Tires MICHELIN or BRIDGESTONE

MICHELIN Tires

The cross climates, although probably a bit more expensive, will wipe the floor with either of those 2 tires from les schwab performance wise. Significantly better in rain and snow, and will probably last much longer as well.

Pros: better in rain and snow
Cons: a bit more expensive
Comment
Is this review helpful?
source
MICHELIN Tires

For me its the performance on wet conditions (rains a lot here) and the longevity. I usually get about 5-6 years off a set of defenders on both my GLK 350 and my Suburban.

Pros: performance on wet conditions, longevity
Comment
Is this review helpful?
source
MICHELIN Tires

Just replaced the old ones on my mk7 with the same, I’ve always preferred Michelin Pilot Sport, old ones were 3’s new ones 4’s, bit different tread design but still a quiet highway cruise.

Pros: quiet highway cruise
Vehicle: Volkswagen
Comment
Is this review helpful?
source
BRIDGESTONE Tires

Put these on for the first time after running potenza since new; honestly it’s like having a new car. They are the perfect road tyre for this car.

Pros: like having a new car
Vehicle: Volkswagen
Comment
Is this review helpful?
source
BRIDGESTONE Tires

I went with Bridgestone Potenza Sport AS, as I got too good of a deal to pass up, and have been very happy with them so far!

Pros: very happy so far
Vehicle: Volkswagen
Comment
Is this review helpful?
source
MICHELIN Tires

Had the same ones on a Crosstrek. They take the cake as my worst tires. Period. They handled worse in snow than my now Michelin Pilot Sport A/S tires, which is NOT a high bar. And only lasted 40k miles before the tread was done.

Cons: handled worse in snow
Vehicle: Subaru
Mileage: 40000 km
Comment
Is this review helpful?
source

Write your review

Help others - share your experience with this part.

Other comparisons
Loading...