Bridgestone Turanza 6 vs Firestone RoadHawk: In the summer touring tire segment, a thrilling sibling rivalry is brewing between the Bridgestone Turanza 6 and the Firestone RoadHawk. Firestone, positioned by Bridgestone as a mid-quality brand, faces off against its high-end counterpart. Will the Turanza 6’s cutting-edge technology outshine the RoadHawk, or does the RoadHawk offer unbeatable value? Let the battle begin!
Table of Contents
Results: Bridgestone Turanza 6 vs Firestone RoadHawk
Results below were taken from the 2024 Auto Bild Summer independent Tire Test which includes 21 top tires in the market. The graph below shows the comparison between Bridgestone Turanza 6 vs Firestone RoadHawk based on the relevant performance category. The Bridgestone Turanza 6 was set as a reference hence at the 100% mark.
Note that for both wet & dry handling evaluation, the average lap speed was used instead of the standard lap time & subjective rating. The tire size of interest is a 205/55R16 which is a common tire size for Volkswagen Golf & Toyota Corolla . You can check out our latest tire size table for more information. The testing vehicle of choice is a Volkswagen Golf
Wet
In wet performance tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 and Firestone RoadHawk showcased intriguing results. The Turanza 6 had a shorter wet braking distance at 43.6 meters compared to the RoadHawk’s 44.9 meters. However, we were surprised to find that the Firestone RoadHawk excelled in wet handling, achieving an average speed of 75.6 km/h, slightly better than the Turanza 6’s 74.7 km/h. In straight aquaplaning tests, the RoadHawk again edged out the Turanza 6 with a slipping speed of 84.7 km/h versus 84.5 km/h.
RoadHawk :
- -3% in wet braking
- +1% in wet handling (average speed)
- ~0% in straight aquaplaning
Dry
In dry performance tests, another twist emerged as the Firestone RoadHawk outperformed the Bridgestone Turanza 6. The RoadHawk had a slightly better dry braking distance of 36.6 meters compared to the Turanza 6’s 36.9 meters. Additionally, in dry handling, the RoadHawk achieved an average speed of 115.7 km/h, surpassing the Turanza 6’s 114.7 km/h.
RoadHawk :
- +1% in dry braking
- +1% in dry handling (lap time)
Mileage
In mileage performance, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 significantly outlasted the Firestone RoadHawk, with a wear rating of 34,400 km compared to the RoadHawk’s 29,850 km. This highlights a clear target conflict between wet braking vs mileage with Bridgestone opting for a higher level compound, with both better wet braking & mileage performances for its high end brand positioning.
RoadHawk :
- -13% in mileage
Noise
In terms of exterior noise performance, there isn’t much difference between the two tires. The Bridgestone Turanza 6 produces a slightly lower noise level at 74.1 dB, compared to the Firestone RoadHawk’s 74.5 dB.
RoadHawk :
- -1% in exterior noise (+0.4 dB)
Rolling Resistance
In rolling resistance performance, the Firestone RoadHawk demonstrated lower resistance at 7.67 N/kN, compared to the Bridgestone Turanza 6’s 7.98 N/kN. This difference indicates that the RoadHawk is slightly more efficient, requiring less energy to roll.
RoadHawk :
- +4% in rolling resistance
Price
When comparing tire prices for the size 205/55 R16, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 costs €85, while the Firestone RoadHawk is priced at €68. This makes the RoadHawk 25% cheaper than the Turanza 6.
Tire size: 205/55 R16
- Turanza 6 : € 85
- RoadHawk : € 68
Difference: -25% more cheaper for RoadHawk.
Summary
As a tire expert, I can conclude that both the Bridgestone Turanza 6 and Firestone RoadHawk offer distinct advantages. The Turanza 6 excels in wet braking and mileage, providing a durable and reliable option for long-term use. On the other hand, the RoadHawk impresses with its superior wet and dry handling, rolling resistance at a much lower price point, making it a compelling choice for budget-conscious drivers. Ultimately, your choice depends on whether you prioritize durability and braking performance or handling and affordability.
Dr Edwin Pang