Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 4S: The Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 and the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S both cater to the ultra ultra high performance (UUHP) summer tire segment, where precision, grip, and handling are key. Positioned as Bridgestone’s quality contender, the Firehawk Indy 500 aims to challenge the reigning technology king, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S. Can Firestone’s offering take on the undisputed champion of the UUHP arena? The battle between these two giants promises to be intense and full of surprises!
Table of Contents
Results
Results below were taken from tire rack’s “Ultra High Performance vs. Max Performance Summer Tires ” test. A total of 6 tires were tested this time around. The graph below shows the comparison between Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 4S based on the relevant performance category. The Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 was set as a reference hence at the 100% mark.
The tire size of interest is a 275/35R19 which is a common tire size for BMW 530i M Sport & Mercedes-Benz E 300 AMG Line. You can check out our latest tire size table for more information. The testing vehicle of choice is a 2024 BMW M2.
Dry
In dry braking, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S stops in 73.6 feet, which is 5.5 feet shorter than the Firestone Firehawk Indy 500’s 79.1 feet. For dry handling, the Michelin scores 8.2 out of 10, showing a clear advantage over the Firestone’s 6.6 out of 10, reflecting better control and grip. In terms of dry handling lap time, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S completes the lap in 28.5 seconds, a full second faster than the Firestone Firehawk Indy 500’s 29.5 seconds.Overall, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S dominates in all aspects of dry performance, including braking, handling precision, and lap times, clearly outperforming the Firestone Firehawk Indy 500.
Pilot Sport 4S :
- +7% in dry braking
- +8% in dry handling (subj)
- +4% in dry handling (lap time)
Wet
In wet braking, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S stops in 92.5 feet, which is significantly shorter by 13.7 feet compared to the Firestone Firehawk Indy 500’s 106.2 feet. When it comes to wet handling, the Michelin scores 8.1 out of 10, showing superior control and confidence over the Firestone’s 7.1 out of 10. In wet handling lap times, the Michelin again proves its dominance with a lap time of 30.9 seconds, which is 2 seconds quicker than the Firestone’s 32.9 seconds. Overall, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S outperforms the Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 in all wet performance aspects, including braking, handling, and lap times, confirming its dominance in wet conditions.
Pilot Sport 4S :
- +15% in wet braking
- +5% in wet handling (subj)
- +6% in wet handling (lap time)
Mileage (real actual test !)
When it comes to actual tested mileage results conducted by consumer reports, the Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 fights back, offering a tested lifespan of 45,000 miles. This outlasts the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S, which delivers a shorter 40,000 miles. While the Michelin dominates in performance metrics, the Firehawk Indy 500 shows its strength in durability, providing 5,000 miles more of tread life.
- Firehawk Indy 500 : 45,000 miles
- Pilot Sport 4S : 40,000 miles
Noise Vibration Harshness (NVH)
In terms of ride quality and noise, both the Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 and Michelin Pilot Sport 4S score equally with a 6.5 rating, indicating similar performance in delivering a comfortable and quiet ride. However, when it comes to steering and road handling, the Michelin outshines the Firestone with a score of 8.5 compared to 7, showing superior precision and feedback. The overall average for noise, comfort, and ride quality favors the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S at 7.2, slightly ahead of the Firestone’s 6.7. While both tires are evenly matched in comfort and noise, the Michelin clearly excels in steering responsiveness and overall refinement.
Pilot Sport 4S :
- +2% in average of Noise, Comfort & Ride Quality
UTQG rating
The UTQG (Uniform Tire Quality Grading) values for the Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 and Michelin Pilot Sport 4S show notable differences, particularly in treadwear, which aligns with their tested mileage results. The Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 has a treadwear rating of 340, indicating a longer potential lifespan and matching its tested mileage of 45,000 miles. Meanwhile, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S has a lower treadwear rating of 300, which correlates with its shorter tested mileage of 40,000 miles. While both tires share the same temperature rating of ‘A’, the Michelin edges out with a higher traction grade of ‘AA’ compared to the Firestone’s ‘A’, reflecting a focus on grip over longevity.
| Brand | Tireline | Size | Tread Wear | Traction | Temperature |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firestone | Firehawk Indy 500 | All | 340 | A | A |
| Michelin | Pilot Sport 4S | All | 300 | AA | A |
Price
The tire prices reveal a significant gap between the premium pricing of the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S and the more value-oriented pricing of the Firestone Firehawk Indy 500. For the 275/35R19 size, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S is priced at $339, making it 29% more expensive than the Firestone Firehawk Indy 500, which costs $262. This vast difference underscores the premium cost associated with Michelin’s renowned performance and technology compared to Firestone’s quality, budget-friendly offering.
Tire size: 275/35R19
- Firehawk Indy 500 : $262
- Pilot Sport 4S : $339
Difference: +29% more expensive for Pilot Sport 4S.
Summary
As a tire expert, it’s clear that the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S showcases its dominance in the ultra-high performance segment. With superior dry and wet handling, shorter braking distances, and exceptional steering responsiveness, the Pilot Sport 4S consistently outperforms the Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 in critical performance metrics. While the Firehawk Indy 500 offers greater tread life and a more affordable price point, the Michelin’s blend of cutting-edge technology, grip, and control sets a benchmark that is hard to beat. For those who prioritize top-tier performance, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S remains the tire to beat.
Dr Edwin Pang