I posted this in another thread but felt since everyone was complaining I would sort of set the record straight here and start a new thread... Everyone bashes BMW for using rft's when they only did what our federal gov. told them to do. RFT's were supposed to be federally mandated for all cars manufactured by the end of 2006. Smaller manufactures complained that R&D costs would get too high too fast to implement such a requirement, so the GOV. has moved the deadline to 2009 as of last notice that I saw. BMW, already having TPM/FTM systems in place for models currently being produced just made it standard eq. right away and had no R&D/production delays and nothing left to deal with. Lets not forget that the whole reason for this whole situation is b/c Ford tried to compensate for SUV Explorer rollover tendency by recommending a lower tire pressure that was too low for the tires they put on the car (firestones) causing high speed blowouts instead of just designing the car correctly so it would be safe. It was Ford's fault, not BMW's. If you want to bitch at someone call you local gov. rep. and bitch. Don't call BMWNA. IMO, we're lucky that BMW has helped client's with RFT's at all. BMW DOES NOT WARRANTY TIRES! Read your owners manual packets/info. Only tire warranty is from the tire manufacturer and is only against manufacturer defects. BMW is totally out of the loop and has tried to help their clients and now it's coming back to bite them. I expect all goodwill tire compensation to soon be eliminated, as the tread compounds have been revised and most original's have already been replaced. Not to mention it's not their responsibility anyways.
Why on earth would the government mandate all new cars to have Run-Flats just because Ford can't design their cars properly? If they're following this basis, why didn't they require all cars to be fire proof when a certain type of car had a faulty gas tank (or something like that) that had some cars catch fire?
Actually, they did. Gas tank designs were changed significantly after the pinto problem. If I recall correctly that's where the rubber bladder design originated, or was at least implemented as a result. The requirements for where the tank had to be placed in the chassis were also changed shortly thereafter. As far as why the GOV. made the choice they did I'm sure it had to do with the fact that a "great american car company" couldn't be trusted to do the right thing.
I was referring to the whole car being fireproof (as an example), not just the tank. Making the tank fireproof doesn't affect the whole car; using run-flats does affect the whole car, and the whole owning experience altogether. So altogether, even the lowliest economy car will have those garbage tires? It's not going to become law for everyone to have run-flats, not just new cars, is it?
All MY2009 vehicles and on from what I've read. I'm sure you can still put non-rft's on them if you like. You'd just have to install BMW pressure monitors in the wheels you're going to use.
Who's "out of the Loop"/ I feel BMW is not the party who "out of the loop". BMW using RFTS is not the real issue. The issue is the brand and type of RFT that BMW chooses to use. It has been documented that Bridgestone RFTs are defective, whether they be Turanzas or Potenzas. BMW dealer personnel, tire retailers, and we consumers all know that these tires have problems, much more so than other brands. The most common problem being excessive noise with plenty of tread left. Yet BMW chooses to continue to equip their vehicles with tires that they know are defective. The government is not forcing BMW to choose these particular tires. Only BMW knows why they continue to put substandard tires on otherwise very good cars. It can only hurt customer satisfaction in the long run. That is why BMW has decided to replace these tires for their customers. It is their responsibility , not the government's, to deal with the situation that they have dealt themselves. Not sure how one can suggest that Ford should be blamed for BMW using faulty tires. At least Ford realized they had a problem and finally dealt with it by replacing Firestone tires with Michelins AT NO COST TO CUSTOMERS. BTW- As I understand it Ford did not recommend low tire pressures to compensate for any roll over tendency. They recommended lower tire pressure in an ill-advised attempt to soften the truck-like ride of the early Explorers. BMW does not warranty tires, but they do warranty their cars and buyers can't choose what tires their cars come with. So IMO customers such as myself have every right to complain to BMW and demand they do something about the shoddy tires they choose to equip their cars with. In fact BMW is replacing the Potenzas on my car with Michelin RFTs and paying 50% of the cost.
Run Flat tires and why we SHOULD complain... The government mandated TPMS not RFTs. BMW made the decision to use RFTs.
I'm not even sure that Ford recommended the lower tire pressures, I thought that was done at the dealer level - again, to soften the ride. I had an explorer and had to reset the tire pressures every time the car came in for service. Discussed it with the dealer and they said they did it because of so many complaints from customers. Pressures set at the door sill recommended pressures would have created no tire failure problem.
