Tests – · none yet Owners 54 · 6 reviews
Head-to-head
Updated
Nexen N Fera AU5 vs Kumho Ecsta HS52 — Compared
Relative Score (0–100): 60% professional tests, 40% owner reviews.
Ecsta HS52 is ahead, 76–58
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 80 · 7 tests Owners 71 · 2,328 reviews
“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.”
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
-
55
Dry
Ecsta HS52 +2782Why this score
Source N Fera AU5 Ecsta HS52 Professional tests (TWG score) – 86 Reviews found online 47 76 -
54
Wet
Ecsta HS52 +2377Why this score
Source N Fera AU5 Ecsta HS52 Professional tests (TWG score) – 82 Reviews found online 49 70 -
65
Comfort
Level65Why this score
Source N Fera AU5 Ecsta HS52 Reviews found online 62 60 -
–
Noise
No comparison65Why this score
Source N Fera AU5 Ecsta HS52 Professional tests (TWG score) – 64 -
64
Treadwear
Ecsta HS52 +973Why this score
Source N Fera AU5 Ecsta HS52 Professional tests (TWG score) – 78 Reviews found online 63 66 -
55
Handling
Ecsta HS52 +2075Why this score
Source N Fera AU5 Ecsta HS52 Reviews found online 55 75
Scores at a glance
| Category | Nexen N Fera AU5 | Kumho Ecsta HS52 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 58 | 76 |
| Dry | 55 | 82 |
| Wet | 54 | 77 |
| Comfort | 65 | 65 |
| Noise | – | 65 |
| Treadwear | 64 | 73 |
| Handling | 55 | 75 |
Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.
Weight the categories that matter to you
Wet grip and treadwear start at “Important” — the two things buyers rank highest. Move the sliders and the scores update instantly.
Important
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Important
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Less important
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Less important
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Neither tire has a score here yet, so this weight changes nothing.
Important
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Neutral
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Recomputed
Headline score
58
/ 100
N Fera AU5
76
/ 100
Ecsta HS52
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 N Fera AU5
Pros
- Exceptional tread life and longevity, lasting multiple years of daily commuting
- Very quiet and comfortable ride quality with smooth highway manners
- Soft sidewalls contribute to high comfort levels even at higher tire pressures
Cons
- Softer sidewalls lead to noticeable flex and reduced responsiveness in hard cornering
- Lower dry grip levels compared to more aggressive performance tires like the Nexen N Fera SU1
- Potential for traction loss or wheel spin during wet weather take-offs, particularly on powerful rear-wheel-drive vehicles
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
Nexen N Fera AU5
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/TyreReviews
·1 upvote ·2026-01-22
“Bad i have hs52 on my audi a3 8l quattro 1.8t i have no grip with rain.. Like cant corner fast it just goes straight... Dry its fine but wet forget it. My oncle has the same experience with kuhmo on his bmw 118 diesel he got some rims and they had pretty good threats kumho on it. He said all it wanted was to drift and spin out. He said a couple of times it did a 180 he said never again i said same don't trust my car with these tyres. Im gonna get some new rim 17" and Goodyear asymmetric 6. To replace my 16" stock rims with kumho... I have had bad tyres but never this bad. Like 1 ere prix were even better in my Mercedes even doh they became ovals.”
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/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)”
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 · Nexen N Fera AU5 | B · Kumho Ecsta HS52 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
Which one should you actually buy?
58
/ 100
Nexen N Fera AU5
76
/ 100
Kumho Ecsta HS52
Winner: Kumho Ecsta HS52 — better dry, wet and handling. It leads or ties in every category we score.
Pick tire B
You want the most grip on dry roads
Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores 82 vs 55 on dry.
Pick tire B
Your priority is wet-weather safety
Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores 77 vs 54 on wet.
Pick tire B
You enjoy sharp, responsive handling
Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores 75 vs 55 on handling.
Pick tire B
You want the longest tread life
Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores 73 vs 64 on treadwear.
Tire A · Nexen N Fera AU5
Tire B · Kumho Ecsta HS52
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
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.
Community buzz from Reddit and forums is shown for context only — it never changes the score.