Firestone Multihawk

Dry Grip 87%
Wet Grip 76%
Road Feedback 79%
Progressiveness 80%
Wear 78%
Comfort 68%
Buy again 81%
Firestone Multihawk

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

This tyre has been replaced by the Firestone Multihawk 2

Show all

Tyre review data from 12 tyre reviews averaging 78% over 156,017 miles driven.

Size Fuel Wet Noise Weight
155/65 R13 73T   F C 72  
155/65 R13 73T   F C 72  
165/65 R13 77T   F C 72  
175/65 R13 80T   F C 72  
155/70 R13 75T   F E 72  
165/70 R13 79T   F E 72  
175/70 R13 82T   F C 72  
175/70 R13 82T   F C 72  
165/60 R14 75T   G C 72  
165/60 R14 75H   F C 72  
185/60 R14 82T   F E 72  
185/60 R14 82T   F E 72  
155/65 R14 75T   F C 72  
165/65 R14 79H   F C 72  
165/65 R14 79T   F C 72  
175/65 R14 82H   F C 70  
175/65 R14 86T XL   F C 70  
175/65 R14 82T   F C 71  
185/65 R14 86T   F C 71  
165/70 R14 81T   F C 71  
165/70 R14 81T   E C 71  
175/70 R14 84T   F E 72  
175/70 R14 88T XL   F E 72  
175/70 R14 88T XL   E C 72  
185/70 R14 88H   F C 72  
185/70 R14 88T   F C 72  
165/65 R15 81T   F C 72  
175/65 R15 84T   F C 72  
175/65 R15 84H   F C 72  
175/65 R15 84T   F C 72  
175/65 R15 84H   F C 72  
185/65 R15 88T   F C 72  
185/65 R15 88T   F C 72  
195/65 R15 91T   E E 72  
195/65 R15 91T   E E 72  
195/65 R15 95T XL   E E 72  
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

 
Size Price Range  
165/65 R14 £29.55 - £41.50 (10 prices) Compare Prices >>
175/65 R14 £30.48 - £49.58 (17 prices) Compare Prices >>
185/60 R14 £30.63 - £48.44 (8 prices) Compare Prices >>
185/65 R14 £31.97 - £51.28 (9 prices) Compare Prices >>
185/65 R15 £37.80 - £45.00 (7 prices) Compare Prices >>
Available in 19 tyre sizes - View all.

Firestone Multihawk Reviews

Given 80% (breakdown) while driving a CitroŽn c2 (175/65 R14 T) on a combination of roads for 30,000 average miles
very good tyres for my small car.
Find this review useful? | - tyre reviewed on June 12, 2015   
Given 77% (breakdown) 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.
Find this review useful? | - tyre reviewed on September 12, 2014   
Given 56% (breakdown) 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
Find this review useful? | - tyre reviewed on January 5, 2014   
Given 94% (breakdown) while driving a Opel Vectra B (185/60 R14 T) on a combination of roads for 0 average miles
No Comments Left
Find this review useful? | - tyre reviewed on August 7, 2013   
Given 77% (breakdown) 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.
Find this review useful? | - tyre reviewed on July 2, 2013   
Given 83% (breakdown) 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
Find this review useful? | - tyre reviewed on September 11, 2012   
Given 94% (breakdown) while driving a CitroŽn (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!
Find this review useful? | - tyre reviewed on April 25, 2012   
Given 60% (breakdown) 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.
Find this review useful? | - tyre reviewed on June 15, 2011   
Given 89% (breakdown) 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.
Find this review useful? | - tyre reviewed on September 3, 2010   
Given 80% (breakdown) 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.
Find this review useful? | - tyre reviewed on February 1, 2010   
Advertisement