Motorplan and Normal tires - Its official!

[Scouse]

Id also love a copy of that letter please

Would rather pay 10k for tyres rather that 24k for the runflats

 

[Philip Foglar]

Id also love a copy of that letter please

Would rather pay 10k for tyres rather that 24k for the runflats

+1, or similar price saving for better performing and value other RFT brands... But this only covers BMW Approved tyres, so sadly still the main issue!

 

[AshG108]

please Jakkie, that will help alot.

thanks bud!

 

[herr bmw]

Hi Guys & Gals,

Just got off the phone with BMW, and they confirmed the following:

1. Normal tires will NOT suspend your MP.
2. Normal tires will not lead to comments on your MP.
3. Runflats must be replaced by BMW Certified tires (With the star on the sidewall for vehicles under warranty/motorplan)
4. Only negative - Should you have a suspension related MP Claim, an investigation will be made into the impact which 'normal tires' have had on the part, if any.

With regards to point 4, I was told that no claim has ever been denied with regards to vehicles fitted with normal tires that was BMW approved.

I spoke to Jeanie Pretorius from BMW MP division, she will send me a confirmation letter of the above.

As far as the mobility kit with the spare wheel, non in stock at BMW.

My reason for the call to them was that there is no 18" Mitchelin Pilot Sport II runflats available in South Africa, and I need to replace two rear tires. Normal Mitchelins are plentyful at a third of the cost.

Hope this helps you guys whedn it come to making tire choices. I will post a copy of the letter from BMW if anyone wants a copy as refference.

:thumbs:

Please, please send me a copy of the letter.
Thanks in advance

---

I think the whole insurance thing was a scare tactic used by some of the tyre places to force you to buy runflats.

I agree MSM, thats wgy I alsways say, inform yourself with the facts so you have grounds to stand on. Had this idiot at TWT tell me you cant fit a normal tyre on a runflat rim.

Then told him how come group N racing BMW's have the exact same rims as mine and run on normal racing slicks? He turned bleu and purple and did not know what to say making excusses to get away from me and getting someone else to help me.

I just got in my car and left.

We must go to the same twt. I had exactly the same with them in December.I idiot who is costing them a heap of business. Mine was menlyn in Pretoria.
I went to autowiel. No issues.

---

twt menlyn are major rip offs,gave me a quote of R3500 for a tyre,bridgestone 16 inch,
went to supa quip greenstone ridge and paid R1250 a tyre,
totoal price was R5100,went back to twt menlyn to ask why,they told me they dont stock bridgestone,looked at there display area and low and behold,there were bridgestone tyres,when i pointed it out to him ,he just turned around and walked away

 

[Nastaliq]

Thanks dude.

We just need the letter now.

:bravo:

 

[dlk001]

Have an accident with non RFT and they will try and not pay because rft is standard fitment on the car... go figure how they add 2 and 2..

Jakkals,

If you are refering to insurance, I thought about that to, but spoke to my broker yesterday who has been in the industry for over 30 years, she has never had a case of non payment due to non-runflats fitted to a vehicle on which they where OEM.

Drove through a deep pothole 2 weeks ago, damaged my right-front/rear 19" rims/tires. Insurance (Budget Insurance) refused to replace the tires because they are non-runflats. They however will pay for rims and any other damaged that could have resulted from the incident.

BMW dealerships never had an issue with my non-runflats.

 

[Seether]

Drove through a deep pothole 2 weeks ago, damaged my right-front/rear 19" rims/tires. Insurance (Budget Insurance) refused to replace the tires because they are non-runflats. They however will pay for rims and any other damaged that could have resulted from the incident.

BMW dealerships never had an issue with my non-runflats.

Find that very frustrating. Would they pay for any other car that didnt have runflats? They just being :argh:

 

[Philip Foglar]

Exactly! And as such, what premium benefit are we getting for having RFT's? :nonono:

 

[dlk001]

Drove through a deep pothole 2 weeks ago, damaged my right-front/rear 19" rims/tires. Insurance (Budget Insurance) refused to replace the tires because they are non-runflats. They however will pay for rims and any other damaged that could have resulted from the incident.

BMW dealerships never had an issue with my non-runflats.

Find that very frustrating. Would they pay for any other car that didnt have runflats? They just being :argh:

True...I'm leaving them after this claim. I can imagine if the claim was bigger, they will come up with other reasons to reject the claim.

 

[roboman]

Still hoping to get a copy of "the letter"
Any chance?

 

[///Maxxus]

Hello Guys

I had two accidents 2008 and 2010 my car was fitted with normal tyres. I was bumped on the site and my tyre was damaged, my insurance took my car to BMW repair center and they fixedmy carand replaced my tyres with the same tyres and only one was dameged but the replaced two of them (255-35-18 Hankooks).

Run-flats is a safety feature to drive with punture.
did anyone here anything besides this story?? Even BMW themselves admitted.
I'm now on the forth set and the car is serviced at BMW
Does M3 run on run flats????????

I love BMW but some of the things dont make sense.:inlove:

 

[Hellas]

This list here is a bit outdated, but you get the idea:

http://www.bmwfanatics.co.za/showthread.php?tid=16

 

[Jakkals_F30]

mmmm still not letter from BMW SA... :fencelook:

 

[Naruto]

mmmm still not letter from BMW SA... :fencelook:

+100000000000
Also waiting on it!

 

[Onyx]

Safe to say that there's no letter :fencelook:

 

[babyboss]

had a ins claim , all the assesor checked was tread of tyre . so dont think rflat is a issue ..

 

[Philip Foglar]

For motorplan I can understand (with reservations) the whole BMW Approved thing, RFT's or non-RFT's, but for insurance this makes no sense unless they are by default giving you a benefit for having RFT's. Otherwise, as long as the tyres are SABS Approved and within the size/load/speed spec required and within the legal tread wear limit my mind says there should be no issue with the insurance!

 

[mo_s]

Hey all, never thot id be here but finally hit a pothole, put on michelin pilot sport 3's 18's and wow what a difference!!!!!...ride, quality, noise, handling, wet handling, all of it...thing is salesman told me this tyre is bmw approved, but I dont c the star. The previous michelin pilot sport 2's were approved. Anyone know whether these michelin sports 3's are approved or not?
I would be surprised if they aren't, considering the car feels safer on these than Bridgestone Potenza RE050A RFT's I had previously and I don't rate them as good at all.

 

[Coisman]

imp:
Call your dealership about it. Then on the other hand, I had Fuldas on my car while still under motorplan, and I never had crap. :dunno:

 

[Philip Foglar]

This is such a pile on doo-doo, and have wasted lots of money to keep these guys happy rather than my car and myself. As far as I know, Bridgestone, Continental (should NOT be), Dunlop, Good Year, Michelin and Pirelli are BMW Approved tyres - in other words, these brands have some sort of agreement with BMW. It's all business so that we are forced to support these other affiliated brands as far as I am concerned.

From what I remember being told when I got fed-up with this nonsense was that as long as you use and BMW Approved tyre brand that is the correct size and spec it is fine.

Michelin PS2 RFT's are regarded as the best although they apparently tend to wear out fairly quick. So naturally I would think that these newer Michelins would be great, even though they are not RFT's - can always get a space-saver and stick it in the boot!

Their arguments that suggest that other brands of tyres or non-RFT's likely to damage the suspension or drivetrain is utter rubbish - it is just the reasoning they use to ensure that you buy BMW Approved tyres.

When I had the Hankook RFT's on my car drove very very nicely and was quiet compared to the Continental RFT's. Only a bit later realised this whole BMW Approved nonsense and went back to the Continental RFT's I had before but with a new pair on the rear - the tyres that were on the rear had loads of tread left so moved them to the front. The car felt horrible yet again and was noisy - actually noisy is nothing, the handling and lack of stability was crazy! My double cab bakkie was more stable and handled better at that stage!

Basically, if the Continental RFT's were somehow tested and approved, then the Hankooks should pass with flying colours by comparison!

At the moment I have a used set of Bridgestone RE050 RFT's and they are superb - cars feels precise and predictable as it should, and does not suffer from tramlining or twitchy nervous instability like it does with the Continental RFT's.

The Hankook RFT's were great value for money for this specific size, Bridgestone RFT's are more costly but still great - the Continental RFT's are just throwing good money down the drain as far as I am concerned - now have 6 of them to eventually get rid of! :bangdesk: