[Nagahara]

Has anybody any experience of Falken 912 tyres on 255 and 225 width tyres as replacements for runflats?

What are people finding the best substitute for runflats in general?

I have a 320d (177hp) so performance is not a big issue

Thanks

[creepy coupe]

I have(452's) although they were 265 rears as they didn't offer a 255 at the time.
Very good tyre IMO and especially for the price. I couldn't fault them.

[MEGA]

Go for 452s mate. A very good tyre for the money.

[mowflow]

I have run both 452s and 912s. The 452s are current on my Audi and the 912s were on my e90. It's hard to say because they were on different cars (RWD and FWD) but I've noticed very little difference between the 2 in terms of performance, It's unlikely a 320d will push either to the limit unless you drive like an absolute cock all the time.

I think there's only about £6 per corner difference on Camskil. The negligible price difference is what made me decide to get 452 when I changed tyres recently. Everyone raved about the 452s but in my opinion they are both an equally good buy.

[MEGA]

Ahem? Driving your car to the limits doesn't automatically make you a cock...

[creepy coupe]

Originally Posted by MEGA

Ahem? Driving your car to the limits doesn't automatically make you a cock...

I'd say that depends on the car

[mowflow]

Originally Posted by MEGA

Ahem? Driving your car to the limits doesn't automatically make you a cock...

Well in my opinion it does if it's on public roads.

Funnily enough my 912s were fitted to a 318d and you'd need to be mental to even attempt to corner that like it was an M3 no matter what tyres you had on it. But yes, you are correct, i suppose you could try cornering at 100mph if you were completely insane.

I very much doubt you would see much difference in stopping distance, cornering ability etc between the 2 tyres. The pricing alone reflects that there's is very little difference, maybe a very, very slight difference in compound and obviously tread pattern.

Anyway, has anyone else even tried the 912s to compare because that's what the OP was asking for opinions on, not the 452s? Seems most have only had the 452s and just write the others off as not being worthy of their awesome speed wagons.

[MEGA]

Originally Posted by mowflow

Well in my opinion it does if it's on public roads.

Funnily enough my 912s were fitted to a 318d and you'd need to be mental to even attempt to corner that like it was an M3 no matter what tyres you had on it. But yes, you are correct, i suppose you could try cornering at 100mph if you were completely insane.

I very much doubt you would see much difference in stopping distance, cornering ability etc between the 2 tyres. The pricing alone reflects that there's is very little difference, maybe a very, very slight difference in compound and obviously tread pattern.

Anyway, has anyone else even tried the 912s to compare because that's what the OP was asking for opinions on, not the 452s? Seems most have only had the 452s and just write the others off as not being worthy of their awesome speed wagons.

Heh - I seem to remember a recent E90post meet with a 318d going around the bends just as quickly as an M3, 3 or 4 335is, a 135i, 2 335ds and a couple of other brands top offerings. Just because it doesn't have so high a top speed doesn't mean the handling is automatically shit at speeds it can handle?

Besides which why buy a BMW, a rear wheel drive sporty car which even in 320d guise has a top speed of around 140, if you don't occasionally want to drive quickly. You might as well just go and buy a prius, peugeot 308 or etc.

To put it politely you're talking tosh. And I think you're in more of a minority with that set of views on this forum then perhaps you'd want to believe.

[ChubbsBmth]

Originally Posted by Diseasel

Ironically i see more 320D's doing near 95mph on the motorways these days and all the M3 drivers are eco driving in the middle lane keeping their MPG up as high as they can.

Such a good point!

[HighlandPete]

The two tyres are really in different sectors, the 912 a touring tyre and the 452 in the performance category.

The 912, from my reading of reviews, is a softer more comfortable ride. Also the wet weather performance of the 452 is rated to be better.

HighlandPete

[Nagahara]

Appreciate the feedback

Still concerned about comments from Camskills this morning regarding problems with my insurers changing from runflats to non RFT's. I contacted my insurers and they informed me that this was neither a downgrade or upgrade change to the car and that they would be no effect to my policy. Can't say I liked Camskills approach when discussing this issue.

Any comments on this matter would be appreciated

Regards

[HighlandPete]

Several have had this sort of comment from Camskill. But like you have found out, most insurers don't have an issue, as long as you use a tyre to the load and speed ratings recommended and plated (door placard) by the car maker.

HighlandPete

[creepy coupe]

Originally Posted by Diseasel

Since and all the M3 drivers are eco driving in the middle lane keeping their MPG up as high as they can.

Loads of pigeon hole stereotyping based on model and engine size going on here lol

You said it

[creepy coupe]

I can't speak for all owners, but the difference in fuel consumption between 70 and 80 mph is about 1 mpg. Not really something to get anal about in the whole scheme of things

[parapaul]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

The two tyres are really in different sectors, the 912 a touring tyre and the 452 in the performance category.

The 912, from my reading of reviews, is a softer more comfortable ride. Also the wet weather performance of the 452 is rated to be better.

HighlandPete

Exactly this.

[Sir_Pigley]

Originally Posted by Nagahara

Appreciate the feedback

Still concerned about comments from Camskills this morning regarding problems with my insurers changing from runflats to non RFT's. I contacted my insurers and they informed me that this was neither a downgrade or upgrade change to the car and that they would be no effect to my policy. Can't say I liked Camskills approach when discussing this issue.

Any comments on this matter would be appreciated

Regards

Camskill guy is an arrogant self important twat. The point he makes, to make sure that you inform your insurers, is good advice. However the way he talks to people is patronising,arrogant, self important and obnoxious. I don't understand, when forums are riddled with people commenting on his lousy attitude, why he does not modify his behaviour.

e.g.: When I had a problem with one of the tyres he supplied he demanded to see written evidence of me informing my insurers of the use of non-runflats before he would agree to consider my complaint.

"WE can have the tyre back for inspection, but you are supposed to be running run flats on there not normal tyres, we will also need to see the written permission from your insurance conmpany to say you could change to non run flats"

What an arsehole! I would buy from any other company in preference to Camskill.

[Sir_Pigley]

I've now had about 3 sets of Falken tyres on a 120d and on 330d cars. I am going to buy something different next time.

On my 330d (same issue on two separate cars) I have found that the front tyres start to wear on the outside edge and as they do so they become incredibly noisy, especially at low speeds. So much so that I had a full 4 wheel alignment done to ensure there wasn't a problem with the car. I also feel that as the tyres age the ride quality deteriorates dramatically. Once about half worn they have become crashy and uncomfortable.

I have seen the same issue on two different cars and with different sets of tyres, so next time I am going to try some other make of tyre to see how they compare.

[Subzero2003]

Originally Posted by jdcampbell

Camskill guy is an arrogant self important twat. The point he makes, to make sure that you inform your insurers, is good advice. However the way he talks to people is patronising,arrogant, self important and obnoxious. I don't understand, when forums are riddled with people commenting on his lousy attitude, why he does not modify his behaviour.

e.g.: When I had a problem with one of the tyres he supplied he demanded to see written evidence of me informing my insurers of the use of non-runflats before he would agree to consider my complaint.

"WE can have the tyre back for inspection, but you are supposed to be running run flats on there not normal tyres, we will also need to see the written permission from your insurance conmpany to say you could change to non run flats"

What an arsehole! I would buy from any other company in preference to Camskill.

Jeez, he sounds like a self-important prick.

Sure, advising that your car has come with Runflats as standard and he recommends keeping them on runflats is fine. But why is he being a moron about it?

I guess the only thing to do is just not buy from Camskill, or alternatively, don't tell him you're buying the tyres for a BMW?

[Subzero2003]

Originally Posted by Diseasel

When your can get a full set of Eagle F1 A2's for around £500 i dont know why anyone would move down to FK452's

Me neither.

I priced up Assymetric 2's earlier and it came to £570. Unless the Falkens are around £300 i can't say i would bother with them.

[Hotcoupe]

Originally Posted by Diseasel

When your can get a full set of Eagle F1 A2's for around £500 i dont know why anyone would move down to FK452's

I noticed that you hadn't commented on whether you had experienced Falken 452's, so I'll assume you have not.

So why in your opinion are Falkens a move down on the Eagle F1's?

[MEGA]

Having actually used both compounds, I'd say the 452 is significantly better on a RWD car than the eagle F1 assymetric.

On an FWD car I've found the likes of eagles and toyo T1R/T1Sport to be a great tyre but I found the eagles understeery and the T1Rs frankly terrifying with their soft sidewalls on a RWD car. Again if driving FF I'm sure lift off oversteer would negate the characteristics of the eagles on track. But you want a progressive break with RWD not nothing, nothing, nothing, tank slapper. Just my opinion. The 452s are a great tyre for the occasional clarkson impression.

As such I've since stuck with 452s and have gone through 3 sets of them on the E90 in ~45k miles.

The only tyres I've not tried that I want to are PS2s/Cups. I'm sure they'd both be a step up from the Falkens - which I'd label a premium budget ytyre rather than an out and out performance one.

[MEGA]

Originally Posted by Diseasel

Mega is this the lastest Asym 2's?

The previous generation was not rated nearly as high as the newer one

Admittedly - no.

But the point being, what matey in his old van or sonny boy in his 1.1 corsa think about tyres has no impact on my evaluations. I go from trusted personal opinions by other owners with the exact same car (Contrary to your argument, IE we don't know as much as a tyre review site) or personal experiences.