ASICS GT 2000 13: análisis y review

We've thoroughly tested the ASICS GT 2000 13 and we think it's a superb daily trainer for:

• Those with moderate stability issues seeking subtle support to align their stride without feeling restricted.
• Loyal fans of the GT 2000 series who buy each version—this one feels familiar but better.
• Runners in need of a cushioned, durable, and stable daily trainer that’s built to last and is priced well below the Gel Kayano 31.

We've thoroughly tested the GT 2000 13 and found that it may not be the best option for forefoot strikers due to its high drop and the PureGEL technology in the heel. From our angle, the Hoka Arahi 7 and the Altra Paradigm 7 offer a more tailored mild-stability experience for this group of runners.

Additionally, we think the GT 2000 13 lacks the fun factor some runners seek. If that really matters to you, consider the ASICS Novablast 4 or the New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4—both of which are now more stable than ever and better suited for those seeking a blend of amusement and function.

The GT 2000 is universally acknowledged as a reliably consistent shoe across all categories, and we are eager to begin our testing on a positive note.

We tested its performance using a smoke-pumping machine on the mesh upper and awarded it a 4/5. This score is our favourite one for daily trainers—it ensures enough summer ventilation and winter coziness for comfort throughout the year.

Designed for stability, it was no surprise to us that ASICS restricted airflow to the toebox. They've reinforced the sides significantly compared to other models, enhancing side support and reducing lateral collapse.

Under our microscope, we discovered a run-of-the-mill engineered mesh without big ventilation holes. While larger holes could improve breathability, durability would likely decrease—a crucial aspect for GT 2000 buyers that expect long shelf life.

Overall, we found that the GT 2000 13 upper has adequate quality and padding. It lacks standout features but also avoids any major drawbacks, taking a no-risk design approach.

Starting with its impressive breathability, we were eager to test if the lack of ventilation holes would yield the durable results we anticipate from the GT 2000 series.

Indeed, it did! We tested the engineered mesh upper with a Dremel and observed less wear-and-tear than usual, earning the shoe a solid 4/5 rating!

But wait—things improve even more! For those who often wear out the Achilles tendon area of their running shoes, the GT 2000 13 proves to be a robust choice. We found it scored a 5/5 in our second Dremel test.

This is a superb result that promises an exceptionally long lifespan for the upper of the GT 2000 13.

Turning our focus to the outsole, the Japanese brand adopts a cautious strategy here, tweaking the v12's design slightly by adding more rubber in wear-prone areas.

Our tests showed a hardness of 82.1 HC, close to average—expected for a shoe designed with a no-risk approach, and suggesting it will be quite durable. And although we still think ASICS could have opted for ASICSGRIP—their top outsole—the AHAR+ rubber used performs sufficiently well.

It appears the GT 2000 13 is engineered to excel in durability tests, as it has triumphed in our Dremel challenges for the third consecutive time.

In our latest test, we noted only a minimal 0.4 mm dent in the outsole, underscoring its exceptional durability.

But for those still concerned about durability, here's something else—ASICS has added 4.5 mm of rubber beneath the midsole, significantly more than usual.

We now have a combination of high-lasting rubber with substantial thickness, and it would be bizarre that the outsole will wear out first, regardless of your stride.

With its plush upper and substantial rubber, one might expect the GT 2000 13 to easily exceed the 10-oz mark, yet it doesn't.

We placed it on our kitchen scale and it registered at just 9.3 oz (264g)—a truly impressive figure for a durable daily trainer that also improves last year's model by 0.4 oz or about 10g.

And no, ASICS did not opt to reduce the shoe's thickness to make it lighter—they maintained the same 36.6-mm stack height in the heel, providing ample cushioning for most runners.

Additionally, the heel features the same PureGEL insert as its predecessor, which is especially advantageous for heavier individuals and enhances comfort during walking.

At 27.2 mm, the front of the shoe accommodates those who use a midfoot or forefoot striking technique, even during long-distance training. In fact, we believe that this shoe is ideal for anyone seeking enhanced stability during their medium to long easy runs, particularly in marathon training.

The difference between both measurements reveals a 9.4-mm heel-to-toe drop, placing it within the popular 8-to-10 mm range typical of most daily trainers. This design benefits all types of footstrikes, though we believe it works best for heel strikers.

We discovered the GT 2000 13 features a 5.1 mm insole, thicker than usual.

Notably, this isn't just any insole but the Ortholite X-55, a model often found in other high-end running shoes and that, as it's name suggest and the brand claims, returns 55% of energy on every stride, more than traditional EVA footbeds.

ASICS continues to use the FF Blast+ midsole found in many of their mid-tier shoes, like the Noosa Tri 16. This time, however, they've softened it to 18.5 HA from the 24.5 HA in the GT 2000 12.

While this isn't a drastic change, it was a necessary adjustment. We believe that while stability remains a priority for this shoe, the GT 2000's broad design allows for a more plush ride, which ASICS has now successfully delivered.

FF Blast+ is a mix of EVA and Olefin Block Co-Polymers (OBC), which improves the behaviour under cold temperatures. While EVA typically hardens noticeably in the cold, OBC maintains a more stable softness.

During our 20-minute freezer test, we discovered a 24.3% uptick—a result we view as quite favorable!

PureGEL has become a common feature in ASICS's top-tier daily trainers, such as the Nimbus 26. This technology improves upon the older GEL, delivering enhanced comfort for heel strikers without the hefty weight of the previous materials.

Positioned just beneath the sockliner and atop the midsole, as shown in the picture above, it effectively enhances comfort for heel strikers. But honestly, it might go unnoticed by most runners if we didn't highlight it or if it wasn't featured in the midsole.

Those seeking a classic ride will find the GT 2000 ideal, as ASICS maintains a non-rockered profile with just a slight toe-off aid at the forefoot end—nothing more.

For those interested in a more rockered design, the market offers plenty of alternatives like the ASICS Superblast 2. However, with the GT 2000's longitudinal flexibility and moderate stack height, we believe this design approach is optimal.

The GT 2000 saga consistently delivers superb stability without being noticeable—offering just the right feel of balance without overwhelming.

ASICS achieves this with their 3D Guidance System, which utilizes a widened heel and high torsional rigidity to smooth out the ride, performing exactly as we expect from a mild-stability shoe.

In our testing, we confirmed that the design not only promises but delivers enhanced stability subtly—ideal for those who need a bit of support but prefer a natural feel underfoot.

We previously noted the high torsional rigidity of the GT 2000, and ASICS has indeed increased it, achieving a top score of 5/5 in our manual tests—up from 4/5 in the GT 2000 12. This change might go unnoticed unless you're particularly attentive, as the change is really subtle, and we had to twist both versions to really notice it.

However, it's important to understand that the GT 2000 lacks the flexibility typical of a neutral daily trainer, and that's fine for us. This rigidity provides enhanced stability, a major plus for this shoe, but it can also result in a less natural feel during runs.

The heel counter of the GT 2000 13 remains unchanged from last year, offering a firm structure that continues to serve heel strikers well and we rated at 4 out of 5.

We've noted changes in the shoe's dimensions compared to last year's model—the forefoot is now narrower at 115.2 mm, typical of many daily trainers, down from 119.3 mm. While this adjustment might not favor forefoot strikers with stability needs, it does render the shoe more agile and lighter for most users.

ASICS has broadened the heel of this shoe to 102.2 mm, enhancing stability for heel strikers—who are the main target of this model.

This adjustment makes it one of the broadest heels in mild-stability daily trainers available today.

We discovered that only 24.2N of force is required to bend the shoe to 90 degrees. This design effectively combines high torsional rigidity for enhanced support with longitudinal flexibility, which is what we seek in a GT 2000.

After retesting the GT 2000 13 following another 20-minute freeze, we were impressed by its performance—only becoming 6% stiffer. This minimal increase underscores its outstanding cold-weather resilience, making it a great choice for winter runners.

Discussing the fit, it measures a standard 99.2 mm in width, offering what we think it's a pretty much average fit overall.

We noticed less vertical volume compared to last year's model, but we think it's not an issue as the engineered mesh provides some stretch. To loosen it further, try stuffing newspaper balls inside the toebox before your next run—a classic runner's trick!

We recorded a toe area width of 77.7 mm, perfectly aligning with our experience—it's neither spacious nor tight, simply average.

ASICS offers good news for those needing a different fit: multiple widths are available in most regions, ranging from standard to extra wide, although availability may vary by country.

Another notable feature of the GT 2000 13 is its semi-gusseted tongue, which enhances the lockdown as it's fixed to the sides. This is particularly crucial considering the redesigned tongue padding we discovered in this shoe...

In the GT 2000 12, we found the 12.5-mm tongue excessively thick and even cumbersome. It seems ASICS took our feedback to heart, as they've now opted for a much slimmer 3.3-mm tongue, even thinner than what’s standard in training shoes.

While a tongue thickness of around 5 or 6 mm might be a better deal, we definitely prefer this streamlined version over last year's. It's also important to note that this reduction is a key factor in the overall weight reduction of the shoe.

The heel of the GT 2000 13 matches the rest of the shoe—functional but unsurprising. We found a standard finger-loop heel tab that effectively serves its purpose and appears durable enough to last the shoe's entire lifespan.

We also liked the small tweak that ASICS added to the heel collar, alleviating pressure on the Achilles tendon, somewhat similar to what Hoka does.

We easily removed the insole, which apart from reflecting the shoe's carbon footprint, is quite standard in terms of shape, allowing for hassle-free replacement.

We've always considered the GT 2000 series well-priced for its value, and we're pleased to report that it hasn't seen an increase from the previous model, maintaining ASICS's recommended price tag—which is definitely great news in today's market.

The GT 2000 13 demonstrates that brands can easily incorporate reflective elements into running shoes at minimal cost and without added weight—simply adding a small reflective piece on the heel is sufficient for us, as it significantly enhances visibility at night.