Menu

Firestone Multihawk

The Firestone Multihawk is a Touring Summer tyre designed to be fitted to Passenger Cars.

6.6
Tyre Reviews Score Based on User Reviews
Limited Confidence View Breakdown
Dry Grip
86%
Wet Grip
76%
Road Feedback
79%
Handling
79%
Wear
80%
Comfort
71%
Buy again
77%
16 Reviews
78% Average
231,097 miles driven
3 Tests (avg: 9th)
Firestone Multihawk

Firestone Multihawk

Summer Mid-Range
BETA
6.6 / 10
Based on User Reviews · Limited Confidence · Updated 23 Feb 2026

The Tyre Reviews Score is the most comprehensive tyre scoring system available. It aggregates professional test data from multiple independent publications, user reviews, and consistency analysis using Bayesian statistical methods, weighted normalisation, and recency-adjusted scoring to produce a single, reliable performance rating.

Learn more about our methodology
Score Components
Professional Tests
Weight: 80%
Tests: 3
Publications: 1
Period: 2011 - 2014
User Reviews
Weight: 15%
Reviews: 16
Avg Rating: 78.3%
Min Required: 5
Consistency
Weight: 5%
Score Std Dev: 0.03
History Points: 10
Methodology & Configuration
Scoring Process
  1. Collect Test Data: Gather results from professional tyre tests across multiple publications. Minimum 1 test(s) required.
  2. Normalize Positions: Convert test positions to percentile scores using exponential weighting (factor: 1.2).
  3. Apply Recency Weighting: More recent tests are weighted higher with a decay rate of 0.95.
  4. Incorporate User Reviews: Factor in user review data (minimum 5 reviews). Weight: 15%.
  5. Bayesian Smoothing: Apply Bayesian prior (score: 7, weight: 1.5) to prevent extreme scores with limited data.
  6. Calculate Final Score: Combine all components using normalization factor of 1.1. Max score with limited data: 9.5.
Component Weights
Test Data
80%
User Reviews
15%
Consistency
5%
All Configuration Parameters
ParameterValueDescription
safety_weight 0.7 Weight multiplier for safety-related metrics
performance_weight 0.55 Weight multiplier for performance metrics
comfort_weight 0.4 Weight multiplier for comfort metrics
value_weight 0.45 Weight multiplier for value-for-money metrics
user_reviews_weight 0.15 How much user reviews contribute to the final score
test_data_weight 0.8 How much professional test data contributes to the final score
consistency_weight 0.05 How much score consistency contributes to the final score
recency_decay_rate 0.95 Rate at which older test results lose influence (higher = slower decay)
min_test_count 1 Minimum number of professional tests required
min_review_count 5 Minimum number of user reviews required
score_version 1.9 Current version of the scoring algorithm
score_normalization_factor 1.1 Factor used to normalize raw scores to the 0-10 scale
confidence_factor_weight 0.2 How much data confidence affects the final score
position_penalty_weight 0.2 Penalty applied for poor test positions
gap_penalty_threshold 12 Score gap (%) that triggers additional penalties
min_metrics_count 2 Minimum number of test metrics needed per test
limited_data_threshold 2 Number of tests below which data is considered limited
single_test_penalty 0.75 Score multiplier when only one test is available
critical_metric_penalty 0.7 Penalty for poor performance on critical safety metrics
critical_metric_threshold 70 Score below which a critical metric penalty applies
position_exponential_factor 1.2 Exponent used to amplify position-based scoring
position_exponential_threshold 0.9 Position percentile below which exponential scoring applies
gap_multiplier_critical 3 Multiplier for critical gap penalties
max_category_weight 2 Maximum weight any single category can have
max_score_limited_data 9.5 Score cap when data is limited
bayesian_prior_weight 1.5 Weight of the Bayesian prior in smoothing
bayesian_prior_score 7 Prior score used for Bayesian smoothing
evidence_test_multiplier 1.9 Multiplier for test evidence in confidence calculation
evidence_metric_divisor 3 Divisor for metric count in evidence calculation
evidence_review_divisor 10 Divisor for review count in evidence calculation
combined_penalty_floor 0.2
Data Sources
TestPublicationDateSizePositionMetrics
2014 ADAC 175/65 R14 Summer Tyre Test ADAC 2014 175/65 R14 7/16 0 metrics
2012 European Summer Tyre Test - 165/70 R14 ADAC 2012 165/70 R14 12/15 0 metrics
2011 European Summer Tyre Test - 175/65 R14 ADAC 2011 175/65 r14 8/15 0 metrics
3
Tests
9th
Average
7th
Best
12th
Worst
Latest Tyre Test Results
7th/16
Acceptable performance in the dry
Compared to the best little weaker in the wet, slightly higher fuel consumption
Weak in the wet.
Very good in the dry
Slight weakness in the wet

Questions and Answers for the Firestone Multihawk

Ask a question
Sorry, we don't currently have any questions and answers for the Firestone Multihawk. Why not submit a question to our tyre experts using the form below!
Ask a question

We will never publish or share your email address

captcha

To verify you are human please type the word you see in the box below.

Top 3 Firestone Multihawk Reviews

Given 91% while driving a Chevrolet Spark (155/70 R13 T) on a combination of roads for 35,000 average miles
The previous owner fitted them in 2012, i have the car from 2017, they have traveled around 35.000 km they still have good thread and grip on dry amazing, little weaker on wet, but they are 8 years old so i'm changing them, might buy again if they are still in production.
October 11, 2020
Given 59% while driving a Volkswagen polo 1.4cc 16V (175/65 R14 R) on mostly town for 20,000 average miles
My experience with my, not even 4 year old, tyres have been great. Until I lost 3 tyres in 2 months. 2 only days apart. The tyres was manifactured in 2017, I have them on my car from 2018. They have about 35000km on them. First one was infront, tyre went oval shaped and I replaced the front 2 tyres. The 2 at the back looked great, so I would replace them later. The yesterday the left back lost its tread on the highway. Put on thr spare and on my way to replace, the other one did the same. Both oval shaped.
December 2, 2020
Given 83% while driving a Datsun March (165/70 R14 T) on mostly town for 20,000 easy going miles
Nice cheap tyres, they come standard with My K13 Nissan March and replaced all of'em for new ones. THe compound is not that bad in wet you just need to know how to run your car with care so as to not exceed the tyre bandwidth.
September 10, 2019

How would you rate the Firestone Multihawk?

Click a star to start your review

Latest Firestone Multihawk Reviews

Given 80% while driving a Citroën c2 (175/65 R14 T) on a combination of roads for 30,000 average miles
very good tyres for my small car.
June 12, 2015
Given 77% while driving a Fiat Grande Punto 1.3Multijet 75bhp (175/45 R14 H) on a combination of roads for 20,000 average miles
Very cheap,yet good handling and little wear. Impressive on my wifes Grande Punto for balance price- quality.
September 12, 2014
Check out how the BEST all seasons tyres perform against premium summer and winter tyres!
Given 56% while driving a Audi A4 1.9 TDI (195/65 R15) on mostly country roads for 20,000 average miles
These tyres were noisy at first and have only lasted about 20k miles
so the rubber seems to be a soft compound, also I got more punctures that ever before so don't know if this was due to a soft compound.
They had good grip and ability to clear water but as they wore so quickly i wouldn't buy again
January 5, 2014
Given 77% while driving a Fiat Brava (225/45 R17) on a combination of roads for 25,000 average miles
Fitted 2 Multihawks to the front of the car 2 years ago and they have covered 25000 miles and whilst still legal are due to be changed. Even although i have an old car good rubber is important and despite being a little noisy the Firestones have been very good tyres whether in the wet, dry, snow and ice they always performed well. So i will definitely be purchasing them again as the price is very good on the wallet.
July 2, 2013
Given 83% while driving a Ford Focus (185/65 R14 T) on a combination of roads for 0 average miles
Second set that I've fitted to my Focus. Just over £200 locally for an all in fitted price. Great value all-round tyre offering total confidence in both dry and wet conditions. Tested to the max. fully laden driving through the wilds of North Wales. My son was gob smacked at the price I paid for a decent name tyre and has just put a set on his Golf. Highly recommended for a family car
September 11, 2012
Given 94% while driving a Citroën (185/65 R15) on mostly town for 15,000 average miles
I have been driving for over 47 years and have used many makes of tyre. Prior to these Firestone Multihawks I had Michelin tyres fitted to my Citroen Xsara Picasso 2.0 HDI. They were ok, but were very noisy and gave an uncomfortable ride. The Firestone Multihawks, however, are quiet and just do their job without any problems whatsoever! I have had them on the road for about 18 months now and they are driven every day and they appear to be as new as the day they were fitted. These tyres are incredible value for money and I will without any doubt at all replace my tyres with the very same Firestone Multihawks, but I do believe that that will be quite some time away! Great tyres, safe, quiet and durable!
April 25, 2012
Given 60% while driving a Nissan Almera Tino 1.8 (185/65 R15) on mostly town for 8,000 average miles
These tyres are cheap and you know it. Driving my new (secondhand) car home in the wet, round a tight bend not particularly fast (in the old car would've been faster with 100% grip) and the car just starts to under steer. Rubbish. Tyres are the most important things on the car. Why skimp? These are coming off and Goodyear Vector 4Seasons or Vredistein Quatrac3 going on instead.
June 15, 2011
Given 89% while driving a Ford Focus (185/65 R14 T) on a combination of roads for 17 average miles
I had Firestone Tyres on the car since new. It is a Ford Focus Desal Estate. I bought the car in Feb 2002 Brand new as an import.
It had Firestone Fuel efficent tyres on as new and I can't find these now. I changed the fronts after 15,000 miles and bought Multi hawks. These lasted 17,000 due to slight wheel misalignement and would have lasted to maybe 18,500. This time I changed the backs as well after 32,000 miles as one had a nail in it close to the shoulder, again they could have gone 2,000 plus more. I can say the multihawks lasted well and I never had a moment when I doubted them. OK 32,000 in 8 years is not a lot (I have an Alfa GTV as well) but the cost fitted for the new ones was ?185 fitted which is bettter thn 3-4 years ago at the the same place. I did research and was tempted to change but the performance v wear and cost swayed me back. I have had the car a long time and if I change in the next year I wanted lower cost but trusted tyres. Avon ZV3's where ?250 for 4 and even the Maragoni at Quickfit would have cost ?238. Considering the tyre compounds break down in 6 yrs or so these tyres wear in excellent nick on the sidewalls on both sides as I did look at them once they where off. I found the roadholding excellent on the Firestone Fuel saver rears but then this is an estate that won't hang it's rear out. I noticed the new tyres where quieter and the stearing a bit more positve again I would recommend them for most but the most aggressive drivers but having said that I can speed abit on the motorways. I will right another reoprt in a few months as I do more miles these days.
September 3, 2010
Given 80% while driving a Fiat Panda (165/65 R14) on a combination of roads for 3,000 spirited miles
At first when I saw these tyres on my new car, I was seriously considering changing them, but after driving, sometimes very aggressively, I have to say these tyres are very good in dry and wet, so good that I'm defiantly going to buy them again for my car.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend them for a super car, but for your average family car they perform admirably and won't let you down in an emergency. I can't comment on the wear as I haven't had them long enough, but first impressions are very good.
February 1, 2010
Given 73% while driving a Hyundai Getz (175/65 R14 T) on a combination of roads for 31,000 average miles
rubber
January 22, 2010
Given 79% while driving a Renault Megane (165/65 R14 T) on a combination of roads for 4,000 average miles
These tyres are great for road handling, grip and motorway driving. The only problem is the performance on bumpy roads where they are very twitchy.
Recently had to emergency stop from 45mph because of deer running on to the road and the tyres performed remarkably!
Feedback from the road is very very good (perhaps too good); poor road surfaces lead to an uncomfy journey.
August 11, 2009
Rate the Firestone Multihawk