tirewheelguide

BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler looks discontinued: no new owner reviews or road tests in five years and no current EU tyre label.

Head-to-head Updated

BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler vs Continental PureContact LS — Compared

Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews (comfort 40/60). Based on 0 + 0 road tests and 11 + 25 owner reviews. How we score

g-Force Profiler leads, 71–69 Narrow edge

Check price on Amazon · g-Force Profiler or PureContact LS on Amazon
Add your size for an exact match
/R

Both Amazon links then search this exact size.

TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.

Category by category

Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.

  1. 70

    Dry

    g-Force Profiler +1
    69
    Why this score
    Sourceg-Force ProfilerPureContact LS
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 69 (est.)≈ 68 (est.)
    Reviews found online7169

    g-Force Profiler: 60% × 69.2 (est.) + 40% × 71.1 = 70

    PureContact LS: 60% × 68.4 (est.) + 40% × 69 = 69

    No road tests of dry for g-Force Profiler. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.41).

    No road tests of dry for PureContact LS. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.41).

  2. 73

    Wet

    g-Force Profiler +1
    72
    Why this score
    Sourceg-Force ProfilerPureContact LS
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 72 (est.)≈ 72 (est.)
    Reviews found online7372

    g-Force Profiler: 60% × 72.2 (est.) + 40% × 73.4 = 73

    PureContact LS: 60% × 71.5 (est.) + 40% × 72.2 = 72

    No road tests of wet for g-Force Profiler. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).

    No road tests of wet for PureContact LS. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).

  3. –

    Snow

    No comparison
    67
    Why this score
    Sourceg-Force ProfilerPureContact LS
    Professional tests (TWG score)–≈ 68 (est.)
    Reviews found online–64

    PureContact LS: 60% × 68.4 (est.) + 40% × 63.9 = 67

    No road tests of snow for PureContact LS. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.32).

  4. 66

    Comfort

    g-Force Profiler +7
    59
    Why this score
    Sourceg-Force ProfilerPureContact LS
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 68 (est.)≈ 66 (est.)
    Reviews found online6554

    g-Force Profiler: 40% × 68 (est.) + 60% × 65.2 = 66

    PureContact LS: 40% × 65.7 (est.) + 60% × 54 = 59

    No road tests of comfort for g-Force Profiler. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).

    No road tests of comfort for PureContact LS. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).

  5. –

    Noise

    No comparison
    68
    Why this score
    Sourceg-Force ProfilerPureContact LS
    Professional tests (TWG score)–≈ 66 (est.)
    Reviews found online–71

    PureContact LS: 60% × 66.4 (est.) + 40% × 70.5 = 68

    No road tests of noise for PureContact LS. The test half is the tested tires’ average (66): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.

  6. 74

    Treadwear

    g-Force Profiler +6
    68
    Why this score
    Sourceg-Force ProfilerPureContact LS
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 71 (est.)≈ 67 (est.)
    Reviews found online7969

    g-Force Profiler: 60% × 71.2 (est.) + 40% × 79.4 = 74

    PureContact LS: 60% × 67.3 (est.) + 40% × 68.8 = 68

    No road tests of treadwear for g-Force Profiler. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).

    No road tests of treadwear for PureContact LS. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).

  7. 67

    Handling (owners)

    PureContact LS +3
    70
    Why this score
    Sourceg-Force ProfilerPureContact LS
    Reviews found online6770
Scores at a glance
CategoryBFGoodrich g-Force ProfilerContinental PureContact LS
Relative Score 71 69
Dry 70 69
Wet 73 72
Snow – 67
Comfort 66 59
Noise – 68
Treadwear 74 68
Handling (owners) 67 70

Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.

Weight the categories that matter to you

Wet grip starts at “Important”. Treadwear starts at “Neutral” here: road tests measured it for at most one of the two tires, so it rests on owner reviews. Move the sliders and the scores update instantly.

Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost

Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.

Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost

Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.

Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Recomputed
Headline score
± 8

g-Force Profiler

± 8

PureContact LS

Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.

Pros, cons & observations

Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.

Tire A g-Force Profiler

Pros

  • Excellent dry and wet grip across a range of temperatures
  • Impressive tread life and long-lasting durability
  • High value for money at an affordable price point

Cons

  • Poor traction and handling in heavy snow and winter weather
  • Can be noisy on wet tarmac
  • Firm or crashy ride quality over rough road surfaces
All owner themes in the g-Force Profiler review

Tire B PureContact LS

Pros

  • Exceptionally quiet and comfortable ride quality
  • Strong wet and dry traction with reliable handling
  • Good balance of everyday comfort and long treadlife

Cons

  • Soft sidewalls can lead to less responsive or wandering handling during aggressive cornering
  • Develops temporary flat spotting when parked, causing morning vibrations
  • Poor winter performance, particularly lacking traction on snow and ice despite being an all-season tire
All owner themes in the PureContact LS review

Specs side by side

Attribute A · BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler B · Continental PureContact LS
CategorySummerAll Season
Vehicle typePassenger Car / CrossoverPassenger Car / Crossover
Tread depth—10/32″
UTQG—700 A A
Treadwear warranty—70,000 mi
Sidewall—Black Side Wall
Max pressure—51 psi

Which one should you actually buy?

BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler

Continental PureContact LS

Narrow edge: BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler — better comfort and treadwear. Where the Continental PureContact LS is ahead, it is by less than 3 points. BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 11 reviews), so read this result as provisional.

Pick tire A You want the most comfortable ride

BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler scores 66 vs 59 on comfort.

Pick tire A You want the longest tread life

BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler scores 74 vs 68 on treadwear.

Tire A · BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler
Check price on Amazon
Tire B · Continental PureContact LS
Check price on Amazon

TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.

g-Force Profiler or PureContact LS?

Which is better in the wet, g-Force Profiler or PureContact LS?

Neither, by our numbers: 73 vs 72 on the wet score, within 3 points.

Which grips better on dry roads, g-Force Profiler or PureContact LS?

Neither, by our numbers: 70 vs 69 on the dry score, within 3 points.

Which is more comfortable, g-Force Profiler or PureContact LS?

BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler, 66 vs 59 on our comfort score.

Which lasts longer, g-Force Profiler or PureContact LS?

BFGoodrich g-Force Profiler, 74 vs 68 on our treadwear score.

How do we compare tires?

Every category score blends two independent signals. 60% comes from professional tire tests (braking distances, lap times, noise measurements), each result compared with every other tire in the same test and newer tests counting more. 40% comes from owner reviews found online, adjusted for how generously each site rates. Both use one scale: the average tested tire gets 70, the best 100. When a tire has only one of the two, the missing half is estimated from the other and the score stays closer to average; with no road test and fewer than five owner reviews it gets no score yet.

Handling is the exception: road tests measure it inside the dry and wet scores, so its own row comes from owner ratings only and starts as less important.

Community buzz from Reddit and forums is shown for context only — it never changes the score. Full methodology