Bridgestone  Dueler H/L 400 RFT

the first 20,000 miles are very good. dry and wet grip were strong on turns. I had confidence taking sweeping turns 15mph above posted speed during steady rain conditions and 25mph above in dry conditions. rotated every 10k miles with no uneven wear.
at 25K mi., I approximate less than 25% tread remaining and wet grip decreased noticeably.
I do not recommend these tires due to price point and will consider other brands such as Michelin CrossClimate2 in 235/55/17.
I will not use these tires to completion and am ready to dump them post haste

Not sure why this tire gets generally low ratings...I have about 8k on this new set of RFT's and they seem to be a pretty good 3 season tire: good grip wet or dry, quiet, a bit firm on cleveland pothole strewn streets, but that could be the BMW X50's firm suspension more so than the hardness of the tire. Not too many miles so far, but reasonalby impressed with this RFT (which I generally loath). True convession - I did buy a seperate set of snow tires to get throught the Cleveland winters - these tires are weak in the snow/ice. It would be totally embrrasing to end up in a snow bank with an X5...and I don't like to slow down just for a little snow.

Just replaced a set of 4 of these on my 2011 BMW X3 2.8i. Got 52,000 miles of combined driving out of them. They were a bit stiff and noisy as RFT tires tend to be. I had very good luck in a mix or rain and snow/ice with these tires. Not sure if the extra cost for the RFT is worth it but I was able to take advantage once of the RFT tech when I managed to pick up a screw in one of the tires. Not bad.

I have just purchased a second set of Bridgestone Dueler H/L 400, 255/55R18. The first set had 43,000 miles of wear and probably could have gone another 10,000 miles. I replaced them because we're leaving on a long road trip and wanted a new tire for maximum traction. The original tires had good traction in wet conditions and never hydroplaned at typical highway speeds. In light snow, up to 6 inches deep, they delivered adequate traction for highway driving and to descend moderately steep driveways at slow speed. The only really significant problem is the terrible ride they deliver on typical California highways. One feels every expansion strip, pothole patch, etc. I was driving Hwy 85 in Cupertino while it was being resurfaced and the waviness of the concrete was transmitted directly to the occupants of the BMW X5 so severely that it caused nausea. After leaving California I now drive on reasonable road surfaces and no longer have any discomfort with the ride. That's why I purchased a second set as replacements.

Two recent experiences have compelled me to write a review. In the past couple of months, the area where I live has had a few rainstorms come through. Twice, at extremely low speeds (thankfully), the car has lost traction while making right turns. One time was from a dead stop where the rear broke loose and I had to countersteer to get control back. Then today, in a short, tight 90-degree right turn, the entire car was headed sideways for a second.

The weird thing is, while nearing 4 years old, the treads on these tires are great. Plus, they've held up longer than 80% of the tires I've had in the past. Nonetheless, I am pretty worried about these tires. My family takes this car for the vast majority of our road trips, and now I really lack confidence in their ability to get us safely from point A to point B, particularly with fall and the approaching ski season. I did give them a 7 for hydroplaning resistance, but that's only because I haven't spun out at higher speeds...yet.

In the dry, I've found these tires quite competent. They certainly help with the unexpectedly good handling this car is known to have, although I can hear the tires very well in the cabin and feel they just crash over every bump and pothole.

Ultimately, I strongly recommend you do NOT buy these tires unless you only plan to drive in the dry. But if you were, you wouldn't be looking at an all-season tire in the first place, right?

I got these 255-50-19 tires about 3 months ago. On dry pavement they are fine. In the rain, they seem okay with respect to cornering and braking. If there is any snow on the ground, their forward stopping distance is terrible. The cornering is a bit better, but still not great. Definitely would not buy them again.

The Bridgestone Dueler runflats which are on my MBenz 2010 350 BlueTec perform fine on dry or wet pavement. Where I am disappointed in these tires is their performance in the winter in snow. They tend to slide, they don't give me a feeling of confidence that they will stop or steer well in snow.

I purchased a RAV4 for use on snow packed upstate NY roads. The car may be fine but why Toyota put these tires on the car is a mystery. They are dangerous in snowy conditions. The car enters in uncontrollable skids/slips that makes it hazardous to life and limb. Absolutely, the worse tires I have ever had. They are coming off before I get killed. I prefer stuffing a standard spare/rim (with a jack) in the trunk than take a chance with this junk.

This is the OE run flat on X5 diesels. While I wouldn't agree with the other X5d owner above about them being total crap they definitely aren't great. We do put a lot of miles on our X5 (hence the diesel) so as far as tread wear I think these are fine. That being said; they are loud, heavy and not comfortable! These were brand new when we bought the car CPO in 2012 and I have never liked them. I will not buy these again and also will not buy runflats again. I may go with Ecopia or Continentals but a can of fix-a-flat is going in the trunk for sure.

These tires performed well for the first 16,000 miles. By 20,000 miles they were getting progressively louder with some vibration and harsh ride quality. I am meticulous about tire pressure and rotation, which apparently allowed me to get a little over 20,000 miles out of them according to dealers that I talked to. I knew these tires get poor reviews, but I still had 8/32 tread depth (10/32 is the tread depth when new) and they should not have needed to be replaced. This is typical BMW nonsense. These OEM tires are made to a spec that only BMW understands or appreciates while the customer gets stuck with a $1,000 tire replacement bill every 20,000 miles. It would almost be understandable if these tires were stellar performers, but they're mediocre at best even when new.

By far the worst tires I have ever had in my 35 years of driving. Aside from the hard and noisy ride they provide the are completly unrepairable under any circumstances. Within the 22,000 miles I have had small nail punctures that would have been repairable with any non RFT. Bridgestone suggests that these are repairable and gives you the name of certified repair shops for repair. Guess what ? non of these shops indicated that they can or would attempt to fix these tires. Next step ! calling the Bridgestone toll free number. Normally do not do these surveys/reviews but just thought the pubilc should be aware of the problems

Were OEM tires when purchased BMW X5 during 2012. The ride has always been rough and less than enjoying. Tires now have 29000 miles and are worn out. I see no reason to purchase another set of these tires considering the cost, rough ride, handling and lack of tread wear. I made sure the tires were always in alignment and maintained proper tire pressure, they simply are not made to last past 30000 from comments I have read and my own experience.

Horrible tire. Loud and no tread life at all. Not sure why BMW would put a 20,000 mile tire on a premium vehicle. This tire should be taken off the market or sold for $100 since it needs to be replaced every year or so. Absurd.

These tires, OE on my RAV4 Sport, are incredibly noisy, literally forcing you to raise your voice to converse at highway speeds. They have an annoying, jarring ride (in combination with the "sport-tuned" suspension on the RAV4 Sport) on all but the smoothest pavement. They also have mediocre tread life: mine need replacement at 55K, not impressive for an H-rated tire. My main objection is the cost and inconvenience of owning these tires. The Bridgestone owners' manual states that their RFT tires are "not repairable" if the tire was "operated" with less than 15 lbs psi. What good is having run-flats if they must be scrapped if driven after they go flat? Isn't the capability to drive after a flat occurs the chief reason you have such tires on your car? And how can you avoid it in most events, since you have no spare and no jack?? Even worse, these tires are very hard to find, not even kept in stock at the Toyota dealerships! At 20,000 miles, 2 different tires went flat within a few weeks. No shop would repair either flat, which I understand to be a common problem: repair shops are afraid that you exceeded the speed/distance limits while driving after the tire went flat. The first time, no one in the (downstate Illinois) area had them in stock. I had to buy a similar conventional tire to finish a road trip home to Chicago on time, where of course it had to be replaced by an OE tire. Since the second flat was also "not repairable", the 2 flats cost about $700 to fix, the price of three new tires, mounting charges, etc. I believe that the supposed advantages of run-flats are far out-weighed, at least in the case of Bridgestone products, by the harsh ride characteristics, excessive noise, and much higher costs involved. I agree with the advice of other reviewers of Bridgestone run-flats on this site: replace them with conventional tires, carry a can of Fix-A-Flat, and get an AAA membership.