Segment
1. Firestone Roadhawk Upper-middle2. Nokian WetProof Upper-middle
Comparison: Firestone Roadhawk vs. Nokian WetProof
Table of contents:
| # | Firestone Roadhawk | Nokian WetProof | Add to comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Dimensions | R15 - R21 | R14 - R20 | |
| Price | |||
| Remove | Remove from comparison | Remove from comparison |
In this comparison, we will be examining the performance of two popular summer tyres: the Firestone Roadhawk and the Nokian WetProof. Both tyres have been tested in various conditions and by different organizations, such as Autoklub ČR, ADAC, and Autobild. Our aim is to provide an objective analysis based on the results of these tests, taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of each tyre. We will also look at the overall positions of both tyres in these tests to determine which is the better performer.
Starting with the Firestone Roadhawk, this tyre has an overall rating of 71% on our website. In the Autoklub ČR test, it placed 11th out of 19 tyres, while in the ADAC test, it also held the 11th position out of 18 tyres. On a more positive note, it has been praised for its efficiency, low weight, and good performance on dry roads. However, it has also been criticized for its weaknesses, such as its performance on wet roads and its lower-than-expected lifespan, due to high wear and tear.
Moving on to the Nokian WetProof, this tyre boasts an impressive overall rating of 87% on our website. It is also manufactured in Finland, known for its high-quality products. In the Autoklub ČR test, it placed 6th out of 19 tyres and had the best features of exterior noise and wet circle cornering. In the ADAC test, it maintained the same position, 6th out of 18 tyres. The Nokian WetProof has been praised for its balanced performance, good handling on both dry and wet roads, and efficiency. However, it has also been criticized for its weaknesses, such as its environmental performance, wear characteristics, and slight weaknesses in sustainability.
Comparing the Firestone Roadhawk and Nokian WetProof in terms of their positions in mutual tests, it is clear that the Nokian WetProof consistently outperforms the Firestone Roadhawk. The differences in their overall ratings – 87% for the Nokian WetProof vs. 71% for the Firestone Roadhawk – further emphasize this point.
In conclusion, the Nokian WetProof is the better overall performer in terms of test results and strengths. While the Firestone Roadhawk has some advantages, such as its efficiency and performance on dry roads, its weaknesses in wet conditions and durability make it a less reliable choice. The Nokian WetProof, on the other hand, offers a more balanced and consistent performance, making it a more suitable option for most drivers. You can find more information about each tyre on their respective manufacturer's websites: Firestone and Nokian.
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
1. Nokian WetProof 5.64
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Firestone Roadhawk Exemplary2. Nokian WetProof Highly recommended
Worst rating in test
1. Nokian WetProof Recommended2. Firestone Roadhawk Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Aquaplaning - cross
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Wet braking
Wet handling
Wet circle cornering
Wet braking according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Dry braking
Dry handling
Comfort
(Overall rating)Exterior noise
Outside noise accoring to EU label
1. Nokian WetProof 68 dB2. Firestone Roadhawk 71 dB
Costs
(Overall rating)Mileage
Rolling resistance
Price/value
Fuel consumption according to EU label
Add to comparison
Dimensions and prices
Mutual tests
| Name | Points total | Wet | Dry | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 104,7 | 106 | 103,4 | ||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||||
| Nokian WetProof | 101,3 | 102,2 | 100,4 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Enviromental impact | Driving safety | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1,3 | 1,8 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk Rating: Good | 2,7 | 2,8 | |||||
| Nokian Wetproof Rating: Good | 2,9 | 2,0 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Noise | Wear | Fuel consumption | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2,1 | 1,5 | 2,4 | 1,0 | 1,2 | ||
| Firestone Roadhawk Rating: Satisfactory | 2,9 | 2,2 | 3,0 | 2,0 | 2,3 | ||
| Nokian Wetproof Rating: Satisfactory | 2,1 | 2,2 | 2,7 | 2,5 | 2,6 | ||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1- | 2+ | 1 | ||||
| Firestone Roadhawk Rating: Good | 2+ | 2+ | 3 | ||||
| Nokian WetProof Rating: Satisfactory | 2 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 34,1 | 29,6 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 35,7 | 31,6 | |||||
| Nokian Wetproof | 35,1 | 31,7 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Firestone Roadhawk Rating: Satisfactory | 3+ | 2- | 2- | ||||
| Nokian WetProof Rating: Good | 2+ | 2+ | 2 | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 34,2 | 28,7 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 35,2 | 32 | |||||
| Nokian WetProof | 35,2 | 29,7 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||