Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Leatherz has one.... but, they specifically exempt the E90, except for that one model.... They say it won't clear the brakes..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I had never really considered them in terms of enhancing any 'sport driving experience' but rather a technology that makes sense in terms of improved safety (read "no tire blow-ups").
So the safety considerations were really the trap in having me give no consideration to the fact that driving around Chicago is the last place to have a sport car set with RTF.
From my 3 years experience and picking up on some of the posts in this forum I would summarize the following:
- In an average metropolitan US area RTF tires make no sense (caveat, I am speaking about the Bridgestone set, I hear that some of you have had a much more positive experience with other Brands).
- I have always driven cars with sporty dynamics and no cushy import or domestic vehicles so I am used to firm rides but my impression was that the RTFs were not matched to BMW chassis. Probably that type of technology requires tuning of shocks etc. to be of any worth.
- Around Chicago I had many jarring impacts while driving on RTF, they were not good for either me or the car chassis and let to 3 new tires (an 1 wheel) being replaced (thank God I had gotten the tire insurance from the dealer because they are quite expensive).
- I had no issue with wear but finally I did swap them for a new set of the same specs, but conventional, Bridgestones. The issue was the rubber was cracking (due to the abundant salt used in winter around Chicago). One reason for not seeing the excessive wear others have reported could be that the car was driven locally (Madison WI was probably the farthest destination) on roads repaved in the last 10 years using the new asphalt composite materials with transversal micro-grooving (like the south LSD etc) rather than coarser surfaces used elsewhere.
In conclusion, and linking back to the title of my post..., perhaps RTF technology is not there yet, but surely there are additional factors that are in the way of getting the most out of them. The first reason could be the lack of modifying the car set-up to allow shocks to work harder since decreased pliancy and absorption of the thick wall in RTF tires would need to be compensated. The second is that being a new technology we as drivers are not completely aware of either their limitations as well potential.
Personally I will keep a distant eye on what happens in this field but for the moment I am not going back to RTF.....after switching to the conventional set my experience with the car ride has been way more rewarding....and yet I would like to see this tech and the safety improvements it warrants move forward......Who knows may be I'll reconsider after test driving over pot-holes the 2014 i8 i plan to buy when it will become finally available.
Meanwhile, I am thrilled with the Conti DWS, great handling in wet. Good handling in snow we only had about a 5 inch snow so far this season but the car was so improved from my old tires it makes me wish I did this last year. Best of all, the noise is finally GONE .
Not sure why the OEM were so noisy. We also have a 2011 535xi equipped with Conti run flats, same tire as my 2007 had, just different size. That car has 23 K and its not noisy. I called Continental and Tire Rack to discuss if the compound on the newer tires would create less noise if I got "updated" run flats. Clearly noise is an issue in the 3 Series, they told me they would be the same as my OEM. Maybe its the size of the tire...
1. Are there still reliability / performance issues with the run flat tires?
2. Any thoughts on the tire/wheel warranty that BMW offers? 5 yrs for about $1500.
Any advice is appreciated.
If you live in one of the overcrowded areas on the coasts and rarely travel very far you'll probably think they're okay, but expensive.
If not. . .
Most of the complaints in this post refer to the Bridgestone RTF, others have had better experience with other brands/models
Also if roads you tend to drive are not in good conditions with lots of uneven surfaces and potholes I would suggest not to go RTF.
Lastly, should you get your car with RTF I would definitely go with tire/wheel insurance coverage.....just ask for a 3 years coverage, the 5years does not make much sense since it is unlikely that you will not be changing them later than 3 and the insurance is on the specific tires installed on the car at time of purchase. When you will replace them you will have the option to sign up on additional coverage if that will make sense.
In my experience the insurance pays off big time with RTF, but as pointed out by others, I paid only $350 for my policy (5 years, but basically used it for 3 before changing to non RTF tires).
I hope this helps
2018 430i Gran Coupe
"A run-flat tire is a pneumatic vehicle tire that is designed to resist the effects of deflation when punctured, and to enable the vehicle to continue to be driven at reduced speeds (up to 90 km/h or 55 mph), and for limited distances of up to 100 miles (160 km), or even 200 miles (320 km) depending on the type of tire."
Now if you are in a situation where having the last word is a must have...fine.... I will certainly not reply to random text that has no substance. And let me be clear is perfectly fine to use posts to vent some frustration...what I am arguing is your 'reinterpretations of facts that are obvious enough ....to be even in a simple wikipedia description... Incidentally in the same wikipedia description the possible performance gains are briefly discussed.
Take care and wish you only good things...
US FE standards and legal acts have little effect on non USA sold cars, yet the Germans get the same run flats and no-spare option that we are served up.
Must not be too big of an issue to BMW... Their sales continue to set records each year.
No question about that. Selling a lot to soccer moms and trophy wives who want to look good behind the wheel . Those are the ones for whom the argument about "not having to worry about changing a flat on a dark country road" is targeted.
A lot different than the driving enthusiast's market of 20 or 30 years ago.
I'm waiting for an automaker to have a commercial for AWD with a zombie wielding a dagger behind the car as a hapless person tries to spin out of a ditch during a rainstorm.
Volvo, Saab and Subaru have all sold a lot of cars in the past using this "danger" approach.
Not that we don't all want "safe" cars, but of course in reality, no car is "safe"--some are just less dangerous than others.
If RFT didn't suffer damage so easily I might feel differently but they seem vulnerable, just like regular tires, only in different ways.
Also, the guy who visits the junkyard and views his wrecked Subaru--it was just like he was going to visit his father's grave--lol!
If you like what RFT's bring to the table, and don't mind the negatives, then run RFT's.
On the other hand, if you don't like RFT's and prefer GFT's, the run GFT's.
They both have their advantages.... and their disadvantages.
I just wish BMW would allow for the carrying of a space-saver spare option, so we could finally move beyond this "tire" thing.
What you have done seems to be working for you, and I'm happy for you. Others see a different value in running RFT's, and frankly, in their cases it also seems to be working for them.
There is no "ONE" right answer, IMO...
While I share your opinion that BMW should offer the option of GFT .vs. RFT at the time of purchase, along with the trunk space for a space-saver spare, I also recognize the potential positives the RFT tires provide in certain circumstances.
A $400 tire on a $15,000 car is expensive.... Not so much on a $50,000 car. Both cars will get you to your destination, but some elect to pay the extra amount for the nicer car.
For some, the negatives are outweighed by the capabilities RFTs provide... lower mileage, harsher ride, higher price.
Others don't see any advantage to RFT's at all, even though they do allow your wife or young daughter to continue driving to a safe spot in a bad area late at night with a flat. Of course, that isn't applicable to everyone.
That's why I would like to see tire type choice as an option.
1. The price is not $400, it is close to $250-$300 (at least for those I have - 225/45/17 and 255/40/17 from 328i w/ sports package. Now, more extreme low profiles (18" wheels, wider/larger sizes) likely will cost more.
2. But so would same brand and model GFT. It is unfair to say that RFTs cost so much and compare that price to lower brand/model of GFTs - it is not apple to apple.
3. 25K tread life is not function of RFT, it is function of ultra high performance summer. GFTs of that type last exactly the same. Just ask new owners of C-class or IS with similar sports packages - they get new tires at 20K as well. Nothing to do with run flat.
4. I have owned a new 328i with RFTs (ContiSport 2 SSR) for six months not. I don't find them harsh, noisy, or any of those adjectives people throw in their descriptions. I fully expect them not to last for very long - that is their nature and if I got similar GFTs, they would not either.
I'm under impression that many people simply decided to hate those RFT regardless of actual facts on the ground. They read those are evil incarnate, so nothing good can come from them. It is possible that those first RFTs were worse and indeed were harsher and noisier, but they are evolving. My only real complaint is lack of availability of all-season tires of that size (just one model from Bridgestone) and not enough brands/models overall and inability to repair them if losing all air. I believe if you have a slow leak and not let the air out, the tire can be repaired if the puncture is on tread wall.
I also think the technology will evolve and improve, probably fairly soon.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
I love this "For some, the negatives are outweighed by the capabilities RFTs provide... lower mileage, harsher ride, higher price. "
Did I just lean into a left hook??
Case seems well made.
Simply not true. These tires are hardly performance tires. I have been on the track and am a National SCCA champ. If I want grip I know where to go on My BMW and my Honda S2000 these tires fail in many ways. Tell me another German manufacturer who uses these tires? BMW VERY specifically says you cannot replace the tires with GFT's Sorry you may be misinformed.
Great discussion and I may get opinionated but hope not to be obnoxious!! Best
I'm afraid you are going to be attacked for this post. Some people just simply don't want to hear reasonable expanations. Everything you posted is correct, but it flies against the wind called "RFT are evil".
Good luck.
It happened to me, just last Friday... I was down for about 20 minutes, and still made it to work on time (another 17 miles away).
Of course, I have a spare... If I had runflats, instead of being at work, I would be on my way to a tire store (that likely wouldn't have my replacement in stock).
To be fair, that's my first flat tire of this millenium, but I'm glad I have a spare (an option that BMW doesn't provide, along with the runflats).
I don't think they are "evil", just the answer to a question that was never asked...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
[ 2011 BMW 335iS ]
If there had been an option of same size
[ 18" ] gfts AND A SPARE, I would almost certainly
have chosen that option.
As it is, the rfts appear to have improved
and the BMW suspension appears better
tuned to the rfts - based on test drives
of previous BMW 3s over the years.
For me, the ride and the handling are fine,
for my driving - never going to track the car.
- Ray
Satisfied ..... One data point.
You simply did not understand what I just wrote. All I'm saying SAME MODEL SAME BRAND GFTs perform about the same in terms of both grip and tread life. Now, in tire universe you can surely find something lasting longer with similar grip, but that's not the point - the point is about same universe.
This is my third car with summer UHP tires. I owned Bridgestones, BF Goodrich, Yokohamas, Dunlops, all of them were GFTs (current Contis are my first RFTs), some were summer, some were all-season. The summer tires lasted 20K+, all-seasons lasted 30K+, no more than 40K. And all of them were quite noisy, some less, some more. I consider that a price of UHP tire - soft rubber gives a grip, but it wears and howls. It is possible that some manufacturers do a better job with mitigating that or achieving a better compromise. It is also fair to hypothesise that stiff walls of RFTs make such compromise much more difficult. What's not fair, is to say "I owned X model of Y brand on Z car and it was better than this one, so all RFT are just evil".
Track use is what I call "specialty", where everything is focused on one thing - making shorter lap time. RFTs are not built for that and the manufacturers do not make claims they are. I would not use RFTs on track, either - makes no sense. You add weight and use something that has altered properties vs. technology that is proven. RFTs are specifically built so Joe/Jane Shmo consumer (i.e. me) gets a bit larger storage in the back and can drive a bit more. It's a result of German obsession with limiting waste (spare tires are just that in their view) and result of statistical analysis of costs to owners of one option vs. the other (No, I know, it may not work for you or even me, but they look at those differently).
I never said I love those things - I'd rather have the GFT with spare, but BMW chose for me. I'm not exactly happy about it and it would be one thing I'd change in my new car, if I had such choice. What I'm against is demonizing things and making assertions by unfair comparisons, or using outdated evidence. All I know, my current 328 RFTs are not particularly harsh or noisy (though some surfaces do seem to bring the noise more than others), offer quite decent grip on my non-track driving and will probably wear early, just as GFT Dunlops did on my previous car (and those were much noisier). They are not perfect, but they are not evil incarnate.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Our anecdote and opinion is that no one mentioned RFT's during the sales process. What was emphasized was an expectation of zero costs for 50k miles of driving. At 12k miles we had to strip the RFT's because of roaring road noise. The RFT's at the time seemed to be such a problematic, inferior product that we went to Michelin's and accepted the chances we might get stranded somewhere without a spare. What galled me was the marketing of a worry-free, free maintenance "ultimate driving experience" in the care of BMW that quickly became BMW blaming us for the problems with their product.
It's a fun car. Mechanically well engineered. But as a total package, it was not well-engineered, and they laid the blame on the customer. BMW has lost us as repeat customers.
While I agree, one should not have expect that to be done every month, an allowance would be a proper thing to do, if you want that to be really "free". 12K is premature, but again, I have 7K and so far nowhere near "roaring noise". Will wait and see.
I do like to have a discussion - people reporting noise or premature wear is fine. Having negative opinion is fine, too. I'm not smitten by the concept, either.
All I want is fairness and correct comparisons, which for me is comparison to similar products. For example, to say touring GFT tires are "better" than performance RFT tires because of noise or wear, is unfair. However, if one takes RFT performance and swaps for a GFT performance and then gets 50K miles and drop of 3 decibels in the cabin (noise level cut in half), hats off. So far, I see no evidence of such to be happening.
2018 430i Gran Coupe