|
|
|
|
PLEASE HELP SUPPORT E90POST BY DOING YOUR TIRERACK SHOPPING FROM THIS BANNER, THANKS! |
|
BMW Garage | BMW Meets | Register | Today's Posts | Search |
|
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum
>
RFT vs non-rft
|
|
Wheels and Tires forum Sponsored by The Tire Rack
Please help to directly support e90post by doing your tirerack shopping from the above link. For every sale made through the link, e90post gets sponsor support to keep the site alive. Disclaimer |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
02-11-2008, 11:23 PM | #1 |
Lieutenant
50
Rep 554
Posts |
RFT vs non-rft
After reading all the posts about how the stock 18" rfts suck, i decided not to get the tire warranty. Especially since I always get a new set of rims/tires, and was told the insurance doesn't cover aftermarket tires/wheels. Today I just realized my 08 Dec build that i took delivery of almost 2 weeks ago, came with Michelin PS2's. I know the non-rft ps2's have gotten very good reviews, compared to the non-rft re050a. In the few hundred miles i have driven, i don't get the sense that the ps2 rft's are any harsher than any other tires I've used, no tramlining ,and have no complaints so far
I wonder if i should have just gotten the warranty? Now into the more technical discussion. why such a dislike to rft's? and why do people think they are not as performance oriented as their non-rft counter parts. My understanding is that the compounds are the same but the sidewalls are reinforced and stiffer, so that they can support weight when low on air. Being in the auto-x circle, most people prefer a tire with a stiffer sidewall, so that they can have max contact patch, w/o having to over inflate, and still keep the sidewall from rolling over. Wouldn't the rft version allow you to run lower pressures, keeping a flatter/greater contact patch, and have less sidewall flex since it's stiffer? |
02-12-2008, 10:25 AM | #2 |
Black Forest Bimmerphile
2
Rep 137
Posts |
The major problem with runflats are that they are expensive to replace. I've read a lot of opinions here about how they suck but everything I've read in the car mags has been that they are pretty good.
My track experience with them was very good. I couldn't break them loose and they held up under hard braking. Of course they have limitations because they are still a street tire. I didn't fool with tire pressures because I was so new to the car (1200 miles at the time) that I just wanted to get familiar with the stock setup. Tire Rack people will have that info. |
Appreciate
0
|
02-12-2008, 11:04 AM | #3 |
Major General
3566
Rep 9,788
Posts |
I would say the main reasons are the cost to replace them and the ride quality. Because RFTs have reinforced/ very stiff sidewalls, the ride is more noisy and harsh than non-rft.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-12-2008, 11:20 AM | #4 |
Lieutenant
50
Rep 554
Posts |
Cost to replace i can see. But in the couple hundred miles I've driven with the rft's. Although i haven't driven a 3 w/o rft's....the ps2 rft's just don't seem any harsher/louder to me than non-rft's I have on my other cars.
|
Appreciate
0
|
Bookmarks |
|
|