Run Flat Tyres on an M ... Yes or No

[warrenosment]

Perhaps I'm cheating a little asking this question specifically about an M135i, because it only marginally qualifies as an M Car...but here goes anyway

Your advice pls...M135i Run Flat Tyres or not...I'm confused:

> I understand the car was developed with some specific tyres in mind...what were they, RF or not?
> WHATCAR? says "Just as crucially, though, a lowered ride height, specially selected springs and dampers, and the M division's insistence on fitting high-grip, non-run-flat tyres means you can place the car on the road with supreme accuracy"
> RF's are a £0 cost option...ominous
> what are the standard factory fitted Brand of RF and 'normal' tyres?
> if I buy RF and dislike them can I change to normal tyres...or are the wheel rims and/or suspension setting s different in some way(s)?
> what do BMW and knowledgable drivers recommend? what are the differences

All inputs will be read with interest. Thx

[ecain63]

No! No good on the M (sort of-ish, hmmmmmmm car.

[E30M3SE]

IMO runflats don't belong anywhere near a car, be it a M, non M or a sort of M but not really a M car.

[fuggled]

don't even entertain the idea of shodding your car with runflats unless you balance out the suspension. Best modification I made to my old 135 was to remove them.

[warrenosment]

Guys, really appreciate all your views...which seem unanimously -ve...which is fine and I suspect correct

I'm just puzzled why BMW would develop a new car (M135i) then offer Run Flats as an option...just to spoil it
I'd love to know what were the M135i's tested by PH, TopGear, EVO, Autocar etc were shod with...they got excellent handling reviews, but on what tyres pls?...and what would have been the equivqlent result on Run Flats?

I remain a trifle confused. Thx

Cheers...

[greygoose]

I had runflats on my Z4 and 135i and they spoil the ride a lot, if you have the option then go for non-runflats.

[physprof]

warrenosment said:

I'm just puzzled why BMW would develop a new car (M135i) then offer Run Flats as an option...just to spoil it

Because it is not an M car.

Clearly they are of the view that the suspension/handling is of less importance in this new 'M' marketing segment of their mainstream cars (as you can see why it is listed in that section on BMW website) than would be expected on a 100% M car.

Harsh, but if you want the proper M you'll just have to buy one and run one. Surely you'd accept it has to be a compromised car as it will cost significantly less to buy/run than a 100% M car - otherwise why should BMW expect people continue to pay top whack for the real thing.



versus

[muhnkee2]

Hey,
I am pondering this question at the moment too, I have an E60 M5, sitting on run flats, one of the tires is going to need to be replaced soon (its got a chunk out of the side), so I am wondering if some traditional tyres might be a better bet.
I figure I would need to replace at least two at a time. Then when all four are done, replace the can of gunk and compressor in the boot with a space saver tyre, has anyone done this on an E60 – did it bring happiness?
Cheers,
Greg

[T1berious]

Have to agree with the sentiment above. However... we had a blow out at around 70 mph on the E92 which uses runflats, no loss of control, in fact we'd stopped and wondered what the big bang was. then realised it was a tyre. We managed to limp it to a kwik fit and replaced the two rears.

Not sure the story would have been the same with regular tyres.

Don't get me wrong though, totally agree they compromise ride etc but I believe the current crop are a lot better which might explain the comments made in the motoring press.

[Big E 118]

I had an E92 335i back in 2008 and it had the first generation of Bridgestone run flats on it. The ride was shockingly harsh and they really seemed to give up grip in cooler conditions (sub 10c). I understand that the current run flats are gen 2 or 3 and have greatly improved over the first generation though have no personal experience of them.

The question is why don't M division use run flats on their cars? My E46 and E92 M3's have a much more compliant ride than the E92 335i ever had and also tons more grip.

Personally I'd trust the guys at M Division and stick with standard tyres.

[rassi]

muhnkee2 said:

Hey,
I am pondering this question at the moment too, I have an E60 M5, sitting on run flats, one of the tires is going to need to be replaced soon (its got a chunk out of the side), so I am wondering if some traditional tyres might be a better bet.
I figure I would need to replace at least two at a time. Then when all four are done, replace the can of gunk and compressor in the boot with a space saver tyre, has anyone done this on an E60 – did it bring happiness?
Cheers,
Greg

An E60 M5 should not be on run flats (as per this thread, no M cars are on RFT) so yes, normal tyres should go on, in fact all four should be replaced.

[leeson660]

physprof said:

warrenosment said:

I'm just puzzled why BMW would develop a new car (M135i) then offer Run Flats as an option...just to spoil it

Because it is not an M car.

Clearly they are of the view that the suspension/handling is of less importance in this new 'M' marketing segment of their mainstream cars (as you can see why it is listed in that section on BMW website) than would be expected on a 100% M car.

Harsh, but if you want the proper M you'll just have to buy one and run one. Surely you'd accept it has to be a compromised car as it will cost significantly less to buy/run than a 100% M car - otherwise why should BMW expect people continue to pay top whack for the real thing.



versus

+1

Great analogy

Couldn't agree more

Edited by leeson660 on Monday 24th September 13:31

[pilchardthecat]

M division have never ever allowed an M car to be sold with runflat tyres, even when every other BMW had them as standard/compulsory fitment.

It does kind of suggest that the m135 isn't an M car, in their eyes

Either way, the best modification i did to my 1 coupe was ditch the runflats - it was a completely different car on proper tyres.

[JNW1]

leeson660 said:

physprof said:

warrenosment said:

I'm just puzzled why BMW would develop a new car (M135i) then offer Run Flats as an option...just to spoil it

Because it is not an M car.

Clearly they are of the view that the suspension/handling is of less importance in this new 'M' marketing segment of their mainstream cars (as you can see why it is listed in that section on BMW website) than would be expected on a 100% M car.

Harsh, but if you want the proper M you'll just have to buy one and run one. Surely you'd accept it has to be a compromised car as it will cost significantly less to buy/run than a 100% M car - otherwise why should BMW expect people continue to pay top whack for the real thing.



versus

+1

Great analogy

Couldn't agree more

Edited by leeson660 on Monday 24th September 13:31

The slight flaw with this analogy is that the run-flats actually cost more than the conventional tyres; you pay for fillet steak but get soya meat! However, totally agree with the negative comments on run-flats; compromised performance all the time to guard against something (a puncture) which I suspect happens very rarely to most drivers.

[ecain63]

muhnkee2 said:

Hey,
I am pondering this question at the moment too, I have an E60 M5, sitting on run flats, one of the tires is going to need to be replaced soon (its got a chunk out of the side), so I am wondering if some traditional tyres might be a better bet.
I figure I would need to replace at least two at a time. Then when all four are done, replace the can of gunk and compressor in the boot with a space saver tyre, has anyone done this on an E60 – did it bring happiness?
Cheers,
Greg

Ok, +1 on ditching your RFs.

My other point is that the gunk isn't for the runflats. Just checking you knew? Don't think you'd have space for a spare wheel with the battery etc in there either.

[leeson660]

JNW1 said:

leeson660 said:

physprof said:

warrenosment said:

I'm just puzzled why BMW would develop a new car (M135i) then offer Run Flats as an option...just to spoil it

Because it is not an M car.

Clearly they are of the view that the suspension/handling is of less importance in this new 'M' marketing segment of their mainstream cars (as you can see why it is listed in that section on BMW website) than would be expected on a 100% M car.

Harsh, but if you want the proper M you'll just have to buy one and run one. Surely you'd accept it has to be a compromised car as it will cost significantly less to buy/run than a 100% M car - otherwise why should BMW expect people continue to pay top whack for the real thing.



versus

+1

Great analogy

Couldn't agree more

Edited by leeson660 on Monday 24th September 13:31

The slight flaw with this analogy is that the run-flats actually cost more than the conventional tyres; you pay for fillet steak but get soya meat! However, totally agree with the negative comments on run-flats; compromised performance all the time to guard against something (a puncture) which I suspect happens very rarely to most drivers.

Oh right OK I didn't know that they cost more!

Trying to think of suitable analogy.....

[pilchardthecat]

leeson660 said:

Oh right OK I didn't know that they cost more!

Trying to think of suitable analogy.....

Something that costs a lot more but is still very much inferior..... hmmmm

[Charlie Michael]

pilchardthecat said:

leeson660 said:

Oh right OK I didn't know that they cost more!

Trying to think of suitable analogy.....

Something that costs a lot more but is still very much inferior..... hmmmm

Easy peasy, apple products versus anything else.


That's the fire suitably stoked, now time to beat a hasty retreat.

[leeson660]

Charlie Michael said:

pilchardthecat said:

leeson660 said:

Oh right OK I didn't know that they cost more!

Trying to think of suitable analogy.....

Something that costs a lot more but is still very much inferior..... hmmmm

Easy peasy, apple products versus anything else.


That's the fire suitably stoked, now time to beat a hasty retreat.

I was going to say that then thought better of it!