Menu
Firestone RoadHawk View Gallery (1)
165-295/30-70 R15-21 186 sizes 2017

Firestone RoadHawk

Firestone Tires Premium Touring Summer Next

The Firestone Roadhawk targets mainstream motorists who drive all types of journeys – urban, highway, commute, school run, shopping – on a daily basis. These drivers want a tire that gives them long-lasting performance in road conditions where wet weather, heavy traffic, sudden braking and motorway speed are all part of the daily mix. In short, a tire they can always count on.

7.9
Tire Reviews Score Based on Professional Tests & User Reviews
High Confidence View Breakdown
Dry Grip
83%
Wet Grip
72%
Road Feedback
67%
Handling
62%
Wear
55%
Comfort
71%
Buy again
49%
43 Reviews
66% Average
321,106 miles driven
24 Tests (avg: 11th)
Firestone RoadHawk

Firestone RoadHawk

Summer Mid-Range
BETA
7.9 / 10
Based on Professional Tests & User Reviews · High Confidence · Updated 23 Feb 2026

The Tire Reviews Score is the most comprehensive tire scoring system available. It aggregates professional test data from multiple independent publications, user reviews, and consistency analysis using Bayesian statistical methods, weighted normalisation, and recency-adjusted scoring to produce a single, reliable performance rating.

Learn more about our methodology
Category Scores
Dry
83.7
1.8x / 27 tests
Wet
76.9
2x / 41 tests
Value
66.2
0.42x / 29 tests
Comfort
57.5
0.32x / 13 tests
Cross-Category Performance

Cross-category scores are derived metrics that combine data from multiple test disciplines to evaluate real-world performance characteristics.

Handling
82.9
20 tests
Braking
79.2
36 tests
Score Components
Professional Tests
Weight: 80%
Tests: 24
Publications: 6
Period: 2018 - 2024
User Reviews
Weight: 15%
Reviews: 43
Avg Rating: 65.8%
Min Required: 5
Consistency
Weight: 5%
Score Std Dev: 0.35
History Points: 10
Methodology & Configuration
Scoring Process
  1. Collect Test Data: Gather results from professional tire tests across multiple publications. Minimum 1 test(s) required.
  2. Normalize Positions: Convert test positions to percentile scores using exponential weighting (factor: 1.2).
  3. Apply Recency Weighting: More recent tests are weighted higher with a decay rate of 0.95.
  4. Incorporate User Reviews: Factor in user review data (minimum 5 reviews). Weight: 15%.
  5. Bayesian Smoothing: Apply Bayesian prior (score: 7, weight: 1.5) to prevent extreme scores with limited data.
  6. Calculate Final Score: Combine all components using normalization factor of 1.1. Max score with limited data: 9.5.
Component Weights
Test Data
80%
User Reviews
15%
Consistency
5%
All Configuration Parameters
ParameterValueDescription
safety_weight 0.7 Weight multiplier for safety-related metrics
performance_weight 0.55 Weight multiplier for performance metrics
comfort_weight 0.4 Weight multiplier for comfort metrics
value_weight 0.45 Weight multiplier for value-for-money metrics
user_reviews_weight 0.15 How much user reviews contribute to the final score
test_data_weight 0.8 How much professional test data contributes to the final score
consistency_weight 0.05 How much score consistency contributes to the final score
recency_decay_rate 0.95 Rate at which older test results lose influence (higher = slower decay)
min_test_count 1 Minimum number of professional tests required
min_review_count 5 Minimum number of user reviews required
score_version 1.9 Current version of the scoring algorithm
score_normalization_factor 1.1 Factor used to normalize raw scores to the 0-10 scale
confidence_factor_weight 0.2 How much data confidence affects the final score
position_penalty_weight 0.2 Penalty applied for poor test positions
gap_penalty_threshold 12 Score gap (%) that triggers additional penalties
min_metrics_count 2 Minimum number of test metrics needed per test
limited_data_threshold 2 Number of tests below which data is considered limited
single_test_penalty 0.75 Score multiplier when only one test is available
critical_metric_penalty 0.7 Penalty for poor performance on critical safety metrics
critical_metric_threshold 70 Score below which a critical metric penalty applies
position_exponential_factor 1.2 Exponent used to amplify position-based scoring
position_exponential_threshold 0.9 Position percentile below which exponential scoring applies
gap_multiplier_critical 3 Multiplier for critical gap penalties
max_category_weight 2 Maximum weight any single category can have
max_score_limited_data 9.5 Score cap when data is limited
bayesian_prior_weight 1.5 Weight of the Bayesian prior in smoothing
bayesian_prior_score 7 Prior score used for Bayesian smoothing
evidence_test_multiplier 1.9 Multiplier for test evidence in confidence calculation
evidence_metric_divisor 3 Divisor for metric count in evidence calculation
evidence_review_divisor 10 Divisor for review count in evidence calculation
combined_penalty_floor 0.2
Data Sources
TestPublicationDateSizePositionMetrics
2024 AutoBild Summer Tire Test Auto Bild 2024 205/55 R16 6/21 12 metrics
2024 Summer Tire Market Overview Auto Bild 2024 205/55 R16 12/55 2 metrics
2023 ADAC Summer Tire Test ADAC 2023 205/55 R16 20/50 12 metrics
2023 Summer Tire Market Overview Auto Bild 2023 225/45 R18 31/48 2 metrics
2022 ADAC 16" SUV Summer Tire Test ADAC 2022 215/60 R16 11/18 0 metrics
2022 ADAC Summer Tire Test - 15 Inch ADAC 2022 185/65 R15 9/16 0 metrics
2022 Summer Tire Market Overview Auto Bild 2022 215/55 R17 28/44 2 metrics
2021 Auto Bild 16 Inch Summer Tire Test Auto Bild 2021 205/55 R16 9/20 10 metrics
2021 ADAC Summer Tire Test - 225/50 R17 ADAC 2021 225/50 R17 17/17 1 metrics
2021 53 Summer Tire Braking Test Auto Bild 2021 205/55 R16 10/53 2 metrics
2020 Auto Bild Summer Tire Test Auto Bild 2020 245/45 R18 9/20 10 metrics
2020 Auto Zeitung Summer Tire Test Auto Zeitung 2020 225/50 R17 12/20 11 metrics
2020 ACE Mid Range Summer Tire Test ACE 2020 215/55 R17 7/9 0 metrics
2020 Tire Market Overview Braking Test Auto Bild 2020 245/45 R18 11/49 2 metrics
2019 Summer and All Season Tire Test Auto Navigator 2019 205/55 R16 9/18 5 metrics
2019 NAF Summer Tire Test 2019 205/55 R16 3/8 7 metrics
2019 Auto Bild Summer Tire Test Auto Bild 2019 225/45 R17 18/20 11 metrics
2019 Summer 53 Tire Braking Shootout Auto Bild 2019 225/45 R17 13/45 2 metrics
2019 ADAC Summer Tire Test - 185/65 R15 ADAC 2019 185/65 R15 5/16 0 metrics
2018 New and Worn Summer Tire Test Auto Navigator 2018 205/55 R16 8/17 5 metrics
2018 Gute Fahrt Summer Tire Test Gute Fahrt 2018 205/55 R16 4/12 4 metrics
2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tire Test Auto Bild 2018 195/65 R15 4/20 10 metrics
2018 AutoBild Summer Tire Overview Auto Bild 2018 195/65 R15 3/47 0 metrics
2018 ADAC Summer Tire Test - 205/55 R16 ADAC 2018 205/55 R16 4/16 0 metrics
In Depth Tire Comparisons
Firestone RoadHawk vs Uniroyal RainSport 5
Firestone RoadHawk vs Uniroyal RainSport 5
All Tests
View Test Results
24
Tests
11th
Average
3rd
Best
31st
Worst
Latest Tire Test Results
2024 AutoBild Summer Tire Test
205/55 R16 • 2024
6th/21
Brand tire with sporty dynamic handling, short dry braking distances, good value for money.
Increased rolling noise.
Good.
2024 Summer Tire Market Overview
205/55 R16 • 2024
12th/55
2023 Summer Tire Market Overview
225/45 R18 • 2023
31st/48
View Test Results
Size Fuel Wet Noise
15 inch
185/65 R15 88 H C A 70
195/55 R15 85 V C A 71
185/65 R15 88 T C A 70
195/55 R15 85 H C A 71
185/65 R15 88 V C A 70
195/55 R15 85 V C A 71
195/65 R15 91 H C A 71
195/65 R15 91 H C A 71
195/65 R15 91 V C A 71
195/65 R15 91 T C A 71
195/65 R15 95 T XL C A 71
185/65R15 88 V C A 70
16 inch
215/70 R16 100 H C A 71
205/55 R16 91 H A C 70
215/70 R16 100 H C B 71
205/60 R16 92 V C A 70
215/60 R16 99 V XL C A 72
205/55 R16 91 V C B 70
205/55 R16 91 V C A 70
205/55 R16 91 W C A 70
205/55 R16 91 H C A 70
205/55 R16 94 V XL C A 72
205/60 R16 92 V C A 70
205/60 R16 92 H C A 70
215/60 R16 99 H XL C A 72
215/60 R16 99 V XL C A 72
17 inch
235/65 R17 104 V C A 71
235/65 R17 108 V XL C A 71
225/60 R17 99 H C A 71
235/65 R17 108 V XL B B 71
265/65 R17 112 H C B 71
225/45 R17 94 W XL C A 72
225/60 R17 99 H C A 71
215/55 R17 98 W XL B A 71
225/45 R17 91 Y C A 71
225/45 R17 94 W XL C A 72
215/55 R17 94 W C A 71
225/50 R17 98 Y XL C A 72
225/50 R17 98 W XL C A 72
205/50 R17 93 W XL C A 72
215/45 R17 91 Y XL C A 72
18 inch
245/45 R18 100 Y XL C A 71
235/60 R18 107 V XL C A 71
235/60 R18 103 V C A 71
235/60 R18 103 V B B 71
255/35 R18 94 Y XL C A 73
245/40 R18 97 Y XL C A 72
225/40 R18 92 Y XL C A 72
19 inch
235/35 R19 91 Y XL C A 71
20 inch
245/35 R20 95 Y XL C A 71
255/45 R20 105 W XL B A 73
View All Sizes and EU Label Scores for the Firestone RoadHawk >>

Questions and Answers for the Firestone RoadHawk

Ask a question
April 24, 2017

Are Firestone Roadhawk tires Directional as regard fitting, or can they be fitted any way, ie inside out etc.

The Firestone RoadHawk is an asymmetric tire so can be fitted in either direction, just make sure the "outside" is on the outside of the wheel.
August 14, 2017

I will be needing new tires in approx. 6 months and wondered if the Firestone Roadhawk is due to be tested this year. It appears to be in my price range, and seems better than most at that price point. I just wondered if anything conclusive has been printed??

All the summer tests of 2017 have been published now, but if you read <a href="http://www.tirereviews.co.uk/Article/Firestone-RoadHawk-Launched-and-First-Drive.htm">our launch report</a> there are some figures from TUV which shows the Firestone RoadHawk performing favourably.
August 16, 2017

These firestone tires have not been tested against a 'good ' tire such as the Hankook Ventus Prime 3. They have been compared with lesser tires I believe. And they don't seem to be available with 95 rating only 99 or XL rating. Which I am not looking for as my car has quite hard suspension anyway. Would you think the Hankook tires would be a better purchase?

I would argue the Uniroyal RainSport 3, Fulda EcoControl HP, Kleber Dynaxer HP3 and Nexen N Blue Plus TUV tested the RoadHawk against, which is covered in the <a href="http://www.tirereviews.co.uk/Article/Firestone-RoadHawk-Launched-and-First-Drive.htm">RoadHawk launch report</a>, are good tires for the sector. Unfortunately I've seen no benchmark for comfort so can't comment on which option will be more comfortable.
September 5, 2017

What is the thread depth of the Firestone Roadhawk 195/65/15 please?

I believe the starting tread depth of the Firestone RoadHawk is a little over 7mm.
June 20, 2018

is the roadhawk 94w run flat tire?

As far as I'm aware there is no runflat version of the RoadHawk currently.
February 19, 2019

where are the tires made ?

Firestone and Bridgestone use factories all over the world, you would have to check directly with Firestone for the size you are looking at.
June 3, 2023

How do the Firestone Roadhawk tires compare to Bridgestone Turanza T005?

There's a number of very in depth tests on the site comparing the T005 and Roadhawk, this is the best currently: <a href="/Article/2023-ADAC-Summer-Tire-Test.htm">Click Here</a>
Ask a question

We will never publish or share your email address

captcha

To verify you are human please type the word you see in the box below.

Review Summary

Based on 41 user reviews

Drivers are split on the Firestone RoadHawk: many high-scoring reviews praise its confident wet and dry grip, comfort, and value, especially on smaller/lighter cars and for everyday driving. However, a sizeable number report fast wear and soft sidewalls that look underinflated and can hurt steering precision and cornering feel. When weighted by higher scores, wet grip and overall stability remain positives, but durability and sidewall firmness are recurring drawbacks. Overall, the RoadHawk suits daily use and budget-conscious buyers, with notable compromises in tread life and sporty handling.

Strengths
  • Wet grip
  • Dry grip
  • Comfort/ride quality
  • Value for money
  • Everyday handling stability
Areas for Improvement
  • Fast tread wear/low starting tread depth
  • Soft sidewalls/poor steering feedback
  • Noisy at speed

Top 3 Firestone RoadHawk Reviews

Given 41% while driving a Alfa Romeo Giulia 2.2d rwd 180hp (225/50 R17) on a combination of roads for 20,000 spirited miles
They are maybe a good choice for taxi drivers & in cities conditions. No good cornering feedback a 165/70/13 is more precise & direct, terrible at wet conditions the car goes to different directions at straight driving with 80 km/h. When they get older is like not having tires at all
Helpful 1058
November 12, 2024
Given 18% while driving a Renault Master (2018) (225/65 R16) on a combination of roads for 200 miles
Allways had continental van contact, 100s and 200s never had an accident never have i skidded out or lost control with these tyers drove in thick ice heavy rain there great. Firestone's death traps do not buy for your van, they have no stability and my van wobbles from side to side horrible things stirring is now not very responsive. If you push the tyers with your foot the whole van is wobbling. There coming off as soon as I can afford too. Big mistake if your used to continental van contact the difference is might and day don't make the same mistake I did trying to save 40 euro a tire , not worth it. Hope this helps as there are not many true reviews out there on Firestone van tires.
Helpful 927
February 2, 2025
Given 73% while driving a Ford Fiesta Mk7.5 (195/55 R15) on a combination of roads for 500 spirited miles
Bought two of these recently to replace the front tires on a Fiesta Mk7.5. The price was similar to other midrange tires and after some miles they are wearing ok. In terms of handling dry grip is good with less understeer than Turanza or Bluresponse tires. Wet grip is decent, especially over standing water, and steering feel is lighter but more precise than Turanza or Bluresponse. The noise and fuel economy are not noticeably better or worse than other tires I've used, but the Bluresponse was softer over bumps. Overall a decent midrange tire you can use everyday with no significant penalties.
Helpful 1107
June 3, 2024

How would you rate the Firestone RoadHawk?

Click a star to start your review

198 reviews submitted this month Earn your Contributor badge No account needed

Latest Firestone RoadHawk Reviews

Initial Impressions Review
Given 50% while driving a Honda Jazz (225/45 R17) on for 32,000 miles
Uneven wear, especially on the sides, very noisy
Helpful 1
March 8, 2026
Given 97% while driving a BMW 320d touring (225/45 R17) on a combination of roads for 25,000 spirited miles
Finally replaced the rears I fitted in 2019 and reviewed on this site (30/07/2019). After at least 25,000 miles, I got a puncture and changed both as they were getting low on tread. Absolutely fantastic tires that have surprised me. Took us on a European road trip in August this year (3500 miles) and even at this late stage of their lifespan, were absolutely superb through some seriously heavy rains in Italy and France. Brilliant in all weathers and with some heavy loads, the Roadhawks are up there with the original Bridgestone Turanza ER300 from a few years ago on my all time favourites. Shout out to Firestone for putting together a brilliant tire that for the price have put it to the big brands every time. I'm a spirited driver and always had total confidence in the Roadhawks to get me there.
Helpful 279
October 12, 2025
Given 84% while driving a Ford Fiesta mk7 (195/50 R15) on a combination of roads for 35,000 average miles
Very safety tire until to last season, good handling, but very loud, worse than my winter Dębica Frigo 2. After 35 000 km and 5 seasons, still 4mm tread but they start cracking and need replacement. I would buy again as tire to small car.
Helpful 826
October 13, 2023
Given 40% while driving a Ford Fiesta mk7 (195/50 R15) on a combination of roads for 0 miles
These are the worst tires I've ever driven on in the wet they are leathal I've been driving for over 50 years now cross plies where better in the wet than These firestone tires where always good in the past I am a retired ambulance driver we always used firestone tires on all our ambulances but these road hawk by firestone are downright dangerous in the wet stay clear Philip
Helpful 1133
July 15, 2023
Given 67% while driving a Peugeot 308 BlueHDI EAT6 (225/40 R18) on mostly town for 0 average miles
I’ve just had 4 fitted, 1st impressions seem good. Appear to be a well made tire, interested to see how long the 6.5-6.7mm tread lasts.
Helpful 1056
May 31, 2023
Given 61% while driving a Citroën c3 Picasso 1.6 diesel (195/55 R16) on mostly town for 15,000 average miles
Main issue is after 4 years showing bad signs of cracking and perishing, not good for low mileage use
Helpful 961
March 4, 2023
Given 67% while driving a Volkswagen Caddy (195/65 R15) on a combination of roads for 15,500 average miles
RoadHawk are quite good tires for the price, perform well on wet and quite good on dry. However they do wear fast. I do little motorway, a mix of city and around, after 25000 km my front tires (front wheel drive) are almost worn out for good. Might squeeze 1k km more but thats it. Good price, good performance, wears fast.
Helpful 962
February 1, 2023
Given 93% while driving a Ford Focus 2002 Hatchback (195/65 R15) on a combination of roads for 0 average miles
Very nice and stable tires. It doesn't matter if it's dry or wet, they are not afraid of potholes and bad road. I will buy again.
Helpful 768
January 26, 2023
Given 83% while driving a Fiat Grande Punto TJet (205/45 R17) on a combination of roads for 12,000 average miles
Generally I was looking for a good set of tires but quite cheaper this time, before I had Michellin, Conti, Dunlop. A friend of mine had these tires in his car he advised me to buy them I won't regret it. After the suggestion of the tire shop manager too, I decided to fit them in my car... Well I would dare to say that firestone tire is outstanding! Excellent all around tires, very good grip in dry and wet. Very good breaking and comfort as well. Good wear and handling, not much noisy . Actually there are equivalent to premium brands if not better from most premiums and some aspects however much cheaper. Honestly l don't understand why firestone which is an old American tire factory subsidiary of Brigestone, which manufactures excellent tires lacks of marketing the brand and especially Roadhawk tires are awesome. . Don't hasitate, buy them, fit them you will be surprised.
Helpful 1004
April 16, 2022
Given 83% while driving a Dacia Sandero Mk.1 1.4 mpi (185/65 R15) on mostly country roads for 1,000 average miles
Bought these new to replace the original all season Barum tires that came as standard from the factory. I think, for the price, this was the best option at the that time. Massive improvement over the previous tires in noise, comfort and grip. The tire is lighter, and it has a thin side wall that helps with the damping on uneven roads, this is very noticeable on cheaper cars with not very sophisticated suspensions. The dry grip is great, and I think it suits smaller and lighter cars in the way the tire behaves. Wet grip is also very impressive, i was unable to aquaplane these tires even when i tried, something that i was able to do often with the old tires. Also, stopping a cornering feel solid in the wet. Overall, i think Firestone in general have the best tires for their price range (i have a set of Winterhawks as well). But as i said before, they are better suited for smaller, lighter cars, where things like tire wear are not as obvious, and you can have great confidence in them to go from A to B. For something bigger than a 225 I would start looking somewhere else.
Helpful 979
March 18, 2022
Given 47% while driving a Volvo V40 T4 AUTO (205/50 R16) on a combination of roads for 9,941 spirited miles
Only 16000km until inner treads start appearing. Other than that, it's a normal tire. OK for the price.
Helpful 823
January 3, 2022
Given 93% while driving a Saab Automobile 9 3 Aero HOT (235/45 R17 W) on a combination of roads for 500 spirited miles
Bought these as a step up from bargain tires and could not be happier. Noticed a huge difference in road handling and grip from the minute I took a corner. Now the roads are wet with the change in weather, i was cautious at first but had no reason to be. Handle really well on wet/greasy roads and take relatively deep surface water in their stride. Only had them a few months so not got to the point where i can comment on the wear. However I will, going by what they have been like so far, be buying them again.
Helpful 831
December 10, 2020
Rate the Firestone RoadHawk