18 shops, 56 847 products

Comparison: Firestone Winterhawk 3 vs. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 vs. Continental WinterContact TS 860

Table of contents:

Summary
Wet
Dry
Snow
Ice
Costs
Mutual tests
Buy %

#	Firestone Winterhawk 3 /0%	BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 /81%	Continental WinterContact TS 860 /0%

Dimensions	R13 - R18	R14 - R19	R13 - R17
Price	Set dimension to see prices	Set dimension to see prices	Set dimension to see prices
Remove	Remove from comparison	Remove from comparison	Remove from comparison

Segment

1. Continental WinterContact TS 860 Premium

2. Firestone Winterhawk 3 Upper-middle

3. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 Upper-middle

Number of sizes available

1. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 91

2. Continental WinterContact TS 860 76

3. Firestone Winterhawk 3 66

Number of tests

1. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 23x

2. Continental WinterContact TS 860 23x

3. Firestone Winterhawk 3 14x

Best position in test

1. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 1.

2. Continental WinterContact TS 860 1.

3. Firestone Winterhawk 3 3.

Worst position in test

1. Continental WinterContact TS 860 7.

2. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 13.

3. Firestone Winterhawk 3 32.

Average position in tests

1. Continental WinterContact TS 860 2.35

2. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 6.65

3. Firestone Winterhawk 3 16

Year of the last test

1. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 2025

2. Continental WinterContact TS 860 2021

3. Firestone Winterhawk 3 2020

Best rating in test

1. Continental WinterContact TS 860 Very good

2. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 Very good

3. Firestone Winterhawk 3 Satisfactory

Worst rating in test

1. Continental WinterContact TS 860 Good

2. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 Good

3. Firestone Winterhawk 3 Conditionally recommended

Wet

(Overall rating)

Continental
WinterContact TS 860

91.6%

BFGoodrich
G-FORCE WINTER 2

70.3%

Firestone
Winterhawk 3

66.5%

Wet braking according to EU label

1. Continental WinterContact TS 860 B

2. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 B

3. Firestone Winterhawk 3 C

Snow

(Overall rating)

BFGoodrich
G-FORCE WINTER 2

93.2%

Continental
WinterContact TS 860

90.5%

Firestone
Winterhawk 3

81.4%

Dry

(Overall rating)

Continental
WinterContact TS 860

84.2%

Firestone
Winterhawk 3

75.8%

BFGoodrich
G-FORCE WINTER 2

71.8%

Costs

(Overall rating)

Firestone
Winterhawk 3

80.3%

Continental
WinterContact TS 860

79.4%

BFGoodrich
G-FORCE WINTER 2

75%

Fuel consumption according to EU label

1. Continental WinterContact TS 860 C

2. Firestone Winterhawk 3 E

3. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 E

Comfort

(Overall rating)

Continental
WinterContact TS 860

79.2%

BFGoodrich
G-FORCE WINTER 2

79.3%

Firestone
Winterhawk 3

70.3%

Outside noise accoring to EU label

1. Continental WinterContact TS 860 ?

2. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 ?

3. Firestone Winterhawk 3 ?

Ice

(Overall rating)

Firestone
Winterhawk 3

82.7%

BFGoodrich
G-FORCE WINTER 2

80.5%

Continental
WinterContact TS 860

79.5%

Add to comparison

Make

Model

Mutual Tests Available

These tyres were tested together in 2 test(s). Click to view detailed head-to-head results.

Mutual tests

Autobild Winter tyre test 2017 225/50 R17

Name	Wet	Dry	Snow	Running costs
Best values in test	2+	2+	1	2+
Firestone Winterhawk 3 Rating: Satisfactory	3+	2	2	2-
BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 Rating: Good	2	2-	1	2
Continental WinterContact TS 860 Rating: Exemplary	2+	2+	2+	2-
Show test details

Autobild Winter tyre test 2017 225/50 R17

Name	Stopping distance on wet	Stopping distance on snow
Best values in test	32,2	25,9
Firestone Winterhawk 3	36,3	27,9
BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2	35,1	25,9
Continental WinterContact TS 860	33,5	27,5
Show test details

Comparison: Firestone Winterhawk 3 vs. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 vs. Continental WinterContact TS 860

Add to comparison

Add to comparison

Mutual Tests Available

Mutual tests

Summer

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Winter

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Allround

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Rankings

Tests

Brands