Both offer the same comfort, grip and minimal road noise levels for this type of tire.

I would choose the Contis just because they seem to have a little more agressive tread design.

These are some pics of my new Yokohama AvidENVigors. They replaced the Michelins that were running very rough. I love them - very very smooth ride, great in the rain and feel good at speed. For what it's worth.....

Have a good day.

Anyone have first hand experience with the 18" General Grabbers? They are almost as highly ranked as the Conti's on tirerack but more competitively priced.

I had them on my 2008 X5 for around 15K (before I traded it in). They were good tires, did nothing wrong, but also didn't really excite me. Maybe a tad noisier than when the run flats were new and the winter grip was good, but again not great. So overall good tires.

We had the Conti DWS on our Mazda 3 and they were fantastic. I was shocked at what they did for the car.

Hey guys, I have a '06 4.4 w/ sport/ 19" staggered set-up. After the Bridgestone's went off I got the Michelin Latitudes. Talk about changing the character of the vehicle!! MUCH better ride quality and MUCH quieter. (Tire noise is of ultimate importance to me.) I've got over 10,000 miles on them and I can tell you, it's a fantastic tire. No reason to compromise. Cheers, Rob

What about Michelin Cross Terrains? I had those on my old Lexus GX and thought they were extremely quiet with a great ride.

I'm in the same situation with my run flats. After 22k, they're almost shot, and they're loud and stiff. I hate 'em. Not sure why anyone would want them. There's no way that the alleged benefits of RFs offset all their negatives IMHO.

EDIT: Doesn't look like they make the cross terrains in that size.

You are equating your experience with one worn out set of RFTs, with all run flat tire designs, by all manufacturers. That seems a bit of a stretch. I haven't had any problems with three sets of RFTs on different vehicles. There are better and worse RFTs, just like there are better and worse non-RFTs, IMO.

Well, I agree a little. My experience is also based on a close friend who works for Michelin. She bought a 3-Series that came with RF's and by 10k miles they were shot.

And regardless of manufacturer, I haven't had non-RF's wear out their tread in less than 50k miles, while these RF's have barely made 20k and need to be replaced.

I'm glad that you haven't had any problems with 3 sets of RF's. I haven't had any problems other than the loud road noise, stiff/bumpy ride, and the fact that they've worn out in less than half the time of non-RF's I've had.

I agree that I'm making a generalization based on my personal (and that of a close friend's) experience. But I simply don't see the advantages of RF's other than BMW and Benz being able to save some space and weight. I personally would rather have a spare and sacrifice the space and weight. Obviously, your mileage varies.

I have had three sets of the infamous Bridgestone Dueler runflats. One of a 3 series and two on X5s. All three sets got loud and brutal to drive around 12 - 15K. I really hoped my 2011 would have the Michelins, but no dice.

I can't speak to other brands/models (so I won't generalize). But I can safely say that the Bridgestone Duelers are crap.

Of course this isn't the first time a manufacturer put lousy tires on a new car.

Anyone ever heard of or used one of these?

Continental ContiComfortKit