Segment
1. Continental EcoContact 6 Premium2. Firestone Roadhawk Upper-middle3. Kleber Dynaxer HP3 Upper-middle4. Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 Lowcost
Comparison: Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 vs. Firestone Roadhawk vs. Continental EcoContact 6 vs. Kleber Dynaxer HP3
Looking for a clear, test-based comparison between the Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 and the Firestone Roadhawk? Below we summarize how both summer tyres performed across independent tests (ADAC and Auto Bild), highlight their key strengths and weaknesses, and give a verdict on which one is the better pick overall.
Tyres in comparison: Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 vs. Firestone Roadhawk. Manufacturers: Laufenn and Firestone.
Replacement note: The original Firestone Roadhawk has been succeeded by a newer generation. If you’re considering Firestone, also check the Firestone Roadhawk 2, which addresses several areas highlighted in earlier tests.
Test summary and positions
- ADAC (17 tyres): Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 placed 14th/17, while Firestone Roadhawk finished 17th/17. This suggests the Laufenn delivered a more balanced overall performance, whereas the Firestone struggled in the round-up.
- Auto Bild (51-tyre mega test): Laufenn ranked 21st/51—an upper mid-field result—versus Firestone’s 30th/51, again favoring the Laufenn in a direct comparison.
- Auto Bild 2019 (Firestone-specific notes): Roadhawk earned praise for low fuel consumption, but the tyre was downgraded for very weak wet performance, with weaknesses on dry roads and slightly elevated wear also mentioned.
What the results mean
- Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01: With two head-to-head tests tipping in its favor (ADAC and Auto Bild 51-tyre test), the Laufenn emerges as the more competitive all-rounder. While it doesn’t top charts, its consistent mid-pack placements indicate a balanced performance without major red flags in wet or dry conditions, making it a sensible choice for drivers seeking value and dependable everyday capability.
- Firestone Roadhawk: The Roadhawk’s standout advantage is efficiency—notably low fuel consumption. However, multiple tests point to subpar wet grip (a critical safety factor) plus some dry-road weaknesses and slightly higher wear. These drawbacks contributed to its lower positions, especially the last place in ADAC’s 17-tyre test.
Strengths and weaknesses at a glance
- Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01
- Pros: Better aggregate test placements; balanced, no major penalties reported; competitive mid-field performance.
- Cons: Not a top finisher—drivers seeking premium-tier grip or shortest braking distances may still prefer higher-priced alternatives.
- Firestone Roadhawk
- Pros: Low fuel consumption; established brand network and availability.
- Cons: Documented wet performance weaknesses (Auto Bild downgrade), some dry-road shortcomings, and slightly higher wear; lower overall rankings.
Verdict: Which tyre is better? Based on the collected test data, the Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 holds the edge in overall performance and consistency across independent tests. Choose the Firestone Roadhawk only if your top priority is fuel efficiency—and even then, consider upgrading to the Roadhawk 2 for a more modern Firestone alternative that is positioned to remedy earlier shortcomings.
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
1. Firestone Roadhawk Exemplary2. Kleber Dynaxer HP3 Satisfactory3. Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 Satisfactory4. Continental EcoContact 6 Satisfactory
Worst rating in test
1. Kleber Dynaxer HP3 Satisfactory2. Continental EcoContact 6 Satisfactory3. Firestone Roadhawk Conditionally recommended4. Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 Sufficient
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Mutual Tests Available
These tyres were tested together in 4 test(s). Click to view detailed head-to-head results.
4
Mutual tests
| Name | Enviromental impact | Driving safety | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,3 | 1,8 | |||||
| Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 Rating: Sufficient | 3,9 | 2,9 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk Rating: Good | 2,7 | 2,8 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 58.1 | 24.8 | |||||
| Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 | 66.3 | 29.6 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 67.7 | 30.9 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 35,7 | 27,5 | |||||
| Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 | 36,5 | 31,9 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 37,7 | 32,8 | |||||
| Continental EcoContact 6 | 36,4 | 32,7 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Noise | Wear | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2,0 | 1,5 | 2,6 | 1,5 | |||
| Laufenn S Fit EQ+ LK01 Rating: Satisfactory | 3,3 | 2,5 | 2,9 | 2,5 | |||
| Firestone Roadhawk Rating: Poor | 4,9 | 2,8 | 3,0 | 2,5 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
