How much quieter without runflats?

I just picked up a new 740Li and noticed much more road noise on coarser roads than my previous 750Li (E66). Thinking about getting rid of the runflats and switching to regular tires. Can I expect a quieter ride and what brand tire should I get? Currently have 20" M sport wheels. Is the F01/02 quieter with regular tires compared to the E65/66? Thanks.

It really depends on what sort of noise you are hearing. If it's wind noise then you won't have a change with the tires, however if it's a constant hum or drumming sound then the tires will have a large impact.

As well you will have a large impact in the comfort of your ride; you won't feel smaller bumps and things as much.

My recommendation would be a Continental DW (summer tire) or a Continental DWS (all season) if it comes in your size. If not, then the Pirelli PZero Nero (all season) are great tires!

My biggest gripe moving from an S550 to a 740 Li was road noise. I eventually figured out it was the run flats causing vibration and road noise. After much web surfing and soul searching I put on non run flats and keep an inflation kit in the car. World of difference. It will blow your mind to feel and hear the difference. What was BMW thinking? The sales guys always say every one is moving to run flats. Not true. We are looking at a GL 450 vs Ml 350 and MB is not going that way. It destroys the "luxury car" feel

Any suggestions as to a good non RFT that would be siginificantly quieter than my current Pirellis PZero's? Since I have 20" M Sport wheels, my choices are more limited than 19's.

Originally Posted by october

Any suggestions as to a good non RFT that would be siginificantly quieter than my current Pirellis PZero's? Since I have 20" M Sport wheels, my choices are more limited than 19's.

I ditched my run flats and replaced them with Conti DWS. A world of difference in handling and quiet.

BMW has it all wrong, when it comes to tires, and this is the reason my next car will not be a BMW.

Originally Posted by azbimmer

BMW has it all wrong, when it comes to tires, and this is the reason my next car will not be a BMW.

Is that fact or opinion? Why would they stick to RFT in that case? If the cons outweigh the pros, why do it?

That's what always troubles me. I don't dispute that RFT are probably quieter and ride better, but I feel that BMW has put a lot of engineering and testing into tuning their cars suspension and tires together, and by making a change, I'm circumventing that effort. I'm saying that my expertise is better than theirs.

I just can't say that I do have that expertise, experience, or resource to out do them. Yes there may be specific instances and geographies where other tires are better, but my opinion is that everything taken as a whole, BMW has optimized, as best they can with the time and resources at hand, their suspension and tires the way they want their car to ride, handle, perform etc.

I'm sure BMW is listening.
Just look at F10 5 series.
All of them have runflats standard.
People were complaining like crazy.
Than when M5 comes along, they ditched run flats. Not only that but they shoved some Michelin Pilot Super Sports on that car.

Did M cars ever run RFTs? I don't think they did (not sure about the E60). This also goes to my point - where BMW feels that there is a better OVERALL tire, RFT or non-RFT, all things considered, they will choose the better tire. They are non exclusively RFT married.

It doesn't make sense otherwise. Yes, non-RFTs are better for M's, so let's go with them. Non-RFTs are better for non-Ms, so let's not go with them, and use RFTs instead. Everything that I know about BMW (and Germans as a culture), is that they are logical - sort of the Vulcans of earth. But as we know, that can also work against them when they are wrong - they'll be more stubborn. Example in point - iDrive. Panned by almost everyone. But they stubbornly have stuck with it. iDrive still hasn't been adopted by Porsche.

Originally Posted by chrischeung

Did M cars ever run RFTs? I don't think they did (not sure about the E60). This also goes to my point - where BMW feels that there is a better OVERALL tire, RFT or non-RFT, all things considered, they will choose the better tire. They are non exclusively RFT married.

It doesn't make sense otherwise. Yes, non-RFTs are better for M's, so let's go with them. Non-RFTs are better for non-Ms, so let's not go with them, and use RFTs instead. Everything that I know about BMW (and Germans as a culture), is that they are logical - sort of the Vulcans of earth. But as we know, that can also work against them when they are wrong - they'll be more stubborn. Example in point - iDrive. Panned by almost everyone. But they stubbornly have stuck with it. iDrive still hasn't been adopted by Porsche.

I have seen dozens if not hundreds of people who converted to non rfts on their BMWs. Every. Single. Person. Says it dramatically improves the car. It rides quieter, is smoother and performs better. Every single person without one exception.

The reason M cars come with non-rfts? Rfts are one big bag of compromise. They ride harder, noisier and have less grip than conventional tires.

Why is BMW committed to rfts? I have no idea. Why do they make you pull the door handle twice to leave the car, or press the stop button twice to stop the car????

BMW does not equip M cars with run flats.

Originally Posted by Leslierc

BMW does not equip M cars with run flats.

Yep, that's what I said. They do it for a reason. Rfts are just one hodge podge of compromises.

Originally Posted by Emilner

They ride harder, noisier and have less grip than conventional tires.

Can someone explain one thing to me. Say run flats ride harder. That means they are stiffer. Say you go to non-RFTs. They are softer. Won't that mean that your turn in won't be as crisp, since the tire is softer? Not talking about grip, which I know is lower for run flats, but for turn in response. I've never seen that discussed (seen ride, grip).

Originally Posted by chrischeung

Can someone explain one thing to me. Say run flats ride harder. That means they are stiffer. Say you go to non-RFTs. They are softer. Won't that mean that your turn in won't be as crisp, since the tire is softer? Not talking about grip, which I know is lower for run flats, but for turn in response. I've never seen that discussed (seen ride, grip).

I think they're referring to the sidewalls being much harder, which transfers that roughness to the ride comfort. I don't think it has much to do with the actual tire tread (grip). Like Emilner said, they're a huge bag of compromises. They're main focus is the advancement of the silly technology that is run-flats. Like any supplier they can only invest so much time/effort into a project. So they divert a chunk of time and energy away from better grip into more advanced run flats.

At least that is how I take all this...

I see comments about Vulcan logic and science around here. Is it possible that BMW has gone this way in the spirit of money and not engineering? As a professional who deals with the drug company machine I say " science schmiance". There is probably an economic advantage to BMW. As stated above ALL of us who have gone non run flat have noticed a HUGE difference. I do not have the ability to test this with decibel meters etc. Just subjective like every one else's comments.

Originally Posted by chrischeung

Did M cars ever run RFTs? I don't think they did (not sure about the E60). This also goes to my point - where BMW feels that there is a better OVERALL tire, RFT or non-RFT, all things considered, they will choose the better tire. They are non exclusively RFT married.

It doesn't make sense otherwise. Yes, non-RFTs are better for M's, so let's go with them. Non-RFTs are better for non-Ms, so let's not go with them, and use RFTs instead. Everything that I know about BMW (and Germans as a culture), is that they are logical - sort of the Vulcans of earth. But as we know, that can also work against them when they are wrong - they'll be more stubborn. Example in point - iDrive. Panned by almost everyone. But they stubbornly have stuck with it. iDrive still hasn't been adopted by Porsche.

I think you need to understand the rationale car makers use when making these decisions. The M cars are high performance cars, and BMW will never put RFTs on them. All other BMW models have moved to RFTs because of reduced cost of putting a spare, and reduced weight leading to better mileage numbers. Car making, like any other engineering effort, is full of compromises between cost, performance, reliability etc. Do not take a manufacturer's decision like the gospel truth.

Honda had tried moving to Run flats earlier, but backed off because of the additional cost of fixing the tires and general displeasure of its customers. Mercedes, Audi and Porsche, all equivalent, or better in performance to BMW depending on model or options, have never put RFTs on their cars.

It is one thing to like the brands we buy. It is quite another to put blind faith in the brand. be a smart consumer, and shop around. That is what free market is all about.
Good luck!

Originally Posted by azbimmer

It is quite another to put blind faith in the brand. be a smart consumer, and shop around

I would. But I'm not going to put my faith in posts from Bimmerfest that rely on unscientific seat of the pants, based on decisions they already made (as if you would usually criticize a personal purchase). Can someone point to objective tests from magazines, or perhaps things like tirerack.com that are comprehensive? Road, track time tests, various conditions, etc.

Another that always gets me is this - folks say yes, I got a better ride, road holding noise etc. on non-RFTs. But are those that important? What else did they do to their cars beyond that? Did they add sound insulation? Go to slicks? Replace springs and shocks? Put in a LSD?

Why would they just say, yep - ditched the RFTs, now the car is perfect. It always feels like the action has more to do than what they desired. Because if they really cared about those things ,wouldn't they take further action? I personally am an example of that. I say I do care about ride - but I got the 20" wheels. But if I really cared about ride, wouldn't I just stick with the 19s? So I see a lot of folks say they care about ride, but they get the biggest rims, and sport suspension.

Originally Posted by azbimmer

All other BMW models have moved to RFTs because of reduced cost of putting a spare, and reduced weight leading to better mileage numbers.

Proverbial nail hit on its head, sadly.

Question - does anyone here live in an area that has good roads? Do they have problems with run flats? I'm wondering if that is an issue. I live in North Dallas, and the roads here are excellent (I mainly take the DNT/121 when going on the freeways), likely the best I've ever seen in the USA. It's almost as good as Germany. But I also didn't mind the Bridgestone RFTs on 18s when I was in Northern California with my E60 535i.

I was in South Florida over Christmas, and the rental 300C's ride quality on South Florida roads (thinking I95) was noticeably worse than my 750 with RFTs on 20s in North Dallas.

Originally Posted by chrischeung

Question - does anyone here live in an area that has good roads? Do they have problems with run flats? I'm wondering if that is an issue. I live in North Dallas, and the roads here are excellent (I mainly take the DNT/121 when going on the freeways), likely the best I've ever seen in the USA. It's almost as good as Germany. But I also didn't mind the Bridgestone RFTs on 18s when I was in Northern California with my E60 535i.

I was in South Florida over Christmas, and the rental 300C's ride quality on South Florida roads (thinking I95) was noticeably worse than my 750 with RFTs on 20s in North Dallas.

You have way too much free time on your hands. On the one hand, you say you want to take the manufacturer's design decision as the Gospel (or Vulcan) Truth. Then you go ahead and change the OEM Rims to 20". How's that for consistency?

And since you are so biased against standard tires, why waste everyone's time with posts against Non RFTs?

Originally Posted by azbimmer

Then you go ahead and change the OEM Rims to 20". How's that for consistency?

You're wrong on this. They are OEM 20s. This size comes on the sport package usually (standalone option in my case on the 2012 ActiveHybrid for $1300).

I chose them due to the excellent roads in North Dallas. For my 2011 M3, when I was in Northern California, I stuck with the standard 18s.

Originally Posted by azbimmer

And since you are so biased against standard tires, why waste everyone's time with posts against Non RFTs?

Because I am not as knowledgeable as others. I'm here to learn. I have my own opinion which I'm open to changing.

I can tell the difference between say a Lexus or Benz to my BMW. I can tell you that my M3 on 18s on the same roads in North Dallas, had a slightly quieter and smoother ride than my 7 series. But I couldn't tell you that it was due to RFT or the fact that my 7 series has 20" wheels as opposed to the 18s (in hindsight I would have probably got 19s on the M3).

Personally, other than the bump harshness, I can't tell if a car is on RFT or not. Put me in a 3 series, on a perfectly flat road, and take a corner - I could not tell you that the car has RFT or not. Drive it down a perfect freeway, and based on the noise, I again could not tell you what type of tire it has. I'm not a auto engineer, expert, but an enthusiast open to learning more.

I guess what I'm overall trying to say, that for some folks, similar to me, who don't use their car to the max, I'm of the opinion that the cost and cons of going non-RFT (I'm also leasing), are not overridden by the pros, which I admit are clear, and which I don't dispute. It's the degree of the benefit that I'm not convinced of. Put into that bucket things like the B&O sound system, rear comfort seats.

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...*****them.html



"What are customers saying?


Even with tougher rubber, run flat tires do wear out quicker than regular tires. Many owners on the AutoGuide Forum Network complained that they were replacing their OEM run-flat tires within 20,000 miles. This prompted a lawsuit, which was settled by BMW and Bridgestone. Members of the settlement will receive a full refund for the purchase of replacement tires if they were needed before 10,000 miles. If replacement occurred between 10,000 miles up through 30,000 miles, reimbursement will be 50 percent or less. If buyers are experiencing wear at around 20,000 miles, that’s less than half the life of an ordinary tire.

Customers though, haven’t responded well to these types of tires. Honda has stopped offering the tires on its vehicles after settling a class action lawsuit last year. The owners of Acura’s RL, and Honda Odysseys claimed unreasonable tire life and unexpectedly high replacement costs.

Run flat tires may have their advantages, but it still seems like their many compromises are stopping the equipment from taking off. BMW and MINI vehicles get them as standard equipment, and owners (especially enthusiasts) are not happy with them. Vanessa Terrier from Bridgestone’s Communications team mentioned that “As of today, the run flat tire market is mainly driven by car manufacturers and original equipment.”

If you’re afraid, or uncomfortable with the idea of replacing a punctured tire with a spare, then the run flat tires are made just for you, but beware of the added costs of ownership. And if you’re convinced that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits, be weary of cars that come equipped with them from the factory, as a non-run flat replacement tire that was never designed for the car might bring with it unique disadvantages."

The rears on my 2008 535i Bridgestone RFTs went at about 17-18K miles from memory. I was semi aggressive with that car on public roads. The fronts lasted to 20K with just enough marginal rubber for lease turn in at the 20K month mark (2 year lease). I replaced the rears with a set from eBay since I was close to turn in. I admit that rubber wear (like fuel economy, insurance rates) is not one of the things I pay much attention to.

It is just silly to say that BMW engineered their suspension for RFT's (unless somebody can actually deliver specifics).

I seem to recall that they first offered RFT's originally in Germany under the banner of safety and most of the safety points were related to changing of the tires, not the actual driving characteristics.

This is my first time experience with RFT's and they are as bad as everyone claims they are. No excuse. I assume that there is a certain amount of stubbornness on BMW's side to change things.

And some practical ones. Compared to the S-Class, the BMW already has a smaller trunk and redesign for a spare will take some space and more weight.

But we used to have a Mercedes SL55 which had no spare either; a staggered set of performance tires and just a tire kit and pump in the trunk. Worked for me then and will work for the BMW

Originally Posted by Wolfman64

It is just silly to say that BMW engineered their suspension for RFT's (unless somebody can actually deliver specifics).

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...ireRepair.aspx

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete....jsp?techid=22 - "Vehicle manufacturers understand that there is little reason to spend millions of dollars developing the ride and handling qualities of a new vehicle's suspension if they are going to omit integrating the influence of its Original Equipment tires...Only the vehicle manufacturer and tire manufacturer working together to develop the OE tire can determine exactly which tire design and internal construction will produce the most satisfactory results. A tire manufacturer who builds "all-purpose" replacement tires will never receive the benefit of the vehicle manufacturer's insight and intent, and is relegated to producing "average" tires."

http://www.imakenews.com/knauzbmw/e_....cfm?x=b11,0,w - "Q. Is there a fundamental difference between BMW Approved Tires and similar models without the star?
Tires with the BMW star have been designed and manufactured specifically for a particular BMW model. These tires can be very different from those offered by independent tire dealers, even if the tire has a similar or identical type designation and outward appearance. It is primarily the tire's internal engineering that distinguishes it from its unmarked counterparts. See the diagram above for details on the construction of BMW Approved Tires."

I think it's not unusual for cars to be developed with specific tires. Ferrari is another example - http://www.ferrari.com/English/Servi...iTyresSet.aspx.

Recently the Ferrari 458 debuted with a specific developed tire for it. - http://www.edmunds.com/ferrari/458-i...road-test.html "The 20-inch Michelin Pilot Sport tires have been specially tuned for this car."

Here is an example where the "star" actually shows a different tread pattern for the same make and model tire - http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60...ong-tires.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...e-same-9890716 - "A pair of tires aren't necessarily the same even if they're from the same manufacturer, have an identical model name, are of the same size, and are visually indistinguishable. Mixing our identical twins on one car will make it diabolical in urgent handling maneuvers and likely make the vehicle feel odd in everyday driving. "

That's what I have read - I have no idea how accurate any of the above is or not.