Home » Summer

Bridgestone Turanza 6: The Definitive Test Analysis

Reading 7 min Modified by
This tire is the undisputed champion of fuel economy. However, our analysis of 8+ tests reveals a cautionary tale: this efficiency comes at a significant cost to braking, handling, and overall safety.

Bridgestone Turanza 6 test, review, ratings, photo

Contents
  1. Tire Summary
  2. Key performance
  3. Bridgestone Turanza 6 vs. Competitors
  4. Analytical review
  5. Bridgestone Turanza 6 Test History
  6. Comparison vs Market

Tire Summary

Category Details
General This is a Premium Touring Summer tire with an asymmetrical tread pattern design. The model was released in 2022 and is available in sizes ranging from 16 to 22 inches in rim diameter, making it suitable for passenger cars and SUVs.

The tire replaced the Bridgestone Turanza T005.
Testing history

4.5

Average
place

2

Best
place

7

Worst
place

8

times
tested

2023-2025

test
years
✅ Key strengths
  • Fuel efficiency is defined as a “superpower.” It is the undisputed market leader in low rolling resistance, creating a massive gap with competitors.
  • Wear resistance is a strong secondary quality, making it very profitable in the long term.
⚠️ Compromise
  • Noise levels are average for its class. It is neither the quietest nor the loudest, with a difference from the leader that is unlikely to be noticeable.
  • Aquaplaning resistance is mediocre. The tire performs in the lower half of test ratings, lagging behind the leaders in deep water.
❌ Disadvantages
  • Dry Performance is a significant disadvantage. The tire consistently ranks last in both braking and handling among its peers.
  • Wet Performance is poor, with a lack of grip on all fronts. It ranks among the lowest in braking, handling, and lateral grip in rainy conditions.
Comparison vs Market Above Median: Rolling resistance (+14.68%).
Below Median: Dry braking (-1.69%), Wear resistance (-4.57%)*, Straight aquaplaning (-0.7%), Noise (-0.05%).
Comparison vs. Top Competitors
  • vs. Continental PC7: Bridgestone wins on economy and wear; Continental vastly outperforms it in grip, handling, and safety.
  • vs. Goodyear EGP2: Bridgestone wins on fuel efficiency; Goodyear is the clear leader in handling, comfort, and wear resistance.
  • vs. Primacy 4+: Bridgestone is the leader in economy; Michelin offers a much more balanced performance profile.
Value Proposition Extremely high, but only for a niche driver who prioritizes maximum fuel economy above all else. The long-term profitability comes from fuel savings and good wear resistance.
Overall A deeply compromised tire for a particular user. It’s a logical choice for calm, measured driving, where fuel economy is the primary concern.

Key performance

Overall rating: 93.1% (60 measurements from 8 independent tests)
ⓘ The overall rating is calculated as the arithmetic average of the average scores for each discipline, to eliminate bias towards disciplines with a large number of tests.

Dry Performance

  • Dry braking

    (2/5)
    Poor
    Based on 8 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 9.3th|7-16th range|Rating: 94.1%
    Performance Chart
    • Average: 3 (38%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 4 (50%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    • Poor: 1 (13%) i A poor result, significantly worse than the test average.
    Detailed Test Results: 8 tests analyzed (2023-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 20.6% of competitors per test
    • ➖ No first-place finishes
    • ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 8 of 8
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 4 of 8
    • ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 8
    Results in numbers
    • Best result:23.45 m (2023 Teknikens Varld)
    • Worst result:36.9 m (2024 Auto Bild)
    • Average result:34.5 m
    • Typical gap to leader:+1.57 – +2.4 m
    • Max gap to leader:+2.9 m (2025 Auto Bild SUV)

  • Dry handling

    (2.5/5)
    Average
    Based on 7 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 7th|3-12th range|Rating: 98.6%
    Performance Chart
    • Good: 1 (14%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 5 (71%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 1 (14%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    Detailed Test Results: 7 tests analyzed (2023-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 42.8% of competitors per test
    • ➖ No first-place finishes
    • ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 1 of 7
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 5 of 7
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 2 of 7
    • ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 7

Wet Performance

  • Wet braking

    (2.5/5)
    Average
    Based on 8 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 7.3th|4-17th range|Rating: 92.1%
    Performance Chart
    • Average: 6 (75%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 2 (25%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    Detailed Test Results: 8 tests analyzed (2023-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 42.6% of competitors per test
    • ➖ No first-place finishes
    • ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 4 of 8
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 1 of 8
    • ✅ No last-place finishes
    Results in numbers
    • Best result:24.81 m (2023 Teknikens Varld)
    • Worst result:53 m (2023 Auto Bild Alrad)
    • Average result:40.5 m
    • Typical gap to leader:+2.36 – +4.05 m
    • Max gap to leader:+5.6 m (2025 Auto Bild SUV)

  • Wet handling

    (2/5)
    Poor
    Based on 8 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 7.8th|5-11th range|Rating: 97.1%
    Performance Chart
    • Average: 3 (38%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 5 (63%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    Detailed Test Results: 8 tests analyzed (2023-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 31.6% of competitors per test
    • ➖ No first-place finishes
    • ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 7 of 8
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 4 of 8
    • ✅ No last-place finishes

  • Wet lateral handling

    (2/5)
    Poor
    Based on 2 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 7.5th|7-8th range|Rating: 95.9%
    Performance Chart
    • Weak: 2 (100%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    Detailed Test Results: 2 tests analyzed (2024)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 7.1% of competitors per test
    • ➖ No first-place finishes
    • ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 2 of 2
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 2 of 2
    • ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 2

Aquaplaning resistance

  • Straight aqua

    (3/5)
    Average
    Based on 8 tests|1 wins|Avg. pos. 6.8th|1-19th range|Rating: 94.7%
    Performance Chart
    • Exemplary: 1 (13%) i Outstanding result, significantly better than the test average.
    • Good: 1 (13%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 3 (38%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 3 (38%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    Detailed Test Results: 8 tests analyzed (2023-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 45.9% of competitors per test
    • 🏆 Victories (1st place): 1 of 8
    • ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 1 of 8
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 3 of 8
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 3 of 8
    • ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 8
    Results in numbers
    • Best result:102.3 km/h (2023 Auto Bild)
    • Worst result:72.8 km/h (2023 Teknikens Varld)
    • Average result:83.5 km/h
    • Typical gap to leader:-8.8 – -2.3 km/h
    • Max gap to leader:-10.9 km/h (2023 Teknikens Varld)

  • Lateral aqua

    (3/5)
    Average
    Based on 3 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 8.7th|3-19th range|Rating: 90.9%
    Performance Chart
    • Good: 1 (33%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 1 (33%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Poor: 1 (33%) i A poor result, significantly worse than the test average.
    Detailed Test Results: 3 tests analyzed (2024-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 44.6% of competitors per test
    • ➖ No first-place finishes
    • ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 1 of 3
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 1 of 3
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 1 of 3
    • ✅ No last-place finishes

Secondary

  • Rolling resistance

    (5/5)
    Elite
    Based on 8 tests|6 wins|Avg. pos. 2.1th|1-8th range|Rating: 99%
    Performance Chart
    • Exemplary: 3 (38%) i Outstanding result, significantly better than the test average.
    • Good: 4 (50%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 1 (13%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    Detailed Test Results: 8 tests analyzed (2023-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 91.8% of competitors per test
    • 🏆 Victories (1st place): 6 of 8
    • ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 7 of 8
    • ✅ No bottom-half finishes
    • ✅ No worst-3 finishes
    • ✅ No last-place finishes
    Results in numbers
    • Best result:5.568 kg/t (2023 Teknikens Varld)
    • Worst result:7.98 kg/t (2024 Auto Bild)
    • Average result:7 kg/t
    • Max gap to leader:+0.5 kg/t (2024 Auto Bild)

  • Noise

    (3.5/5)
    Good
    Based on 6 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 6.5th|3-16th range|Rating: 98.1%
    Performance Chart
    • Good: 1 (17%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 4 (67%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 1 (17%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    Detailed Test Results: 6 tests analyzed (2023-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 56.7% of competitors per test
    • ➖ No first-place finishes
    • ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 2 of 6
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 2 of 6
    • ✅ No worst-3 finishes
    • ✅ No last-place finishes
    Results in numbers
    • Best result:63.5 dB (2025 Auto Bild SUV)
    • Worst result:74.1 dB (2024 Auto Bild)
    • Average result:70.2 dB
    • Typical gap to leader:+1 – +1.8 dB
    • Max gap to leader:+2.1 dB (2023 Auto Bild Alrad)

  • Wear resistance

    (4.5/5)
    Exemplary
    Based on 2 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 5.5th|4-7th range|Rating: 70%
    Performance Chart
    • Good: 1 (50%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 1 (50%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    Detailed Test Results: 2 tests analyzed (2023-2024)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 76.3% of competitors per test
    • ➖ No first-place finishes
    • ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
    • ✅ No bottom-half finishes
    • ✅ No worst-3 finishes
    • ✅ No last-place finishes
    Results in numbers
    • Best result:40400km (2023 Auto Bild)
    • Worst result:34400km (2024 Auto Bild)
    • Average result:37400km
    • Max gap to leader:-22800km (2023 Auto Bild)

Bridgestone Turanza 6 vs. Competitors

Comparison of the tire with its main premium quality competitors. According to the statistics, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 shows outstanding rolling resistance, ranking first among its competitors. However, it demonstrates average to below-average performance in braking, handling, and aquaplaning tests, with rankings ranging from 7th to 10th place. It also performs moderately well in noise and wear resistance tests, ranking 5th and 4th, respectively.

Key Statistics

  • ❌ Dry braking #10 of 10
  • ⚠️ Dry handling #9 of 10
  • ⚠️ Wet braking #8 of 10
  • ⚠️ Wet handling #8 of 10
  • ⚠️ Wet lateral handling #7 of 9
  • ✅ Straight aqua #5 of 10
  • ✅ Lateral aqua #5 of 9
  • ⚠️ Noise #6 of 10
  • 🏆 Rolling resistance #1 of 10
  • ✅ Wear resistance #4 of 10
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Continental PremiumContact 7 5.0%
99.03%
5.0%
-1.74 m
2
Nokian WetProof 4.2%
98.29%
4.2%
-1.48 m
3
Pirelli Cinturato P7 (P7C2) 4.2%
98.23%
4.2%
-1.46 m
4
Hankook Ventus Prime 4 K135 3.4%
97.44%
3.4%
-1.18 m
5
Michelin Primacy 4+ 2.8%
96.84%
2.8%
-0.97 m
6
Toyo Proxes Comfort 2.6%
96.69%
2.6%
-0.92 m
7
Vredestein Ultrac 2.6%
96.68%
2.6%
-0.92 m
8
Dunlop Sport BluResponse 1.7%
95.73%
1.7%
-0.59 m
9
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 1.5%
95.52%
1.5%
-0.51 m
10
Bridgestone Turanza 6
94.06%
—
—
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Continental PremiumContact 7 1.0%
99.64%
1.0%
+1.25 km/h
2
Nokian WetProof 0.6%
99.17%
0.6%
+0.69 km/h
3
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 0.5%
99.13%
0.5%
+0.65 km/h
4
Toyo Proxes Comfort 0.3%
98.90%
0.3%
+0.37 km/h
5
Hankook Ventus Prime 4 K135 0.2%
98.83%
0.2%
+0.28 km/h
6
Pirelli Cinturato P7 (P7C2) 0.2%
98.76%
0.2%
+0.20 km/h
7
Vredestein Ultrac 0.2%
98.75%
0.2%
+0.19 km/h
8
Michelin Primacy 4+ 0.1%
98.69%
0.1%
+0.11 km/h
9
Bridgestone Turanza 6
98.59%
—
—
10
Dunlop Sport BluResponse 0.1%
98.52%
0.1%
-0.09 km/h
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Continental PremiumContact 7 6.6%
98.73%
6.6%
-2.78 m
2
Nokian WetProof 3.3%
95.38%
3.3%
-1.37 m
3
Hankook Ventus Prime 4 K135 3.0%
95.08%
3.0%
-1.25 m
4
Pirelli Cinturato P7 (P7C2) 2.0%
94.10%
2.0%
-0.84 m
5
Vredestein Ultrac 0.7%
92.80%
0.7%
-0.29 m
6
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 0.2%
92.34%
0.2%
-0.10 m
7
Michelin Primacy 4+ 0.0%
92.15%
0.0%
-0.02 m
8
Bridgestone Turanza 6
92.11%
—
—
9
Toyo Proxes Comfort 2.3%
89.84%
2.3%
+0.95 m
10
Dunlop Sport BluResponse 2.3%
89.79%
2.3%
+0.97 m
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Nokian WetProof 2.1%
99.14%
2.1%
+1.56 km/h
2
Vredestein Ultrac 2.0%
99.10%
2.0%
+1.53 km/h
3
Continental PremiumContact 7 1.9%
98.96%
1.9%
+1.43 km/h
4
Pirelli Cinturato P7 (P7C2) 1.8%
98.90%
1.8%
+1.38 km/h
5
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 1.5%
98.59%
1.5%
+1.15 km/h
6
Toyo Proxes Comfort 1.1%
98.17%
1.1%
+0.83 km/h
7
Hankook Ventus Prime 4 K135 0.8%
97.86%
0.8%
+0.60 km/h
8
Bridgestone Turanza 6
97.06%
—
—
9
Dunlop Sport BluResponse 0.1%
96.98%
0.1%
-0.06 km/h
10
Michelin Primacy 4+ 0.5%
96.52%
0.5%
-0.40 km/h
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Continental PremiumContact 7 2.9%
98.83%
2.9%
—
2
Hankook Ventus Prime 4 K135 1.9%
97.77%
1.9%
—
3
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 1.8%
97.70%
1.8%
—
4
Vredestein Ultrac 1.3%
97.21%
1.3%
—
5
Toyo Proxes Comfort 0.8%
96.72%
0.8%
—
6
Dunlop Sport BluResponse 0.0%
95.94%
0.0%
—
7
Bridgestone Turanza 6
95.92%
—
—
8
Michelin Primacy 4+ 0.2%
95.74%
0.2%
—
9
Pirelli Cinturato P7 (P7C2) 0.6%
95.35%
0.6%
—
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Vredestein Ultrac 3.9%
98.57%
3.9%
+3.10 km/h
2
Hankook Ventus Prime 4 K135 0.7%
95.42%
0.7%
+0.59 km/h
3
Continental PremiumContact 7 0.7%
95.41%
0.7%
+0.58 km/h
4
Pirelli Cinturato P7 (P7C2) 0.7%
95.37%
0.7%
+0.55 km/h
5
Bridgestone Turanza 6
94.69%
—
—
6
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 0.1%
94.57%
0.1%
-0.09 km/h
7
Toyo Proxes Comfort 0.1%
94.55%
0.1%
-0.11 km/h
8
Dunlop Sport BluResponse 0.3%
94.37%
0.3%
-0.25 km/h
9
Michelin Primacy 4+ 0.8%
93.85%
0.8%
-0.67 km/h
10
Nokian WetProof 1.9%
92.80%
1.9%
-1.51 km/h
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Vredestein Ultrac 7.2%
98.12%
7.2%
—
2
Pirelli Cinturato P7 (P7C2) 5.8%
96.70%
5.8%
—
3
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 4.2%
95.10%
4.2%
—
4
Continental PremiumContact 7 3.2%
94.07%
3.2%
—
5
Bridgestone Turanza 6
90.89%
—
—
6
Dunlop Sport BluResponse 0.0%
90.89%
0.0%
—
7
Michelin Primacy 4+ 1.6%
89.31%
1.6%
—
8
Toyo Proxes Comfort 2.1%
88.79%
2.1%
—
9
Hankook Ventus Prime 4 K135 3.4%
87.45%
3.4%
—
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Nokian WetProof 1.2%
99.34%
1.2%
-0.88 dB
2
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 1.2%
99.30%
1.2%
-0.85 dB
3
Michelin Primacy 4+ 0.9%
99.06%
0.9%
-0.68 dB
4
Pirelli Cinturato P7 (P7C2) 0.9%
99.02%
0.9%
-0.65 dB
5
Vredestein Ultrac 0.2%
98.35%
0.2%
-0.17 dB
6
Bridgestone Turanza 6
98.12%
—
—
7
Toyo Proxes Comfort 0.0%
98.08%
0.0%
+0.02 dB
8
Hankook Ventus Prime 4 K135 0.2%
97.95%
0.2%
+0.12 dB
9
Dunlop Sport BluResponse 0.4%
97.72%
0.4%
+0.29 dB
10
Continental PremiumContact 7 0.5%
97.57%
0.5%
+0.39 dB
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Bridgestone Turanza 6
99.02%
—
—
2
Dunlop Sport BluResponse 5.0%
94.00%
5.0%
+0.38 kg/t
3
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 6.3%
92.69%
6.3%
+0.47 kg/t
4
Michelin Primacy 4+ 6.4%
92.62%
6.4%
+0.48 kg/t
5
Hankook Ventus Prime 4 K135 9.0%
89.98%
9.0%
+0.68 kg/t
6
Continental PremiumContact 7 9.9%
89.14%
9.9%
+0.74 kg/t
7
Pirelli Cinturato P7 (P7C2) 12.0%
87.03%
12.0%
+0.90 kg/t
8
Toyo Proxes Comfort 13.7%
85.32%
13.7%
+1.03 kg/t
9
Nokian WetProof 14.7%
84.34%
14.7%
+1.10 kg/t
10
Vredestein Ultrac 15.0%
83.99%
15.0%
+1.13 kg/t
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 30.0%
100.00%
30.0%
+13512 km
2
Michelin Primacy 4+ 18.9%
88.83%
18.9%
+8485 km
3
Continental PremiumContact 7 14.7%
84.67%
14.7%
+6612 km
4
Bridgestone Turanza 6
69.97%
—
—
5
Hankook Ventus Prime 4 K135 1.2%
68.74%
1.2%
-555 km
6
Toyo Proxes Comfort 6.6%
63.37%
6.6%
-2969 km
7
Dunlop Sport BluResponse 6.8%
63.15%
6.8%
-3068 km
8
Nokian WetProof 8.1%
61.84%
8.1%
-3661 km
9
Pirelli Cinturato P7 (P7C2) 10.5%
59.43%
10.5%
-4745 km
10
Vredestein Ultrac 26.5%
43.51%
26.5%
-11910 km

Analytical review

What happens when a tyre manufacturer pushes the pursuit of fuel efficiency to its absolute limit, even at the expense of other key characteristics? The new Bridgestone Turanza 6 provides a clear and cautionary answer. Our comparative analysis reveals this tyre is the product of a singular, uncompromising engineering choice: to set a new standard for economy, even if it means sacrificing grip.

Key strengths

  • Economy. This is the absolute, defining ‘superpower’ of the tyre. It is the undisputed market leader in low rolling resistance, creating a massive gap between itself and virtually all of its competitors. This is its primary and undeniable advantage.
  • Wear resistance: This is another strong quality. Ranked 4th, it significantly outperforms most tyres on the market in terms of predicted mileage, which, combined with its economy, makes it very profitable in the long term.

Compromises

  • Noise levels are average for this tyre. It is neither the quietest nor the loudest option available, placing it in the middle of the premium touring segment. The difference between this tyre and the top contender is less than 1 dB, a variation that is unlikely to be noticeable to the human ear.
  • Aquaplaning resistance can be described as mediocre. The tyre does not fail, but is in the lower half of the ratings and lags behind the leaders.

Disadvantages

  • Dry performance is a significant disadvantage. The Turanza 6 consistently ranks last in both braking (it is among the longest in its class) and handling.
  • Wet performance: Contrary to expectations, poor grip on dry surfaces is not compensated for by improved grip on wet surfaces. The tyre ranks among the lowest in terms of braking, handling, and lateral grip in rainy conditions.

Bridgestone vs. Top Competitors

Continental PremiumContact 7

Bridgestone excels in both fuel economy and wear resistance. However, it lacks grip, handling, and safety, where Continental outperforms it by far.

Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2

Bridgestone excels in fuel efficiency but falls short in handling, comfort, and wear resistance, where Goodyear is the clear leader.

Michelin Primacy 4+

Bridgestone excels in fuel efficiency, being the leader in this area. However, it falls short in braking, handling, and wear resistance. On the other hand, Michelin provides a more balanced set of characteristics.

Overall conclusion

The Bridgestone Turanza 6 is engineered for a particular driver: one who prioritizes maximum fuel economy above all other factors. It is a logical choice for calm, measured driving in urban settings or on motorways, particularly in regions with dry climates where its economic potential can be fully realized.

However, for any driver who values high levels of grip, short braking distances, and confidence in emergencies, this model is a deeply compromised choice. Alternatives like the Continental PremiumContact 7 (for maximum safety) or the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 (for a superior balance of wear and handling) offer a much higher and more reassuring level of active safety.

Bridgestone Turanza 6 Test History

Since 2023, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 has appeared in at least eight independent comparative tests, spanning sizes from 205/55 R16 for compact cars to 255/55 R18 for large SUVs. It has consistently delivered the hallmarks of a premium touring tyre — balanced handling, good comfort, and dependable all-weather safety — though its performance has not been entirely uniform.

While it has never taken an outright victory, the Turanza 6 has frequently secured high placements in large, highly competitive test fields. Standout results include 3rd out of 20 in the 2024 Auto Bild summer tyre test (Exemplary rating), 2nd out of 12 in the 2023 Auto Bild Allrad SUV test (Exemplary), and 5th out of 20 in the 2023 Auto Bild.

However, not all outings have been as strong. A 7th out of 8 finish in the 2025 Auto Bild Allrad SUV test, 6th out of 8 in the 2024 Auto Zeitung comparison, and several mid-table results show that its competitiveness can dip in specific scenarios — particularly when up against the latest-generation rivals or in particular size categories.

Year
Magazine
Size
Place
Score
2025
Aftonbladet
225/45 R17
4 (10)
2025
Auto Bild SUV
255/55 R18
7 (8)
2024
AMS
235/55 R18
4 (8)
2024
Auto Bild
205/55 R16
3 (20)
Exemplary
2024
Auto Zeitung
225/45 R17
6 (8)
2023
Auto Bild
225/45 R18
5 (20)
2023
Auto Bild Alrad
225/65 R17
2 (12)
Exemplary
2023
Teknikens Varld
225/50 R17
5 (8)

Comparison vs Market

The tire shows lower-than-median results in 5 testing areas while performing better in 4 areas. The most significant advantage is in rolling resistance (+14.68%). The main areas for improvement are wear resistance (-4.57%) and dry braking (-1.69%).
4 areas above the median
Wet braking (+0.56%)
Wet handling (+0.06%)
Wet lateral handling (+0.18%)
Rolling resistance (+14.68%)
5 areas below the median
Dry braking (-1.69%)
Dry handling (-0.03%)
Straight aqua (-0.7%)
Noise (-0.05%)
Wear resistance (-4.57%)
bridgestone
alltyretests
AllTyreTests.com
Add a comment