Quote:
Originally Posted by michifan
I know that there are many on this board that hate the run-flats, and they are more expensive and a harder ride than a host of other non RFTs.
But today my wife got a nail in the tire, and the tire pressure monitor went off. The ability to just drive the car to the dealer - have them contact the insurance company about the tire and be on my merry way no muss / no fuss in 90+ degree heat is more valuable to me than the marginal difference in handling with RFTs.
I also cannot stress how happy I am that i bought insurance. This is the 3rd tire that I have had to change, and my insurance is capped at $5,000 (rims and wheels). If you can get the insurance for under $1000 (I paid about 600-700), this is insurance that makes great sense.
|
Like any additional product "insurance/warranty", it pays IF you need to use it. In that case, you look like a genius.
But, if you never use it, then you just spent the money.
I do understand people who buy these things though.
One has to decide, from experience, what works for them in the conditions they drive.
My last 3 cars all had sport suspensions that came with summer performance tires; E46 325i, A4, and my 135i. If I also count the 2000 Eclipse, that's over a decade of no flats with any of the cars.
I always put all season ultra high performance tires due to the weather in my area. For me, I always have to budget at least an extra $800 just for the tires that are needed in my area.
If I spent money on tire/wheel insurance, for the last 3 cars it would have doubled my tire expense.
For me, NO RFT's, and no wheel/tire insurance. Too expensive.
At about $1000 per car, that's $3000 I would have spent and never got any return on it.
I'm on the plus side now. If one of my non RFT's go flat, replacement is much cheaper, and repair is always an option.
RFT's need more refinement, lower price, and better repairability.
I like the idea. I don't like the actual overall experience.