When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
It's almost time to replace my stock tires. Debating with whether I should go run-flat for the the security or non-runflat for the increased performance/ride quality.
Post your thoughts.
edit: daily driver, frequent trips, no track use, will drive up to the mountains for a day frequently when the weather is nice. F-55 with the GS3 currently. Average about 1500 miles a month
Last edited by rothchilds; Jul 20, 2007 at 11:38 AM.
Reason: more info listed
Depends on how you use the car. A daily driver or a garage queen that is occasionally taken way out in the boonies: runflats
A weekend driver that stays near populated areas non-runflats are OK.
I don't know that you'll get "increased performance" from a non-runflat, but you should get slightly better ride quality. Of course, if you blow a tire, you're SOL. Since I live an hour from any real hope of repairing a tire if it blew out (most shops don't have the equipment to repair a 19"+ tire), I'll keep with the runflats.
You didn't mention if you're C6 has the GS3's or the SuperCar tires. The GS3's last quite a bit longer and ride better, IMO.
I experimented with non-runflats on my C5, and I got burned. Long story but the results involved towing, temporary replacement of valve stem (in place of tire pressure sensor) and almost a hotel bill, not even to mention inconvenience. The non-run flats were quieter and cheaper, but it turned out to be false economy for me.
I guess a risk assessment is appropriate for each person, but for me I am done with non-runflats
In all the years and hundreds of thousands of miles, I've never had a flat tire, never had to put a spare on a car but I will stick with the Run-Flat tires. I think the Run-Flats are probably safer and I just don't want to take the chance of having that first major tire problem out on the road. You may stay in town for most of your driving but the time you have the flat is the one time you go on a long trip somewhere.
I was debating whether or not to switch to non-runflats when my SCs run out here soon, but over the fourth of July coming back from North Carolina I ended up with a screw in the left rear. I think I'll stick with the Run Flats, they seem pretty damn capable to me anyway. The price is the only thing I hate.
Originally I was a proponent of Non-RF. I figured I carry a can of Fix-a-Flat. That was until I heard that using Fix-a-Flat would require replacement of the $140 or so tire pressure sensor. My job frequently takes me in some pretty shady areas. Run Flats just buy peace of mind. The trade off is more “un-sprung weight” which is bad for handeling.
In the L.A. area, you are within 5 minutes of a tire shop anywhere you go. So I went with the NON-runflats and I'm glad I did. Better performance (stickier, better grip) and softer ride (less noise too) and a lot cheaper ($900 for set of 4)
In the L.A. area, you are within 5 minutes of a tire shop anywhere you go. So I went with the NON-runflats and I'm glad I did. Better performance (stickier, better grip) and softer ride (less noise too) and a lot cheaper ($900 for set of 4)
Even when I had my stock wheels, I ran non-r/f. The ride is much better, but the other comments make sense too, it definately depends on where you live & drive. If you're in a more "city" type or "country" type place, that would make a difference too.
EMT (Run Flat) security. That was what I went with cause there is no way that I want to stranded in the middle of nowhere with my better half telling me I should of got run flats.