After 19,500 miles my OEM Potenza RFT's will not pass inspection. I am switching to Michelin non-run flat tires for better longevity. They are from Tire Rack, and the dealership has offered to install them. The dealership wants $150 for mounting and balancing 4 tires and $200 for a four wheel alignment. How do these costs compare? Is the four wheel alignment needed at this mileage? Thanks for feedback tjhennessy@comcast.net
That's only about double what anyone else would charge. Alignment depends on what's happened to the car. It may be out; it may not. Take it to a non-dealer Tire Rack approved installer and ask them to check the alignment.
Michelinos and wheel alignment I never think alignment is a BAD idea, especially when you're talking about saving expensive tires. I put Michelin Pilot Sports on the roadster before O'Fest. Great rain tires, but mannnn! Are they noisy little rats! (Okay, at nineteen inches, they're not so little.) Buyer's remorse: I could have replaced the Dunlop SP Sport MAXXes for a significant savings. I LOVED the Dunlops---soooo smooth and quiet! The Michelins are a better all-out high-performance track tire, I guess, but it's not like I need that last molecule of grip, now, is it? But I can tell you that they are TERRIFIC rain tires. . .
You being one of those roadster weirdos, I'm pretty sure you'd be driving with the top down even in the rain. In that case, the least you should be worrying about is wet traction.
Satch; I was not expecting to need tires so soon, so I was a bit blindsided when they would not pass inspection her in VA. One rear tire failed inspection and the others would pass but were not going to pass for much longer. They offered to replace the one that failed for $350, or the rear two for $700. So I pretty quickly contacted Tire Rack for recommendations. I decided on Michelin Pilot Sport A/S Plus pretty quickly, partly because I have always had good experiences with Michelins. I have also ordered the BMW Mobility Kit, so I will see how it goes. The run flats were a real hurdle to me in buying the car; it took me a while to convince myself that a car with no spare was an intelligent idea. I like the concept of run flats, but until the longevity issue can be worked out, I don't want to spend $1,500 every 20,000 miles for tires.
FYI, we have non-rft Pilot Sport A/S on my wife's Boxster, and I just replaced the rears after 20K. It's not the rft, it's the high-performance tire and car.
Curse of the run flats I believe we all know why BMW does not include tires in the Free Maintenence program. With all of the compalints I find about BMW using run flats you would think that even a stubburn German would get the message. Fortunately our Z4 3.0si has the sport package which means we have a staggared tire arrangement. At 28,000 miles we replaced the rears - $775.00 for 2 tires that only got 28,000 miles. We are now at 49,000 miles and are nearing replacement of all four, give or take a few thousand for the rears. And many owners are getting less mileage. Like many, I have considered the non-rfts and putting a can or two of slime in the trunk for punctures and if worse happens have it towed. Considering that most punctures can be fixed where rfts cannot, I am beginning to think the risk is not so great or as expensive. Then also consider that you have many more choices in tires when it comes to non-rfts. BMW didn't seem to mind taking away the trunk space to put a hard top in it, so why can't they move past the balance issue and give us a spare. This way those of you who want to take your Z4 to the track can just take out the spare to get the 50/50 distribution. I could much easier live with a 49/51 ratio and not have to fork over the high price of a bad decision.
