Help choosing between Kumho Runflat and Michelin Sport Pilot A/S Zero Pressure

[Un4given]

I know it's a long shot as the Kumho Runflats are relatively new, but has anyone had any experience with both of these tires? I need to replace my original goodyear runflats after 24,000 miles and I have narrowed it down to one of these two tires. I have considered going with a non-runflat, but because I pick up my 14 month old daughter everyday after work, I want to maintain the runflats. The last thing I want is to be on the side of the road repairing a flat with my daughter in the car alone. I want to maintain the peace of mind. Both of these tires get excellent ratings at tire rack and by going on these ratings alone, I would go with the Kumhos without hesitation due to the cost. The only factor that I'm unsure of is the tread wear rating of the Kumho being 220 vs 400 for the Michelin. I've read that you can't cross between manufacturers and make an accurate comparison. I called Kumho and talked to one of their managers in their technical area and he said that there was some truth to that, but with a spread that large he was confident that the Kuhmo would not last as long and that I needed to consider my driving style and cost of each tire. I talked to a Michelin rep who was not a lot of help as his standpoint was the Michelin was Gods personal choice for his automobile and how dare anyone even compare another tire to it. He said I should easily get 40,000 miles out of the Michelin which sound like BS to me. A third guy I talked to was a local dealer that sells everything. He said he is going to be putting the Kumhos on his 2003 Cobra and they are an excellent tire and priced right. He felt the Michelins are a superior tire in that they are all seasons, but I live in Florida and won't be driving in snow so he said not to consider that and that he felt that Michelin inflated their tread wear ratings across the board on all of their tires. So thereby lies the tale. I feel either will be a great tire so it's kind of down to how long I think each will last and compare that to the $804 Kumho price out the door to the $1295 Michelin price out the door. Hopefully if you have any experience, you can share it and if you are in the same boat as me, maybe I've shared a little of my research that may help you out. Thanks.

[DocToss]

I am in the same boat in that I need to replace my oem runflats. My brother is a service manager for firestone and his opinion is that michelin is overpriced, but of course a good tire. He says kuhmos are the best for the money. My problem is that you are talking about a difference of $500. However if you keep the tires 4 years, that is $125 a year or $10 month difference. If another tire is that much better, the $10 is worth it. I am looking at the firestones, bridgestone or kuhmo runflats.

[Un4given]

Well DocToss,

Thanks for climbing in the boat and keeping me company. Good luck with your selection. I was hoping for some feedback from someone with some experience. Maybe someone will come along.

[StArrow68]

Another guy looking at the Michelin's as well but think there is a factor neither of you mentioned directly, but I can guesstimate. How many miles per year? Seems at the prices mentioned, the Michelin's need to go 32k if the Kumho's get over 20k miles. Since I got into tracking late my OEMs have gone 21k miles but don't expect to get comparable miles in the future with more track days. Only case where I wouldn't get the Michelin's would be a garage queen that does only 5k miles per year and the rubber would get too old before they get really worn. I've run Michelin's on everything from MG's in the 70's to an Excursion and had some go over 100k miles so they may be high price but not always high cost to run. Figuring out alignment when you do both street driving and track days may make more difference in long term wear in my case.

[96CollectorSport]

I have been retiring C5's pretty regularlly for the last few years and I have to say that getting rid of your run-flats is one of the best changes you can make to your car hands down. You don't get the noise that you get from run-flats, especially in the case of the F1 GS D3's, the ride is much better, and the handleing is more predictable. As far as getting a flat goes, think about the last time you were actually on the side of the road changing a tire. You can also get some of the tire fix-a-flat which will get you to a service station for assistance. Your cars are built in with a tire montior which will tell you when a tire has a leak, and tires nowadays are built so much stronger, especially the Z-rated performance tires you would put on your C5, that the likelyhood of a flat is very small. I can appriciate your concerns about piece of mind but I think that the benafits really do outweigh the risk. Not to mention getting a flat would be an adventure for a 14 month old :D
After driving C5's with and without runflats I really have to tell you in my most honest opinion that to retire with runflats again would be a mistake. Just my two cents. But when anyone comes to my shop and asks what to put on there car I recommend GS-D3's over and over, that's why I have a set on my car.

[Un4given]

Hey thanks for the reply. It has been many years since I have had to change a flat and it was in my front yard leaving the house. I thought I had this pretty much decided, but now you've got me thinking again. Well, I've probably got a month or so to bounce it around some more. I know the GS D3's to get great ratings at tire rack and I love the tread pattern.

I guess I'm still on the fence for a little longer.

[96CollectorSport]

I'm not here to sell tires all I can tell you is what I have found out after driving cars with and without runflats. And the difference is amazing it really makes you more confident in pushing the car, because you actually get feedback and a little warning before the car breaks loose. It is really something worth thinking about.