Kuhmo may be seen as a budget brand but fact is they make better tyres than Continental.
Can we please have some evidence of this "fact"?
And being std OEM fitment on a car doesn't mean you have the best tyres
It does to an extent I'm afraid. The manufacturer will look at all sorts of items when spec'ing a standard fit tyre, only one of which is how "well" the tyre performs. Other items will include ppm failure rate, cost, and the list goes on. If Kumho were as good as the other tyre manufacturers, why would the manufacturers not use them?
So being a budget brand is based on who has a tyre as a standard fitment rather than the quality of the product???
The perception of the tyre is to an extent yes. As I said above, if the tyres from Kumho were really that good, why wouldn't the manufacturers spec the tyre as original equipment?
Just for further reading, below are the results from two recent EVO tyre tests. They make for interesting reading!
2013 EVO FWD Tyre Test
1st Continental ContiSportContact 5P 97.8%
2nd Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 95.5%
3rd Pirelli P Zero K1 95.4%
4th Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 92.9%
5th Toyo Proxes Sport T1 91.3%
6th Dunlop SP Sport Maxx GT 90.8%
7th Bridgestone Potenza S001 90.6%
8th Hankook Ventus S1 Evo 88.9%
9th Kumho Ecsta SPT KU31 87.5%
2012 EVO Summer Tyre Test
1st: Pirelli P Zero 95.5%
2nd: Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 2 94.6%
3rd: Michelin Pilot Sport 3 PS3 94.1%
4th: Continental Sport Contact 5 93.8%
5th: Bridgestone Potenza S001 91.9%
6th: Dunlop SportMaxx RT 91.6%
7th: Hankook Ventus S1 evo2 90.9%
8th: Vredestein Ultrac Vorti 89.6%
9th: Kumho Ecsta KU39 88.2%