In the market for new tires. I have 42K on my 2009 Cooper-S hatchback with Bridgestone Turanza ER300-2 Run Flats. They were noisy and rough (typical for a RF), but lasted pretty well. Looking for a quiet, softer ride with the similar type of handling. Not sure if I will stay with a RF. I live in the southeast...not much snow travel. Considering the Bridgestone Potenza RE960AS Pole Position RF and the Bridgestone Potenza RE760 Sport (not a RF). Anyone have experience with these tires or any other recommendations. Thanks!

 

My experience with Bridgestone is they get noisier as the miles add up. I am looking for new rubber and considering General's but leaning more in the direction of Contineltal Extreme Contact DWS. Several friends are running them and are very happy.

 

Runflats by their construction are going to have a very stiff sidewall and be rough riding on the streets. It sounds like the ER300-02 did what it was supposed to do. They are $146 each on tirerack.com so that is always an option. It's a Grand Touring Summer tire so other runflats are likely to wear faster,some do offer slightly better handling.

If you are considering non runflats then you can also look at other tire sizes besides stock-

Consider 205/50-16 which is very commonly used for the MINI.


Continental ExtremeContact DW (Max Summer tire)
205/50-16 $103 each, 340 treadwear
Tirerack test results-
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/...y.jsp?ttid=148

If you want more tire life then-


Continental ExtremeContact DWS (ultra High Perf All Season tire)
205/50-16 $113 each, 540 treadwear
Tirerack test results
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/...y.jsp?ttid=147

Many tires will get noisy and rough riding as they age, the rubber compound gets hard.

 

"If you are considering non runflats then you can also look at other tire sizes besides stock-"

Don't you have to change your wheels to accept the wider tires if they're not the standard OE 195 tire width?

 

If you go to tirerack.com and click on "spec" for a given tire it will tell you what rim sizes it will fit. MINI OEM rims are 16x6.5". The 205/50-16 Conti DWS fits 5.5" to 7.5" wide rims. 205/50-16 is a very popular non-rft MINI size because of the increased selection.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....CDWS&tab=Specs

 

I second these. Great tire and the price is right!

 

Excellent! Thanks for the tip.

I'm going to switch from Continental ContiProContact SSR's to non-runflats because of the price, better ride comfort, longer life, etc. I know it's a risk, but I'll also be getting a can of fix-a-flat or slime and an air compressor. Plus I've got 24/7 roadside assistance from Geico if I ever need a tow.

hsautocrosser, do you use 205's? The only reason I wouldn't necessarily want to go to them is because of a potential drop in gas mileage, but I don't know if there's really a significant affect on gas mileage with a 5% increase in section width.

 

I have two sets of wheels and tires. The OEM 175/65-15 Continental premiumcontact 2 and 205/50-16 Dunlop Star Specs. I get three mpg more with the smaller, lighter, less sticky Continentals. However, I would not expect a lot of difference between 195/55 and 205/50 if all else was equal. I would go with the 205's without hesitation if it meant getting a more desirable tire.

 

These tires are so much lighter than the run flats (or even other non run-flats), that I don't think the extra foot print will make any difference.

 

Very true. Reducing rotating mass will most likely cancel out increased rolling resistance from the increased footprint (and may even improve my gas mileage).

 

My OEM 195/55-16 A/S tires were replaced at 17K miles with BF Goodrich 205/50-16's. I noticed about a 2 MPG drop but much improved ride for their 37K mile life. Recently replaced the BFG's with Yokohama YK580 A/S's. Only have about 6K miles on them but, so far, very favorable. MPG seems to have improved to about what I was getting with the OEM 195/55's. With the 205/50's I observe that the speedometer reads about 6pct higher than GPS for speed. With the 195's it seems like it was about half that. Odometer seems to be pretty close. (I read where speedometer and odometer receive separate signals).

Historical stats over 59K miles:
Avg MPH: 49.4; Avg MPG: 37.9 (OBC)/ 36.4 (calculated)

 

I lost about 1.5 mpg when I made the switch from 195 to 205.

fwiw, in my research I have found the weight difference to be negligible between the stock RF's and many of the popular non-RF's that people opt for.

 

how are you calculating the MPG? 205-50-16 is about .3" shorter than stock, or about 1%. So you have to factor that into the actual mileage traveled - the speedo will read 1% faster than you are really going, so you have to reduce the miles travelled by 1% in your calculations for MPG. Which will give you better numbers. that also means that the computer calculated MPG is going to be a little bit low. So that 1-1.5mpg drop could be mostly a math error.

 

I calculate mpg using an app on my phone. I'm running 205/55, so they are actually taller than stock.

Given both tire sizes are going to have some variance over their life, any difference due to tire size should cancel out by looking at the mpg over the life of the tire. For me, the ~1.5 mpg loss is about a 4.5% loss in efficiency, which is probably well over any potential math error.

For a while I thought some of the loss may also be due to the change in compound going from an all-season to a summer tire. However, since switching back to an all-season, I still have the same loss.

For me, the experience has been the additional width's negative impact on mpg is more than the other positive factors (e.g. less weight). That said, I'm willing to lose that small bit of efficiency to gain better traction, control, and ride.

 

Ya, if you want to maximize MPG, run 175's on lightweight 15's!

 

When it came time to put new shoes on my 2010 R56 Hardtop, I replaced the OEM 175-15s with Yokohama AVID Envigor 205/60R-15. The advantage was more surface contact due to the 3x size increase. The ride is excellent, quiet and sure footed with very good wet traction. I also like the agressive tread design There is no interference with the suspension and I got a great deal from Tire Rack.
Happy Motoring!

 

When it came time to put new shoes on my 2010 R56 Hardtop, I replaced the OEM 175-15s with Yokohama AVID Envigor 205/60R-15. The advantage was more surface contact due to the 3x size increase. The ride is excellent, quiet and sure footed with very good wet traction. I also like the agressive tread design There is no interference with the suspension and I got a great deal from Tire Rack.
Happy Motoring!

 

Please explain "3x size increase." Thanks.

 

In a recent post I stated the 205/60R-15s I installed is a "3x increase" over the OEM 175s. This is not to say the new tires are 3 times larger than the originals but, simply to cite the difference between 175 - 185 (first increase), to 195 (second increase), to 205 being the third increase in tire size. It was not my intention to give readers the image of huge balloon tires of monster proportions are mounted on tiny 15 inch rims. Although, graphic illustrators may have a lot of fun with this concept. Hope this provides better clarity for all!

Happy Motoring!