Tests – · none yet Owners 65 · 19 reviews
Bridgestone Potenza RE070 looks discontinued: no new owner reviews or road tests in five years and no current EU tyre label.
Head-to-head
Updated
Bridgestone Potenza RE070 vs Yokohama ADVAN Fleva V701 — 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 + 4 road tests and 19 + 2,201 owner reviews. How we score
Potenza RE070 leads, 67–65 Narrow edge
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.
Tests 73 · 4 tests Owners 57 · 2,201 reviews
Best test result: #2 of 22 in 2022 Consumer Reports Ultra High Performance Summer Tires (tested tread life (miles))
“I just got the Yokohama Advan Fleva V701's and I like them a lot. The turn in is quicker and the feel is better than the Indy 500's that I had before. They feel more solid and less vague.The sidewall seems a bit stiffer, but somehow the ride is not as harsh.”
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
-
74
Dry
Level74Why this score
Source Potenza RE070 ADVAN Fleva V701 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 3 tests ≈ 72 (est.) 78 Reviews found online 77 68 Potenza RE070: 60% × 71.9 (est.) + 40% × 77.4 = 74
ADVAN Fleva V701: 60% × 77.7 + 40% × 67.7 = 74
No road tests of dry for Potenza RE070. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.42).
-
64
Wet
ADVAN Fleva V701 +367Why this score
Source Potenza RE070 ADVAN Fleva V701 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 3 tests ≈ 66 (est.) 70 Reviews found online 62 64 Potenza RE070: 60% × 66 (est.) + 40% × 62 = 64
ADVAN Fleva V701: 60% × 70 + 40% × 63.7 = 67
No road tests of wet for Potenza RE070. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
-
62
Snow
Potenza RE070 +2636Why this score
Source Potenza RE070 ADVAN Fleva V701 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 66 (est.) ≈ 52 (est.) Reviews found online 55 12 Potenza RE070: 60% × 65.8 (est.) + 40% × 55.3 = 62
ADVAN Fleva V701: 60% × 52.2 (est.) + 40% × 12.4 = 36
No road tests of snow for Potenza RE070. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.32).
No road tests of snow for ADVAN Fleva V701. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.32).
-
59
Comfort
ADVAN Fleva V701 +261Why this score
Source Potenza RE070 ADVAN Fleva V701 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests ≈ 66 (est.) 62 Reviews found online 54 61 Potenza RE070: 40% × 65.8 (est.) + 60% × 54.1 = 59
ADVAN Fleva V701: 40% × 62.4 + 60% × 60.9 = 61
No road tests of comfort for Potenza RE070. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).
-
61
Noise
ADVAN Fleva V701 +768Why this score
Source Potenza RE070 ADVAN Fleva V701 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests ≈ 66 (est.) 74 Reviews found online 52 60 Potenza RE070: 60% × 66.3 (est.) + 40% × 51.9 = 61
ADVAN Fleva V701: 60% × 74.4 + 40% × 59.6 = 68
No road tests of noise for Potenza RE070. The test half is the tested tires’ average (66): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.
-
65
Treadwear
ADVAN Fleva V701 +469Why this score
Source Potenza RE070 ADVAN Fleva V701 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 3 tests ≈ 66 (est.) 75 Reviews found online 64 59 Potenza RE070: 60% × 65.6 (est.) + 40% × 63.8 = 65
ADVAN Fleva V701: 60% × 75.2 + 40% × 59.3 = 69
No road tests of treadwear for Potenza RE070. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).
-
75
Handling (owners)
Potenza RE070 +372Why this score
Source Potenza RE070 ADVAN Fleva V701 Reviews found online 75 72 -
–
Efficiency
No comparison71Why this score
Source Potenza RE070 ADVAN Fleva V701 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests – 71
Scores at a glance
| Category | Bridgestone Potenza RE070 | Yokohama ADVAN Fleva V701 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 67 | 65 |
| Dry | 74 | 74 |
| Wet | 64 | 67 |
| Snow | 62 | 36 |
| Comfort | 59 | 61 |
| Noise | 61 | 68 |
| Treadwear | 65 | 69 |
| Handling (owners) | 75 | 72 |
| 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
67
/ 100
Potenza RE070
65
/ 100
ADVAN Fleva V701
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 Potenza RE070
Pros
- Exceptional dry traction and cornering grip approaching track-day tire levels
- Stiff sidewalls that drastically improve steering response and vehicle handling
- Great value and affordability compared to other specialty sport tires
Cons
- Poor performance and hydroplaning tendency in wet weather, standing water, or heavy rain
- Harsh ride quality around town due to very stiff sidewalls
- High levels of road noise at everyday speeds
Tire B ADVAN Fleva V701
Pros
- Exceptional dry and wet grip for the price point
- Noticeably quieter and more comfortable than many competing UHP tires
- Precise steering response and good road feedback
Cons
- Faster-than-average tread wear reported by aggressive drivers
- Some complaints regarding soft sidewalls leading to initial turn-in delay or tramlining
- Occasional reports of elevated road noise depending on the vehicle and road surface
What real owners are saying
From Reddit, forums and review threads. Not part of our score
Tire A
Bridgestone Potenza RE070
We haven't collected enough community discussion about this tire yet.
Tire B
Mixed
Yokohama ADVAN Fleva V701
Most posts are people asking whether the V701 suits daily driving, spirited road use, or autocross. They see it as an affordable, grippy summer or performance all-season tire, and the few firsthand comments are positive: quicker turn-in, a better feel, and a stiffer sidewall without a harsher ride. Open concerns are tread life (one mechanic said it wears quickly), wet performance, and how it compares with the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 and the Falken 615K+.
alltrac.net
·2025-04-09
“Online reviews in general are such a crapshoot. So many times you see products with diametrically opposed opinions. It's tough to sift through to figure out what may be true for your own application/situation. I'm sure part of the reason less people buy the Vredestein is brand recognition. Like underscore...I would say I've never heard of them...other than that I have seen their brand as I've been looking for tires to go on my 15" OZ rally wheels. They had a tire in an uncommon 215-50-15. Since you have first hand experience that is positive, that's probably worth more than 99% of online reviews. I'll probably go with Yokohama Advan Fleva v701 in 205-55-15 eventually. I've seen glowing reviews for them and reviews that say they are garbage. I'd like to get Yokohama Advan HF Type-D for their period correctness, and because I just think they look cool ( and isn't that what's most important in a tire? ) ...but they are difficult to get in the States. Well, maybe not difficult, just costly. When I looked on Nengun, it was about $650 for shipping on a set of 4. Most UK & European suppliers I've found won't even ship them to the US. But I'm getting way off topic here.”
r/Civic_Type_R
·3 upvotes ·2026-09-05
“Suggestiona on tyres Hi everyone, Just wanted to ask if you guys ever had Yokohama Advan Fleva V701. My FK2 has nearly 400bhp and I’m not using it daily anymore as I want it to preserve the baby. My drive is a bit aggressive occasionally but nothing crazy or track day as I don’t have the time. I would like to know if you guys ever had this specific type of tyre. What you think about? They’re actually good? I wouldn’t like to buy again the Michelin pilot sport 4s which I found absolutely rubbish. I found those yoko for the decent price of 98£ each. So I buy it or should I move to Pirelli PZero pZ4 sport ?”
fiestastforum.com
·2022-11-30
“I just got the Yokohama Advan Fleva V701's and I like them a lot. The turn in is quicker and the feel is better than the Indy 500's that I had before. They feel more solid and less vague.The sidewall seems a bit stiffer, but somehow the ride is not as harsh.”
Top themes
#Daily driving suitability#Tread life concerns#Value for price#Grip and handling#Wet performance#Turn-in and feel#Miata and Honda fitments#Alternatives comparison
Based on 23 community posts
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Bridgestone Potenza RE070 | B · Yokohama ADVAN Fleva V701 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | — | 70 |
| Rim diameters | — | 15″ – 20″ |
| Tread depth | 9/32″ | 9/32″ |
| UTQG | 140 A A | 300 A A |
| Sidewall | Blackwall | Blackwall |
| Max pressure | 51 psi | 51 psi |
Which one should you actually buy?
67
/ 100
Bridgestone Potenza RE070
65
/ 100
Yokohama ADVAN Fleva V701
Narrow edge: Bridgestone Potenza RE070 — better snow. Pick the Yokohama ADVAN Fleva V701 if noise, treadwear and wet matter most to you. Bridgestone Potenza RE070 rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 19 reviews), so read this result as provisional.
Pick tire A
You drive through snowy winters
Bridgestone Potenza RE070 scores 62 vs 36 on snow.
Pick tire B
You want a quieter cabin
Yokohama ADVAN Fleva V701 scores 68 vs 61 on noise.
Pick tire B
You want the longest tread life
Yokohama ADVAN Fleva V701 scores 69 vs 65 on treadwear.
Pick tire B
Your priority is wet-weather safety
Yokohama ADVAN Fleva V701 scores 67 vs 64 on wet.
Tire A · Bridgestone Potenza RE070
Tire B · Yokohama ADVAN Fleva V701
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Potenza RE070 or ADVAN Fleva V701?
Which is better in the wet, Potenza RE070 or ADVAN Fleva V701?
Yokohama ADVAN Fleva V701, 67 vs 64 on our wet score.
Which grips better on dry roads, Potenza RE070 or ADVAN Fleva V701?
Neither, by our numbers: 74 vs 74 on the dry score, within 3 points.
Which is better in snow, Potenza RE070 or ADVAN Fleva V701?
Bridgestone Potenza RE070, 62 vs 36 on our snow score.
Which is quieter, Potenza RE070 or ADVAN Fleva V701?
Yokohama ADVAN Fleva V701, 68 vs 61 on our noise score.
Which is more comfortable, Potenza RE070 or ADVAN Fleva V701?
Neither, by our numbers: 59 vs 61 on the comfort score, within 3 points.
Which lasts longer, Potenza RE070 or ADVAN Fleva V701?
Yokohama ADVAN Fleva V701, 69 vs 65 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