Sponsored by The Tire Rack

[RPM90]

Ok, here is my initial review of the Conti DWS all season tires.
I only have a few hundred miles on them as I just got them very recently.
But, they are broke in and I've had time to drive over familiar roads so that I can compare their performance to the OEM RFT's.

I went with the 225/255 size as most 135i owners have when replacing the RFT's. Overall, I don't think they are much wider than the 215/245 OEM size, but most all season tires tend not to be very wide to begin with.
For that reason the upsized size is the one to go with if you want to stay with near stock sizing that works.

This review is long, so if you just want to read my drive/ride impressions, the skip down to the red line and read below that.

First, the things that I didn't like about the RFT's, or what I thought their faults were, which has been confirmed with the installation of the non RFT Conti DWS tires.
Overall harshness, especially on rough roads, and cracks, big bumps and the like. Overall traction. A somewhat vague off-center feel at the initial turn of the steering wheel.

The positives of the RFT is that they were actually a quiet tire, except on concrete. And, of course, no need to stop and replace the tire in case of puncture or blow out.

What I was looking for in a replacement is for improved ride, quiet, better at absorbing road imperfections, and a tire that didn't give mid corner bump steer, which the RFT's are VERY prone to do.
I also wanted great wet road response, and good snow traction, plus lighter weight to improve accel, braking, handling, and maybe better MPG.

I researched and considered the new Pirelli Pzero "all season" that replaces the "M+S A/S" version, the new Mich Pilot all season Plus, the new Conti DWS which replaces the previous version.

Per the TireRacks tests the P-Zero is the quietest tire with the Mich and Conti as tied for number 2. The Mich had one negative in that some reviewers thought it had a "ring" tone qualit over highway expansion joints.
Also, the TR salesman said that he felt that the directional tread on the Mich tires made it more prone to a louder ride on concrete surfaces, but was very quiet on ashphalt.

So, the P zero had the worst wet traction response and potentially the worst snow traction. The snow part was due to how the previous version did in the snow, and judging from theh tread pattern not much was changed except for some different sipe pattern on the outer tread.
The Pzero was rated as the best in steering response, the Mich a close second, and the Conti last. In fact, the one fault of the Conti is it's slower steering response, which I was worried about as the RFT's alread exhibited that trait.

It really came down to 2 tires for my wants and nees, the Mich and the Conti. I think I would have been happy with either tire.
The Mich is a previous known winner, and it rated better in steering feel, and nearly as good as the Conti in snow. The Conti rated better in snow and was the clear winner in wet conditions.
So, I decided that snow traction and wet performance were more important to me than a slight advantage in steering response feel, but that's a personal choice. If you value steering response and feel over the other aspects than the Mich or Pzero may be better suited to your wants.

Two main factors steered me to the Conti DWS, the price and the warranty. I would gladly pay more for the Mich tires if indeed they had a clear advantage in overall performance per testing. They don't.
The Mich rated just behind the Pzero and about the same as the Conti's.
So, I didn't feel the greater cost was justified.
Also, the Conti's have a much better warranty than the other two tires.
Conti gives you a "road hazard" warranty for the first year with full replacement, and the subsequent years are pro rated. In fact, the TireRack doesn't even offer a road hazard warranty due to the quality of Conti's warranty. Also, Conti offers a 60 day full refund on their tire, if you don't like their performance for whatever reason Conti will refund your full purchase price with NO prorating. You will not get refunded the installation cost though, but I think that's fair.
So, I liked that. If I don't like these tires, then I'll just take them back and get my second choice the Mich tires.

Other considerations:

Lighter weight. These tires are the lowest weight of the 3 tires I considered, and they are much lighter than the RFT's saving 4lbs in the front set and 6lbs in the rear set, for a total of 10lbs LESS unsprung weight. Comparatively, the Mich only save 2lbs total as the fronts weigh the same as the RFT's, and the Pzero save a total of 6lbs over the RFT's.
Reducing 10lbs of unsprung weight is a VERY good thing.

Can't have something for nothing though, the Pzeros have a wider front and rear tread, which is better for summer and dry roads. They are .5" wider in the front and .3" wider in the rear.
They also start with 11/32" tread depth, compared to 10/32" for the Conti's and Mich tires. BUT, their wear rating is 400 compared to 540 and 500 for the Conti and Mich tires, respectively. So, they start with more tread, but wear it quicker, indicating a softer and stickier rubber compound. Again, great for dry and warm, but not so much for wet and cold.


================================================== ===
My impressions after driving for a few hundred miles:
If you really value how your tires look, then look elsewhere. The DWS sidewalls are pretty lackluster, and look boring. There is nothing of note or special about how they look. Part of the bland appearance is that the tread sipes continue onto the sidewall for a bit. I think that's good as I'm sure that's one reason why these tires excel in snow and wet traction.

I checked the installed tire pressure at the TireRack before I left and they were a bit lower than what I like to run. TR set them per spec, I like them 2lbs higher front and rear as I commute on highway, and most of my non commute driving is high speed country roads.

On the initial drive home the Conti's brought a huge grin to my cherubic face. THIS is what a BMW should ride like. One thing I didn't quite like about my 135i is that the overall ride just wasn't that special BMW ride that balances tight handlling with a smooth bump absorbing ride.
With the RFT's gone, I now KNEW what I suspected, that these RFT's SUCK for nice ride and suspension compliance over pavement breaks and bumps. My 135i rode smoothly, quietly, and absorbed the bumps with a mild and quiet little "pthump". THAT'S what I wanted and the Conti's delivered!

Now, I had read that the Conti's had a soft initial steering response off center. However, compared to the RFT's I didn't detect anything wrong or worse than what was there. Is it better or quicker than the RFT's?
I can't say that there is a difference. So, there wasn't an improved in that aspect, but it's not slower or softer. So, for an all season tire compared to an ultra high summer performanace tire, I call that a WIN.
Yes, I was wishing for a slight improvement, but not expecting it really as the TireRack review told the story truthfully.

These tires are QUIET on asphalt, a bit quieter than the RFT's, that is noticeable. As far as concrete, I'd say they might be a bit quieter, but as I said, the RFT's weren't that loud to me at least not on my 135i.
In all, there is an improvement on asphalt and a slight improvement on concrete. In that regard, no disappointment at all.

After the ride home I noticed that my average MPG went up about 1mpg.
Hmmm, nice. I knew that lighter weight would have benefits all around.
Since driving on these tires for while, my overall MPG has improved to nearly 1MPG, and that's driving the 1 the same as before, so I credit the new tires. A couple of days ago I went to check my air pressures, and all 4 tires were much lower than when they were installed. The fronts dropped about 3-4psi and the rears were 4-5psi lower. I attribute that to the lower ambient air temps compared to the day I got them. I filled them to my 38psi up front and 40psi in the rear. I'm expecting my MPG to go up a bit as I was riding on under inflated tires.

I had also noticed a softer ride and a bit less steering response sharpness that I thought was the softer sidewall of the Conti's. But, once I corrected the tire pressures all was back to normal.

Over the past week we've had a lot of rain and cold temps. The tires have performed beautifully. No loss of traction on wet cold roads, smooth ride, quiet ride, etc... Also, there is one BIG bump on my way home from work.
On the highway entrance ramp to I65, there is a huge bump in the road that stretches across the whole lane. With the RFT's as I'm accelerating to merge with highway traffic, every time I hit that bump my rear end would simply JUMP up with the rear tires lifting off the pavement, and as I'm still accelerating my traction light goes off, I lose power for a second, the tires slam back down on the pavement and off I go,
With the Conti's, no such thing. The fronts simply thump over and the rears thump over, no skyward bounce from the rears, and I have smooth acceleration onto the highway just like a BMW should do, with no undue drama. Yeah! for these tires and non RFT's!

So, that's it so far. The Conti DWS are doing what I hoped and expected they would. Given the cold wet traction so far I think they will perform admirably in the snow.

Is there something I wish to improve in the DWS tires?
Yes. I would like a bit quicker steering response. Maybe a bit stiffer sidewall would fix that, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice the nice ride and smooth bump absorbtion if I had to trade for that.
Also, they could be a bit stickier for off the line acceleration. Granted, they don't feel any worse than the RFT's, and they are all season tires compared to the summer performance RFT's. Still, if they can give a bit more bite off the line that would be great.
One other thing is very typical of Conti tires in general in my experience.
After sitting overnight especially, for the first 5-8 miles or so, depending on the temp, there is a slight vibration in the steering until the tires warm up.
It's nothing crazy, the Conti's on my 325i would do that too, and the Dunlop Sportmaxx would do that on my A4. It's a common aspect of many tires, especially Conti's.
The last thing is cosmetic. Continental, PLEASE please work on how the tires look. Granted, I value performance over looks, but really, it's not that hard to make the tires look a abit better, I wouldn't think.
The nice thing is that they have a very nice "lip protector" section of rubber that protects the wheel. The rubber extends a bit past the wheels outer edge so that if you hit a pothole, the wheel shouldn't get hit as the rubber lip should take the hit instead.

Overall, so far I am very pleased with these tires. The positives greatly outweigh any negatives, and the one thing I was worried about, steering response, is a non issue comparatively.
If you're considering an all season, ultra high performance tire for a good price, put these on your very short list, or just get a set and try them out for yourself. With the excellent 60 day free trial you really have nothing to lose cause if you really don't like them, just take them back and get something else.

I give the Conti DWS .

[Fireflyer239]

Wow RPM, nice review. Isn't it a great feeling to know you've made the right choice? (You may remember we talked when you were in the thinking stage) A valid point you make is about tire weight; the Michelins I chose are 2 lbs heavier than your DWS's and I did note that at the time, but since I was also changing from stock wheels to Breyton GTS-R's I saved about 8 lbs unsprung weight at each corner! And that's going from 17's to wider 18's! I can really feel that, it's great. No "ringing" though, glad for that. But the best point you make is that finally, this is how a BMW should feel! Much of my driving is on country roads which are often quite lumpy, and the way my car soaks it all up while maintaining superb control really brings on the satisfaction! No more cringing just before rolling over manhole covers, and I don't need to steer around them either! The addition of the Hotchkis front sway bar creates yet another level of happiness beyond this also, and I now feel I have the perfect road car handling!

Well, continued enjoyment to you RPM...Cheers!

[woodman650]

Awesome review! I was excited to see this up this morning. It sounds like those Michelins might offer the better handling, for an additional $250+ though, I guess you have to be driving pretty aggressively to justify it

[Michael A]

Nice review .... I have been tossing up getting these Conti DWS or Kumho ASX's

[Nifty]

Nice review RPM, I've had these tires for 500+ miles now and from the second I've had them put on I've never once missed the run flats. Like you've said, I dont feel as if I've given up anything really, but I do feel like I've gained alot.

Once the snow starts to fall here (which should be soon) I'll be able to chime in with some snow driving impressions.

[gpchamp]

Thanks for your great review. How did your braking performance compare after switching to the Conti's? Was the braking distance a lot longer than with the RFT's? Or was it comparable?

Originally Posted by RPM90

Ok, here is my initial review of the Conti DWS all season tires.
I only have a few hundred miles on them as I just got them very recently.
But, they are broke in and I've had time to drive over familiar roads so that I can compare their performance to the OEM RFT's.

I went with the 225/255 size as most 135i owners have when replacing the RFT's. Overall, I don't think they are much wider than the 215/245 OEM size, but most all season tires tend not to be very wide to begin with.
For that reason the upsized size is the one to go with if you want to stay with near stock sizing that works.

This review is long, so if you just want to read my drive/ride impressions, the skip down to the red line and read below that.

First, the things that I didn't like about the RFT's, or what I thought their faults were, which has been confirmed with the installation of the non RFT Conti DWS tires.
Overall harshness, especially on rough roads, and cracks, big bumps and the like. Overall traction. A somewhat vague off-center feel at the initial turn of the steering wheel.

The positives of the RFT is that they were actually a quiet tire, except on concrete. And, of course, no need to stop and replace the tire in case of puncture or blow out.

What I was looking for in a replacement is for improved ride, quiet, better at absorbing road imperfections, and a tire that didn't give mid corner bump steer, which the RFT's are VERY prone to do.
I also wanted great wet road response, and good snow traction, plus lighter weight to improve accel, braking, handling, and maybe better MPG.

I researched and considered the new Pirelli Pzero "all season" that replaces the "M+S A/S" version, the new Mich Pilot all season Plus, the new Conti DWS which replaces the previous version.

Per the TireRacks tests the P-Zero is the quietest tire with the Mich and Conti as tied for number 2. The Mich had one negative in that some reviewers thought it had a "ring" tone qualit over highway expansion joints.
Also, the TR salesman said that he felt that the directional tread on the Mich tires made it more prone to a louder ride on concrete surfaces, but was very quiet on ashphalt.

So, the P zero had the worst wet traction response and potentially the worst snow traction. The snow part was due to how the previous version did in the snow, and judging from theh tread pattern not much was changed except for some different sipe pattern on the outer tread.
The Pzero was rated as the best in steering response, the Mich a close second, and the Conti last. In fact, the one fault of the Conti is it's slower steering response, which I was worried about as the RFT's alread exhibited that trait.

It really came down to 2 tires for my wants and nees, the Mich and the Conti. I think I would have been happy with either tire.
The Mich is a previous known winner, and it rated better in steering feel, and nearly as good as the Conti in snow. The Conti rated better in snow and was the clear winner in wet conditions.
So, I decided that snow traction and wet performance were more important to me than a slight advantage in steering response feel, but that's a personal choice. If you value steering response and feel over the other aspects than the Mich or Pzero may be better suited to your wants.

Two main factors steered me to the Conti DWS, the price and the warranty. I would gladly pay more for the Mich tires if indeed they had a clear advantage in overall performance per testing. They don't.
The Mich rated just behind the Pzero and about the same as the Conti's.
So, I didn't feel the greater cost was justified.
Also, the Conti's have a much better warranty than the other two tires.
Conti gives you a "road hazard" warranty for the first year with full replacement, and the subsequent years are pro rated. In fact, the TireRack doesn't even offer a road hazard warranty due to the quality of Conti's warranty. Also, Conti offers a 60 day full refund on their tire, if you don't like their performance for whatever reason Conti will refund your full purchase price with NO prorating. You will not get refunded the installation cost though, but I think that's fair.
So, I liked that. If I don't like these tires, then I'll just take them back and get my second choice the Mich tires.

Other considerations:

Lighter weight. These tires are the lowest weight of the 3 tires I considered, and they are much lighter than the RFT's saving 4lbs in the front set and 6lbs in the rear set, for a total of 10lbs LESS unsprung weight. Comparatively, the Mich only save 2lbs total as the fronts weigh the same as the RFT's, and the Pzero save a total of 6lbs over the RFT's.
Reducing 10lbs of unsprung weight is a VERY good thing.

Can't have something for nothing though, the Pzeros have a wider front and rear tread, which is better for summer and dry roads. They are .5" wider in the front and .3" wider in the rear.
They also start with 11/32" tread depth, compared to 10/32" for the Conti's and Mich tires. BUT, their wear rating is 400 compared to 540 and 500 for the Conti and Mich tires, respectively. So, they start with more tread, but wear it quicker, indicating a softer and stickier rubber compound. Again, great for dry and warm, but not so much for wet and cold.


================================================== ===
My impressions after driving for a few hundred miles:
If you really value how your tires look, then look elsewhere. The DWS sidewalls are pretty lackluster, and look boring. There is nothing of note or special about how they look. Part of the bland appearance is that the tread sipes continue onto the sidewall for a bit. I think that's good as I'm sure that's one reason why these tires excel in snow and wet traction.

I checked the installed tire pressure at the TireRack before I left and they were a bit lower than what I like to run. TR set them per spec, I like them 2lbs higher front and rear as I commute on highway, and most of my non commute driving is high speed country roads.

On the initial drive home the Conti's brought a huge grin to my cherubic face. THIS is what a BMW should ride like. One thing I didn't quite like about my 135i is that the overall ride just wasn't that special BMW ride that balances tight handlling with a smooth bump absorbing ride.
With the RFT's gone, I now KNEW what I suspected, that these RFT's SUCK for nice ride and suspension compliance over pavement breaks and bumps. My 135i rode smoothly, quietly, and absorbed the bumps with a mild and quiet little "pthump". THAT'S what I wanted and the Conti's delivered!

Now, I had read that the Conti's had a soft initial steering response off center. However, compared to the RFT's I didn't detect anything wrong or worse than what was there. Is it better or quicker than the RFT's?
I can't say that there is a difference. So, there wasn't an improved in that aspect, but it's not slower or softer. So, for an all season tire compared to an ultra high summer performanace tire, I call that a WIN.
Yes, I was wishing for a slight improvement, but not expecting it really as the TireRack review told the story truthfully.

These tires are QUIET on asphalt, a bit quieter than the RFT's, that is noticeable. As far as concrete, I'd say they might be a bit quieter, but as I said, the RFT's weren't that loud to me at least not on my 135i.
In all, there is an improvement on asphalt and a slight improvement on concrete. In that regard, no disappointment at all.

After the ride home I noticed that my average MPG went up about 1mpg.
Hmmm, nice. I knew that lighter weight would have benefits all around.
Since driving on these tires for while, my overall MPG has improved to nearly 1MPG, and that's driving the 1 the same as before, so I credit the new tires. A couple of days ago I went to check my air pressures, and all 4 tires were much lower than when they were installed. The fronts dropped about 3-4psi and the rears were 4-5psi lower. I attribute that to the lower ambient air temps compared to the day I got them. I filled them to my 38psi up front and 40psi in the rear. I'm expecting my MPG to go up a bit as I was riding on under inflated tires.

I had also noticed a softer ride and a bit less steering response sharpness that I thought was the softer sidewall of the Conti's. But, once I corrected the tire pressures all was back to normal.

Over the past week we've had a lot of rain and cold temps. The tires have performed beautifully. No loss of traction on wet cold roads, smooth ride, quiet ride, etc... Also, there is one BIG bump on my way home from work.
On the highway entrance ramp to I65, there is a huge bump in the road that stretches across the whole lane. With the RFT's as I'm accelerating to merge with highway traffic, every time I hit that bump my rear end would simply JUMP up with the rear tires lifting off the pavement, and as I'm still accelerating my traction light goes off, I lose power for a second, the tires slam back down on the pavement and off I go,
With the Conti's, no such thing. The fronts simply thump over and the rears thump over, no skyward bounce from the rears, and I have smooth acceleration onto the highway just like a BMW should do, with no undue drama. Yeah! for these tires and non RFT's!

So, that's it so far. The Conti DWS are doing what I hoped and expected they would. Given the cold wet traction so far I think they will perform admirably in the snow.

Is there something I wish to improve in the DWS tires?
Yes. I would like a bit quicker steering response. Maybe a bit stiffer sidewall would fix that, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice the nice ride and smooth bump absorbtion if I had to trade for that.
Also, they could be a bit stickier for off the line acceleration. Granted, they don't feel any worse than the RFT's, and they are all season tires compared to the summer performance RFT's. Still, if they can give a bit more bite off the line that would be great.
One other thing is very typical of Conti tires in general in my experience.
After sitting overnight especially, for the first 5-8 miles or so, depending on the temp, there is a slight vibration in the steering until the tires warm up.
It's nothing crazy, the Conti's on my 325i would do that too, and the Dunlop Sportmaxx would do that on my A4. It's a common aspect of many tires, especially Conti's.
The last thing is cosmetic. Continental, PLEASE please work on how the tires look. Granted, I value performance over looks, but really, it's not that hard to make the tires look a abit better, I wouldn't think.
The nice thing is that they have a very nice "lip protector" section of rubber that protects the wheel. The rubber extends a bit past the wheels outer edge so that if you hit a pothole, the wheel shouldn't get hit as the rubber lip should take the hit instead.

Overall, so far I am very pleased with these tires. The positives greatly outweigh any negatives, and the one thing I was worried about, steering response, is a non issue comparatively.
If you're considering an all season, ultra high performance tire for a good price, put these on your very short list, or just get a set and try them out for yourself. With the excellent 60 day free trial you really have nothing to lose cause if you really don't like them, just take them back and get something else.

I give the Conti DWS .

[Kim Schwartz]

Great review. I heartly agree. I use these as my winter tires. In Albuquerque that is all that is really needed. I use the DW for summer tires and some times think that the DWS really could be an all year round tire and that I may not need to switch. Once the DW's wear out I might just go with the DWS year round.

[El Flaco]

Great review, I fill more confident with my purchase. I got a set of Alufelgen SF-71 19” with tires 225/35/19 and 265/30/19. Unfortunately DWS don’t come 255/30/19. I was also a little spectacle from going summer tires to A/S tires. I live in Maryland so I needed something to cover all year long since it gets pretty cold in winter. Thanks for the review can’t wait to put wheels and tires. I will give a mini review with wheels and tires.

[delta-9-ginseng]

This was a great review!

Unfortunately, right now I have a weird setup....where my fronts are Conti's DWS and my rears are original run-flats. So I was thinking that maybe I just replaced the rears with some DWS's as well.

AHHH the horror!!!

[info@VMRWheels]

Really nice in depth review. A lot of our customers really like these tires as well and it's our go-to tire for their all season needs.