Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





BMW 3-Series Run Flat Tires

194959799100102

Comments

  • capriracercapriracer Somewhere in the USPosts: 795
    Tire wear is highly variable. You can get widely different results even from identical tires. It all depends on how the tire is used.

    Most tire wear occurs in the cornering mode - that is when the steering wheel is turned. Make a lot of turns compared to how many miles traveled forward, and the tires don't get good "mileage". On the other hand, driving pretty much in a straight line is almost free - the tires will wear extremely well.

    To complicate matters further, each vehicle manufacturer has its own requirements for the tires supplied to its assembly plants. And an even further complication: Vehicle manufacturers are not consistent within their own product lines.

    So taking the 2 Nissans mentioned: Even though the tires had the same name on the sidewall, they were very likely built to very different specs, and built quite differently - and the most common difference is tread compound, which can have an affect on tire wear.

    It's probably most accurate to consider EVERY OE tire to be its own unique entity in spite of what it may say on the sidewall.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    edited July 2011
    To complicate matters further, each vehicle manufacturer has its own requirements for the tires supplied to its assembly plants. And an even further complication: Vehicle manufacturers are not consistent within their own product lines.

    So taking the 2 Nissans mentioned: Even though the tires had the same name on the sidewall, they were very likely built to very different specs, and built quite differently - and the most common difference is tread compound, which can have an affect on tire wear.

    It's probably most accurate to consider EVERY OE tire to be its own unique entity in spite of what it may say on the sidewall.


    That may or may not be the case. I honestly don't know...

    While I can easily accept that OEM's have tires made to their particular specifications, it seems doubtful (at least, to me) that multiple tires with the very same label and size can have different qualities. If nothing else, that would appear to create a nightmare in quality control, sales, etc.

    Also, it seems pretty short-sighted for a tire manufacturer to build an inferior tire for an OEM and then attempt to sell a differently formulated tire under the same exact label, unless the tire is inferior to the OEM tire. After all, if the OEM tires on my new car suck I'm highly unlikely to purchase the same brand, and even less likely to buy the very same tire style (even if I elect to stay with the same brand tire). That seems like as good a formula for killing sales that I have ever heard of...

    What I would like to see is a link to some information that verifies what you are saying. You might be 100% correct.

    I just don't know...
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    On an additional note, I would think that, if tiremakers did as you stated, there would be tons of class-action suits against tiremakers due to differences within identical tire "lines/sizes". How would a potential buyer know what he was actually buying?

    Certainly, I would think that this "practice" would have come to light in the Ford Explorer/Firestone debacle.

    We all know OEM's want the lowest price possible, which usually translates into a product of lesser quality. If there's a way to save a buck, car manufacturers are prone to take that option. Remember the Ford Pinto? If I remember correctly, the estimated savings per car after making the design change to the gas tank location was something like $10-12.

    For OEM's to have knowledge of lesser quality tires on new vehicles, while tires labeled exactly the same way and look identical, but of higher quality are being sold in the aftermarket arena just strikes me as business suicide...

    Anyway, that's my opinion...
  • capriracercapriracer Somewhere in the USPosts: 795
    Busiris,

    You bring up a number of good points - but unfortunately, what I have stated is true. First you have to realize that the percentage of complaints for even problem tires is still pretty low. We may be discussing what appears to be a HUGE issue with these RFT's, but in reality, only a small percentage of people are having these problems - which makes getting these things changed a challenge!

    At one point in time, the company I work for was very unsophisticated as to how they did their tire line-ups - and the result was very poor wearing tires mixed in with some pretty good wearing tires. The folks in planning are doing a much better of it now and employ quite a few different techniques - and I'll name a few:

    - Creating a special line that is strictly OE, that way only that line of tire would generate complaints. The other lines wouldn't be affected.

    - Only participating in tire programs which are not likely to generate compliants - in other words, avoid those programs that look like losers. The OEM's do NOT like this. They want every one of the tire suppliers to participate in ALL the programs, so they get the best possible product at the best possible price. It's a trcky game to play for the tire manufactirers end - and the way this is usually handled is by making the bid more expensive so the OEM will go elsewhere. Doesn't always work!

    So let me address a couple of other pionts you made:

    Class action lawsuit? Yes, there have been some. But generally these are about poor performing tires, not differences. But this is all about money and if enough money is made in the original transaction, then lawsuits become a minor annoyance.

    The Ford / Firestone thing? Yes, it did come out, but if there is a customer who is going to buy a millon tires a year, he gets to dictate the particulars about what he is buying.

    Lesser quality? That depends on how you see this. From the OEM's point of view, they are delivering a vehicle that gives better fuel economy, with only a minor sacrifice in treadwear and traction. The fact that the end consumer doesn't see it that way is just one of those things.

    Nightmare in quality control, sales, etc.? Not as bad as you would expect. Only a few tires (meaning size/model) are problem children. Sophisticated dealers figure out which ones they are, and don't sell that particular size, except to folks who have good experience with those (remembering that only a few percent of people actually have problems with even problem prone tires!)

    Need a link? Well, here's my website that explains in much more detail:

    http://www.barrystiretech.com/oetires.html

    But that's only me explaining how it works. It isn't proof. How's 'bout this?

    Go down to any GM dealer. Look at the tires on a variety of vehicles. You should find that every tire has a TPC spec number embedded on the sidewall. That TPC number means that THAT tire has been made to GM's specs Now go to Tire Rack and look up that line of tires and see if you don't find there are many tires in the line.

    - OR -

    Go down to your local tire dealer and ask for a databook from a particular tire manufacturer. If they have a list that shows their OEM fitments, compare that to the list in the front of the book.

    - OR -

    Call one of the tire manufacturers and ask if the tire they supply to the OEM's are designed to that vehicle manufacturer's specs. You have to be careful how you ask this question, because if you word this a little differently, you may be asking a different question - keeping in mind that that the OEM's have a non-disclosure agreement with the tire manufacturer and the tire manufacturer doesn't want to jeopardize its business relationship with a customer who buys millions of dollars worth of products.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    edited July 2011
    First of all, I appreciate your response, and the time you dedicated to it...

    I completely agree with your RFT assessment as well. Relatively few, but extremely vocal (read LOUD) complaints.

    But...

    Sorry.... I'm not willing to accept your claim, at least based upon the info you provided...

    This sounds a bit more like an old wives tale or urban legend thing, or there would be available links to the practice readily available on the internet.

    Please, if you are inclined to do so, don't imply that its some sort of "secret" thing going on between manufacturers and tiremakers. There are far too many individuals inviolved for anything of such magnitude to be kept secret.

    Again, I don't deny the possibility that tiremakers make special labels/models of tires and sell them as only OEM products, but I find it difficult to accept that 2 tires, same sized and identically named, made by the same tiremaker (1 for OEM fitment and the other for general public sales), have differences in construction (unless there are changes across the board in the construction of said tire, such as an improvement).

    If what you say is true, its one of the best kept secrets in the automotive industry.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,870
    I'm wondering though how limited the complaints are, or would be, once the awareness of the problem is better known.

    What I mean is, since my friends 2007 BMW 328ix had her RFTs melt in 20,000 miles, isn't it safe to assume that just about everybody with the same car going the same distance on the same tires in the same large metro area would suffer the same fate?

    Maybe some people only *expect* 20K on a set of tires so they don't complain?

    MODERATOR

  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    I'm wondering though how limited the complaints are, or would be, once the awareness of the problem is better known.

    What I mean is, since my friends 2007 BMW 328ix had her RFTs melt in 20,000 miles, isn't it safe to assume that just about everybody with the same car going the same distance on the same tires in the same large metro area would suffer the same fate?


    Excellent points.

    IMO, the RFT issue (at least, as it relates to BMW) is similar to the (lack of) oil dip-stick issue. Relatively few complaints, but those that do complain are extremely vocal about it.

    That, coupled with the fact the buyer has no option when making the purchase tends to add to the complaint issue "loudness" of those complaining. As you said earlier in regards to owners having no idea what kind of tires they have mounted (at least, until replacement time), how many drivers actually check their oil nowadays? Ask 100 people you meet at a local shopping mall, and I would wager less than 20% (and that's probably a high number) ever check their oil level on any kind of regular basis.

    On your last statement, in theory I agree. But, reality is a different story. Even though 2 drivers in identical cars travel the same route and distances, there can be a range from little to extensive in how differently they drive that route.

    As an example, MPG. Its not terribly hard to find forum threads with owners of the same make and model vehicle, but getting huge differences in MPG. Grandpa probably is going to get more mileage than lead-foot-Larry.

    But, getting back to RFT's for a minute. From the physics perspective, in general, a stiffer sidewall translates into less flexibility. RFT's such as those BMW uses have stiffer sidewalls. That means that, in order to maintain the same ability to adhere to the road surface, a change in the compound meeting the road surface is required....usually a softer compound, but there may be other options. That's the theory...

    The $64,000 question is whether or not the increased rigidity in the RFT is significant enough (and if so, by how much) to cause the manufacturer to resort to a softer (and thereby, less durable) compound in order to maintain the expected and desired road adherence...traction? Also, even if adherence isn't an issue, does the stiffer sidewall cause more wear on the tire's tread-surface?

    Its pretty clear that a normal GFT with an external diameter of 26" will corner (ie, have better traction) at speed than a 24" solid steel wheel surrounded by a 1" thickness of rubberized tread surface.

    Now, it may well be that RFT's don't approach any of the above limitations, but I suspect that they do, especially in environments that call for more sidewall flexing... like those who drive more aggressively.

    Personally, I don't think the RFT issue is a "red herring", but I do think that many (but not all) who complain would just as easily get reduced mileage out of a corresponding set of GHT's.
  • capriracercapriracer Somewhere in the USPosts: 795
    ".......but I find it difficult to accept that 2 tires, same sized and identically named, made by the same tiremaker (1 for OEM fitment and the other for general public sales), have differences in construction........"

    Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

    No, you are right. What usually happens is that a particular size of a particular model is supplied to an OEM, but both the OEM tire and the tires supplied to the general market place are the same tire. Those tires supplied to the general market place are called "downstreams" - as in they are downstream of what gets sent to the assembly plants.

    But the point I was trying to make was that within a line of tires, different sizes would be supplied to different vehicle manufacturers - and because of the differences, you should really think of OE tires as being unique to themselves.

    OK, onto your other posting:

    ".......That means that, in order to maintain the same ability to adhere to the road surface, a change in the compound meeting the road surface is required....usually a softer compound, but there may be other options. That's the theory......"

    Sorry, but that doesn't work in actual practice. While the sidewall stiffnesses are different uninflated, it is surprising how small the difference is when the tires are inflated - not that there aren't differences, but that it is not as big as one might think. The net effect is that the same tread compounds are used.

    As I have said before, there is nothing inherent in RunFlat tires that generates rapid treadwear, nor does this preclude good treadwear. It's just that RunFlats are only appearing on a few vehicles and the demand for good wearing, but lower traction, tires hasn't prompted any tire manufacturer to produce such an animal.

    Further, many folks complain about tire wear on their new car or truck - and they sometimes post that on websites such as this one. Almost every vehicle generates some level of complaints about tire wear. The trick is trying to sort out what's "normal" and what's not.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    edited July 2011
    As I have said before, there is nothing inherent in RunFlat tires that generates rapid treadwear, nor does this preclude good treadwear. It's just that RunFlats are only appearing on a few vehicles and the demand for good wearing, but lower traction, tires hasn't prompted any tire manufacturer to produce such an animal.

    I'm still having a problem digesting that comment. Looked at from a slightly different perspective, I'd argue that a tire like the Michelin Pilot Sport A/S will easily out perform (from a ride, handling and absolute grip perspective) any of the all-season RFTs that BMW has mounted on the 3-Series while at the same time lasting many-many more miles before replacement is necessary.

    With the above thought in mind, does the current technology for RFTs preclude manufacturing a run-flat version of the Pilot Sport A/S which would last as long as the GFT version?

    FWIW, I live and drive agressively in an area with very curvy and hilly roads, and the fewest number of miles I've ever been able to put on a set of Pilot Sport A/Ss is ~45,000 miles; a far cry from what BMW 3-Series owners typically get from their OEM All-Season RFTs.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    edited July 2011
    ...What usually happens is that a particular size of a particular model is supplied to an OEM, but both the OEM tire and the tires supplied to the general market place are the same tire. Those tires supplied to the general market place are called "downstreams" - as in they are downstream of what gets sent to the assembly plants.

    But the point I was trying to make was that within a line of tires, different sizes would be supplied to different vehicle manufacturers - and because of the differences, you should really think of OE tires as being unique to themselves.


    OK, we appear to be reading from the same page now. This makes sense to me.


    ".......That means that, in order to maintain the same ability to adhere to the road surface, a change in the compound meeting the road surface is required....usually a softer compound, but there may be other options. That's the theory......"

    Sorry, but that doesn't work in actual practice. While the sidewall stiffnesses are different uninflated, it is surprising how small the difference is when the tires are inflated - not that there aren't differences, but that it is not as big as one might think. The net effect is that the same tread compounds are used.

    As I have said before, there is nothing inherent in RunFlat tires that generates rapid treadwear, nor does this preclude good treadwear. It's just that RunFlats are only appearing on a few vehicles and the demand for good wearing, but lower traction, tires hasn't prompted any tire manufacturer to produce such an animal.

    Further, many folks complain about tire wear on their new car or truck - and they sometimes post that on websites such as this one. Almost every vehicle generates some level of complaints about tire wear. The trick is trying to sort out what's "normal" and what's not.


    Well, as I said at the beginning of the discussion, I’m certainly no automotive tire engineer. And, judging from your web-site (well done, BTW) you appear to understand far more of the specifics of the situation. And, I agree that RFT's overall have a limited exposure, usually on more "driver oriented" cars, which may have a tendency to skew the wear "data".

    In other words, if RFT's were the only style tire available on, say a Toyota Camry, would the complaint level be the same?

    I can't say...

    But, I do think that, if the RFT tiremakers would make an effort to educate the public on what you stated above (and provide the scientific data to corroborate the claims) it would put many of the issues of RFT wear in perspective.
  • capriracercapriracer Somewhere in the USPosts: 795
    "....I'd argue that a tire like the Michelin Pilot Sport A/S will easily out perform (from a ride, handling and absolute grip perspective) any of the all-season RFTs that BMW has mounted on the 3-Series while at the same time lasting many-many more miles before replacement is necessary....."

    But you left out a critical item: Fuel economy (rolling resistance). Add that to the mix, and you can't say that.

    ".....With the above thought in mind, does the current technology for RFTs preclude manufacturing a run-flat version of the Pilot Sport A/S which would last as long as the GFT version?....."

    No, there is nothing inherent that would preclude manufacturing a RunFlat version of a regular tire - and in fact Michelin offers a RunFlat version in the model you mentioned (Hint: ZP = Zero Pressure!) The question is: Is it the exact same tire or is it an OE version that suffers from the same sort of problems we have been discussing.

    (OK, I did a quick check and it is indeed an OE tire and it looks like it is only available in sizes to fit Corvettes.)
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "But you left out a critical item: Fuel economy (rolling resistance). Add that to the mix, and you can't say that."

    My current car came with low rolling resistance tires and oddly enough, when I swapped them out for the Michelin Pilot Sport A/Ss, my fuel economy improved ever so slightly (per my fuel log it looks like maybe a quarter of a mile per gallon improvement on average).
  • capriracercapriracer Somewhere in the USPosts: 795
    edited July 2011
    ".......RFT's overall have a limited exposure, usually on more "driver oriented" cars, which may have a tendency to skew the wear "data"......"

    I know this is going to complicate the discussion, but low aspect ratios are required for RunFlat tires - and yes, that is why they show up mostly on performance oriented vehicles.

    "........But, I do think that, if the RFT tiremakers would make an effort to educate the public on what you stated above (and provide the scientific data to corroborate the claims) it would put many of the issues of RFT wear in perspective......"

    Honestly? The complaint level for RunFlat tires is interestingly pretty low. As I have been explaining before, the issues about irregular wear and noise are being driven by BMW's camber - and this existed long before and exists with other vehicles as well. This is seen by the tire manufacturers as a vehicle issue - and since their customer (the vehicle manufacturer) is the source of the problem, they don't make a big deal about. If they were to publish anything, it would be a lose/lose for them. Besides fixing the camber problem isn't going to happen! BMW is locked into that.

    Interestingly, there was a vehicle manufacturer - I can't remember which one! - that had a sticker on the window that warned that the tires may wear out in 12K miles (or whatever it was). It's been a number of years since this first appeared and it doesn't seem to have spread - and I'm not even sure it is still done today!
  • Hello:
    This is an excellent thread, so I was hoping to get some related advice... I've had a 2010 BMW 750Li for 14 months and have had 6 run flat tires go flat. This seems like a lot. I've driven an Arnage, Range Rover (with low profile tires) and an SL500 over the past 10 years with the same driving pattern, and I've only blown one tire over the entire 10 years.

    I'm sure I hit pot holes - I live in PA and drive extensively in northern NJ.

    I've noticed that all 6 tires have had blown-out side walls. Is this common for run flats? If so, what can I do to stop having this problem. I joke to my wife that it costs me $450 each time I leave my driveway!

    Thank you for your help!
    -Rob
  • capriracercapriracer Somewhere in the USPosts: 795
    There is nothing inherent about run flat tires that makes them more prone to damage from potholes. This might be more about low aspect ratios - so my only suggestion would be to go to higher aspect ratios.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    Well, over the entire range of auto production, I agree that the complaint level is insignificant. But, we are talking BMW here, and as it relates to BMW, the complaints about RFT's are anything but insignificant.

    And, I understand the unusual negative camber effect that BMW uses, and how it relates to uneven (usually inner-tread) tire wear. Yet there is no shortage of owners that would tell you in the strongest terms that they experience no such wear when the RFT' are replaced with GFT's.

    Go back a few posts and examine the post with the picture of the MINI with the spare mounted on the back of the car, and pay special attention to the rear tires, and you can see a perfect example of that effect.

    If I had to guess, BMW isn't going to formally address the RFT issue, especially as long as sales are on the upswing. Why would they? I wouldn't, either.

    Still, it seems to me that it's a bit shortsighted for tire makers to ignore the issue, unless they really aren't interested in the future of RFT sales. As more and more BMW cars are sold, the issue will only continue to grow. Once a reputation has been established ( regardless right or wrong) it will be all but impossible to change it.

    Remember Betamax? It was actually a better recording format, with better definition, but VHS took the market because a VHS tape could, at the time, hold 6 hours, whereas the Beta maxed out at 5 hours. Few users actually recorded 6 hours at the time, but Beta lost out because it was considered inferior to VHS.

    Get enough "bad press" on RFT's and the same experience can happen.

    Again, it seems shortsighted for tire makers to just ignore the issue and hope it will go away at some point.

    I have RFT's on 3 of my cars, and I see both sides of the issue. I'm not a high-mileage driver, so tire wear isn't my number one issue as it is with others.

    The issue indeed may disappear all by itself, but IMO the jury is still out. Time will tell...
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 28,703
    Interestingly, there was a vehicle manufacturer - I can't remember which one! - that had a sticker on the window that warned that the tires may wear out in 12K miles (or whatever it was).

    Not positive, but that may have been the Honda S2000.. Pretty famous for wearing out the OE tires in less than 10K miles...

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • capriracercapriracer Somewhere in the USPosts: 795
    busiris,

    First, I am not saying the "issue" is insignificant. I am saying it is at a low level - as most of these sorts of things are!

    But I am not sure when you say "issue", which of the many issues we discussed you are pointing to. If you are pointing to the wear issue - as I said before, tire wear is highly variable. Toe plays a HUGE role in the camber issue - it's a multiplier. So it shouldn't be a surprise to hear that folks experience good tire wear with one vehicle, and poor tire wear with another. Plus we have to consider that many folks ARE getting good wear out of run flat tires.

    But I am curious as to what you mean by this: "......Still, it seems to me that it's a bit shortsighted for tire makers to ignore the issue,....". If we are still talking about the wear issue, I guess you didn't understand the implication that it is the vehicle manufacturers that set the specs - and that means the wear issue is basically controlled by the vehicle manufacturer - that the tire makers are constrained to deliver what the vehicle manufacturer asks for - right, wrong, or indifferent.
  • capriracercapriracer Somewhere in the USPosts: 795
    It wasn't Honda. It was Lexus, or Infinity or some other higher end make.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    It appears that you are leaning towards defending tire makers in the RFT debacle, in which I would include all issues... Stiff ride, excessive noise, low mileage wear, etc.

    That's fine, of course, but people don't buy tires just to have tires, nor do they buy cars without tires.

    My opinion is that car makers AND tire makers are pretty much joined at the hip, as it relates to tire classification....ie., RFT technology and offerings.

    Again, Ford and Firestone each attempted to throw the other under the bus on the Explorer disaster, but the general public perceived both parties as being guilty to some degree.

    IMO, unless the RFT manufacturers don't get a bit more proactive, RFT offerings will eventually fade. Unless we see some sort of legislation banning GFT's (think incandescent lite bulbs here), there may come a time that even BMW hears the call.

    BMW denied for years that it has HPFP problems with it's N54 engines, but all it took for that to change was a little of the "right kind" of publicity. The company policy literally changed overnight. Once an issue is deemed to be more negative than positive, things change...

    An old marketing saying goes "give someone better service than he expects, and he will tell a few close friends, but give him poor service, or worse yet, insult him, and he will tell everyone he meets". Remember how popular Steve Jobs comment was regarding the iPhone 4 reception problems... " You're holding the phone wrong!)

    Yes, many dont complain about RFT issues, but again, IMO it's the foolish man who thinks few complaints means no problems
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    BMW has been equipping it's cars with RFT's for years now. I would think that we have reached the point where there are enough autos equipped with RFT's that there is a sufficient demand for longer tread life tires, yet I don't see any on the market.

    Now, you've stated many times that mileage is dependent on the driver, and to a degree that's true.

    I'll wager, however, that you would be hard-pressed indeed to find anyone with 80,000 miles on a set of RFT's. And, one would have a difficult time convincing me that most BMW owners today put performance ahead of tire life longevity. Especially with so few manual transmissions sold in BMW's in the USA.

    The funny thing is, overall, I probably fall into the category that supports RFT tires and technology, yet I see there are many valid concerns and complaints about the tires.

    Sticking one's head in the sand and denying that there aren't significant issues, maybe even problems, with RFT's is, IMO, not a very effective way to resolve the issue.

    But, then again, if one doesn't acknowledge there ARE issues, there isn't any point in discussing it, is there?

    I'm not necessarily referring to you in that comment, but there isn't any shortage of folks within BMW and the tire industry that fall under that umbrella. Ask any BMW owner who has had problems with RFT's and discussed it with their dealer. See what their response is...
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    I was lucky enough to find a lonely self-tapping sheet metal screw with my left front tire on my 2010 328i convertible yesterday.

    Price of the new replacement tire on Tirerack.com... $310.00.

    Fortunately, I have the wheel and tire insurance, so my out of pocket will be $0.00 for the replacement. Now, only 1.25 more tires to go, and I will have broken even on the insurance cost...

    Any way you cut it, that's a high priced tire. It could have been worse... The rear tire cost is $405.00!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,870
    I got rid of the RFTs on my MINI and bought 4 -17" Bridgestone RE 760s, mounted and balanced, for $645 out the door. I couldn't be happier.

    MODERATOR

  • rflrfl Posts: 100
    I got away even cheaper! $207 Plus $35 installation for a Bridgestone RFT on a 3500 mile 2011 X3 with a pinhole leak no bigger than a corn flake crumb. They are IMPOSSIBLE to plug (even if you find a willing tire dealer (they do exist).... but I chalk it up to auto expense and am grateful that it got me home without going flat. Oh...did I mention that it happened during Irene here in the northeast. Whatever the cost...it's part of the cost of owning a car. I will NEVER be without RFT's again.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    So are you saying you actually like RFTs?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,870
    Even RFTs can only be driven so far however.

    I know some people like 'em...I just don't know how they tolerate it. Maybe I'm just not "getting it", I dunno.

    Besides, if you had say a 328ix and you lost one RFT with say 15,000 miles on it, I'm not sure they'd let you put just one new tire along with 3 other well-worn ones.

    MODERATOR

  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 28,703
    I've driven a few 328xi loaners in the last couple of years... I can't tell the difference between the all-season runflats on them and any other all-season tire..

    Considering the replacement cost, I'd rather have regular tires and a spare.... but, for that type of car, the driving experience difference is nil..

    Now... performance runflats on a MINI? Those suck..

    The new car I pickup on Saturday will have performance runflats.. I'll report back, once I get it home.

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • rflrfl Posts: 100
    You betcha! Didn't at first...this is my 5th BMW with RFT's. But just wait until you get a flat racing to get home with an oncoming hurricane.....you will bless the RFT engineers. I know all of the arguments against them...I've made most of them as well as you Shipo...cost, inability to plug them, lousy performance, wear, handling, ad nauseum. Yes...I'd sacrifice them all for the safety and peace of mind in a "flat tire in the wrong place at the wrong time" scenario. In fact, I am so sold on them now that I wouldn't have GFTs with a spare. I cannot change my own tire (i'm a senior!)...so the ability to get to someone who can or get me home is worth everything! If you can afford two new BMW's (as I have)... $200-$300 for a tire is chump change.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Choice is a wonderful thing; BMW apparently doesn't agree. :(
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 28,703
    Does any car manufacturer give you a choice in tires, though? You pretty much take what you get..

    Though not runflats, almost every OEM tire has been crap, in my experience... and, I'm too cheap to take them off before they are worn out.. the only difference here, is no spare.

    regards,
    kyfdx

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

Sign In or Register to comment.