Problem with low profile tires for 2010 Buick Lacrosse

gdavis72

I have a 2010 Lacross with 9000 miles. 1 week old I had to replace a tire. 8 months later I had to replace the same tire and another and now 3 months (11 months after purchasing) later I need to replace the same tire plus 2 others. The dealer says the problem is that the tires are low profile and that i have bubbling on the side walls which makes it dangerous to drive however they refuse to pay for the replacements. All tires have been replaced with the same goodyear factory tires. Has anyone had a similar issue or have any advice. They sold me the touring package with these tires and it has been nothing but problems.

cooterbfd

If the sidewalls are just bubbling, then that sounds like a defect that should be replaced by Goodyear. HOWEVER, if the damage was caused by a road hazard, then you are on the hook. I have had to replace 2 on mine because I hit something (a rock and a raised manhole cover. $312!!! But I bought road hazard insurance $12/tire, so the second one was covered.

e_net_rider

You are absolutely right about the sidewall.
Also lucky to get road hazard it seems. I talked to one tire dealer trying to shed the GY with only 50 miles and he told me he would not sell me road hazard because of the low profile.
Bubbling over an extended range of time sounds serious. I'd check with a tire dealer. If the sidewall was not bruised by hitting something I'd have an issue. They may have shipped a large batch of bad tires, maybe even knowing. Driving with too much or too little air in the tire can cause separation.

crankeee

Good post on problems with GY low profiles. The trend towards bigger rims is great as long as the increase is reasonable and results in larger brake rotors that means better stopping and longer wear IMO. The "looks only" reason leaves us with less sidewall to absorb impacts and protect the expensive alloy rims on most newer cars. I have asked if low profile tires can be replaced with "normal" profile say 60 or even 65 series on the Buick Lacrosse. No answers yet but still searching. Michelin makes Pilot and Primacy series that may have tread wear guarantees and a great brand to back that up. Our 2010 CXL has 18" rims with 235 R50x18" Michelin Pilots.
Felt lucky to get those in lieu of other OEM brands. No idea yet on actual mileage/tread wear with these but the handling is great. also wonder if most of the problems are with 19" rims and resulting lower profile (45's) tires rather than 18" and standard 17" on new Lacrosses. any comments?

e_net_rider

Now that I think about it, I may have been trying to locate same diameter by moving from the 245R40x19 to say maybe the 235R45x19 or 235R50x19. I was not able to find an exact comparing revolutions per mile. And as you know these tires are pricey so I'll likely wait until I need to change. Then maybe under someones love'em or leave'm.
As the mileage accumulates it seems the suspension softens, both in Touring and Sport modes. Or maybe it is the tires.
The tires you mentioned are rated fairly high as was the Continental which I think came with free road hazard.
Years ago they came out with the UTOCQ rating but it needs to be improved upon to give better meaning to shoppers.

crankeee

Rider: Good plan to run what you have and wait for alternatives down the road. The major tire makers will address a market if big enough and the 18" and larger rims seem here to stay due to buyers preference. One thing I really like on the Lacrosse are the 12+" rotors al around. Used to call these the Cadillac setup since our old Deville had huge rotors and corresponding larger disc pads. Great wear patterns/mileage and great stopping power. Lacrosse gets good grades for safety, including braking and I bet it is due to those bigger rotors allowed by the bigger rims.
I don't have a problem with 50 series Michelins since we had them on a 300ZX and that car demanded high speed rating WIDE tires for handling. The aftermarket will provide alternatives but at a demanding price as you point out. The old Michelin X was the result of the then expanding market for 60 series tires with better tread wear so in a few years we will see choices IMO. good luck

e_net_rider

More on tires. The CXL loaner had the Michelins and according to the TPMS they had a little too much air. When I got mine back the first time the pressure was at 33. I think someone mixed up the fill pressure since the door sticker on the CXL says 33, not 35. And mine calls for 35.
Although a much smoother quieter ride on the Michelins, I thought the handling was quite poor compared to my CXS. Certain aspects of that could certainly be attributed to the hyper-strut and possibly the touring package minus tire differences.
I strongly suspect that some of the slosh, wiggle, you get when driving on highway might disappear if the tires had that extra 2 pounds let out of CXL. When I got mine back the first time a few days ago, they forgot to rotate, or maybe they know something about rotating I had not yet figured. So I asked them to rotate. Yesterday afternoon was the first real testing of handling since. And there is a big change and it does not seem good. I am hoping the tires just have to break-in to new positions. The biggest issue was the difference of how the front and rear handled the road anomalies, one much more than the other. By time the tires have seen all four positions there is no guessing how they will act then.

crankeee

too bad about the GY's. I put them in the class with Uniroyal and the other GM OEM brands. Ford and Hyundai caught on to Michelins as amarketing tool and I appreciate it. We got lucky with 2010 CXL and 235x 50 18 Michelins. Great road handling, wet weather and even snow traction. Also matchs the H-arm,stability control and McPherson struts suspension on our car. Just returned from 1400 mile trip. 29.4 MPG one way and 27.8 on return. speed 70-75, some 80 with major grades on route. GREAT!