I have the Dunlops on my 09. All the car mags' Fit testers wore the Bridgestones and their recorded handling numbers seemed much lower than what I gauged my numbers would be for my car.

My parents took delivery of an 09 today with the Bridgestones. Right away I sensed a softer, more comfy ride, maybe even quieter compared to my Dunlops.

So I saw that the Bridestones are mud and snow tires vs high performance all-season for my Dunlops. That explained it.

So just so you guys know what the differences are between them. With the Bridgestones you get a more compliant, quieter ride with superior performance in mud and snow, but sacrificing braking and lateral grip compared to the Dunlops.

 

Far as I know, both tires are m/s configuration. One manufacturer can call their tire "touring" and another "performance", the're both mud/snow rated.

I don't doubt that there are discernable performance difference between the two, but not because of weight, speed, or weather ratings, these are identical on both brands.

The differences arise through the simple fact that they are two different tires from two different manufacturers, with differing treads, sidewall construction, rubber compound, and price. TireRack shows the Bridgestone around $50 more than the Dunlop. Perhaps, it's a slightly better tire overall, perhaps not.

 

My Dunlops are mud and snow. And when reading a description of the tires they are rated for "light snow use".

 

Hmm. Interesting. I never noticed the M+S on my Dunlops.

 

As an aside, I find Bridgestone's passenger car tires, like Turanzas and the RE92's, really suck. The Potenza summer-rated series such as the RE-01's, RE760's and RE050 are as good as it gets. I don't like Dunlops and the SP31's that came on my 08 Fit were garbage.