what are the best runflats
- Thread starter bobby69
- Start date
johnbmwboy
Member
IMHO Conti sport contact 2 SSR are great. Ride, handling and grip all good and in a different league to the Bridgestone re050's that were on my car.
still alot of runflat hate on here...
I ask of all the haters - how many brands have you actually tried?
I agree the original OEM bridgestones are terrible, but the later technology RFT tyres such as the Michelin PS2 ZP already mentioned are leaps and bounds better - like in fact driving on regular tyres. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face for all the good it'll do me :roll:
I'm on my second set of rear PS2 ZP's.... fronts still going after 23k miles
Rears lasted 17k miles. Shitty bridgestone's lasted just 9k 
So while they are expensive they DO last alot longer
Anybody is welcome to come and have a ride in my car to tell the difference
I ask of all the haters - how many brands have you actually tried?
I agree the original OEM bridgestones are terrible, but the later technology RFT tyres such as the Michelin PS2 ZP already mentioned are leaps and bounds better - like in fact driving on regular tyres. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face for all the good it'll do me :roll:
I'm on my second set of rear PS2 ZP's.... fronts still going after 23k miles
Rears lasted 17k miles. Shitty bridgestone's lasted just 9k So while they are expensive they DO last alot longer Anybody is welcome to come and have a ride in my car to tell the difference
I was in fear and trepidation of the runflats before delivery of the Zed. Nearly three months and 3k miles later I can only report that I'm very impressed. OEM Bridgestone RE050 runflats on 19" rims and adaptive suspension provide a compliant ride with good grip and handling and are not overly noisy. This is my first foray with RFTs and, having run Bridgestones, Contis and Michelin PS2s over recent years, the RFT Bridgestones aren't quite a match for the PS2s (my favourite tyre to date) but are more than a match for the earlier Bridgestones and Contis (Contact Sport 3s), especially the Contis which tramlined like mad and were very noisy.
I think I am a convert and see no real reason to change from RFTs.
I think I am a convert and see no real reason to change from RFTs.
gannet said:still alot of runflat hate on here...
I ask of all the haters - how many brands have you actually tried?
I agree the original OEM bridgestones are terrible, but the later technology RFT tyres such as the Michelin PS2 ZP already mentioned are leaps and bounds better - like in fact driving on regular tyres. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face for all the good it'll do me :roll:
I'm on my second set of rear PS2 ZP's.... fronts still going after 23k miles
Anybody is welcome to come and have a ride in my car to tell the difference
Here's how I sum it up.
1, RFT's can't be repaired. Non RFT's can.
2, RFT's are twice the cost of non RFT's.
3, RFT choices are limited.
4, Get a RFT puncture more than 50 miles of a shop that has a replacement in stock. Then a call to AA is in order.
5, The only reason BMW put them on was to save weight, And the cost of the spare.
So, Why bother with RFT's
gannet said:still alot of runflat hate on here...
I ask of all the haters - how many brands have you actually tried?
I agree the original OEM bridgestones are terrible, but the later technology RFT tyres such as the Michelin PS2 ZP already mentioned are leaps and bounds better - like in fact driving on regular tyres. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face for all the good it'll do me :roll:
I'm on my second set of rear PS2 ZP's.... fronts still going after 23k miles
Anybody is welcome to come and have a ride in my car to tell the difference
gannet, I am 100% in agreement with you on the RFT's. I would not ever think to change to non RFT's. The PS2 ZP's are superior and will purchase again when needed.
bigdog, most of what you say may be true but I had one of the original Bridgestones repaired and went a few years with no problems. Dealer would not repair and suggested a local tire shop that would.
bigdog said:gannet said:still alot of runflat hate on here...
I ask of all the haters - how many brands have you actually tried?
I agree the original OEM bridgestones are terrible, but the later technology RFT tyres such as the Michelin PS2 ZP already mentioned are leaps and bounds better - like in fact driving on regular tyres. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face for all the good it'll do me :roll:
I'm on my second set of rear PS2 ZP's.... fronts still going after 23k miles
Anybody is welcome to come and have a ride in my car to tell the difference
Here's how I sum it up.
1, RFT's can't be repaired. Non RFT's can.
2, RFT's are twice the cost of non RFT's.
3, RFT choices are limited.
4, Get a RFT puncture more than 50 miles of a shop that has a replacement in stock. Then a call to AA is in order.
5, The only reason BMW put them on was to save weight, And the cost of the spare.
So, Why bother with RFT's
1. Actually they can
2. they arent actually twice the price when compared like with like within a brand Michelin PS3 = £223, PS2 ZP = £286 from black circles my maths ain't great but that ain't double :roll:
3. but getting better
4. fair do's
5. not quite, sudden loss of pressure with non-rft's is more dangerous than with rft. also fit non-rft and you then have to sacrifice boot space for alternative options... or dont bother and have to call the AA anyway....
why bother - because I choose to
I still have the orignal Bridgestones and got a puncture about 3 years ago. Brought it in and they patched it. Been driving on it since and there have been no problems. 
I also have about 25,000 miles on these tires. Nearly time to replace, but not bad mileage. Z4 Pilot
I also have about 25,000 miles on these tires. Nearly time to replace, but not bad mileage. Z4 Pilot