Michelin CrossClimate 2 SUV vs Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6: The battle is on in the 3-peak mountain all-season SUV segment as the Michelin CrossClimate 2 SUV, launched in 2021, faces off against the Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6, a fresh contender from 2023. With both promising exceptional year-round performance and snow capability, it’s a clash of innovation and experience. Will Michelin’s proven formula hold up, or will Bridgestone’s latest tech steal the crown? Let’s find out!
Table of Contents
Results: Michelin CrossClimate 2 SUV vs Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6
Results below were taken from the 2024 Motor SUV All Season Tire Test with a total of 6 tires tested. The graph below shows the comparison between Michelin CrossClimate 2 SUV vs Continental AllSeasonContact 2 based on the relevant performance category. The Michelin CrossClimate 2 SUV tire was set as a reference hence at the 100% mark.
It’s important to note that for subjective tests, the evaluation was based on lap time, a method that’s becoming less common in magazine tests, where lap speed is now typically used instead. The tire size of interest is a 235/60 R18 which is a common tire size for Honda CRV. You can check out our latest tire size table for more information.
Wet
In wet braking, the Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6 stops 1 meter shorter than the Michelin CrossClimate 2 SUV, measuring 45 meters versus 46 meters. Wet handling shows a slight edge for the CrossClimate 2 SUV, completing the course 0.4 seconds faster at 87.9 seconds compared to the Turanza’s 88.3 seconds. Straight-line aquaplaning performance is nearly identical, with the CrossClimate 2 SUV managing 79.6 km/h, just 0.2 km/h higher than the Turanza’s 79.4 km/h.
Turanza All Season 6 :
- +2% in wet braking
- ~0% in wet handling
- ~0% in aquaplaning
Snow
In snow braking, both the Michelin CrossClimate 2 SUV and Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6 perform equally, stopping at 18.3 meters. Snow traction sees the CrossClimate 2 SUV accelerate to 20 km/h faster, taking 8.52 seconds compared to the Turanza’s 8.96 seconds. In snow handling, the CrossClimate 2 SUV maintains its edge, completing the lap 1.6 seconds quicker at 78.6 seconds versus the Turanza’s 80.2 seconds.
Turanza All Season 6 :
- ~0% in snow braking
- -5% in snow traction (time)
- -2% in snow handling
Dry
In dry braking from 100-0 km/h, the Michelin CrossClimate 2 SUV stops 0.5 meters shorter than the Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6, measuring 39.6 meters compared to 40.1 meters. For dry handling, the CrossClimate 2 SUV completes the lap 0.21 seconds faster, finishing in 54.34 seconds versus the Turanza’s 54.55 seconds.
Turanza All Season 6 :
- -1% in dry braking
- ~0% in dry handling
NVH
In terms of subjective comfort, both the Michelin CrossClimate 2 SUV and Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6 score equally with 7 out of 10. However, for exterior noise, the CrossClimate 2 SUV is quieter by 0.9 dB, registering 65.6 dB compared to the Turanza’s 66.5 dB.
Turanza All Season 6 :
- 0% in subjective comfort
- -1% in exterior noise (+0.9 dB)
Rolling Resistance
The Michelin CrossClimate 2 SUV has lower rolling resistance, measuring 6.92 N/kN, which is 0.61 N/kN better than the Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6 at 7.53 N/kN.
Turanza All Season 6 :
- -8% in rolling resistance
Price
The Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6 is 14% cheaper than the Michelin CrossClimate 2 SUV, priced at €160 compared to €182 for the same 235/60 R18 size.
Tire size: 235/60 R18
- CrossClimate 2 SUV : € 182
- Turanza All Season 6 : € 160
Difference: -14% more cheaper for Turanza All Season 6
Conclusion
As a tire expert, I find the Michelin CrossClimate 2 SUV excels in snow performance and rolling resistance, making it a versatile option for snow focus conditions. On the other hand, the Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6 impresses with its shorter wet braking distances, competitive comfort, and a more affordable price point. Both are strong contenders, and the choice ultimately depends on your driving priorities—whether it’s all-weather efficiency or wet performances.
Dr Edwin Pang