tirewheelguide
Head-to-head Updated

Bridgestone Blizzak LM001 vs Bridgestone Turanza ER300 — 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 2 + 0 road tests and 11 + 199 owner reviews. How we score

Different seasons: Blizzak LM001 and Turanza ER300 are each scored against tires of their own season.

Check price on Amazon · Blizzak LM001 Check price on Amazon · Turanza ER300
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.

Bridgestone Blizzak LM001
Tire ABridgestone

Blizzak LM001

Winter

± 6

Tests 71 · 2 tests Owners 46 · 11 reviews

Best test result: #1 of 10 in 2018 Autobild UHP Winter Tyre Test (straight aquaplaning)

Category by category

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

  1. 60

    Dry

    Turanza ER300 +8
    68
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM001Turanza ER300
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 2 / – tests71≈ 68 (est.)
    Reviews found online4268

    Blizzak LM001: 60% × 71.5 + 40% × 41.9 = 60

    Turanza ER300: 60% × 67.9 (est.) + 40% × 67.8 = 68

    No road tests of dry for Turanza ER300. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.41).

  2. 65

    Wet

    Turanza ER300 +5
    70
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM001Turanza ER300
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 2 / – tests75≈ 70 (est.)
    Reviews found online5069

    Blizzak LM001: 60% × 74.5 + 40% × 50.1 = 65

    Turanza ER300: 60% × 70 (est.) + 40% × 69.4 = 70

    No road tests of wet for Turanza ER300. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).

  3. 60

    Snow

    Turanza ER300 +6
    66
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM001Turanza ER300
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 2 / – tests68≈ 68 (est.)
    Reviews found online4862

    Blizzak LM001: 60% × 68.5 + 40% × 48 = 60

    Turanza ER300: 60% × 67.9 (est.) + 40% × 62.3 = 66

    No road tests of snow for Turanza ER300. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.32).

  4. 51

    Comfort

    Turanza ER300 +13
    64
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM001Turanza ER300
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 63 (est.)≈ 67 (est.)
    Reviews found online4362

    Blizzak LM001: 40% × 63.4 (est.) + 60% × 42.5 = 51

    Turanza ER300: 40% × 67.3 (est.) + 60% × 61.9 = 64

    No road tests of comfort for Blizzak LM001. 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 Turanza ER300. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).

  5. 54

    Noise

    Turanza ER300 +14
    68
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM001Turanza ER300
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 2 / – tests71≈ 66 (est.)
    Reviews found online2970

    Blizzak LM001: 60% × 70.8 + 40% × 28.5 = 54

    Turanza ER300: 60% × 66.5 (est.) + 40% × 70.3 = 68

    No road tests of noise for Turanza ER300. The test half is the tested tires’ average (66): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.

  6. 56

    Treadwear

    Turanza ER300 +12
    68
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM001Turanza ER300
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 60 (est.)≈ 68 (est.)
    Reviews found online4970

    Blizzak LM001: 60% × 60.2 (est.) + 40% × 48.8 = 56

    Turanza ER300: 60% × 67.7 (est.) + 40% × 69.6 = 68

    No road tests of treadwear for Blizzak LM001. 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 Turanza ER300. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).

  7. 54

    Handling (owners)

    Turanza ER300 +10
    64
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM001Turanza ER300
    Reviews found online5464
  8. 71

    Efficiency

    No comparison
    –
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM001Turanza ER300
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 2 / – tests71–
Scores at a glance
CategoryBridgestone Blizzak LM001Bridgestone Turanza ER300
Relative Score 59 68
Dry 60 68
Wet 65 70
Snow 60 66
Comfort 51 64
Noise 54 68
Treadwear 56 68
Handling (owners) 54 64
Efficiency 71 –

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
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Not important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost

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

Recomputed
Headline score
± 6

Blizzak LM001

± 7

Turanza ER300

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

The professional test results behind the scores

Per discipline: the average % of the best tire over every test both tires were in, and how many of those tests each one won. “Different tests” rows compare results from separate tests.

DisciplineCategoryBlizzak LM001Turanza ER300ΔHead-to-head
Also published by the testers (not in the score)
Overall Ranking Overall #6/5 2022 Consumer Reports Performance Winter/Snow Tires #2/6 2010 Autocar Tyre Test - FWD – Different tests

Pros, cons & observations

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

Tire A Blizzak LM001

Pros

  • Exceptional grip and traction in deep snow and icy conditions
  • Precise handling and stability on cold, winter-affected roads
  • Reliable braking performance in severe weather

Cons

  • Rapid tread wear reported by some users
  • High noise levels on dry asphalt
  • Increased fuel consumption compared to other winter tires
All owner themes in the Blizzak LM001 review

Tire B Turanza ER300

Pros

  • Exceptional tread life and longevity
  • Reliable dry and wet grip when relatively new
  • Stable, predictable highway handling and straight-line tracking

Cons

  • High road noise and noticeable tire roar, especially on coarser asphalt
  • Firm, sometimes harsh ride quality with stiff sidewalls
  • Deterioration of wet grip and increased ABS/TCS activation as the tread wears down
All owner themes in the Turanza ER300 review

Specs side by side

Attribute A · Bridgestone Blizzak LM001 B · Bridgestone Turanza ER300
CategoryWinterSummer
Vehicle typePassenger Car / CrossoverPassenger Car / Crossover
Sizes available6923
Rim diameters14″ – 21″14″ – 19″
Tread depth11/32″9/32″
UTQG—320 A A
SidewallBlackwallBlackwall
Max pressure50 psi—
Sizes in common1414

Which one should you actually buy?

Bridgestone Blizzak LM001

Bridgestone Turanza ER300

Built for different seasons: Bridgestone Blizzak LM001 is a winter tire, Bridgestone Turanza ER300 a summer tire. Each score is measured against tires of its own season, so the two are not ranked against each other — pick by the season you drive in.

Tire A · Bridgestone Blizzak LM001
Check price on Amazon
Tire B · Bridgestone Turanza ER300
Check price on Amazon

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

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