Menu
Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 View Gallery (1)

Kleber Dynaxer HP 3

Previous Kleber Tyres Touring Summer Next

The Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 is a Touring Summer tyre designed to be fitted to Passenger Cars.

7.5
Tyre Reviews Score Based on Professional Tests & User Reviews
High Confidence View Breakdown
Dry Grip
78%
Wet Grip
65%
Road Feedback
70%
Handling
74%
Wear
81%
Comfort
69%
Buy again
64%
12 Reviews
72% Average
210,100 miles driven
14 Tests (avg: 20th)
Kleber Dynaxer HP 3

Kleber Dynaxer HP 3

Summer Mid-Range
BETA
7.5 / 10
Based on Professional Tests & User Reviews · High Confidence · Updated 30 Jan 2026

The Tyre Reviews Score is the most comprehensive tyre scoring system available. It aggregates professional test data from multiple independent publications, user reviews, and consistency analysis using Bayesian statistical methods, weighted normalisation, and recency-adjusted scoring to produce a single, reliable performance rating.

Learn more about our methodology
Category Scores
Comfort
84.6
0.29x / 2 tests
Value
77.6
0.38x / 6 tests
Dry
63.3
1.8x / 4 tests
Wet
51.2
2x / 7 tests
Cross-Category Performance

Cross-category scores are derived metrics that combine data from multiple test disciplines to evaluate real-world performance characteristics.

Braking
58.1
4 tests
Handling
54.7
5 tests
Score Components
Professional Tests
Weight: 80%
Tests: 14
Publications: 3
Period: 2011 - 2020
User Reviews
Weight: 15%
Reviews: 12
Avg Rating: 71.7%
Min Required: 5
Consistency
Weight: 5%
Score Std Dev: 0.51
History Points: 10
Methodology & Configuration
Scoring Process
  1. Collect Test Data: Gather results from professional tyre tests across multiple publications. Minimum 1 test(s) required.
  2. Normalize Positions: Convert test positions to percentile scores using exponential weighting (factor: 1.2).
  3. Apply Recency Weighting: More recent tests are weighted higher with a decay rate of 0.95.
  4. Incorporate User Reviews: Factor in user review data (minimum 5 reviews). Weight: 15%.
  5. Bayesian Smoothing: Apply Bayesian prior (score: 7, weight: 1.5) to prevent extreme scores with limited data.
  6. Calculate Final Score: Combine all components using normalization factor of 1.1. Max score with limited data: 9.5.
Component Weights
Test Data
80%
User Reviews
15%
Consistency
5%
All Configuration Parameters
ParameterValueDescription
safety_weight 0.7 Weight multiplier for safety-related metrics
performance_weight 0.55 Weight multiplier for performance metrics
comfort_weight 0.4 Weight multiplier for comfort metrics
value_weight 0.45 Weight multiplier for value-for-money metrics
user_reviews_weight 0.15 How much user reviews contribute to the final score
test_data_weight 0.8 How much professional test data contributes to the final score
consistency_weight 0.05 How much score consistency contributes to the final score
recency_decay_rate 0.95 Rate at which older test results lose influence (higher = slower decay)
min_test_count 1 Minimum number of professional tests required
min_review_count 5 Minimum number of user reviews required
score_version 1.8 Current version of the scoring algorithm
score_normalization_factor 1.1 Factor used to normalize raw scores to the 0-10 scale
confidence_factor_weight 0.2 How much data confidence affects the final score
position_penalty_weight 0.2 Penalty applied for poor test positions
gap_penalty_threshold 8 Score gap (%) that triggers additional penalties
min_metrics_count 2 Minimum number of test metrics needed per test
limited_data_threshold 2 Number of tests below which data is considered limited
single_test_penalty 0.1 Score multiplier when only one test is available
critical_metric_penalty 0.7 Penalty for poor performance on critical safety metrics
critical_metric_threshold 70 Score below which a critical metric penalty applies
position_exponential_factor 1.2 Exponent used to amplify position-based scoring
position_exponential_threshold 0.9 Position percentile below which exponential scoring applies
gap_multiplier_critical 3 Multiplier for critical gap penalties
max_category_weight 2 Maximum weight any single category can have
max_score_limited_data 9.5 Score cap when data is limited
bayesian_prior_weight 1.5 Weight of the Bayesian prior in smoothing
bayesian_prior_score 7 Prior score used for Bayesian smoothing
evidence_test_multiplier 1.9 Multiplier for test evidence in confidence calculation
evidence_metric_divisor 3 Divisor for metric count in evidence calculation
evidence_review_divisor 10 Divisor for review count in evidence calculation
Data Sources
TestPublicationDateSizePositionMetrics
2020 ADAC SUV Summer Tyre Test ADAC 2020 235/55 R17 11/12 1 metrics
2019 Mid Range Tyre Test Moottori 2019 205/55 R16 5/8 8 metrics
2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tyre Test Auto Bild 2018 195/65 R15 18/20 10 metrics
2018 AutoBild Summer Tyre Overview Auto Bild 2018 195/65 R15 18/47 0 metrics
2018 ADAC Summer Tyre Test - 175/65 R14 ADAC 2018 175/65 R14 4/14 0 metrics
2017 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Shootout Auto Bild 2017 225/50 R17 45/43 0 metrics
2016 Market Overview - Braking Test Auto Bild 2016 205/55 R16 19/50 0 metrics
2015 Market Overview - Braking Test Auto Bild 2015 185/60 R15 38/52 0 metrics
2015 European Tyre Test 205/55 R16 ADAC 2015 205/55 R16 18/19 0 metrics
2014 ADAC 175/65 R14 Summer Tyre Test ADAC 2014 175/65 R14 16/16 0 metrics
2014 Auto Bild 50 Summer Tyre Shootout Auto Bild 2014 225/50 R17 24/50 0 metrics
2013 54 Tyre Braking Test 2013 195/65 R15 36/54 0 metrics
2013 European Summer Touring Tyre Test ADAC 2013 185/60 R15 16/19 0 metrics
2011 European Summer Tyre Test - 175/65 R14 ADAC 2011 175/65 r14 15/15 0 metrics
All Tests
View Test Results
14
Tests
20th
Average
4th
Best
45th
Worst
Latest Tyre Test Results
2020 ADAC SUV Summer Tyre Test
235/55 R17 • 2020
11th/12
Low fuel consumption
Weak in the wet, relatively noisy
Recommended
2019 Mid Range Tyre Test
205/55 R16 • 2019
5th/8
Good handling on dry surfaces, low rolling resistance.
Average wet handling and long wet braking.
2018 ADAC Summer Tyre Test - 175/65 R14
175/65 R14 • 2018
4th/14
Good on dry roads, relatively low wear
A little weaker on wet surfaces, relatively high fuel consumption, noisy

Questions and Answers for the Kleber Dynaxer HP 3

Ask a question
Sorry, we don't currently have any questions and answers for the Kleber Dynaxer HP 3. Why not submit a question to our tyre experts using the form below!
Ask a question

We will never publish or share your email address

captcha

To verify you are human please type the word you see in the box below.

Top 3 Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 Reviews

Given 79% while driving a Nissan Primera (185/65 R15) on a combination of roads for 25,000 easy going miles
I’ve been using the Kleber Dynaxer HP3 (185/65 R15) on my 1997 Nissan Primera P11 for the past 10 years, covering around 40,000 kilometres, mostly in city traffic and on the Autobahn. Throughout the entire period, the tyres have been very reliable and consistent. They also had remarkably low wear in my use case. The tread depth is still good, and I’m only replacing them now due to their age. In terms of tread I could easily drive them for several more years. I drive in a fairly relaxed manner (mostly 100-120 km/h on the Autobahn, and rarely exceeding 140 km/h) and I’ve never encountered a situation (wet or dry) where the tyres felt unstable or unsafe. They also did well during a few emergency stops. They were reasonably priced in my tyre size and I'd buy them (or the successors) again without any hesitation.
Ask a question | Helpful 771
April 25, 2025
Given 77% while driving a Volkswagen Passat B7 (215/55 R16) on a combination of roads for 39,000 average miles
Very durable tyre, this was XL, lasted for 39tkm. Would buy again...
Ask a question | Helpful 920
November 14, 2022
Given 89% while driving a Mazda 6 (225/40 R18) on a combination of roads for 30 average miles
Excelence tyre, I bought them before 5 years and I have installed on a mazda 6 2003 1,8. At the begining tires was so shoft at feedback and had very high level of comfort. It was like driving a two dimension higher profile. This sense last for 1-2 months. After this time tires become a bit harder than the first driving days.The most significant about this brand was the low level of wear. After 5 years have 5mm and nothing on them remind their constracting year.
Ask a question | Helpful 901
June 6, 2020
Have you driven on the Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 tyre?

Have YOU got experience with the Kleber Dynaxer HP 3? Help millions of other tyre buyers

Review your Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 >

Latest Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 Reviews

Given 83% while driving a Ford Focus MK2 1.6TDCI 2008 2011 (195/65 R15 H) on mostly town for 50,000 spirited miles
They were 30% cheaper than any premium tyre and FOR THEIR PRICE they were really good, and wear is a strong feat, as well as dry grip and road feedback and prediction. Wet handling is ok, but would advise caution. Climate is mostly hot here in Greece, so their weak point, wet handling and braking doesn't appear much. Comfort is ok. Recommended for budget solution. Was driving them 30.000 Km in the city and about 20.000 Km Country roads, almost always to their limits. Depends on the driver, but I was really pleased with these tyres.
Ask a question | Helpful 898
August 29, 2019
Given 63% while driving a Ford Galaxy (195/65 R15) on mostly town for 20,000 easy going miles
Bought these as cheapest 95C XL i could find for my ford galaxy 2.3 petrol+lpg in 2015. First year the tyres were superb in both dry and wet. But 2016 and 2017 wet grip has deteriorated. Now 2018 wet got a bot better. Drove 25 thousand miles on them. All are in the 3-4mm range left, with 2-3mm on the sides. Galaxy is quite a heavy car, and for summer holidays we pack it bigtime. Have always pumped them 2,8-3,5 bar so the sidewall wear is strange here. I will run them down this year. For a budget tyre they offer good grip and in corners they are predictable. Wet handling that deteriorated quickly is a big minus. Also wear in 20000miles seems big, though galaxy is quite heavy so i would attribute the wear to this factor.
Ask a question | Helpful 854
July 18, 2018
Check out how the BEST all seasons tyres perform against premium summer and winter tyres!
Given 86% while driving a Ford Fiesta (195/50 R15) on mostly motorways for 40 average miles
I have that tyre on for fiesta 1.4 tdci, great tyre for that small car. Wet or dry handling great. Not for sport or racing, but for every day driving great tyre for that price. I've make 40 000 km and still good.
Ask a question | Helpful 538
January 9, 2018
Given 53% while driving a Opel Vectra C 1.9CDTi 150bhp (215/55 R16) on a combination of roads for 30 average miles
I've had these tires on my Opel Vectra C station wagon for about 4 years now.

The tire might be good for lighter cars, but since Vectra weighs about 1600 kg unloaded, these tires had a tough job keeping the car rolling... They are too weak for this car. It felt like the car was floating on water while on dry road. I tried different air pressures and in the end I had to get them up to 3.3 bar to keep the car from giving me sea-sickness.

Wet grip is also one of the issues these tires don't seem to handle well. Aquaplaning happened quite often, even at lower speeds (70 km/h).

They don't have a rim-protection edge.

In "sporty" or spirited moments, the tire gives very little feedback about what is going on with the wheels. The sides are soft and car seems to tilt a lot (even after going -30 mm + stiffer shocks on all four corners last year).

On the other hand, they were cheap, so this is a plus. Also, they wear quite slow (on our cra**y roads in Slovenia).

Would I buy them again? No. Specially not for a heavy car like my Vectra.

p.s. Father in law has these on a Citroen Picasso mk1 and is quite satisfied. Lighter, softer car. And a lighter right foot, too :)
Ask a question | Helpful 533
June 16, 2017
Given 61% while driving a Nissan Micra (175/65 R15 T) on a combination of roads for 40,000 average miles
Had these fitted instead of our usual preference of Michelin Energy Saver's
They were 30% cheaper than the Michelin's and for the price they were pretty good, as far as wear is concerned. Dry grip was on par with more expensive options, as well as predictability. In the wet these tyres wheel hop the 90 hp car so easily that extra caution is required. Ride comfort is also subpar compared to more premium options. Had one of them torn from the sidewall because of a sharp metal nail embedded in a kerb during parking. Recommend only for budget minded buyers with easy going driving habits.
Ask a question | Helpful 585
October 6, 2016
Given 69% while driving a Renault Scenic (185/65 R16 T) on mostly town for 10,000 average miles
Good tyre for dry weather but not so good in wet conditions
Ask a question | Helpful 571
November 6, 2012
Given 61% while driving a Rover 420 Executive (225/45 R17) on mostly motorways for 1,000 average miles
I think these are midrange/high end budjets?

After some Corsa 55's on the rears that turned out to be the noisiest and unresponsive tyres I have ever had these have transformed the car no end!

I recently replaced the complience bushes and rear wheel bearings as the car was handling badly and had become extremely noisy (wheel bearings noise) but found the car was no different after splashing out £200. I was advised that the Corsa tyres were the probable culprit of my woes, and they were even though they had 6mm left on them! the Klebers are extremely quiet in comparison (bearing noise has now gone) and the car is now happy at any significant speed (previusly 70MPH was the limit where the car was starting to feel unstable) Moral of this story dont buy budjet far eastern made tyres! P.s. my fuel consumption is better as well :) Although only having these on for a few weeks they feel like a quality tyre. Time will tell how well they wear?
Ask a question | Helpful 553
March 15, 2012
Given 89% while driving a Ford Focus (195/60 R15 V) on mostly country roads for 25,000 average miles
A reliable tyre at a reasonable price could do better at noise reduction on different road surfaces but after all you buy a tyre for price and longevity which you can expect 30,000 at sensible driving conditions...May be better tyres on the market but... if your happy with what you have bought and buy again why not recomend.
Ask a question | Helpful 459
June 10, 2011