Get some 15" standard wheel with regular performance tires, that'll solve the problem

 

Sad but true.

 

I don't know if I like them or dislike them - but I DISLIKE having only 13,700 on my RF tires and having to replace them!

 

Just finished driving a new 2012 dealer loaner for a week. She had 16 inch standard tires.
The ride was night and day better than my run flats. Can't wait to get rid of them.

 

I drove my RFs about 28k until they wore out. They handle corners great. The turnin is probably better than non RFs. The ride is harsher compared to my non RFs but not offensive at all. I had nail holes fixed twice at Discount Tire no problem. I think they are fine, with piece of mind as an advantage. I probably would have stuck with them if I knew about buying them almost new for cheap. New they are about double and they last about 70% as long as non RFs.

 

The 15" base tires are not run flats, but they only last about 20,000 miles based on our experience with a '07 MC. That said, run flats suck, too. I had them on our 328xi and with quite a bit of tread life left, they started howling like a banshee after about 20,000 miles. I just turned up the radio rather than pay $250/each for replacements

 

I'm sure there's some truth in that idea, but - I think the question is best posed to people who have in fact driven their car on both types of tires. And in my years of experience on various forums, opinion in those cases is virtually unanimous - those who have switched are MUCH happier with the change to "normal" tires. I've done it twice, once on my MCS, and before that, on an '06 E90 330i. I put 10k on the runflats before dumping them for Pilot Sport PS2's, and just like on the MCS, it was a completely different car with the change. I was kicking myself for not having made the switch earlier.

A telling statistic on that car - the stock tires were Potenza RE050A runflats. At the time, on Tire Rack's customer ratings, they were dead LAST in the ultra high performance category, based on the total scores reported in customer surveys. Bridgestone also offered the RE050A in a non-runflat version. Same tire otherwise (presumably). The difference in the rankings? It was ranked SECOND overall, out of about 24 tires in the category. That's a dramatic difference! And my experience was I'd agree 100% with the placement of each.

I've been driving for 38 years, and I've been stranded by a tire exactly ONCE, and then only because a new tire had the valve stem improperly installed, and I was able to get a flatbed to me within 30 minutes, thanks to AAA. My only other tire issues have been punctures that were leaking slowly enough that I was easily able to drive to a tire shop for a patch. I'll take the low risk of catastrophic tire failure and needing to be "rescued" over the ills of runflats any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

There are many virtues in this debate that have valid points on both sides of the argument, but I don't think there's a shred of evidence to suggest that ANY runflat tire provides better ride quality or better handling than an equivalent non-runflat. Certainly hasn't been the case in my experience, in fact, not even close.

Nobody's asking for my advice, but if they were, here's what I'd suggest. Happy with your runflats? Don't want to ditch perfectly good new tires? Like the security of knowing you'd be able to continue a journey despite a puncture? If the answer is "yes" to any of those questions, by all means, keep them. However if the answer is "no" to any of them, then I'd ask if handling and ride comfort is more important than the other questions. If so, then I'd suggest making the switch.

 

I actually liked the feel of my RFs when the were new/ had usable tread. The turn in was sharp and I could feel exactly what the car was doing through a turn. Granted they were heavy, but the peace of mind was a benefit too.
Just switched over to non RF Conti Extreme DW replacements and I have to say, the ride is quieter, the steering lighter, but the turn in just isn't there - yet. They apparently need about 500 miles break-in period. We shall see. Now I find myself looking more at the road infront of me for nails and other hazards instead of the road 100's of feet ahead setting up for the next corner. The DW's have a higer wear rating, so I'm also hoping they will last much longer than the RFs two year/ 26,000 mile life span. As long as they survive the road itself.

 

Hated my run flats. Got rid of them after 15,000 miles. Wasn't a fan of the covered wagon feel the car had. Even more so hated the cost of replacing them.

 

I ditched the run- flats.... best decision ever.

 

Ditched the run flats after 700 miles - buh bye

 

My '12 MCS will always have RFs on it for one reason:
Last week my wife got a flat 50 miles from home, while I was in class. She was able to drive it to our dealer and get a new one thrown on, and drove home. No calling AAA and waiting for them to take her somewhere. No sitting on the side of the highway or in a sketchy part of Albany (which is the whole city)
It was a large piece of steel about 1" long and 1/2" wide, so it would have been too large to patch on any tire.

 

when i took delievery of my CMS All4 was the first time i drove with the 18" wheels and 225/45-18 tires (dealer had no CMS with 18" wheels in stock) and HATED THEM! after 100 miles i was ready to ditch them

i have the pirelli cinturato p7 summer tires (not all season)

reading the OM i found 2 tire pressures listed, 32 psi for speeds up to 100 MPH and 38 psi for all speeds (over 100 MPH).

figuring i had nothing to lose, i upped the pressure

the difference was night and day, ride harshness is gone, turnin is excellent

that night 3 buddies got in to go to dinner and they asked when i managed to sneak away from work to change out the tires, even they could notice the change

after 1000 miles, i could see the tread wear pattern developing, fronts wearing over the shoulder and rears wearing about 3/8 inch from the shoulder

i adjusted the front pressure up 4 psi to 42 and the rears down 2 psi to 36 and am now seeing even front and rear wear

even better! the rears at 38 psi were still harsh, now at 36 psi they are much smoother

bottom line, i am now happy with the runflats, HOWEVER

the runflats cost 50% to 100% more than non-runflats and for that reason alone i doubt my next set of tires will be runflats

scott

 

I like the run flats because I don't like the idea of lugging around a spare in a car this small, nor do I want to run the risk of being stranded somewhere and having to wait for a tow. I kept mine and also went with the tire/wheel insurance (I think mine was $1200 and they included the key insurance with that). Knowing now how cheap they are on craigslist I might have passed, but tires/wheels are not something I like to mess around with. One of the most important components on any car is the tires/wheels.

 

Well said KevinC +1 to your advice.

 

well said Kev

 

RFs are noisier as well as bumpier. Not that the non RFs are quiet or anything, but the RFs are noiser. The Mini is a very noisy car probably because of the angle of the windscreen, and the tires don't help.

 

I guess it's just a matter of opinion. I bought these run flats from masternut and I love them. I was driving on 15's without rf's and i liked them but i'm loving these continental 17's. I feel like I'm glued to the road. I prefer a rigid harder ride, I got rid of my Lexus IS because it was too smooth, it was boring to drive.