Continental ExtremeContact Force vs Kumho Ecsta V730: We have covered the semi-slick track day tires segment quite a bit with the introduction of Bridgestone Potenza Race & also the Bridgestone Potenza RE-71RS. We made a comparison between the newly launched Potenza RE-71RS and its predecessor to show the improvement gains of the new product. Now we would like to pair another premium competitor, Continental ExtremeContact against one of its segment rivals, Kumho’s Ecsta V730. We will go through both wet & dry surfaces with various objective & subjective tests and also a comfort test. Ecsta V730 was launched in 2020 and has been known for its strong handling performances. In the meantime ExtremeContact Force was launched in North America in 2021 with the main focus on track day performances.
Table of Contents
Results
Results below were taken from the tire rack’s “Testing Extreme Performance Summer Tires 2022” test. A total of 4 tires were tested this time around in Tire Rack’s own proving ground. The graph below shows the comparison between Continental ExtremeContact Force vs Kumho Ecsta V730 based on the relevant performance category. The ExtremeContact Force was set as a reference hence at the 100% mark. Note that for subjective comfort evaluation, we equate 1 point as 5%. Hence for example if tire A is graded 7 while tire B is graded 6, A is better than B by 5%.
The tire size of interest is a 225/45R17 which is a common tire size for Audi A3 and Hyundai Elantra. You can check out our latest tire size table for more information. The testing vehicle is a powerful 2022 Subaru BRZ Limited.
Dry
When it comes down to track day performance tires, you immediately connect to a picture of a “racing car” driving at the limit on a race track. This is exactly what these tires are all about, they are trying to optimize their dry track performances while balancing the wet legal trade off. Ecsta V730 has a clear advantage in dry baking as it managed to out brake ExtremeContact Force by 1.5 feet (0.45m). This distance is relatively big as every braking point in the lap accumulates over a race, not to mention it will also enable better overtaking opportunities.
While in the dry handling area, both tires were equally matched as both the tires were separated only by 0.01 seconds. Both tires scored almost the same in subjective terms with a rating 8.72/10 for Ecsta V730 and 8.71/10 for ExtremeContact Force but the devil is in the details. Below is some of the feedback from the test driver.
Ecsta V730:
The Ecsta V730 had the immediate steering response that gets the driver’s attention right away. Not only was turn-in seemingly instantaneous, but the reassuring ramp-up in resistance and control through the corner gave it that last little bit of precision drivers appreciate on track.
Test driver feedback on Ecsta V730
ExtremeContact Force:
While the Kumho’s front end authority hit like a hammer, the ExtremeContact Force was the scalpel of the group. With the highest steering evaluation from our team, the Continental had a similarly quick steering response with a natural buildup of effort and linear response. Its high-precision approach helped the tire achieve the quickest times through the slalom and competitive laps times, even if it seemed like it was missing some absolute dry grip compared to the fastest tires in the test
Test driver feedback on ExtremeContact Force
Overall Ecsta V730 had better dry braking performances while both tires were matched equally when it comes to dry handling.
Ecsta V730 :
- +2.0% in dry braking
- 0% in dry handling (subj)
- 0% in dry handling (lap time)
Wet
The friction of coefficient of the tire/road dramatically decreases in wet roads compared to dry roads. Hence it is more likely to get into a road accident during wet conditions rather than on a sunny day. It was so important that the EU label has wet braking as one of its three criteria. With regards to our comparison, Ecsta V730 was better in wet braking by stopping 2.8 feet (0.85m) earlier than ExtremeContact Force.
While in wet handling, Ecsta V730 maintained its advantage by being 0.56 seconds faster compared to ExtremeContact Force. For the subjective rating, Ecsta V730 was rated higher with 7.82/10 points compared to a lower 7.44/10 of ExtremeContact Force. Overall in the wet category, Ecsta V730 has a clear advantage in wet performances.
Ecsta V730 :
- +2.2% in wet braking
- +1.9% in wet handling (subj)
- +1.6% in wet handling (lap time)
Noise/Comfort/Ride Quality
Ride comfort, noise & comfort was tested and both the tires were equally matched. They only differ 0.01 in terms of subjective points hence effectively rendering them the same.
Ecsta V730 :
- -0.2% in average of Noise, Comfort & Ride Quality.
UTQG rating
We have previously shown that UTQG tread wear rating can be a good indication of your expected mileage. Below are the UTQG values of both of the tirelines.
| Brand | Tireline | Size | Tread Wear | Traction | Temperature |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Continental | ExtremeContact Force | All | 200 | A | A |
| Kumho | Ecsta V730 | All | 200 | AA | A |
Both tires form the now standard 200 UTQG tread wear rating track day tire segment. As the tires are used for people who frequently visit the track, it makes absolute sense to not provide any mileage warranty. With the same UTQG tread wear rating, we expect both tires to have a similar expected mileage. For more in depth information about UTQG, please check out this article here. We even have a free download on the latest UTQG values from the leading tire manufacturers.
Price
With its better wet & dry results, Ecsta V730 was found to cost 63 dollars less than Continental ExtremeContact Force.
Tire size: 225/45R17
ExtremeContact Force: $231
Ecsta V730: $168
Difference: -37% more cheaper for Ecsta V730.
Summary
Looking into the overall package, Ecsta V730 excels clearly in dry & wet performances in comparison with ExtremeContact Force. If you are looking for an all out track day tire with absolute dry performance while having good wet characteristics, Ecsta V730 is clearly your best choice !
