Haven't done enough miles yet to give an accurate report, but suffice to say so far so good. Critically, how to tell a T001 Evo apart from it's forerunner, the T001? The new Evo has 4 longitudinal main grooves, whereas the original T001 only had 3 (as currently depicted.) Clear as day on Bridgestone's site, but agree, they should have added the word EVO to the side of the tire for clarity's sake. Halfords autocentres didn't know either.

I went with the T001Evos because at the time they were a good price. The only branded tire of note which was cheaper was Avon ZV7. (Hankook, Pirelli and loads of supposedly mid range tires were more.)

These Bridgestones have lasted 20k so far but only 5k on the front. Comparitively, I have found better wearing tires as I seem to wear tires quickly in the winter months. That must be a sign that I can get close to their limits. They are quiet, comfortable and stable and have performed largely well. I didn't go for the T005s as the T001 Evos are quieter. They ride nicely so could be a good choice for those who value comfort highly.

Outright cornering grip is ok and feedback is ok when it is remembered they are touring tires. I find they lack bite into corners but strangely this subjectively improves with speed.

What I have found now they are just below 4mm tread depth on the front is that they trigger the ABS when even lightly check braking on smooth asphalt when there is a film of water. I hadn't noticed any great aquaplaning issues going straight or cornering but they are notably poor whilst braking. My point here is that over their lifetime, these tires which are A rated for wet braking simply do not perform how their rating suggests. This has been something I've long noted in regards to how new European tire labelling can be very misleading. To put this in some context, I've noted another family car which has 195/65R15 Yokohama C-Drive 2 tires which are C rated are definitely superior in this respect (they also have 3.5mm of tread depth).

Right now, I have noted the Bridgestone's weak point and drive accordingly but it does mean I won't take the chance of running them right down simply because under certain conditions they will render the brakes ineffective.

It is a shame because I like Bridgestones for my motorbike but I concede Bridgestone were noted for having wet performance issues which were addressed with the T005s.

A way around this could be to move the tires to the rear again but this could have safety implications (worn tires are subjectively better in the dry, new tires subjectively better in the wet- which is why I fit new pairs to the rear).

In short they are good but have a glaring shortcoming which is not typical of the rounded performance of tires from a Premium manufacturer. They still may be a good buy providing people are aware and act accordingly AND the purchase price is towards the low end of the mid-range scale. All said and done, I think they are still considerably better than most low cost tires which typically have major performance issues when worn.

These replaced OEM Kumho tires and I've been impressed with them so far. My only criticism is of Bridgestone for bringing out a tire called "Evo" but forgetting to brand the tire sidewall with this name. The tire fitting centre were unsure whether their supplier had given them an older T001 and even Bridgestone's own sales department admitted there wasn't a way to easily check whether a given tire was a previous generation T001 or the T001 Evo.

Have YOU got experience with the Bridgestone Turanza T001 Evo? Help millions of other tire buyers

Review your Bridgestone Turanza T001 Evo >

An excellent tire in both wet and dry conditions, highly recommended. Could be the best summer yet, but for one overwhelming niggle. Fuel economy. The 'EU' fuel rating for this tire is 'C'. Very unsure how this rating was achieved - & this is my experience so far. It's also worth noting at this juncture that I only replaced 2 rear Dunlop BluResponse's, leaving 2 Michelin Energy Savers up front intact. Both these older tires are 'B' rated for fuel.
On the open road, M and A roads, and generally taking it fairly easy, the T001 Evo's have proved fabulous, emulating the fuel economy of the Dunlop's, easily a 'B'. Well done Bridgestone.
In our corner of London however, the same cannot be said to be the case. Where before we would week-in week-out achieve 40mpg (via the car's computer) now we only achieve a careful 35 mpg at best, a 12.5% decline (and with the recent cold snap 33mpg has been the norm.) These latter figures are equivalent to Bridgestone's old ER30 and ER300 tires, both of which we've had on this particular car in the past, and both of which are 'E' fuel rated.
35mpg would therefore suggest a D fuel rating?
So, have the EU raters balanced the two results out, 'B&D' resulting in an overall 'C' rating? Something feels amiss.
If you do a modicum of stop/start driving, anticipate a lower fuel rating. If you're out on the M/A roads, the tire will excel. Bottom line, we do 9k miles p.a., and therefore over the life of the T001's at today's pump £prices and presuming a 25-30k tire life, we will be spending an additional £500-600 in fuel alone, relatively small - but then so is our mileage compared to many. It would now simply be more cost effective to trade them in for either more Dunlop's, or a 'B' fuel rated alternative. Would I buy them again, or replace the Energy Savers with these T001 Evo's going forward? Unless Bridgestone manage to get them into the 'B' fuel bracket and pertinently, across all driving terrains/conditions, the answer is a definite NO (otherwise, would the fuel economy continue to further fall?) A really very good summer tire nevertheless, potentially exceptional.

Perfect dry grip and awsome road feedback .

Excellent dry and wet grip.