Segment
1. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 Premium2. Firestone Winterhawk 3 Upper-middle
Comparison: Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 vs. Firestone Winterhawk 3
Table of contents:
In this comparison, we are comparing a tyre from a manufacturer from Japan (Bridgestone) against a tyre from a manufacturer from USA (Firestone). Generally, Firestone winter tyres are slightly better rated (50%) than Bridgestone (46%). In this particular case, the Firestone Winterhawk 3 has a better rating of 40% compared to 37% of the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001. Important for this comparison is also the Autobild 2017 225/50 R17 test, where both the Blizzak LM-001 and the Winterhawk 3 were tested. See more mutual tests below. When it comes to comparison, eu labels can be also interesting - 73% of Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 has B wet grip rating, whereas 92% of Firestone Winterhawk 3 has C rating. We also know where Blizzak LM-001 is made - Poland.
| # | Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 | Firestone Winterhawk 3 | Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R14 - R21 | R13 - R18 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
2. Firestone Winterhawk 3 Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
2. Firestone Winterhawk 3 Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Snow
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
Ice
(Overall rating)Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2+ | 2+ | 1 | 1- | |||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 Rating: Good | 1- | 2- | 2 | 2+ | |||
| Firestone Winterhawk 3 Rating: Satisfactory | 3+ | 2 | 2 | 2- | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32,2 | 25,9 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 | 32,5 | 28,7 | |||||
| Firestone Winterhawk 3 | 36,3 | 27,9 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 34,2 | 25 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 | 38,5 | 25,9 | |||||
| Firestone Winterhawk 3 | 39,8 | 27,5 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2,3 | 2,1 | 1,7 | 2,0 | 2,8 | 1,5 | 1,5 |
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 Rating: - | 2,5 | 2,1 | 3,3 | 2,4 | 3,7 | 2,0 | 2,1 |
| Firestone Winterhawk 3 Rating: - | 3,0 | 2,9 | 2,4 | 2,0 | 2,8 | 2,0 | 2,2 |
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Ice | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,8 | 1,9 | 1,7 | 2,2 | 2,8 | 1 | 1,5 |
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 Rating: - | 2,8 | 2,6 | 1,9 | 2,9 | 3,6 | 2,5 | 2,0 |
| Firestone Winterhawk 3 Rating: - | 4,6 | 2,3 | 2,8 | 2,6 | 3,0 | 2,0 | 1,8 |
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 2+ | 1 | 1 | |||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 Rating: - | 2- | 2- | 2+ | 1- | |||
| Firestone Winterhawk 3 Rating: - | 2- | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on wet | Stopping distance on snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 36,8 | 27,7 | |||||
| Bridgestone Blizzak LM-001 | 43,4 | 28,1 | |||||
| Firestone Winterhawk 3 | 41,9 | 28,9 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||