Before you buy or lease an i3 Be Aware of the Tire Problem

BMW i3 Forum

Help Support BMW i3 Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

lencap

Active member
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
37
Location
North Carolina
Less than two years ago I leased 1 2014 BMW i3 ReX for a two year term of 20,000 miles. I've owned 11 BMW cars/motorcycles over the years, had owned three Toyota Prius' and a Nissan Leaf and decided to get the i3 instead of a Tesla since most of my driving would be local.

A few months ago I had to return to the dealership for yet another electrical problem. While there the dealer performed a courtesy examination of my car since the lease was set to expire within six months. At that time I was very surprised to hear that the tires were "near the end of their useful life" with tread at/below the 4/32" mark which is the minimum depth level permitted. The mileage on my car was just over 12,300 miles when the tires were examined. My onboard computer shows that since I took delivery of the car I've averaged just under 26 MPH, not a level that would seem to tax the tires excessively. I've never driven aggressively either.

Yesterday BMW had their inspection service (AutoVin) come to my home to examine the car prior to the end of the lease, which is late February 2017. Their inspection showed that all four tires are below the minimum tread level and need to be replaced. The car now has 13,690 miles on it. Needless to say I'm pretty upset. I turned the car into the dealer today, and vowed to never again own a BMW product.

Is that an overreaction? Perhaps, but the Bridgestone Ecopia EP600 tires, the tires BMW specs for my 2014 BMW i3 ReX are UTQG 440 AA rated - which means that they are the highest traction rated tires available in their class (AA), and have a wear life of 440 - which means that they should last 4.4 times as long as the standard tire on the UTQG test. That test requires a driving length life of 6,700 miles. In other words, Bridgestone expects these tires to last for 29,480 miles (4.4 times the standard 6,700 mile cycle). Despite these tests and ratings my tires are completely done with measured inner tread depth of 1-3 MM for each tire at 13,690 miles.

The tires are all worn on the inner most grove of the tires - the inboard grove on each side. They have been properly inflated over my ownership and there have been no accidents or any other issues with the car. The tire pressure monitor has never come on, and I check pressures regularly. It seems to be a design related issue, not a user error.

To add insult to injury, BMW expects me to buy the tires from their parts department at full retail price. TireRack prices are significantly lower. So for all of you thinking of a lease on the BMW be aware that in a two year lease you may have to buy TWO sets of tires - one as it wears at 12K miles, and another as the lease comes to an end and you are near 8K or more miles. My BMW dealer charges $909.80 for a set of installed tires. If you need one set over the course of a two year lease that will increase your monthly lease by $76/month, and if you need two sets of tires over the course of your lease that will add $152/month to your lease.

Let me add another point. I have a two year prepaid lease - "one payment and I'm done" - strategy. I turned my car in two full months and 6,310 miles before my lease expired. Yet BMW refuses to acknowledge the unusual tire wear, as well as the residual value increase by having a low mileage car returned to them prior to lease end. They still want me to pay the full price to replace the tires. When I told BMW I've owned 11 BMW vehicles they didn't care. I'm sure some other manufacturer will. Are you angry yet? Me too.

I'm not telling you to avoid the i3 - it's an enjoyable car with lots of growing pains during my ownership, very range challenged in cool weather, and terrible range in cold weather, but it is a step into the future. Unfortunately, my future steps with BMW are over. I'm done with them.
 
Who the hell buys tires from the dealership?

I have a sandbox in Arizona I would like to sell you.

Half the price at Costco, installed with a road hazard warranty, btw. Also, I am on my original front tires at 41,500 miles and just ordered replacements at Costco.
 
I had my lease pre-inspection and was informed one of my tires (at 14K miles) was borderline and would need to be replaced. The tire looks brand new.

It seems like a common problem, and it really sucks that BMW is sticking people with the bill of what seems like a design defect.
 
Turned my car in end of october with tires worn at 19500 miles. They charged me $340 for excessive wear. I think that is fair. If i ware you i woyld just turn it in with worn tires and pay the charge. I used every bit of performance my cars have and expect the tires to wear quicker. Price u pay i guess.
 
At my center you can request a pre-inspection; if the tires are worn you can get replacement tires wherever you want prior to the final inspection. As long as the tires are BMW approved you will have no issues.
 
Our rear tyres have just crossed the 28k miles mark and will need replacing soon. Front will be good for another 5-10k miles. Bridgestone is correct with the 4.4x estimate.
 
My rears are almost like slicks after 15k miles. I have enjoyed the high torque of the car but I have taken all corners conservatively (being conscious of tread wear) and it's not like I'm "burning rubber" when I take off. The car I leased was the demo car at the dealer so I believe the tires were already abused from many test drives. Had I realized this I would have had the dealer measure the tread depth before driving it off the lot.

I have driven cars more aggressively than the i3 and the tires have lasted much longer. There is also the problem with the inner tread wearing quicker, which seems to be a flaw with the i3. I believe part of the tire wear problem is due to the fact that we can't rotate the tires, the biggest design flaw with the i3 in my opinion.

My plan is to replace the rear tires ASAP since it's now snowy in MI. Once that's done I'm going to drive it very conservatively and monitor the tread wear. I will reconsider another i3 if the tires wear better from "normal" driving.

My local Firestone dealer is worried about scratching the rims with their tire machine though. Anyone have problems with this when replacing tires?
 
My experience is exactly the same as yours! It's very frustrating to have to pay for 4 new tires after just 23 months and only 14000 miles!

My days of leasing from BMW are done too. This is definitely a BMW design problem !
 
BMW didn't design the tires, Bridgestone did to match BMW's car.

I think we all agree that they should be able to produce the same tire with at least a 50,000 mile warranty, especially considering that Pirelli and Michelin are able to produce 90,000 mile tires for passenger cars.

I think one issue is the longer (versus wider) contact patch with our tires puts a higher percentage of surface area in contact with the pavement when compared to a standard car, therefore increasing wear over time. That being said, they should use harder and longer wearing materials and create a longer life tire for those of us that choose that path. Or, someone else should build a replacement tire and break down Bridgestone's monopoly!
 
Glisicusa said:
Turned my car in end of october with tires worn at 19500 miles. They charged me $340 for excessive wear. I think that is fair. If i ware you i woyld just turn it in with worn tires and pay the charge. I used every bit of performance my cars have and expect the tires to wear quicker. Price u pay i guess.


My Details: Leased BMW 2014 i3 (Giga Range Extender) on Feb'15 and lease end is coming up for due Feb'17. I haven't done the vInspection yet but plan to get it done soon (before i turn-in)

Q; Did you pay $340 excessive wear charge for one tire or 4 tires?
Q: Besides the charge for tires, did BMW charge you for anything else?

I don't have any major dents on exterior, however the car interior (upholstery) is all stained . I plan to get the basic detailing(wash) done for $200, it it really worth it or turn-in as is and hope BMW doesn't charge exorbitant prices.
 
No one should be measuring tread depth on the inner tread groove as that isn't a full height groove. A new EP600 should measure ~10/32" on the center groove and 6/32" on the inner groove.
 
just had my autovin inspection for lease return next week

at 17.8K miles all 4 are >4/32" depth and will not need replacing

guess i drive like an old lady :geek:

the tech said the car was in very nice condition and he didnt even notice the hood wrap

100_5921-L.jpg
 
czarmar said:
No one should be measuring tread depth on the inner tread groove as that isn't a full height groove. A new EP600 should measure ~10/32" on the center groove and 6/32" on the inner groove.
I posted some pics of the tread depth of brand new EP600 tires on another thread if anyone wants to reference this when getting their tires measured. I measured between 6/32" & 7/32" on the inner tread though.

http://www.mybmwi3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4360
 
I think what we're seeing here is a simple physics problem. The tires on this car are, as we all know, very thin. That means there's less tire material in contact with the road than an average tire. Less surface area in contact with the pavement means more force on that smaller area. That leads to faster wear and tear. Its kind of like the analogy of how a woman wearing pointy heels exerts more pressure on the ground then an elephant's foot.
If these cars had normal width tires, you'd be seeing normal wear at those mileages.
That's my theory anyway.
 
hightower82 said:
I think what we're seeing here is a simple physics problem. The tires on this car are, as we all know, very thin. That means there's less tire material in contact with the road than an average tire. Less surface area in contact with the pavement means more force on that smaller area. That leads to faster wear and tear. Its kind of like the analogy of how a woman wearing pointy heels exerts more pressure on the ground then an elephant's foot.
If these cars had normal width tires, you'd be seeing normal wear at those mileages.
That's what I used to think until someone argued convincingly, scientifically, that the contact area of a tire is dependent only on the weight supported by the tire and its inflation pressure but not on the size or shape of a tire. See if this argument persuades you as well.

The weight of a car is supported only by the air pressure in its tires. If the weight of a 4,000 lb car is distributed equally over its 4 tires, each tire would need to support 1,000 lb. If the inflation pressure in each tire is 40 lb/in2, the tire's contact area would be 1000 lb / 40 lb/in2 = 25 in2, regardless of the size or shape of the tire. However, changing the inflation pressure would change the contact area.

So, as you say, this is a simple physics problem. Your incorrect conclusion resulted from your incorrect assumption that the shape of a tire affects its contact area. If a tire were solid and did not depend on air pressure for support, it would behave like a woman's high heel or an elephant's foot (assuming that an elephant's foot is solid and doesn't deform).

So to support an i3 on its stock tires, the contact patch would be longer and narrower than if the i3 had wider tires, but the contact area would be the same. There might be a dependence of wear and tear on contact patch shape, but it's not clear to me what that dependence would be.
 
Aloha! Thanks for your insight on this. Sounds very plausible. Wonder why the tires are wearing out so quickly then?

alohart said:
hightower82 said:
I think what we're seeing here is a simple physics problem. The tires on this car are, as we all know, very thin. That means there's less tire material in contact with the road than an average tire. Less surface area in contact with the pavement means more force on that smaller area. That leads to faster wear and tear. Its kind of like the analogy of how a woman wearing pointy heels exerts more pressure on the ground then an elephant's foot.
If these cars had normal width tires, you'd be seeing normal wear at those mileages.
That's what I used to think until someone argued convincingly, scientifically, that the contact area of a tire is dependent only on the weight supported by the tire and its inflation pressure but not on the size or shape of a tire. See if this argument persuades you as well.

The weight of a car is supported only by the air pressure in its tires. If the weight of a 4,000 lb car is distributed equally over its 4 tires, each tire would need to support 1,000 lb. If the inflation pressure in each tire is 40 lb/in2, the tire's contact area would be 1000 lb / 40 lb/in2 = 25 in2, regardless of the size or shape of the tire. However, changing the inflation pressure would change the contact area.

So, as you say, this is a simple physics problem. Your incorrect conclusion resulted from your incorrect assumption that the shape of a tire affects its contact area. If a tire were solid and did not depend on air pressure for support, it would behave like a woman's high heel or an elephant's foot (assuming that an elephant's foot is solid and doesn't deform).

So to support an i3 on its stock tires, the contact patch would be longer and narrower than if the i3 had wider tires, but the contact area would be the same. There might be a dependence of wear and tear on contact patch shape, but it's not clear to me what that dependence would be.
 
hightower82 said:
Wonder why the tires are wearing out so quickly then?
A wide range of i3 tire wear experience is being reported. Some report their tires, especially rear tires, wearing out in less than 10k miles. Others have reported having driven almost 40k miles without wearing out their tires. Those with the optional 20" wheels have more performance-oriented lower profile summer tires whereas those with 19" wheels have higher profile all-season tires. It could be that the 20" tires wear faster the 19" tires, but I don't recall reading anything that supports this assertion.

Some of the discrepancy is certainly due to different driving styles. The i3's instant torque is too fun to ignore for many i3 drivers, but of course, this wears out rear tires rapidly. Others enjoy spirited driving on winding roads which wears front tires rapidly.

The i3's low rolling resistance tires contribute to faster wear because they have shallower tread depth than most tires when new, and their design emphasizes low rolling resistance over long tire wear.

The original tires on our 2000 Honda Insight are also Bridgestone low rolling resistance tires. Despite the Insight weighing only ~1.9k lb., the farthest I have been able to drive on its 165 mm. wide tires has been ~35k miles, and I drive very conservatively and rotate tires every 5k miles. So I expect to drive our i3 about the same distance on its tires before they wear out, but it's too soon to know whether that will be true.
 
One also has to look at the original tread depth as delivered. I haven't personally measured, but others have indicated values that are thinner than many (not all) new tires. FWIW, thinner tread, less squirm, higher efficiency. SO, it may be a tradeoff that was made for efficiency verses longevity. With the relative power/weight ratio on the car, and the fun it produces to use the available performance, it leads to less tire life.

Note, as described, a smaller diameter, wider tire would end up with the same contact patch as what we have. But, because it is narrower, it's possible the tire might 'fall into' a hole that a wider tire might bridge. The Germans take pretty good care of their roads, so a pothole is very uncommon...not like what we see here in the USA. They generally design them for longer life than we do as well, so potholes are less likely.
 
lencap said:
Less than two years ago I leased 1 2014 BMW i3 ReX for a two year term of 20,000 miles. I've owned 11 BMW cars/motorcycles over the years, had owned three Toyota Prius' and a Nissan Leaf and decided to get the i3 instead of a Tesla since most of my driving would be local.

A few months ago I had to return to the dealership for yet another electrical problem. While there the dealer performed a courtesy examination of my car since the lease was set to expire within six months. At that time I was very surprised to hear that the tires were "near the end of their useful life" with tread at/below the 4/32" mark which is the minimum depth level permitted. The mileage on my car was just over 12,300 miles when the tires were examined. My onboard computer shows that since I took delivery of the car I've averaged just under 26 MPH, not a level that would seem to tax the tires excessively. I've never driven aggressively either.

Yesterday BMW had their inspection service (AutoVin) come to my home to examine the car prior to the end of the lease, which is late February 2017. Their inspection showed that all four tires are below the minimum tread level and need to be replaced. The car now has 13,690 miles on it. Needless to say I'm pretty upset. I turned the car into the dealer today, and vowed to never again own a BMW product.

Is that an overreaction? Perhaps, but the Bridgestone Ecopia EP600 tires, the tires BMW specs for my 2014 BMW i3 ReX are UTQG 440 AA rated - which means that they are the highest traction rated tires available in their class (AA), and have a wear life of 440 - which means that they should last 4.4 times as long as the standard tire on the UTQG test. That test requires a driving length life of 6,700 miles. In other words, Bridgestone expects these tires to last for 29,480 miles (4.4 times the standard 6,700 mile cycle). Despite these tests and ratings my tires are completely done with measured inner tread depth of 1-3 MM for each tire at 13,690 miles.

The tires are all worn on the inner most grove of the tires - the inboard grove on each side. They have been properly inflated over my ownership and there have been no accidents or any other issues with the car. The tire pressure monitor has never come on, and I check pressures regularly. It seems to be a design related issue, not a user error.

To add insult to injury, BMW expects me to buy the tires from their parts department at full retail price. TireRack prices are significantly lower. So for all of you thinking of a lease on the BMW be aware that in a two year lease you may have to buy TWO sets of tires - one as it wears at 12K miles, and another as the lease comes to an end and you are near 8K or more miles. My BMW dealer charges $909.80 for a set of installed tires. If you need one set over the course of a two year lease that will increase your monthly lease by $76/month, and if you need two sets of tires over the course of your lease that will add $152/month to your lease.

Let me add another point. I have a two year prepaid lease - "one payment and I'm done" - strategy. I turned my car in two full months and 6,310 miles before my lease expired. Yet BMW refuses to acknowledge the unusual tire wear, as well as the residual value increase by having a low mileage car returned to them prior to lease end. They still want me to pay the full price to replace the tires. When I told BMW I've owned 11 BMW vehicles they didn't care. I'm sure some other manufacturer will. Are you angry yet? Me too.

I'm not telling you to avoid the i3 - it's an enjoyable car with lots of growing pains during my ownership, very range challenged in cool weather, and terrible range in cold weather, but it is a step into the future. Unfortunately, my future steps with BMW are over. I'm done with them.


Thanks for your sharing here. At least I am aware in inspecting the tires for I have plans to lease BMW i3 this year. This could be a great awareness information for us who have plans to buy or lease BMW i3.
 
Back
Top