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 1,049 + 28 owner reviews. How we score
ContiCrossContact LX 2 is ahead, 70–59
Both Amazon links then search this exact size.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Tests – · none yet Owners 53 · 1,049 reviews
“A lot of our cars come with that Bridgestone. Often need replacement at only 30k km. They are also very sensitive to alignment, even slight off and the tires will wear unevenly and get noisy. Still better than the Dunlops though.”
Tests – · none yet Owners 69 · 28 reviews
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
| Source | Alenza 001 | ContiCrossContact LX 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | ≈ 62 (est.) | ≈ 68 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 55 | 69 |
Alenza 001: 60% × 62.5 (est.) + 40% × 54.7 = 59
ContiCrossContact LX 2: 60% × 68.4 (est.) + 40% × 69 = 69
No road tests of dry for Alenza 001. 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 ContiCrossContact LX 2. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.41).
| Source | Alenza 001 | ContiCrossContact LX 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | ≈ 65 (est.) | ≈ 71 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 60 | 72 |
Alenza 001: 60% × 64.7 (est.) + 40% × 59.7 = 63
ContiCrossContact LX 2: 60% × 71.2 (est.) + 40% × 71.7 = 71
No road tests of wet for Alenza 001. 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 ContiCrossContact LX 2. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
| Source | Alenza 001 | ContiCrossContact LX 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | – | ≈ 65 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | – | 54 |
ContiCrossContact LX 2: 60% × 65.4 (est.) + 40% × 54.4 = 61
No road tests of snow for ContiCrossContact LX 2. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.32).
| Source | Alenza 001 | ContiCrossContact LX 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | ≈ 64 (est.) | ≈ 68 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 46 | 65 |
Alenza 001: 40% × 64.1 (est.) + 60% × 45.7 = 53
ContiCrossContact LX 2: 40% × 67.8 (est.) + 60% × 64.5 = 66
No road tests of comfort for Alenza 001 or ContiCrossContact LX 2. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.
| Source | Alenza 001 | ContiCrossContact LX 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | ≈ 60 (est.) | ≈ 69 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 48 | 74 |
Alenza 001: 60% × 59.8 (est.) + 40% × 47.5 = 55
ContiCrossContact LX 2: 60% × 69.4 (est.) + 40% × 74.4 = 71
No road tests of treadwear for Alenza 001. 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 ContiCrossContact LX 2. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).
| Source | Alenza 001 | ContiCrossContact LX 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews found online | 55 | 69 |
| Category | Bridgestone Alenza 001 | Continental ContiCrossContact LX 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 59 | 70 |
| Dry | 59 | 69 |
| Wet | 63 | 71 |
| Snow | – | 61 |
| Comfort | 53 | 66 |
| Treadwear | 55 | 71 |
| Handling (owners) | 55 | 69 |
Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.
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.
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Alenza 001
ContiCrossContact LX 2
Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
From Reddit, forums and review threads. Not part of our score
Community opinions on the Bridgestone Alenza 001 are split, largely depending on whether they are the run-flat variants. Many drivers praise their dry and wet handling, corner stability, and initial ride quality, while others criticize them for a harsh ride, noise, buzzy feedback on rough asphalt, and relatively fast treadwear. As original equipment (OE) tires on performance SUVs and crossovers, they are generally seen as capable in warm weather but poorly suited for cold temperatures, snow, or long-term tread life.
“Opinions on Michelin primacy tour A/S or keeping Bridgestone Alenza 001 Its time for me to replace the tires on my iX and I'm unsure about if dropping to the touring tire would ruin the handling of the iX and drop the range. Currently on a set of Alenza 001 and I have liked their feel, handling and over all use. But for some extra tread life, would going to the primacy tours be worth it? Worried that the car would feel worse with a loss of grip and that the higher tread would reduce the range. Since I do several road trips a year which require 2-4 charging stops, I'd rather not add an extra one from a loss of 20-30 miles of total range because of tires. Anyone have experience with the Michelin primacy tour A/S? This is on a 2023 iX with the 21" wheels.”
“^^^^The Alenza 001 RFT is a summer tire not meant for snow or cold temps, and is a run-flat tire. As you surmised, it is a truck/SUV sport tire. If the sizing is correct, it should work out fine in your LC. However, as previously stated, RFTs are not as quiet as regular tires. The tire installer probably replaced them with RFTs because that's what you had mounted previously. If that's the case, you have experience with RFTs. Lexus used RFTs on the LC up until 2023 and switched to regular Hi-Po tires in 2024. Lou”
“Soon will have to replace tires on my NX350h Hi all, Soon I will have to replace the 2022 NX tires. The car came with "Bridgestone Alenza 001" so far so good, the ride quality has been nice, the noise is OK, and the rim protection (tire being wider than rim) worked well (narrow entrances with curbs in parkings in the city we live). We've made 75.000Km with the OEM tires and we will still make the summer with them before replacing them. In the area were we live is very rare to see snow. The car has no place for spare tire so runflats will have to be. I know runflats don't get "lots of love", but safety is a must and we will mount runflats again. The guy at the dealer offered us the GOODYEAR EFFICIENT GRIP 2 SUV. But as far as I've seen, those are not runflat. If we would like to improve, what would you recommend and why? Thanks!”
Based on 23 community posts
We haven't collected enough community discussion about this tire yet.
| Attribute | A · Bridgestone Alenza 001 | B · Continental ContiCrossContact LX 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | All Season |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | SUV and 4x4 |
| Sizes available | 73 | 39 |
| Rim diameters | 16″ – 22″ | 15″ – 20″ |
| Tread depth | 10/32″ | — |
| UTQG | 400 A A | — |
| Sidewall | Blackwall | — |
| Max pressure | 51 psi | — |
| Sizes in common | 16 | 16 |
Bridgestone Alenza 001
Continental ContiCrossContact LX 2
Winner: Continental ContiCrossContact LX 2 — better treadwear, handling and comfort. It leads or ties in every category we score.
Continental ContiCrossContact LX 2 scores 71 vs 55 on treadwear.
Continental ContiCrossContact LX 2 scores 69 vs 55 on handling.
Continental ContiCrossContact LX 2 scores 66 vs 53 on comfort.
Continental ContiCrossContact LX 2 scores 69 vs 59 on dry.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Continental ContiCrossContact LX 2, 71 vs 63 on our wet score.
Continental ContiCrossContact LX 2, 69 vs 59 on our dry score.
Continental ContiCrossContact LX 2, 66 vs 53 on our comfort score.
Continental ContiCrossContact LX 2, 71 vs 55 on our treadwear score.
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
