compared to tier-one premium brands
- Low road noise and enhanced ride comfort
Cons
- Soft sidewalls can cause a wobbly or loose feeling during aggressive cornering
- Some users experienced faster-than-expected tread wear on the front axle
- Occasional complaints regarding poor steering feedback and high-speed handling at the limit
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Michelin Energy Saver+ | B · Kumho Ecsta HS51 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | 24 | 27 |
| Rim diameters | 14″ – 16″ | 14″ – 18″ |
| Sizes in common | 5 | 5 |
Which one should you actually buy?
Michelin Energy Saver+
Kumho Ecsta HS51
Too close to call: Michelin Energy Saver+ and Kumho Ecsta HS51 are within 2 points overall. Michelin Energy Saver+ is stronger on treadwear and comfort. Kumho Ecsta HS51 is stronger on wet.
Michelin Energy Saver+ scores 76 vs 70 on treadwear.
Kumho Ecsta HS51 scores 77 vs 71 on wet.
Michelin Energy Saver+ scores 73 vs 69 on comfort.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Energy Saver+ or Ecsta HS51?
Which is better in the wet, Energy Saver+ or Ecsta HS51?
Kumho Ecsta HS51, 77 vs 71 on our wet score.
Which grips better on dry roads, Energy Saver+ or Ecsta HS51?
Neither, by our numbers: 72 vs 74 on the dry score, within 3 points.
Which is more comfortable, Energy Saver+ or Ecsta HS51?
Michelin Energy Saver+, 73 vs 69 on our comfort score.
Which lasts longer, Energy Saver+ or Ecsta HS51?
Michelin Energy Saver+, 76 vs 70 on our treadwear score.
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