RFTs are getting a bad rap on this forum and some of them deservedly so. This post details my experiences with them so that others may benefit by not wasting their money. As far as my qualifications to have an opinion are concerned let me say that I have raced road courses in Europe for many years at a time when my job was with Ford Motorsports in Cologne Germany.

My 2009 Cooper S was delivered with the 195/55R16 Goodyear Excellence RFTs. Miserable tires, horrible harsh ride, poor handling and I couldn't wait to get rid of them.

So I spent the money for a set of 205/55R16 Michelin Primacy HP ZP which have good ratings on the Tire Rack web site. The ride comfort improved but the handling did not, if anything the steering suffered and wet handling was quite poor. Fortunately they also wore off quite quickly and after 11,000 miles they were totally bold. The car has the JCW suspension with fixed negative camber plates so that the contact patch stays nice and flat as the camber increases during the turning arc and the Michelins wore off evenly from shoulder to shoulder. Tire pressures were best at 32 psi and the tire temperatures were even across the tire tread.

What to buy next? I had heard some good things about the Pirelli PZero RFT tires and I was willing to try them. A set of 205/55R16 PZero RFT was mounted and I couldn't wait to drive them. Had I wasted my money on a dreaded RFT?

Within a few hundred miles, enough to wear the silicones off, I found the ride comfort to be superior to the Michelins -which were not RFT!- the handling in the dry is superior, the steering is very good and the wet handling is almost as good as on the Goodyears F1 GS-D3 that I have on a much modified Miata.

So there. Not all RFTs are the same and the ratings on the Tire Rack web site can not always be trusted.

 

I found the Goodyear Excellence RFTs to be fine.

 

The R56 suspension was designed for runflats, the R50 and R53 suspensions were not. Runflats were fitted after the fact. It is not surprising that you found a great set of runflats for your '09. My experience with R56 test drives and loaners proved that they were as comfortable with 17" runflats as my car was with 15" regular tires. I couldn't feel that the tires were runflats.

 

+1 ^

When I read someone saying that the runflats are too harsh on an R56 I don't understand it.

 

Michelin Primacy HP ZP are not runflats? I believe the ZP is for "Zero Pressure", Michelin speak for RSC, RFT, SSR, runflat, etc...

 

Don't buy that garbage. That's the marketing wags feeding us that line. You know what "designed for runflats" means? Compromises to make up for the concrete-like sidewalls. Compromises like softer suspension bushings, and softer calibrations for the stock shocks. This "designing for runflats" is done to attempt to keep your fillings from rattling out, to try to keep the tires from losing contact in bumpy corners, and generally smooth out the punishing ride quality. This also softens turn-in, gives us shocks that are woefully underdamped (drive someone's car with upgraded shocks and experience the incredible difference), and is nothing but bad news - other than slightly helping the problems the tweaks set out to offset. The phrase "designed for runflats" almost certainly makes the suspension engineers cringe and/or smirk. It's pure BS.

I agree fully with the OP that runflats are improving, and some are definitely better than others. But pit the "finest" runflat against a conventional tire, and there's still no comparison.

Don't take my word for it, scour BMW & Mini forums for comments from those who have replaced them with conventional tires. You'd be hard-pressed to find a single person who's not absolutely raving about the difference. Try it for yourself if you can - find another local owner who's made the switch and drive their car, and decide for yourself. Lots of people like to say that their runflats are "fine", but have they had any chance to compare the difference of doing without them? Probably not.. or they wouldn't be saying this.

 

I have a 2003 Cooper S - run flats are the only thing I don't like about the car.

We are currently vacationing in Baja Mexico - Yesterday, I damaged a run flat - does anyone think you can find a shop within 150 miles to do anything but break my wheel while trying to get the tire off. Ordered a new non run flat & wheel from Tire Rack - they are the greatest - ordered online about 2 PM order shipped same day.

I can't even remember how much trouble I've had with the over priced, short lived, rough riding, non serviceable run flats in 90,000 miles - have 1 left - it will go at the next stop that can deal with them.

Bob

 

Sounds just like how R56s are designed to me.

Put a stock R53 and a stock R56 next to each other, both with the same runflats, and the R56 will ride smoother because of what you said above. Good work outlining it all for us.

I read about the "designed for runflats" bit in an automotive journal when the 2nd gen cars were introduced, the dealer techs also told me this. It was also talked about here back in '07.

 

You can count me as that single person who is not absolutely raving about the difference.

 

You are correct. The "Michelin Primacy HP ZP" tires mentioned in the OP actually ARE run-flats.

 

Incorrect. I'm another. :D
17" runflats switched out for winter to 16" Blizzak WS60s. I was expecting a noticeable difference. It took a bit of the bite from the bumps but I expected better. I know nothing of the difference between the construction of snow/winter tires and summer/all weather tires so I suppose that could be a factor. On a side note I still wish there was a spot for a spare regardless...

 

I am confused by what I have read on the Bridgestone and Tire Rack sites. I need to replace my two front Goodyear Excellence run flats and I am having a hard time paying $500 for two more of the same when I can get 4 conventional tires for about $400. I'd rather just get 4 new tires.

I searched reviews all over and liked the Bridgestone Potenza G019 Grid, but when I looked at the official Bridgestone site and entered my Mini info, it did not list the G019 as compatible with my car. Does anyone know anything about the compatibility of the Potenzas with a Cooper S 08 that came stock with 195/55/16 Goodyear Excellence tires?

I have yet to call my dealer to see which non run flats are compatible. The Mini manual doesn't provide any specific info other than I need to call the dealer. Has anyone already done this? Any advice on a great non run flat that works with your cooper s?

thanks!

 

I have an 03 Mini S that came with run flats. I have the following problems with run flats;
1. High cost of tires
2. Short life
3. few installers can deal with them
4. Limited selection of replacements
5. High cost to have RF dealers change tires
6. Potential of being stranded (no installer within 50 miles)

I am currently vacationing in Mexico (BAJA) - I had a tire that had a potentially un repairable cut. Of course no tire dealer in this area could get it off of the wheel - so any repair besides SLIME or a plug is impossible. I ordered a new (Not Run Flat) tire & wheel from Tire Rack - $183 delivered.

There is no compatibility problems, just get the appropriate size, replace tires in pairs. Visit the Tire Rack website or call them - they have first rate information, advise, & service

Bob

 

When they can produce a RF tire that has the same cushion as a standard tire, same weight, same installation ease, and perhaps slightly higher price I will consider it. Until then, the price of this type insurance for convenience against such a remote possibility of a flat is Too High.

 

I agree with iTrader 100%

Bob

 

Well, I'm in the unique position of owning both an R53 and an R55, and I've had runflats and regular all season tires on both, in fact, the regular tires I had on the R53 currently are on my R55......

What I found......there is a difference!

Whether it's enough to warrant changing them will depend a lot on your driving conditions and preferences. That said - if you drive in nasty potholed conditions in town like I do, you will find regular tires are considerably more comfortable and depending on what brand, very quiet and smoother too.

If your daily commute is 40 miles of smooth hiway like mine is, you may not notice hardly any difference, but again - my regular A/S tires seem smoother and quieter.

Is it worth the extra money to have the extra set of wheels/tires/TPM sensors etc? Who knows? I like having the A/S tires and run them most of the year, I put on the runflats again for nasty snow/ice and winter conditions, but that's mostly because my regular tires are worn pretty far so I needed the extra tread that the practically new run flats had for the nasty winter we've had. I ran the A/S tires last winter and they did fine. I also run the regular tires on the track, I would not run the run flats there as they will overheat and the performance will degrade over the laps.....

So what's the answer?

It depends. If you have the money/want to change the look/ want bigger wheels/ want to do track events/ drive on nasty potholed town roads all the time, perhaps it might make good sense.

If you're a normal driver who just likes their car and uses it for a daily driver, maybe not so much.

However, when it comes to replacement time, the non runflats are defiinitely cheaper to buy and service, so over the long run it probably will be less expensive as they also tend to last longer.

Clear as mud, right?

 

Very well put.

 

7. Inferior performance
8. Increase installers likelihood on damaging rim

 

Well, we did get a bit off track here from the OP's idea, that some RF's are a lot better than others. It's good to hear that he's found a better mousetrap so to speak.....

I have the Conti's on my '09 MCS Clubman and I've been pleasantly surprised by them in most areas. That said, they are harsh on expansion stips and potholes, and they do not have the grip that my regular tires do, so I will be changing back in a few weeks once I'm sure we're done with the snow for the season.....

 

Here's a telling tale. Back when I first had runflats ('06 330i), I was browsing Tire Rack one day and checked out the ratings for my tires, the Bridgestone RE050A runflat. That particular tire also is made in a conventional non-runflat version. At the time, there were something like 24 tires in the "ultra high performance" category available at Tire Rack. The non-runflat version was ranked 2nd in the entire group, with outstanding scores in almost all rated categories. The runflat version? Ranked DEAD LAST, with horrific scores across the board, in particular the "would you buy again?" question, which was also ranked dead last for the category.

I understand that runflats are right for some people, and do serve a purpose. But while some are better than others, all are inferior tires to conventional tires, when it comes to comfort and performance.