Bridgestone Turanza 6 vs Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
The Falken often edges short-distance dry braking and shows strong curved aquaplaning reserves, while the Bridgestone consistently delivers lower rolling resistance, longer tread life and generally stronger wet balance outside of curved aquaplaning. Price sharply favors Falken, but total running costs and efficiency lean toward Bridgestone. This comparison clarifies which tyre suits drivers prioritizing upfront price and crisp dry responses versus those valuing efficiency, wet composure and lifespan.
Test Results
Independent comparison tyre tests are the best source of data to get tyre information from, and the good news is there have been five tests which compare both tyres directly!
| Tyre | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Bridgestone Turanza 6 | three | |
| Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun | two |
While it might look like the Bridgestone Turanza 6 is better than the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun purely based on the higher number of test wins, tyres are very complicated objects which means where one tyre is better than the other can be more important in real world use.
Let's look at how the two tyres compare across multiple tyre test categories.
Key Strengths
- Class-leading rolling resistance in multiple tests (e.g., 7.6-8.0 kg/t vs Falken 8.2-8.9)
- Very good tread life (e.g., +33% vs Falken in AutoBild; leads in ADAC mileage)
- Balanced wet capability with strong wet handling/circle results in several tests
- Quiet, comfortable touring manners with strong overall test finishes (3/21, 2/12)
- Consistently shorter dry braking across all shared datasets
- Lively dry handling and good feedback; strong curved aquaplaning reserves
- Competitive wet braking in some tests (notably ADAC on asphalt and concrete)
- Lower purchase price and solid value ratings in multiple tests
Dry Braking
Looking at data from five tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during five dry braking tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun stopped the vehicle in 1.09% less distance than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Dry Braking: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [s]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during one dry handling [s] tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was 0.52% faster around a lap than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Dry Handling [s]: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was better during one dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was 0.23% faster around a lap than the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Bridgestone Turanza 6
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from five tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during two wet braking tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun stopped the vehicle in 0.94% less distance than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Wet Braking: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking - Concrete
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during one wet braking - concrete tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun stopped the vehicle in 9.02% less distance than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Wet Braking - Concrete: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Wet Braking - Concrete winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [s]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during one wet handling [s] tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was 1.74% faster around a wet lap than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Wet Handling [s]: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was better during two wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was 1.12% faster around a wet lap than the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Bridgestone Turanza 6
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was better during one wet circle tests. On average the Bridgestone Turanza 6 had 2.54% higher lateral wet grip than the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun.
Best In Wet Circle: Bridgestone Turanza 6
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during two straight aqua tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun floated at a 0.12% higher speed than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Straight Aqua: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during three curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun slipped out at a 6.58% higher speed than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Gravel Traction
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was better during one gravel traction tests. On average the Bridgestone Turanza 6 had 1.38% better traction on gravel than the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun.
Best In Gravel Traction: Bridgestone Turanza 6
See how the Gravel Traction winner was calculated >>
Dirt Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during one dirt handling [km/h] tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was 1.05% faster around a lap than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Dirt Handling [Km/H]: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Dirt Handling winner was calculated >>
Sand Traction
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during one sand traction tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun had 0.9% better traction in sand than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Sand Traction: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Sand Traction winner was calculated >>
Grass Traction
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during one grass traction tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun had 6.34% better traction on grass than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Grass Traction: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Grass Traction winner was calculated >>
Mud Traction
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was better during one mud traction tests. On average the Bridgestone Turanza 6 had 2.05% better traction in mud than the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun.
Best In Mud Traction: Bridgestone Turanza 6
See how the Mud Traction winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during one noise tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun measured 0.08% quieter than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Noise: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 and Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun performed equally well in noise tests.
Best In Noise: Both tyres performed equally well
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was better during two wear tests. On average the Bridgestone Turanza 6 is predicted to cover 12.39% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun.
Best In Wear: Bridgestone Turanza 6
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during one value tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun proved to have a 1.19% better value based on price/1000km than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Value: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Price
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during three price tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun cost 21.59% less than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Price: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Price winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was better during three rolling resistance tests. On average the Bridgestone Turanza 6 had a 10.5% lower rolling resistance than the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Bridgestone Turanza 6
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Fuel Consumption
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was better during one fuel consumption tests. On average the Bridgestone Turanza 6 used 5% less fuel than the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun.
Best In Fuel Consumption: Bridgestone Turanza 6
See how the Fuel Consumption winner was calculated >>
Abrasion
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun emitted 1.37% less particle wear matter than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Abrasion: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Bridgestone Turanza 6 Driver Reviews
Most drivers rate the Bridgestone Turanza 6 highly for its excellent wet grip and braking, very low noise levels, comfortable ride, and improved fuel economy, often noting strong aquaplaning resistance and confidence in heavy rain. Dry grip is generally good for a touring tyre, but the softer sidewalls can make steering feel less precise, with some reports of floatiness, understeer, and reduced feedback at higher speeds. A minority mention faster or uneven wear and occasional noise increase over time, but these are not dominant trends. Overall, the Turanza 6 suits drivers prioritizing comfort, quietness, and wet-weather security over sporty handling feel.
Based on 48 reviews with an average rating of 79%
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun Driver Reviews
Most drivers rate the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun highly for confident wet and dry grip, very low road noise, solid comfort, and excellent value, with many also reporting respectable to strong tread life. Handling is described as stable and predictable with good braking, making it a safe, well-rounded daily tyre across varied cars and conditions. A minority report downsides: notably higher rolling resistance (worse fuel economy) and softer sidewalls that can reduce steering precision or initial turn-in. Overall sentiment is strongly positive for a mid-range tyre that punches above its price.
Based on 111 reviews with an average rating of 80%
Very silent. Most silent tyres I had the last 20 years.
Nice handling.
Cheaper than most other brands.
(30euro cheaper than dunlop and 50 euro cheaper than michelin)
Euro label - C A A 67db for 195 65 15
Conclusion
Value depends on how you drive and what you pay for fuel. Budget-conscious buyers who want confident dry braking and good aquaplaning reserves will appreciate the lower purchase price and lively dry handling of the Falken. High-mileage or motorway drivers will likely save more with the Bridgestone thanks to lower fuel use, better tread life, and consistently balanced wet grip. If you want the sharpest dry stop per dollar today, choose Falken; if you want the calmer, quieter, longer-lasting and more economical ownership experience, choose Bridgestone.
Key Differences
- Dry safety: Falken repeatedly wins dry braking; Bridgestone is close but second.
- Wet balance: Bridgestone often leads wet handling/circle; Falken stronger in curved aquaplaning.
- Efficiency: Bridgestone has meaningfully lower rolling resistance (often 10-15%+ advantage).
- Longevity: Bridgestone shows notably higher mileage (e.g., +33% in AutoBild).
- Price/value: Falken is cheaper upfront (often ~18-26% lower) and scores better in value indices.
- Steering feel: Tests cite crisper dry responses for Falken; Bridgestone feedback rated only satisfactory in some assessments.
Overall Winner: Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun
Based on the tyre test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun has demonstrated better overall performance in this comparison. However, as you can see from the spider diagram above, each tyre has its own strengths which should be considered in your final tyre buying choice.Similar Comparisons
Looking for more tyre comparisons? Here are other direct comparisons involving these tyres:
Footnote
This page has been developed using tyre industry testing best practices. This means we are only comparing tests which have had both tyres in the same test.
Why is this important? Tyre testing is heavily affected by things like surface grip levels and surface temperature, which means you can only compare values from the same day. During a tyre test external condition changes are calculated into the overall results, but it is not possible to calculate this between tyre tests performed on different days or at different locations.
As a result you will see other tests on Tyre Reviews which feature both the %s and %s, but as they weren't conducted on the same day, the results are not comparable.
Lots of other websites do this sort of tyre comparison, Tyre Reviews doesn't.