Tests – · none yet Owners 67 · 199 reviews
Bridgestone Turanza ER300 vs Dunlop Direzza DZ102 — 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 199 + 22 owner reviews. How we score
Turanza ER300 leads, 68–64 Narrow edge
Add your size for an exact match
Both Amazon links then search this exact size.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Tests – · none yet Owners 61 · 22 reviews
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
-
68
Dry
Turanza ER300 +365Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 Direzza DZ102 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 68 (est.) ≈ 66 (est.) Reviews found online 68 63 Turanza ER300: 60% × 67.9 (est.) + 40% × 67.8 = 68
Direzza DZ102: 60% × 66.1 (est.) + 40% × 63.4 = 65
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).
No road tests of dry for Direzza DZ102. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.41).
-
70
Wet
Turanza ER300 +367Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 Direzza DZ102 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 70 (est.) ≈ 68 (est.) Reviews found online 70 66 Turanza ER300: 60% × 70 (est.) + 40% × 69.5 = 70
Direzza DZ102: 60% × 68 (est.) + 40% × 65.8 = 67
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).
No road tests of wet for Direzza DZ102. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
-
66
Snow
No comparison–Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 Direzza DZ102 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 68 (est.) – Reviews found online 62 – 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).
-
64
Comfort
Turanza ER300 +361Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 Direzza DZ102 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 67 (est.) ≈ 66 (est.) Reviews found online 62 58 Turanza ER300: 40% × 67.3 (est.) + 60% × 61.9 = 64
Direzza DZ102: 40% × 66.5 (est.) + 60% × 57.7 = 61
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).
No road tests of comfort for Direzza DZ102. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).
-
68
Noise
No comparison–Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 Direzza DZ102 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 66 (est.) – Reviews found online 70 – Turanza ER300: 60% × 66.4 (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.
-
68
Treadwear
Turanza ER300 +860Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 Direzza DZ102 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 68 (est.) ≈ 63 (est.) Reviews found online 70 56 Turanza ER300: 60% × 67.6 (est.) + 40% × 69.6 = 68
Direzza DZ102: 60% × 62.8 (est.) + 40% × 56.1 = 60
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).
No road tests of treadwear for Direzza DZ102. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).
-
64
Handling (owners)
Turanza ER300 +361Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 Direzza DZ102 Reviews found online 64 61
Scores at a glance
| Category | Bridgestone Turanza ER300 | Dunlop Direzza DZ102 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 68 | 64 |
| Dry | 68 | 65 |
| Wet | 70 | 67 |
| Snow | 66 | – |
| Comfort | 64 | 61 |
| Noise | 68 | – |
| Treadwear | 68 | 60 |
| Handling (owners) | 64 | 61 |
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.
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Turanza ER300
Direzza DZ102
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.
| Discipline | Category | Turanza ER300 | Direzza DZ102 | Δ | Head-to-head |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Also published by the testers (not in the score) | |||||
| Overall Ranking | Overall | #2/6 2010 Autocar Tyre Test - FWD | #7/8 2015 Australian Motor 235/35 R19 Tyre Test | – | Different tests |
Pros, cons & observations
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
Tire A 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
Tire B Direzza DZ102
Pros
- Excellent price-to-performance ratio
- Strong dry pavement grip and cornering stability
- Surprisingly high levels of ride comfort for a performance tire
Cons
- Rapid or inconsistent tread wear
- Inconsistent wet weather performance and hydroplaning resistance
- Increased road noise as the tire ages
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Bridgestone Turanza ER300 | B · Dunlop Direzza DZ102 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | 23 | — |
| Rim diameters | 14″ – 19″ | — |
| Tread depth | 9/32″ | — |
| UTQG | 320 A A | 460 A A |
| Sidewall | Blackwall | — |
Which one should you actually buy?
Bridgestone Turanza ER300
Dunlop Direzza DZ102
Narrow edge: Bridgestone Turanza ER300 — better treadwear, dry and wet. It leads or ties in every category we score.
Bridgestone Turanza ER300 scores 68 vs 60 on treadwear.
Bridgestone Turanza ER300 scores 68 vs 65 on dry.
Bridgestone Turanza ER300 scores 70 vs 67 on wet.
Bridgestone Turanza ER300 scores 64 vs 61 on comfort.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Turanza ER300 or Direzza DZ102?
Which is better in the wet, Turanza ER300 or Direzza DZ102?
Bridgestone Turanza ER300, 70 vs 67 on our wet score.
Which grips better on dry roads, Turanza ER300 or Direzza DZ102?
Bridgestone Turanza ER300, 68 vs 65 on our dry score.
Which is more comfortable, Turanza ER300 or Direzza DZ102?
Bridgestone Turanza ER300, 64 vs 61 on our comfort score.
Which lasts longer, Turanza ER300 or Direzza DZ102?
Bridgestone Turanza ER300, 68 vs 60 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