tirewheelguide
Head-to-head Updated

Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT vs Continental ContiSportContact 5 — 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 12 + 27 owner reviews. How we score

ContiSportContact 5 is ahead, 66–55

Check price on Amazon · ContiSportContact 5 or Turanza ER300 RFT 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. 52

    Dry

    ContiSportContact 5 +15
    67
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER300 RFTContiSportContact 5
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 58 (est.)≈ 67 (est.)
    Reviews found online4466

    Turanza ER300 RFT: 60% × 58.1 (est.) + 40% × 44 = 52

    ContiSportContact 5: 60% × 67.2 (est.) + 40% × 66.1 = 67

    No road tests of dry for Turanza ER300 RFT. 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 ContiSportContact 5. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.41).

  2. 57

    Wet

    ContiSportContact 5 +14
    71
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER300 RFTContiSportContact 5
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 60 (est.)≈ 71 (est.)
    Reviews found online5171

    Turanza ER300 RFT: 60% × 60.1 (est.) + 40% × 51.2 = 57

    ContiSportContact 5: 60% × 71 (est.) + 40% × 71.3 = 71

    No road tests of wet for Turanza ER300 RFT. 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 ContiSportContact 5. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).

  3. –

    Snow

    No comparison
    68
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER300 RFTContiSportContact 5
    Professional tests (TWG score)–≈ 69 (est.)
    Reviews found online–67

    ContiSportContact 5: 60% × 69.2 (est.) + 40% × 66.5 = 68

    No road tests of snow for ContiSportContact 5. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.32).

  4. 54

    Comfort

    ContiSportContact 5 +9
    63
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER300 RFTContiSportContact 5
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 64 (est.)≈ 67 (est.)
    Reviews found online4761

    Turanza ER300 RFT: 40% × 64.3 (est.) + 60% × 47.2 = 54

    ContiSportContact 5: 40% × 67.1 (est.) + 60% × 61 = 63

    No road tests of comfort for Turanza ER300 RFT. 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 ContiSportContact 5. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).

  5. –

    Noise

    No comparison
    70
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER300 RFTContiSportContact 5
    Professional tests (TWG score)–≈ 66 (est.)
    Reviews found online–75

    ContiSportContact 5: 60% × 66.4 (est.) + 40% × 74.5 = 70

    No road tests of noise for ContiSportContact 5. The test half is the tested tires’ average (66): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.

  6. 57

    Treadwear

    Turanza ER300 RFT +1
    56
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER300 RFTContiSportContact 5
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 61 (est.)≈ 61 (est.)
    Reviews found online5150

    Turanza ER300 RFT: 60% × 60.9 (est.) + 40% × 51 = 57

    ContiSportContact 5: 60% × 60.6 (est.) + 40% × 50 = 56

    No road tests of treadwear for Turanza ER300 RFT. 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 ContiSportContact 5. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).

  7. 51

    Handling (owners)

    No comparison
    –
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER300 RFTContiSportContact 5
    Reviews found online51–
Scores at a glance
CategoryBridgestone Turanza ER300 RFTContinental ContiSportContact 5
Relative Score 55 66
Dry 52 67
Wet 57 71
Snow – 68
Comfort 54 63
Noise – 70
Treadwear 57 56
Handling (owners) 51 –

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

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

Recomputed
Headline score
± 8

Turanza ER300 RFT

± 8

ContiSportContact 5

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 Turanza ER300 RFT

Pros

  • Decent dry grip and acceptable comfort for a run-flat tire
  • Impressive tread life and mileage reported by highway and long-distance drivers
  • Reliable OEM fitment integration for compatible vehicles like BMW models

Cons

  • Subpar or near-zero grip in wet conditions, frequently causing traction control activation
  • Harsh and noisy ride quality typical of the run-flat construction
  • Rapid tread wear reported by some drivers on mixed roads
All owner themes in the Turanza ER300 RFT review

Tire B ContiSportContact 5

Not enough owner reviews yet to extract themes.

Specs side by side

Attribute A · Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT B · Continental ContiSportContact 5
CategorySummerSummer tire
Vehicle typePassenger Car / CrossoverPassenger Car / Crossover
Sizes available—86
Rim diameters—17″ – 22″
Tread depth—8 - 10/32″
UTQG—280 - 420 A - AA A
Sidewall—Black Side Wall
Max pressure—50 - 51 psi

Which one should you actually buy?

Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT

Continental ContiSportContact 5

Winner: Continental ContiSportContact 5 — better dry, wet and comfort. Where the Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT is ahead, it is by less than 3 points. Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 12 reviews), so read this result as provisional.

Pick tire B You want the most grip on dry roads

Continental ContiSportContact 5 scores 67 vs 52 on dry.

Pick tire B Your priority is wet-weather safety

Continental ContiSportContact 5 scores 71 vs 57 on wet.

Pick tire B You want the most comfortable ride

Continental ContiSportContact 5 scores 63 vs 54 on comfort.

Tire A · Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT
Check price on Amazon
Tire B · Continental ContiSportContact 5
Check price on Amazon

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

Turanza ER300 RFT or ContiSportContact 5?

Which is better in the wet, Turanza ER300 RFT or ContiSportContact 5?

Continental ContiSportContact 5, 71 vs 57 on our wet score.

Which grips better on dry roads, Turanza ER300 RFT or ContiSportContact 5?

Continental ContiSportContact 5, 67 vs 52 on our dry score.

Which is more comfortable, Turanza ER300 RFT or ContiSportContact 5?

Continental ContiSportContact 5, 63 vs 54 on our comfort score.

Which lasts longer, Turanza ER300 RFT or ContiSportContact 5?

Neither, by our numbers: 57 vs 56 on the treadwear score, within 3 points.

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