I've got a set of Falken ZE-912s that are nearing the end of their life and straight line traction has greatly diminished with the treadwear (they were pretty good new) and I have a friend with a set of Bridgestone RE050 RFT's with 2500-3000 miles on them he will sell me for $300. Considering they'd be over $700 new that seems like a good deal...until I read the reviews on Discount Tire online. Really polarizing tire it seems. Most of the reviews are by BMW owners whose cars come with them from the factory. Some complain about the noise, impact harshness and rapid wear (especially in the rear) but then again, they have an 18" wheel with a much shorter sidewall than my 17s would have. Others laud the great traction, quick turn-in response and haven't had any wear issues. Several of my customers have E90/92 BMWs with the Bridgestones and I haven't noticed excessive wear, but then again, most of them don't have much more than 20,000 miles on their cars. Haven't heard any of them complain about the tires. We don't get much snow or ice here, so snow traction isn't a huge deal to me.

I have actually had 1 (yes, one) on my car for a few thousand miles. I hit a driveshaft laying across the interstate about a year and a half ago and needed a new wheel and tire. The only 225/50/17 tire the Nissan dealer in Little Rock had was the RE050 (I had Michelin HX MXM4 tires on the other wheels). First thing I noticed was how quick it responded when I turned left (the side the RE050 was mounted) and I didn't notice any excessive noise, but then again, the Michelins were pretty loud. In addition, there wasn't any noticeable wear during the time I had the tire on the car. I ended up getting another HX MXM4 to replace the RE050 through Discount Tire (had certificates on the tires, they reimbursed me for the Bridgestone).

Anyway, has anyone else had the RE050s on a Maxima? A search turned up only 4 threads and the tires were basically just mentioned but no real comments on them. I'd like to give the guy an answer by early next week.

 

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....omCompare1=yes

Are these the one you are talking about? The rating seems to be pretty good with a long thread life. Here is a rating from a 2005 Nissan Maxima owner

"Feels like a totally different car altogether! These tires stick until they can't anymore then they break pretty quick--so get to know that point. They really shine when the pavement is wet then you can really tell the major difference and feel the peace of mind. Whisper quiet so all you hear is the wind. Replaced the stock Goodyear and lost some cornering but I get rock-solid wet performance. Tire is softer--hence less cornering--and really smooth ride. Rode in a bit of snow and was like there was no snow."

 

The ones my friend has have RFT for "run flat technology" on them. Treadwear rating is 140 but like I said, I have customers with those tires and over 20k miles on them. My Falkens are rated at 340 and have a 40k warranty but at 25k they are at 3-4/32s tread now.

 

Ended up buying the tires. They are a touch shorter than the Falkens but the tread is nearly an inch wider. Noticeable improvement in turn-in response. Ride is definitely on the firm side. Straight line traction is much better. Got a really good deal @ $300 for the set, most online tire stores want $200-220 each.

 

I'm not a big fan of that tire, but for $300 for the set virtually new, I'd run them on a car if I wasn't going to race it.

 

I always thought it was bad to use used tires?

 

Once you drive on your brand new tires, they are used tires. As long as they are in good shape and the manufacture date is not more than 5 years ago, there is no problem with used tires.

The Falkens were $600 new, mounted, balanced and with warranties. For just over half that (adding in mounting and balancing), I got better tires that should last about as long as the Falkens did, which was about 25,000 miles. Anyway, so far so good on the tires. It snowed today but when I drove the roads were still just wet and the RE050s felt like they had a ton of grip.

 

only thing ive heard and seen is that with any of the run flat tires they wear really fast and they are expensive. for that deal i guess i would run them. but any more than that i dont think it would be worth it.

 

oh man, i wouldnt be surprised if those tires were heavier than your wheels.

 

maximumobsesion-if I was buying them new, I wouldn't get the run flat version.


QNO_A32Tires are a bit shorter (enough that my speedometer is now correct instead of reading slower than I am actually going) so that should make up for the increased weight. Isn't a huge difference anyway.

So far, so good with the tires. Much better grip in turns as well as straight line. More noise than the Falkens but less than the Michelins or Yokohama 520s (which are really loud on concrete!). Hopefully I get a year (which is around 20-25k miles for me) out of them.

 

Stay away from the runflats. They are awful performance wise. They bubble.. and they are very harsh. Not my fav tire for sure.

 

Considering what I paid, I can't complain. The tires are actually very good performance wise. Tons of grip, instant steering response. Very pronounced improvement over the Falken ZE-912, Michelin Pilot HX-MXM4 and Yokohama YK-520 tires I have had in the past. I know that the 370Z, 335i and RX-8 all wear the Bridgestones as their summer/performance tire package and they all are around .90 g's on the skidpad.

With 17's and a taller sidewall, the ride isn't too bad and the increased sidewall height should reduce the tendency to bubble. If I buy set new, I'll get the non-RFT version.