Hi i am a new owner of a z4 2.2 03, i need some advice. At present i am running bridgestone rft and i am wondering if it is true that you are unable to put normal tyres on run flat rims. i have spoken to a tyre fitter who says you can't because of the lip in the wheel. Am looking to change because the ride is awful at the moment. regards wendy
Non run flat tyres
- Thread starter daz&wendy
- Start date
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi Wendy,
I have normal tyres on my wheels. I replaced the 18" RFTs to normal style Falken 452s with no problems.
Just remember to declare this on your insurance though. I'm with Privilege, and there was no additional fee or anything. Problem is, the insurance companies could quite easily say "if you had the right tyres on the car, you wouldn't have crashed" etc. So make sure you declare them
I have normal tyres on my wheels. I replaced the 18" RFTs to normal style Falken 452s with no problems.
Just remember to declare this on your insurance though. I'm with Privilege, and there was no additional fee or anything. Problem is, the insurance companies could quite easily say "if you had the right tyres on the car, you wouldn't have crashed" etc. So make sure you declare them
Hi Tired thanks for that bit advice about the insurance, did not know about that at all.
A
Anonymous
Guest
108's with Eagle F1's. lovely!!!
Tired said:Hi Wendy,
I have normal tyres on my wheels. I replaced the 18" RFTs to normal style Falken 452s with no problems.
Just remember to declare this on your insurance though. I'm with Privilege, and there was no additional fee or anything. Problem is, the insurance companies could quite easily say "if you had the right tyres on the car, you wouldn't have crashed" etc. So make sure you declare them
What?! Are you sure about this?
I can see how that would be relevant if the tyres had below the minimum legal tread on them, or were not the correct speed rating for the car (at a push) but for being non-run flat? Should I be worried about my insurance being invalid if I don't use original BMW brake pads or their recommended lubricants, service on time (and anywhere other than a dealer), replace the windscreen with one from Autoglass...
Not saying you (and Tired) are not right, just amazed! Does the M use runflats? And are they fitted to all the 3-series that the car is based on?
I am on Bridgestones at the moment but I am pretty sure they are coming off – maybe even this weekend as I think I have a puncture in one of them. I am convinced they are ruining the feel of the car and causing the steering to pull and wander where/whenever it likes. Hoping it will make the car safer.
I am on Bridgestones at the moment but I am pretty sure they are coming off – maybe even this weekend as I think I have a puncture in one of them. I am convinced they are ruining the feel of the car and causing the steering to pull and wander where/whenever it likes. Hoping it will make the car safer.
PetKiller said:
The ///M is a different beast as is the E46 which did not come with runflats. Whilst the Z4 E85/86 shares a lot of components from the E46 the chassis/suspension was tuned around using RFT's.
It may seem a stupid thing to have to advise your insurance company about but if you dont and have an accident you may regret it
If I change them I had better let them know then. It does seem utterly nuts though – the level of 'tuning' these cars would of had with the suspension to compliment the RFs I expect would have been minimal (if anything). Surely if they had put any effort into it at all the car could not sound like the front suspension had collapsed when it goes over a pot hole and find faults in the road surface undetectable to the human eye causing the steering to go wherever it feels like.
:|
:|
You are right the suspension is lacking some what with regard to pot holes etc, that is one real benefit of non RFT's the right is better, traction is also much better as is general road holding. If you change to non RFT's believe me you wont regret it, esp as the tyres are half the price 
If they designed the car to run on Bridgestone RF's they did a crap job of it, I'm honestly surprised that BMW, renowned for competently handling and driving cars, allowed it out of the factory gate in that state. When I first drove the car along country B roads I was convinced something was wrong, tracking, suspension, everything was going through my mind until I did a bit of research on the net.
I'm with Wendy and others, my new wheels, see left drool drool, and non RF's are on order, and I have high expectations of significant improvement.
Love the car by the way!.
I'm with Wendy and others, my new wheels, see left drool drool, and non RF's are on order, and I have high expectations of significant improvement.
Love the car by the way!.
johnsh123 said:I'm with Wendy and others, my new wheels, see left drool drool, and non RF's are on order, and I have high expectations of significant improvement.
Love the car by the way!.
I dont think you will find anybody on here that will dasagree with you, one or two use other RFT's which they report to be much better but IMO non RFT's are the way to go.
spanna2000
Member
Hi Everyone - first post here.
Well, I think I might disagree.
The BMW line is going to be something like: The RFT's were designed with £ms spent by BMW and tyre experts to go on this car and on the 3s. In the event of a severe puncture at high speed the tyre may save your life as it won't collapse and come off the rim so quickly. They are a safety feature of the car and other tyre types are not BMW approved. The RFTs were tested vs. non RFTs and the handling and ride is about the same (BMW would say better in their marketing).
The insurance company line is : Safety feature removed, not notified, no insurance. However when you do notify they may not charge - this gives away the no claim pay argument as a sham to avoid payment. Some companies will charge I'm sure - there will be profiteering to take into account.
Personally: I had a 330 with RFTs and didn't notice them - the car was just too dull in all other respects to notice the wheels/tyres. The ride is more to do with the low profile tyre than the RFT set up and was never so bad to be worth removing them. The tramlining was one of the reasons I choose to replace the 330 for an Jag XF. No RFTs on those and much better ride and no tramlining. Now back to the Z, tramlining and bumpy ride but massively compensated for in the overall car. Is it worth dropping the RFTs to refine the ride? I think personally one rainy/snowy motorway day where I avoid an hour or more on the hard shoulder waiting for the tow truck (no spare on a Z) will make up for any real or imagined problem with the RFTs.
So, handling and ride improvements are marginal issues for me - the RFTs are certainly not a safety hazard. The real issue for me is the utility of the RFT in a puncture situation. One puncture and I am going to be glad of those tyres. If it helps Mrs S and little S survive a high speed tyre failure then it is going to be priceless. If I remove them to get a marginal improvement in ride/handing then I could regret that forever.
Perhaps I just get more punctures than most but I won't be removing the RFTs.
regards
S.
Well, I think I might disagree.
The BMW line is going to be something like: The RFT's were designed with £ms spent by BMW and tyre experts to go on this car and on the 3s. In the event of a severe puncture at high speed the tyre may save your life as it won't collapse and come off the rim so quickly. They are a safety feature of the car and other tyre types are not BMW approved. The RFTs were tested vs. non RFTs and the handling and ride is about the same (BMW would say better in their marketing).
The insurance company line is : Safety feature removed, not notified, no insurance. However when you do notify they may not charge - this gives away the no claim pay argument as a sham to avoid payment. Some companies will charge I'm sure - there will be profiteering to take into account.
Personally: I had a 330 with RFTs and didn't notice them - the car was just too dull in all other respects to notice the wheels/tyres. The ride is more to do with the low profile tyre than the RFT set up and was never so bad to be worth removing them. The tramlining was one of the reasons I choose to replace the 330 for an Jag XF. No RFTs on those and much better ride and no tramlining. Now back to the Z, tramlining and bumpy ride but massively compensated for in the overall car. Is it worth dropping the RFTs to refine the ride? I think personally one rainy/snowy motorway day where I avoid an hour or more on the hard shoulder waiting for the tow truck (no spare on a Z) will make up for any real or imagined problem with the RFTs.
So, handling and ride improvements are marginal issues for me - the RFTs are certainly not a safety hazard. The real issue for me is the utility of the RFT in a puncture situation. One puncture and I am going to be glad of those tyres. If it helps Mrs S and little S survive a high speed tyre failure then it is going to be priceless. If I remove them to get a marginal improvement in ride/handing then I could regret that forever.
Perhaps I just get more punctures than most but I won't be removing the RFTs.
regards
S.
Don't forget though that where the z4 was developed had super smooth roads.
BMW themselves admit they got it wrong with the E85/86 - the z4 being a 'run-flat pioneer' in their words.
I am one of the ones here that bit the bullet and tried a different make of RFT and the difference between the Michelins I took the gamble on and the standard Bridgestone's is night and day. I still cannot quite believe the difference. Ride is more compliant and there is NO harshness that was present with the Bridgestones. The difference was apparent even just driving off the Tyre fitters forecourt - even mrs gannet noticed backing off our drive I would be glad to take anybody out on a meet so they can experience the difference if they don't believe me 
Arguing that removal and replacement with non RFT makes the car less safe is marginal at best. How many high speed blowouts are we likely to encounter?
This is an debate that is gonna run and run and run though - makes it interesting.
and welcome along spanna2000
BMW themselves admit they got it wrong with the E85/86 - the z4 being a 'run-flat pioneer' in their words.
I am one of the ones here that bit the bullet and tried a different make of RFT and the difference between the Michelins I took the gamble on and the standard Bridgestone's is night and day. I still cannot quite believe the difference. Ride is more compliant and there is NO harshness that was present with the Bridgestones. The difference was apparent even just driving off the Tyre fitters forecourt - even mrs gannet noticed backing off our drive
I would be glad to take anybody out on a meet so they can experience the difference if they don't believe me Arguing that removal and replacement with non RFT makes the car less safe is marginal at best. How many high speed blowouts are we likely to encounter?
This is an debate that is gonna run and run and run though - makes it interesting.
and welcome along spanna2000
spanna2000 said:
I was under the impression the reason the Z4 had runflats was because there was so little room for a spacesaver in the boot? The fastest version of the car (Z4 M) does not have them fitted – surely if saftey were the main factor it would have them too? I like the idea of runflats a lot, I just don't like the compromise they make on this particular car – on something like a 1-series I doubt I would be moaning about them.
Am I the only person who has actually had a puncture at speed who is still alive?
Similar threads
