Porovnání: Firestone Roadhawk 2 vs. Bridgestone Turanza 6 (2026)

Wet performance is where the Roadhawk 2's split personality becomes impossible to ignore. Its aquaplaning scores are outstanding: 92.8 on the cross-plane (curved) aquaplaning test and 89.4 longitudinally — the highest aquaplaning score in our database for this tyre, and in Sportauto 2026 it claimed outright first place in the curved aquaplaning discipline with 2.44 m/s² resistance. The Turanza 6 scores 74.6 for aquaplaning, a gap of more than 16 points that translates to real-world consequences: on a motorway in heavy summer rain with standing water pooling across lanes, the Roadhawk 2 will carry significantly more speed through the flood before losing contact with the road. That is a genuine safety advantage in the specific scenario of unexpected deep-water intrusion.

The situation reverses entirely at the braking line. The Roadhawk 2's wet braking performance score of 65.4 compares badly to the Turanza 6's 76.8 — a gap of more than 11 points. In real test distances, the Roadhawk 2 recorded 51.1 m in the Netzwelt 2026 wet braking test, flagged as below average, and 38.3 m in Sportauto 2026 — a result explicitly described as dangerously long. Across two measured tests, these are not marginal shortcomings; they represent several car lengths of additional stopping distance from 80 km/h. The Turanza 6's wet braking authority is consistent across assessors: ADAC 2026 rated its wet performance at 2.8 (solid) and TYRE REVIEWS 2026 noted it had good wet braking authority, even if its wet handling pace fell behind the very best. The wet-handling scores tell the same story: Turanza 6 aggregates 79.9 (80.5 objective), versus 76.2 for the Roadhawk 2, with the Bridgestone's principal wet weakness being a mild understeer bias on the handling circuit rather than any genuine instability — whereas the Roadhawk 2 shows more unsettling load-change behaviour in wet corners. The EU wet-grip label gives 98% of Roadhawk 2 sizes an A rating — the highest available — yet real wet braking tests consistently tell a more complex story.

On dry tarmac, the Turanza 6 holds a meaningful structural advantage over the Roadhawk 2. The aggregate dry-braking performance score across independent tests reads 74.9 for the Turanza 6 versus 65.0 for the Roadhawk 2 — a 15% gap that traces back to consistent findings from multiple organisations. To put individual test figures on the table: in Sportauto 2026, the Roadhawk 2 posted a dry braking distance of 35.4 m and finished last in that discipline among the test field. In Tyre Reviews 2026, the Turanza 6 recorded 37.45 m in dry braking, which, while not exceptional for a premium tyre, placed it well within the competitive midfield. These figures come from different test conditions and cannot be directly averaged, but the scoring differential and consistent tester commentary tell a coherent story: the Roadhawk 2 cannot match the Turanza 6 in dry stopping authority.

Dry handling amplifies the gap. The Turanza 6 aggregates 81.8 for dry handling (82.5 measured, 82.3 on the lane-change test), while the Roadhawk 2 manages 69.8 — a 17-point deficit. The Turanza 6 earns a steering reaction score of 84, reflecting a tyre that turns in cleanly, builds cornering load progressively and communicates well near the grip limit. Multiple testers describe its on-centre feel as precise and its response to fast direction changes as composed. The Roadhawk 2's dry lane-change score of 80 is decent — it manages emergency avoidance manoeuvres adequately — but its overall dry handling character is described as lacking feedback, with steering that feels detached under higher lateral loads and a tendency toward instability under load transfer. For daily commuting at legal speeds, these limitations stay largely invisible; for a driver who enjoys a B-road or needs to swerve sharply, the Turanza 6 is the tyre that feels in control.

Cabin refinement is where the Turanza 6 most convincingly earns its premium positioning. Its noise score of 66.3 stands more than 16 points above the Roadhawk 2's 49.5 — a gap audible from the first kilometre. Die Reifentester 2026 ranked the Turanza 6 as the quietest interior performer in the summer tyre comparison. The comfort aggregate across test organisations reaches 81 for the Turanza 6 versus 65.5 for the Roadhawk 2, and the AvD 2026 jury awarded the Bridgestone its best comfort result in the comparison (4.5 out of 5). Owner experience confirms it: a Citroën C4 driver reports it as "very silent" with a soft sidewall that absorbs road imperfections naturally, and a Toyota RAV4 owner returning from a 3,000 km road trip through heavy rain and varied surfaces describes it as faultless throughout. The Roadhawk 2 attracts specific criticism for an elevated pass-by noise level and slightly poorer ride absorption at low frequencies — qualities that make themselves felt most on long motorway runs, precisely the journeys where refinement matters most.

Running costs produce the most dramatic divergence in this comparison. The Turanza 6's rolling-resistance score of 91.9 is exceptional: Tyre Reviews 2026 measured it at 6.32 kg/t — a clear 10% advantage over the next-best tyre in that test — and Die Reifentester 2026 placed it joint-best alongside Michelin at 6.3 kg/t. Its EU fuel label is rated A in 31% of sizes. The Roadhawk 2 scores 77.4 for rolling resistance (8.0 kg/t in Sportauto 2026, which won that individual test but from a lower-quality field), with EU fuel labels predominantly B and C. The mileage gap is the starkest number in this comparison: the Turanza 6 scores 81.8 for longevity; the Roadhawk 2 scores just 38.0, and Autobild 2025 specifically warned of significantly reduced mileage as a notable weakness. The Roadhawk 2's purchase price advantage is real — ADAC 2026 listed it at approximately €132 — but at anything above 25,000–30,000 km of use, the Turanza 6's lower fuel consumption and slower tread wear begin to recover the price premium. The AvD 2026 awarded the Turanza 6 its Greenovation distinction and ranked it best for longevity among the premium tyres tested — the total cost of ownership case for the Bridgestone is strong.