I’ve used the 51’s for the last 4 years on my mail route. They are awesome! They last longer than any other tire I’ve found. They also have never let me down in snow and mud. I drive 124 miles a day, with 90% dirt and gravel. I’m quite worried the new ones won’t last, or give the traction of the ‘ol tried and true AT51’s.
Would love to find out the compared weights of all the AT tyres. Rotating mass is a big deal especially for the smaller vehicles like the Suzuki Jimny. Also would like to know which is better on wet highway/ dirt roads Toyo Open Country AT3, Bridgestone Dueler 697, Yokohama G015. Thanks. 😊
Lost me with the statement that 3 peak snow flake rating made a difference on black ice. Black ice is a non conforming glass like surface, no rated tire besides metal spiked makes any difference in grip on black ice. 3 peak refer to snow grip only, which is a completely different kettle of fish from black ice.
I think you’ve probably had no real winter tire. My real winter tires had sufficient levels of grip on black ice, whereas I wasn’t even able to walk on it without falling over, using normal rubber sole shoes. Also summer tires would’ve been totally useless.
@@Gemini_0815 I've had plenty, and proper winter tyres are great, and an absolute necessity when driving in snowy winter, but, they do not work on black ice. Normal iced roads, sure they make a difference, but not on actual black ice (which is pretty rare) In 8 years of winter driving, each with some months of snow, I've only ever come accross true black ice twice.
@@brianjensen5200 they are heaps better than summer tires on black ice. They don’t make black ice feel like dry asphalt - that’s true. But to say „they don’t work“ as in „they aren’t any better compared to summer tires“ just isn’t accurate.
I'm super happy with the 52. The 51 is dangerously slippery on a wet road especially when it gets less then 50% wear. By example I'm talking locking up on braking, understeer around roundabouts and also spinning the rears when I accelerate from 50 or 60 kmph. I drive a tuned Holden Colorado TD. The 52 has eliminated all that and I feel much safer on the road. I also notice it has a better performance in sand off-road. What you said about side wall makes sense. I can air down to 11psi without too much bulge.
I've recently replaced my tires with Kumho's Road Venture 52's. For about 2 months, I've noticed significant improvements with comfort, aggressiveness, and great handling. I'd be easily replacing them with Kumho's again.
Two cents, I have the 51 in an LT 285/70 17 on an f150, and now that they are around 30-40% tread left they like to hydroplane… I’m starting to think that any tire much below ( I’ll be generous) 40% is not going to perform near as good as one might hope, soooo, something to keep in mind as far as price is concerned? Saw the me of your tests that showed hydroplane and a separate wet break test 👍 something to definitely keep in mind as to your specific driving conditions. I personally usually leave enough room for stopping, but recently had a bit of an annoying highway road trip where hydroplaning was the bigger concern . Food for thought? Also, my 51’s are 3peak rated
I have had hte at51s for a couple years. Side wall got ripped out pretty easily on one of them. Going to try the at52s. Sounds like they are and they look tougher!
Best regards from Italy, Florence and I, for my Suzuki Jimny 4x4 truck with a 1.3 lt gasoline m13a engine from 2001, I have 4 all-terrain Hankook dynapro atf RF 10 m+s tires in size 205-70-15 and I have a train of retreaded mud tires from the Italian brand ziarelli modello mud Power ziarelli MT 205-70-15 m+s !! (I am undecided between the two models of Kumho tires, the Kumho at 51 models and the other model the Kumho at 52, always in size 205-70-15!)
I've driven 50 years of Canadian winters, I like the 51's that are on the car, no doubt they will perform better in snow than the 52's. Large block treads are not nearly as good in the winter as the smaller blocks. Kind of sad to see the 51's are no longer available.
I went from a Nexan Roadian AT to the Kumho AT52, the 52 was dangerous in the wet, especially towing snd the 10 ply was horrific in comfirt. I put the Nexans back on and its far safer and more comfortable.
I brought the AT52’s because they were on special. LT265/70/17 on my single cab Amarok. Very comfortable and quite so far. Initially I was worried, they definitely don’t have the stiffer sidewalls found on the same spec KO2’s or Falken AT3W’s I have had in the past, but to be honest I prefer how nice these are in terms of ride quality. It makes going to a LT285/70/17 seem less of an issue in terms of noise and fuel usage. I love both the KO2 and AT3W’s however they both start making a lot more noise at around 30,000 a 50,000k usage Only issue I have found with the AT52’s is that they pick up little rocks and pin them between the tred, and a lot of them, they don’t come out at all!
The AT52s siping only goes halfway into the tread. So, at half-life, there is zero siping left. It becomes a dangerous, slippery tire. Very cheap to do that. Why it's half the price of others. You get what you pay for.
Just got the AT52s without knowing the AT51s were gone. Have to wait for some snow but so far I like them the same or more than the 51s. They seem quiter and run smooth
I see they've dropped the 19 inch sizes in the new AT52 which is annoying, as the AT51 was one of very few 19inch tyres which were handy on and off-road!
Just grabbed AT51 in 275 for my Wrangler. Couple things I like more about the 51 than the 52: 1. Weight. AT51 in 275/70R17 is 5 pounds lighter than AT52 in same size. 3:00 you say the opposite, this is not true. This is unsprung weight, too, so multiply its effects. Makes a difference in handling. 2. Water ejection. AT51's tread will handle rain and wet way better. AT52 has no obvious continuous water ejecting channels. AT51 has plenty.
DINT KNOW WHY PEOPLE SPENT THERE MONEY ON KUMO JUNK. SPEND SLIGHTLY MORE GET 25% MORE MILAGE. BALANCE OUT BETTER OFF SPENDING FOR QUALITY MID GRADE TIRE NOT KUMO
