P11 of 12
Beat 9% of the field
2020 ADAC SUV Summer Tyre Test
Recommended
Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 Test Results
Tested 2011 to 2020
4 publications
Tested 14 times by independent publications, the Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 averages a finish of 20th.
- 14Independent tests
- 0Test wins
- 0Podium finishes
- 20thAverage finish
- 30%Field beaten on average
- 4Publications
14 tests, 2011 to 2020
- Test win
- Second
- Third
- Average 30%
Record by discipline
Where the Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 finished in each measured discipline, across every test that measured it against at least two other tyres. Field beaten is the share of the other tyres it outranked in that measurement.
| Discipline | Tests | Avg finish | Field beaten | Firsts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry | ||||
| Dry Braking | 2 | P12 of 14 | 29% | - |
| Dry Handling | 1 | P16 of 20 | 21% | - |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 1 | P1 of 8 | 100% | 1 |
| Wet | ||||
| Wet Braking | 2 | P9.5 of 14 | 33% | - |
| Wet Handling | 2 | P13.5 of 14 | 7% | - |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 1 | P2 of 8 | 86% | - |
| Straight Aqua | 2 | P11.5 of 14 | 22% | - |
| Comfort | ||||
| Noise | 2 | P8 of 14 | 59% | - |
| Value | ||||
| Wear | 2 | P6 of 16 | 62% | - |
| Value | 1 | P6 of 20 | 74% | - |
| Rolling Resistance | 2 | P6.5 of 14 | 67% | - |
Head-to-head record
Overall finishing position against the tyres that have most often shared a test with the Kleber Dynaxer HP 3. Only tyres tested alongside it at least three times are listed.
| Rival | Shared tests | Ahead | Behind | Level | Finished ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Nokian Line
8 shared: 1 ahead, 7 behind
|
8 | 1 | 7 | - | 13% |
 Continental Premium Contact 5
8 shared: 1 ahead, 7 behind
|
8 | 1 | 7 | - | 13% |
 Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance
8 shared: 0 ahead, 8 behind
|
8 | 0 | 8 | - | 0% |
 Fulda EcoControl HP
7 shared: 0 ahead, 7 behind
|
7 | 0 | 7 | - | 0% |
 Dunlop Sport BluResponse
7 shared: 0 ahead, 7 behind
|
7 | 0 | 7 | - | 0% |
 Vredestein Sportrac 5
7 shared: 0 ahead, 7 behind
|
7 | 0 | 7 | - | 0% |
 Semperit Comfort Life 2
6 shared: 1 ahead, 5 behind
|
6 | 1 | 5 | - | 17% |
 BFGoodrich gGrip
6 shared: 1 ahead, 5 behind
|
6 | 1 | 5 | - | 17% |
 Michelin Energy Saver+
6 shared: 0 ahead, 6 behind
|
6 | 0 | 6 | - | 0% |
 Bridgestone Turanza T001
6 shared: 0 ahead, 6 behind
|
6 | 0 | 6 | - | 0% |
 Barum Brillantis 2
5 shared: 1 ahead, 4 behind
|
5 | 1 | 4 | - | 20% |
 Pirelli Cinturato P1 Verde
5 shared: 1 ahead, 4 behind
|
5 | 1 | 4 | - | 20% |
 Maxxis Premitra HP5
5 shared: 1 ahead, 4 behind
|
5 | 1 | 4 | - | 20% |
 Hankook K425 Kinergy Eco
5 shared: 0 ahead, 5 behind
|
5 | 0 | 5 | - | 0% |
 Hankook Ventus Prime 3 K125
5 shared: 0 ahead, 5 behind
|
5 | 0 | 5 | - | 0% |
 Riken Maystorm 2 B 2
4 shared: 2 ahead, 2 behind
|
4 | 2 | 2 | - | 50% |
 Firestone TZ300A
4 shared: 2 ahead, 2 behind
|
4 | 2 | 2 | - | 50% |
 Gislaved Ultra Speed
4 shared: 2 ahead, 2 behind
|
4 | 2 | 2 | - | 50% |
 Cooper Zeon CS8
4 shared: 1 ahead, 3 behind
|
4 | 1 | 3 | - | 25% |
 Michelin Primacy 3
4 shared: 0 ahead, 4 behind
|
4 | 0 | 4 | - | 0% |
Against its own line
The same record for the tyre it replaced and the tyre that replaced it.
| Tyre | Tests | Wins | Avg finish | Field beaten |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kleber DYNAXER HP2 Predecessor | 0 | - | - | - |
| Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 This tyre | 14 | 0 | 20th | 30% |
| Kleber Dynaxer HP4 Successor | 10 | 0 | 12th | 51% |
Performance Analysis
Drawn from 14 tests. Updated October 29, 2026.
The Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 repeatedly combines low wear with weak wet performance. ADAC criticised wet grip in 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2020, with overall finishes including last of 16 in 2014 and 18th of 19 in 2015. In the 2018 Auto Bild test it finished 18th of 20, with wet handling last and wet braking 13th, 9.9% longer than the best. Wear was much better at fifth of 20, with a projected 42,510 km, reinforcing the repeated ADAC praise for longevity.
Dry performance is less consistent. Subjective dry handling led the eight-tyre midrange field in the 2019 Moottori test, but dry braking was last of 20, 13.6% longer than the best, in Auto Bild 2018. ADAC’s fourth-place finish in 2018 was unusually strong against its other results, although wet grip remained a reservation. Efficiency was usually praised, including second-place rolling resistance in Moottori 2019, but ADAC’s high fuel consumption criticism in 2018 was unusual. Noise also varied unusually: Moottori measured second of eight in 2019, whereas ADAC criticised it in 2018 and 2020. The latter test still gave a Recommended verdict despite 11th of 12 overall.
Performance Strengths
-
Tread life
Strong
in 3 of 5 tests
Details
- Low wear praised in 2011, 2014 and 2015 ADAC tests
- Projected life 42,510 km, fifth of 20, 2018 Auto Bild test
Low wear, good comfort, good value for money
- 2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tyre Test (2018)relatively low wear
- 2018 ADAC Summer Tyre Test - 175/65 R14 (2018)Particularly low wear
- 2014 ADAC 175/65 R14 Summer Tyre Test (2014)
-
Rolling resistance
Moderate
in 3 of 5 tests
Details
- Second of eight, 7.93 kg/t, 2019 Moottori test
- Low consumption praised by ADAC in 2013, 2014 and 2020
- Unusually high consumption criticised by ADAC in 2018
Low fuel consumption
- 2020 ADAC SUV Summer Tyre Test (2020)low rolling resistance
- 2019 Mid Range Tyre Test (2019)relatively low fuel consumption
- 2014 ADAC 175/65 R14 Summer Tyre Test (2014)
Performance Weaknesses
-
Wet grip
Strong
in 4 of 5 tests
Details
- Wet weakness criticised in ADAC tests in 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2020
Weak in the wet
- 2020 ADAC SUV Summer Tyre Test (2020)Limited wet grip, long dry braking
- 2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tyre Test (2018)A little weaker on wet surfaces
- 2018 ADAC Summer Tyre Test - 175/65 R14 (2018)Very weak in the wet, relatively weak on dry roads
- 2014 ADAC 175/65 R14 Summer Tyre Test (2014)
-
Wet handling
Moderate
Details
- Last of 20, 5.5% below best speed, 2018 Auto Bild test
- Seventh of eight by lap time, 4.3% longer than best, despite second-place subjective assessment, 2019 Moottori test
-
Wet braking
Moderate
in 1 of 5 tests
Details
- 13th of 20, 9.9% longer than best, 2018 Auto Bild test
- Sixth of eight, 8.3% longer than best, 2019 Moottori test
long wet braking
- 2019 Mid Range Tyre Test (2019)
-
Dry braking
Minor
in 1 of 5 tests
Details
- Last of 20, 13.6% longer than best, 2018 Auto Bild test
- Fourth of eight, 1.6% longer than best, 2019 Moottori test
Limited wet grip, long dry braking
- 2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tyre Test (2018)
-
Road noise
Minor
in 2 of 5 tests
Details
- Noise criticised in 2018 and 2020 ADAC tests
- Unusually favourable second of eight, 66.5 dB, 2019 Moottori test
relatively noisy
- 2020 ADAC SUV Summer Tyre Test (2020)- 2018 ADAC Summer Tyre Test - 175/65 R14 (2018)
Do owners agree with the tests?
Every tester write-up on the Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 (5 tests) and 12 owner reviews were tagged for the aspects they judge. Where both have spoken, this is how they line up.
Where owners and testers agree
- Tread life strength in 3 of 5 tests 8 praise, 1 criticise of 12 reviews · Read those reviews
- Dry handling strength in 1 of 5 tests 4 praise, 1 criticise of 12 reviews · Read those reviews
Every test, newest first 14
Strong = top two of the field in that measurement. Weak = bottom two.
2020 1 test
2019 1 test
P5 of 8
Beat 43% of the field
2018 3 tests
P18 of 20
Beat 11% of the field
P18 of 51
Beat 63% of the field
P4 of 14
Beat 77% of the field
2017 1 test
P45 of 51
Beat 12% of the field
2016 1 test
P19 of 50
Beat 63% of the field
2015 2 tests
P38 of 54
Beat 27% of the field
P18 of 19
Beat 6% of the field
2014 2 tests
P16 of 16
Beat 0% of the field
P24 of 50
Beat 53% of the field
2013 2 tests
P36 of 54
Beat 34% of the field
P16 of 19
Beat 17% of the field
2011 1 test
P15 of 15
Beat 0% of the field
Back to the Kleber Dynaxer HP 3 overview
Owner reviews, sizes and EU label data, comparisons and the Tyre Reviews score. All Kleber tyres