Tests – · none yet Owners 51 · 2,182 reviews
“Got my Camelot rims mounted with Bridgestone Potenza Re050a tires!”
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 + 31 road tests and 2,182 + 907 owner reviews. How we score
Azenis FK510 is ahead, 71–57
Both Amazon links then search this exact size.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Tests – · none yet Owners 51 · 2,182 reviews
“Got my Camelot rims mounted with Bridgestone Potenza Re050a tires!”
Tests 74 · 31 tests Owners 66 · 907 reviews
Best test result: #1 of 9 in 2018 Sport Auto 19 inch UHP and Track Day Tyre Test (wet braking)
“I have Fallen FK510s and live where it rains 300 days a year, they perform great and I'm sure the 520 is even better”
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
| Source | Potenza RE050A | Azenis FK510 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 28 tests | ≈ 64 (est.) | 73 |
| Reviews found online | 58 | 75 |
Potenza RE050A: 60% × 63.8 (est.) + 40% × 57.9 = 61
Azenis FK510: 60% × 72.9 + 40% × 75.4 = 74
No road tests of dry for Potenza RE050A. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.42).
| Source | Potenza RE050A | Azenis FK510 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 29 tests | ≈ 62 (est.) | 89 |
| Reviews found online | 55 | 78 |
Potenza RE050A: 60% × 61.9 (est.) + 40% × 54.7 = 59
Azenis FK510: 60% × 89 + 40% × 78.3 = 85
No road tests of wet for Potenza RE050A. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
| Source | Potenza RE050A | Azenis FK510 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | ≈ 63 (est.) | ≈ 61 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 49 | 46 |
Potenza RE050A: 60% × 62.6 (est.) + 40% × 49 = 57
Azenis FK510: 60% × 61.3 (est.) + 40% × 45.5 = 55
No road tests of snow for Potenza RE050A. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.37).
No road tests of snow for Azenis FK510. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.37).
| Source | Potenza RE050A | Azenis FK510 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 6 tests | ≈ 64 (est.) | 42 |
| Reviews found online | 39 | 68 |
Potenza RE050A: 40% × 63.6 (est.) + 60% × 38.9 = 49
Azenis FK510: 40% × 41.7 + 60% × 67.6 = 57
No road tests of comfort for Potenza RE050A. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.
| Source | Potenza RE050A | Azenis FK510 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 18 tests | ≈ 67 (est.) | 66 |
| Reviews found online | 56 | 67 |
Potenza RE050A: 60% × 66.6 (est.) + 40% × 55.8 = 62
Azenis FK510: 60% × 66 + 40% × 67.3 = 67
No road tests of noise for Potenza RE050A. The test half is the tested tires’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.
| Source | Potenza RE050A | Azenis FK510 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 5 tests | ≈ 57 (est.) | 73 |
| Reviews found online | 41 | 54 |
Potenza RE050A: 60% × 57.4 (est.) + 40% × 41 = 51
Azenis FK510: 60% × 73.1 + 40% × 54.2 = 66
No road tests of treadwear for Potenza RE050A. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.35).
| Source | Potenza RE050A | Azenis FK510 |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews found online | 55 | 72 |
| Source | Potenza RE050A | Azenis FK510 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 19 tests | – | 51 |
| Category | Bridgestone Potenza RE050A | Falken Azenis FK510 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 57 | 71 |
| Dry | 61 | 74 |
| Wet | 59 | 85 |
| Snow | 57 | 55 |
| Comfort | 49 | 57 |
| Noise | 62 | 67 |
| Treadwear | 51 | 66 |
| Handling (owners) | 55 | 72 |
| Efficiency | – | 51 |
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.
Potenza RE050A
Azenis FK510
Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.
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.
| Discipline | Category | Potenza RE050A | Azenis FK510 | Δ | Head-to-head |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Also published by the testers (not in the score) | |||||
| Overall Ranking | Overall | #3/8 2015 Australian Motor 235/35 R19 Tyre Test | #7/10 2025 Tire Rack UUHP Summer Tyre Test | – | Different tests |
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
From Reddit, forums and review threads. Not part of our score
Community sentiment regarding the Bridgestone Potenza RE050A is largely mixed, with drivers acknowledging solid dry grip, responsive handling, and decent wet traction when warm. However, many owners criticize the tire's harsh ride quality, high road noise, fast treadwear, high replacement cost, and complete lack of traction in cold or snowy conditions. Run-flat variants are particularly disliked for their stiff ride and difficulty of repair.
“Quote: Originally Posted by EWG35 I looked at these but did not buy for two reasons. 1) the tread rating was pretty low. Although I found them on ebay in 245/35 20 and 275/30 20 for something like $650-680 I just felt they'd wear too fast. 2) The tread pattern. I don't understand how they can shed water properly. Since the tread pattern is only molded in one direction (not a right and a left) which is just flip flopped. One appears it would shed water while the other would force water under the tire. How does this work? The side wall looks pretty nice. If you think 280 tread rating is low you should look again at the RE050A's 140. It one of the hightest tread rating in ultra high performance tires. Michelin PS2 is 220, Bridgestone RE050A is just 140 and Toyo T1R is 280. The only tires i can think of that has higher tread rating is Falken 452's 300 and Kumho Ecsta SPT's 320. Tread rating 280 isn't low.”
“I've had both in 205/45-17 on my car. The Dunlops are better all-around in the dry, wet, braking and comfort/noise stakes. More importantly, the treadwear on the RE050A $uck big time! Outright dry grip on the RE050A is just slightly better, but I'm happy giving that up for the Dunlops' outstanding performance in the wet and comfort. IMO, the Sport Maxx is way underrated. If these Dunlops have been chosen as OEM tires for the Saleen Mustang, the latest Jag XKR and VW Golf V R32, they must be good enough for our "humble" Mini.”
“I have RE050A runflat's on my 2012 Grandsport and agree completely that they are a great tire overall but you are fooling yourself if you think they provide comparable grip to a DOT track tire. I had Michelen run-flat's on my ZR1 wheels on my 2011 Grandsport and they were great until the tires hit 4/32 on the rears and then they became rocks at any temperature that I could spin up effortlessly at any speed. Used to give my wife fits snapping the rear-end around for no reason. Those were replaced with Continental Extreme Contact DW tires (non run-flat) because the rear Michelins were not available last year in ZR1 sizes.”
Based on 76 community posts
Community members frequently view the Falken Azenis FK510 as an affordable, budget-friendly alternative to premium tires like Michelin Pilot Sports, offering strong wet weather grip and good everyday road comfort. However, opinions are mixed due to rapid treadwear, with multiple drivers reporting bald tires in 10,000 to 15,000 miles or poor durability during track and autocross sessions. Furthermore, some users note compromises in steering response, road noise, and overall performance compared to top-tier max performance tires.
“Upgrading tires from Falken Azenis FK510, looking for recommendations Hey all, I drive a V6 1LE camaro, i've been doing a lot of open practice sessions at a small track (the driveway in austin, tx), long story short I bought brand new Azenis FK510 two months ago, only about 4k street miles, and after about 3 hours of track time they're pretty much done....mostly from noob mistakes like overcooking the entry and destroying the front shoulders, and having the rear tires way too overinflated so the shoulders are fine but the center are down to the wear bars. Even under ideal conditions and purposely driving slower and smoother I can't see these lasting much more than 4-5 hours of track time, I'm just surprised to see these tires wear down very very quickly under hard driving and overheat somewhat quickly, these are awesome daily driving tires but I'm looking for more track performance. I'm currently debating between pilot sport 4s, bridgestone re-71r, firehawk indy 500. This is more of a philosophical question, I'm looking at a wide variety of treadwear tires, I'm curious how you guys decide on what treadwear tires to run and how you decide between wear, price, and grip. I'm leaning towards the RE-71r right now, I figure if I'm burning through my tires in a few months anyways might as well do it with sticky tires since my falkens didn't last long anyways... Read more”
“Funny, I just had this conversation in r/ecoboostmustang . I was in this exact boat when I first started out autocrossing. I got on 200 TW for 2020 but continued to HPDE on the daily summer tires. Indy 500 - Spring 2019 to Winter 2020 - These take an INCREDIBLE amount of abuse for the money. 30+ autocrosses, 2 HPDEs, 18,000 miles G-Max RS - Fall 2020 to Summer 2021 - Only bummer is they're directional, you technically shouldn't rotate. 10 HPDEs, 15,000 miles Falken FK510 - Spring 2020 to Summer 2020 - HARD NO from me. I corded a set in 10,000 miles between daily & 6 HPDEs.”
“I've had a set of Falken Azenis FK510's on my car for a couple of months now, and just this past weekend took a trip through the twisties up to Prescott, and pushed the car as hard as I could heading up the mountain. I was a little nervous as I'd never used Falken tires before, but trusted in Tire Rack's reviews of them and pushed the envelope in every turn I hit. It was a pleasant surprise to find that the tires were gripping just as well as the much more expensive Michelin tires they'd replaced, and I even hit a personal best of .95g going around one of the more nasty turns. During this entire drive I never felt once like the tires weren't gripping perfectly, or that I was going to lose control from them breaking loose. Road noise is pretty much non-existent, and they seem to run pretty smooth over every surface I've driven them on so far. All-in-all I don't regret my purchase one bit, and if their longevity is anything like what I got out of my previous set of Michelins I'll definitely be buying another set once this one is done for.”
Based on 63 community posts
| Attribute | A · Bridgestone Potenza RE050A | B · Falken Azenis FK510 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | 37 | 93 |
| Rim diameters | 15″ – 20″ | 17″ – 22″ |
| Tread depth | 10/32″ | 10/32″ |
| UTQG | 140 A A | 300 A A |
| Sidewall | Blackwall | Blackwall |
| Max pressure | 50 psi | 50 psi |
| Sizes in common | 27 | 27 |
Bridgestone Potenza RE050A
Falken Azenis FK510
Winner: Falken Azenis FK510 — better wet, handling and treadwear. Where the Bridgestone Potenza RE050A is ahead, it is by less than 3 points.
Falken Azenis FK510 scores 85 vs 59 on wet.
Falken Azenis FK510 scores 72 vs 55 on handling.
Falken Azenis FK510 scores 66 vs 51 on treadwear.
Falken Azenis FK510 scores 74 vs 61 on dry.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Falken Azenis FK510, 85 vs 59 on our wet score.
Falken Azenis FK510, 74 vs 61 on our dry score.
Neither, by our numbers: 57 vs 55 on the snow score, within 3 points.
Falken Azenis FK510, 67 vs 62 on our noise score.
Falken Azenis FK510, 57 vs 49 on our comfort score.
Falken Azenis FK510, 66 vs 51 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