Saw this post over on Auto Express. Seems that, based on their records, UK's Kwik-Fit (think Jiffy Lube crossed with Big O Tires), reckons that run-flat tyres a) deliver 30% less miles before needing to be replaced and b) are then 20% more expensive once you reach that point than their ordinary equivalents.
"Yeah, but that's still better than being stuck somewhere with a flat", you may say. However, they also go onto say that the chances of that happening are once in every 10 years per car.
Now the situation here in the US may be different regarding that last statement at least - I've had two on the Porsche in 6 years over 23,000 miles and two on the Acura over 7.5 years and 130,000 miles - but if it's even close to accurate then the costs of those trun-flat yres must far outweigh the benefits.
So, can you simply swap a set of run-flats with normal tyres? I think not, at least without replacing the rims too? And what about the stiffer walls on run flats and how the suspension is calibrated to work in conjunction with the limited flex the wheels now exhibit?
Anyone out there got experience with all this?
"Yeah, but that's still better than being stuck somewhere with a flat", you may say. However, they also go onto say that the chances of that happening are once in every 10 years per car.
Now the situation here in the US may be different regarding that last statement at least - I've had two on the Porsche in 6 years over 23,000 miles and two on the Acura over 7.5 years and 130,000 miles - but if it's even close to accurate then the costs of those trun-flat yres must far outweigh the benefits.
So, can you simply swap a set of run-flats with normal tyres? I think not, at least without replacing the rims too? And what about the stiffer walls on run flats and how the suspension is calibrated to work in conjunction with the limited flex the wheels now exhibit?
Anyone out there got experience with all this?
No comments:
Post a Comment