toyemp

I was debating on whether or not to order runflats on my 2004 SC430, so I decided to do a little experimentation this past weekend. I currently have a 2003 SC430 with the Dunlop SP5000 runflats, so I checked out a 2002 SC430 with non-runflats (Dunlop SP2030s) from the company pool for comparison for a couple days. I wanted a 2003 non-runflat, but there wasn't one available that I could find. Over the last couple days, I drove both cars over my regular route and tried to pay attention to ride, handling, etc. I then swapped tires between the cars, since there was a noticable difference in the suspension tuning between the two cars. (more on this later)

In the end, I decided to stick with the runflats. Yes, the non-runflats were "smoother", but not as much as I would have expected them to be. Plus, I never realized how little space is left with the spare tire in the trunk and the top down.

What I didn't realize though was how many subtle differences there were between model years. Other than the obvious stuff (radio changes, back seat belt holders, etc), the nav system software was different (even compared to my 2002 GS430). The 2 biggest differences I noticed were the texture of the leather (2003 is softer and more supple) and that the 2003 suspension is definately tuned more sport-like than the 2002.

Now, admittedly, the 2002 I looked at is an EARLY production unit (#80 off the production line vs #39,000+ of my car) but the suspension of the 2002 is a lot "looser" than the 2003 and not as sporty. (Hope that makes sense). This wasn't a scientific comparison of course, but the 2002 only had roughly 2000 miles on it so it hasn't seen a lot of use (mostly car shows and stuff) while I have over 15K on mine.

The 2002 was in like new condition, but as I said before, the leather appears to be of better quality in the later models too.

Just thought you guys might find this interesting...

ekovalsky

interesting. thanks for the observations.

curious what will show up new for 2004... i was considering waiting to get a 2004 but figured the price would go up, discount off msrp would go down, and other than the seats reclining further there were supposed to be no major changes.

toyemp

I ordered my 2004 this afternoon and there were no price differences between the 2003 and 2004 models years. I basically ordered the same car as I have now except in a different color. I ordered a white with black interior this time to replace my black/ecru car. I also ordered a 2004 GS430 to replace my 2002 GS430 and from what I remember, there wasn't a price difference there either but I didn't have my paperwork for that car with me to compare.

dseag2

Thanks for the observations. I've had my 2003 for almost a year, and since I've never driven a 2002 I have no point of reference. I honestly can't imagine the suspension being any looser than it is on the 2003 model since it seems it is pretty loose already, but it's good to know they tightened it up. (Not complaining because there are so many other positives that make up for it.)

Re: runflats vs. non-runflats, my experience has been very different from yours. Dunlops could very well make the difference, but I replaced my Bridgestone runflats with Michelin Pilot Sports several months ago and have noticed a marked difference in ride and handling. The ride is so much smoother, in fact, that the rattles I once heard in the top and dash are now completely gone. The runflats were smooth on the highway, but road imperfections were nightmares. Not only did they jolt the car, the tires always lost grip in corners, etc.

Re: the spare, I carry a can of Fix-a-flat in the trunk. I used it this past weekend when I got a MAJOR leak in my tire (you could hear the air coming out) due to a large spring that got lodged in the tread. Used the Fix-a-flat on Sunday afternoon, took the car in on Monday morning to get the tire replaced and never lost any air in the interim. I'm now a believer. I can't imagine anyone needing a spare unless they're traveling in rural areas or on long trips.

1NICESC430

toyemp ...

While I don't question your observations, I'm really surprised that you did not find a great difference between the RFs and non-RFs. After 5000 miles, I replaced my stock RFs with Goodyear F1's on my '02 and was truly surprised (and totally pleased) with the huge difference in ride, comfort, and handling. To tell the truth, there were many times that I didn't even want to drive the car because of the jarring ride and many times I was embarrassed to have a passenger.

dseag2 ....

Thanks for the testimonial on fix-a-flat. I purchased a spare, but I may very well remove it and use it only when I take a trip. While I don't often need a lot of trunk space, it's nice to have it when I do need it.

Now all I have to do is get rid of that spoiler. Good thing I'm not married - otherwise this money may be going for such worthless things as rugs, furniture, clothes, etc etc.

toyemp

I was surprised as well. I have read about the positive experiences everyone here has been having with the Michelins, so that is why I wanted to try it out for myself. Unfortunately, I was limited to what is available as OEM equipment, so the best I could do was the Dunlops. That's also why I tried both sets of tires on both cars, just to see if what I was feeling was a suspension thing or a tire thing. Only thing I can speculate is that maybe manufacturer plays a bigger role than runflat vs non-runflat. If time permits one of these weekends, I will try and track down a set of the Bridgestone runflats that are also OEM and compare them to my Dunlops. I know that there have been a lot of negative comments about the Bridgestones that I honestly have not experienced with the Dunlops.