225/50 R17 Firestone Roadhawk variants
Firestone Roadhawk is a summer tyre made in total of 148 sizes, ranging from R15 to R15 - this particular dimension is R17, which means it fits to a 17 inch/431.8mm diameter wheel. 225/50 R17 is 60mm wider than the narrowest dimension (165) and 70mm narrower than the widest one (295). This tyre profile of 50 means the sidewall height of the tyre is 50% of the tyre width (225mm), which results in 112.5mm sidewall height. In 225/50 R17, there are 2 possible speed indexes for Firestone Roadhawk - "Y","W", which are good for speeds up to 300, 270 km/h. In 225/50 R17, Roadhawk usually competes against Dynaxer HP3, which is a tyre from Kleber with a rating of 41%, compared to 72% of the Firestone in question. Latest test in 225/50 R17 was held by Autozeitung in 2020, where Roadhawk received rating "" and finished on the 12. place. It was tested on a BMW 3 series.
225/50 R17 98 Y
Firestone Roadhawk is made in 148 sizes, starting from 165/65 R15 up to 295/35 R21.
Similar tires
Firestone Roadhawk in tyre tests
Relevant tyre tests in same or similiar dimension (225/50 R17)
| Name | Stopping distance on dry | Stopping distance on wet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 58.1 | 24.8 | |||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 67.7 | 30.9 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
poor
Ranked #17 of 17
Finishing 17th out of 17 competitors, the Firestone Roadhawk found itself at the bottom of the rankings with a final evaluation of 'Poor'. This tyre struggled significantly on dry roads, with its performance being barely satisfactory. In warm conditions, its grip was greatly reduced, leading to challenges in maintaining control. Even more concerning was its behavior on wet surfaces, where it demonstrated below-average grip levels. Large steering angles were required to navigate the handling course, and grip often completely failed when braking or accelerating in turns. This substantial flaw in handling not only affected its overall performance but also its safety on the road. While its noise level during operation was average, and it performed relatively well in terms of fuel consumption, these positives were overshadowed by its high wear rate and poor handling, particularly on wet surfaces.
| Name | Wet | Dry | Noise | Wear | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2,0 | 1,5 | 2,6 | 1,5 | |||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 4,9 | 2,8 | 3,0 | 2,5 | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Points total | Wet | Dry | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 264 | 137 | 129 | ||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 121 | 75 | 121 | ||||
| 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 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Dry | Running costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Firestone Roadhawk | 3+ | 2- | 2- | ||||
| Show test details | |||||||