BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 vs Firestone Winterhawk 4
The pattern is consistent: BFGoodrich is the snow benchmark-11/11 category wins in snow braking in this dataset-paired with generally shorter dry stops. Firestone counters with repeatedly shorter wet braking distances and lighter rolling resistance and price. The choice comes down to climate: snow-heavy vs. wet-cold winters, and whether you prioritize ultimate winter traction or everyday wet-road stopping confidence.
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 twelve tests which compare both tyres directly!
| Tyre | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 | seven | |
| Firestone Winterhawk 4 | five |
While it might look like the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 is better than the Firestone Winterhawk 4 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 snow performance (wins all shared snow braking comparisons)
- Stronger aquaplaning resistance (frequent wins in straight/curved aquaplaning)
- Generally shorter dry braking distances
- Good wear and abrasion performance for longevity
- Consistently shorter wet braking distances across multiple sizes/years
- Lower rolling resistance (often better efficiency)
- Better value/pricing in most tests
- Respectable overall wet handling performance in several tests
Dry Braking
Looking at data from six tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during six dry braking tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 stopped the vehicle in 2.61% less distance than the Firestone Winterhawk 4.
Best In Dry Braking: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from five tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during three dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was 0.61% faster around a lap than the Firestone Winterhawk 4.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from eleven tyre tests, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 was better during nine wet braking tests. On average the Firestone Winterhawk 4 stopped the vehicle in 4% less distance than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Wet Braking: Firestone Winterhawk 4
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking - Concrete
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 was better during one wet braking - concrete tests. On average the Firestone Winterhawk 4 stopped the vehicle in 6.59% less distance than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Wet Braking - Concrete: Firestone Winterhawk 4
See how the Wet Braking - Concrete winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from five tyre tests, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 was better during four wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Firestone Winterhawk 4 was 0.75% faster around a wet lap than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Firestone Winterhawk 4
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from five tyre tests, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 was better during three wet circle tests. On average the Firestone Winterhawk 4 was 0.86% faster around a wet circle than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Wet Circle: Firestone Winterhawk 4
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from six tyre tests, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 was better during two straight aqua tests. On average the Firestone Winterhawk 4 floated at a 0.04% higher speed than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Straight Aqua: Firestone Winterhawk 4
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from six tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during four curved aquaplaning tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 slipped out at a 3.06% higher speed than the Firestone Winterhawk 4.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Snow Braking
Looking at data from eleven tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during eleven snow braking tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 stopped the vehicle in 4.1% less distance than the Firestone Winterhawk 4.
Best In Snow Braking: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Snow Braking winner was calculated >>
Snow Traction
Looking at data from six tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during four snow traction tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 had 1.11% better snow traction than the Firestone Winterhawk 4.
Best In Snow Traction: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Snow Traction winner was calculated >>
Snow Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from five tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during four snow handling [km/h] tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was 0.96% faster around a lap than the Firestone Winterhawk 4.
Best In Snow Handling [Km/H]: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Snow Handling winner was calculated >>
Snow Slalom
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during three snow slalom tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was 3.26% faster through a slalom than the Firestone Winterhawk 4.
Best In Snow Slalom: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Snow Slalom winner was calculated >>
Ice Braking
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 was better during one ice braking tests. On average the Firestone Winterhawk 4 stopped the vehicle 2.86% shorter than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Ice Braking: Firestone Winterhawk 4
See how the Ice Braking winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 and Firestone Winterhawk 4 performed equally well in subj. comfort tests.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Both tyres performed equally well
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from six tyre tests, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 was better during three noise tests. On average the Firestone Winterhawk 4 measured 0.43% quieter than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Noise: Firestone Winterhawk 4
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from six tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during four wear tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 is predicted to cover 1.38% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Firestone Winterhawk 4.
Best In Wear: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from five tyre tests, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 was better during five value tests. On average the Firestone Winterhawk 4 proved to have a 17.25% better value based on price/1000km than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Value: Firestone Winterhawk 4
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Price
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 was better during two price tests. On average the Firestone Winterhawk 4 cost 20.4% less than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Price: Firestone Winterhawk 4
See how the Price winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from five tyre tests, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 was better during three rolling resistance tests. On average the Firestone Winterhawk 4 had a 3.7% lower rolling resistance than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Firestone Winterhawk 4
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Fuel Consumption
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 and Firestone Winterhawk 4 performed equally well in fuel consumption tests.
Best In Fuel Consumption: Both tyres performed equally well
See how the Fuel Consumption winner was calculated >>
Abrasion
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during one abrasion tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 emitted 37.08% less particle wear matter than the Firestone Winterhawk 4.
Best In Abrasion: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 Driver Reviews
Drivers largely praise the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 for outstanding snow and ice traction, strong wet grip and aquaplaning resistance, good comfort, and value, with many saying they'd buy again. Dry performance is acceptable for a winter tyre but less responsive with softer handling and modest on-center feel. Wear is generally viewed as good, though a few sporty drivers report faster wear. Noise is mostly low, with occasional reports of wet-road noise.
Based on 28 reviews with an average rating of 88%
Firestone Winterhawk 4 Driver Reviews
Drivers generally rate the Firestone Winterhawk 4 highly for everyday winter use, with strong confidence in snow and rain, short braking distances, and reassuring all-round performance. Many highlight its good value versus premium brands, along with a quiet, comfortable ride and responsive feel. Overall satisfaction is high across the majority of reviews.
Based on 5 reviews with an average rating of 79%
Conclusion
For mixed or predominantly wet winters, the Firestone Winterhawk 4's consistent advantage in wet braking is compelling, with lower rolling resistance and pricing sweetening the deal. Expect softer, more imprecise dry handling and typically longer dry and snow stops than the BFGoodrich. In short: BFGoodrich for harsh, snowy climates and mountain drivers; Firestone for temperate, rain-prone regions and value-focused buyers who prioritize wet stopping distances.
Key Differences
- Snow dominance: BFGoodrich sweeps snow braking (11/11) and leads snow traction/handling; Firestone trails on snow.
- Wet braking: Firestone repeatedly stops shorter (e.g., -3-9% vs BFGoodrich in several tests).
- Aquaplaning: BFGoodrich often superior in both straight and curved aquaplaning.
- Dry performance: BFGoodrich typically shorter dry stops; both can feel imprecise, but Firestone is more criticized for dry understeer.
- Efficiency and price: Firestone usually cheaper with lower rolling resistance; BFGoodrich costs more on average.
- Wear: BFGoodrich commonly shows longer projected mileage and lower abrasion, though Firestone posts occasional wear wins.
Overall Winner: Firestone Winterhawk 4
Based on the tyre test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 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.