Comparison: Firestone Roadhawk 2 vs. BFGoodrich Advantage (2026)

A directly comparable average dry-braking distance cannot be calculated from the supplied results because no measured distance is provided for the BFGoodrich. One Firestone test recorded 35.4 metres, where it finished last, while another assessment placed it seventh for dry braking. The normalized evidence points the same way: Roadhawk 2 scores 66.5 for dry braking and 61.5 overall in the dry, against 75.9 and 72 respectively for the Advantage. Those figures make BFGoodrich the more dependable choice when the road is dry and stopping performance is the priority, even though the source data does not support inventing a metre-based average or a car-length gap.

The Advantage’s strength is not merely braking. Its 83-point average dry score and 79.8 dry-handling score are backed by repeated observations of dynamic handling, stable behaviour and short dry stops. The driver should feel a more natural willingness to follow the chosen line, with enough response for brisk road driving without turning the tyre into a hard-edged sports product. Its 77-point lane-change result is respectable rather than exceptional, and an owner’s description of it as “not sporty” is revealing: this is secure, accessible grip, not razor-sharp steering or track-oriented feedback.

Firestone is more uneven. Its 73.8 dry-handling and 80 lane-change scores show that it can change direction safely and generate good cornering security, yet testers also found delayed steering response, weak feedback and limited grip reserves. Connected shoulder blocks and broad shoulder lugs should stabilize the footprint, but the compound and lightweight, efficiency-led construction appear tuned more toward balance and water management than maximum dry adhesion. At motorway speeds it remains sufficiently composed for touring, but the longer recorded braking distance means the Advantage offers the more convincing emergency margin on dry asphalt.

No valid head-to-head average wet-braking distance is available because the supplied data contains measured distances only for Firestone. Roadhawk 2 recorded 51.1 metres in one test and 38.3 metres in another, so even its two-result average of 44.7 metres should not be compared with a nonexistent BFGoodrich average; the different test protocols may also prevent a clean like-for-like interpretation. Interestingly, normalized wet-braking scores favour BFGoodrich, 77.4 versus 66.7, showing that Firestone’s wet advantage does not come primarily from stopping distance. Indeed, one assessment put the Roadhawk 2.1 metres behind the best wet-braking result.

Firestone earns its wet-weather recommendation through exceptional aquaplaning resistance. Its overall aquaplaning score is 92.6, with 91.2 longitudinally and 94 laterally. It won both aquaplaning disciplines in one comparison and produced the best curved-water result in another, generating 2.44 m/s². That aligns closely with the design: optimized void-to-rib proportions, chamfered sipes and wide shoulder lugs provide clear escape routes for water, while the high-silica compound helps preserve adhesion. In heavy rain, that means the tyre is less likely to climb onto the water film when crossing ruts or encountering a flooded bend.

There is an important qualification. Firestone’s 79.7 wet-handling score and 76 wet-circle score indicate useful pace, but feedback can become vague and lift-off load changes less stable near the limit. BFGoodrich’s 61.2 overall wet score, 69.4 wet-circle result and repeated tendency to understeer describe a more fundamental weakness: as cornering load rises, the front tyres surrender the line and push wide. Some owners report smooth wet handling and impressive braking, including experiences over 8,000 miles, so it is not intrinsically poor in ordinary rain. Nevertheless, controlled testing consistently exposes reduced wet reserves. For standing water and storm conditions, Roadhawk 2 is decisively safer; for braking on merely wet asphalt, the supplied normalized scores prevent claiming an across-the-board Firestone victory.

Both tyres are credible touring companions. Roadhawk 2 scores 79.8 for comfort and an excellent 83.2 for noise, and it was the quietest tyre in one complete comparison. Another test did record slightly louder exterior pass-by noise and small ride-comfort deficits, suggesting its refinement is more apparent inside the cabin than at the roadside or over sharp surface joints. Its steering can feel slightly filtered, but on a long motorway trip that softness is less troublesome than it would be during enthusiastic driving.

The Advantage scores a nearly identical 79.1 for comfort and 76.8 for noise, with a measured ride-comfort average of 72.3 and exterior-noise score of 68.3. Owners strengthen the subjective case: quietness was mentioned repeatedly among six Heureka reviews, which average 8.5/10, while 12 TyreReviews ratings average 86/100. A Ford C-Max driver reported very good comfort after 5,000 miles, and other owners describe smooth progress. The combined evidence makes BFGoodrich a convincing relaxed cruiser, although Firestone holds the stronger laboratory-style noise score.

Running costs create a genuine trade-off. Firestone’s fuel labels are predominantly B at 70%, with 27% C and 3% A; BFGoodrich is 82% C, 12% B and 6% E. Roadhawk 2 also achieved a class-leading 8.0 kg/t rolling resistance in one test and carries a 74.8 efficiency score, versus 65.7 for the Advantage. That supports Firestone’s ENLITEN and lightweight-carcass claims, especially for EV drivers seeking range, although one test contradicted the broader pattern by finding high resistance and consumption. Mileage reverses the comparison: BFGoodrich scores 63, while Firestone manages only 38 and has been criticized for distinctly limited life. Firestone claims 20% more mileage than its predecessor, but improvement over the old model does not make it the longer-lived tyre here. Both carry predominantly A wet-grip labels—Firestone 99% A and 1% B, BFGoodrich 100% A—but labels cannot reveal their large aquaplaning difference. Firestone may save energy per kilometre; the cheaper Advantage is more likely to deliver value through purchase price and tread life.