uv damage and lack of use will cause tire failure. personally think it is good sound advice. i have seen big truck tire casings retreaded past 5 years but by most industry standards 5 years is the available casing life. these tires are much more durable than car tires. michelin casings can preform safely for around 1,000,000 miles. imo 50,000 miles or 5 years on a passinger car is plenty.
I had the stock tires replaced on my Dad's Maxima at 5 years with 5/32 still remaining. You could see hairline cracks on the sidewall which didn't give me much confidence in the tires. $500 is cheap for peace of mind.
The 20/20 report was typical of most news investigations - long on hype, but short on facts. This happens to be the hot topic within the industry right now, but it's more focused on age and not age when sold.
But 20/20 correctly pointed out that they found some 6 year old tires being sold - and that's not good. Correctly stored, tires remain pretty good for 3 years.
The real problem is heat. If tires are stored where it is hot - or used where it is hot - they chemically do not last as long. Needless to say, the length of time is going to be dependent on how hot it is over the course of several years. Places like Minneapolis will not experience as much heat as a place like Phoenix.
And surprisingly, Florida has been found to be one of those places where heat is a tire problem. Even though it doesn't get blisteringly hot like in Phoenix, the temperature is fairly constant year round.
So when you are buying tires, don't fret much about the age. The price is usually adjusted to reflect how old the tires are. Put another way, tire manufacturers tend to discount the price the longer the tires sit in the warehouse. Needless to say, this is never discussed doing the buying transaction. Just be aware that bargains are exactly that - and sometimes the reason for the bargain is the age of the tire.
However, it is probably a good idea to look at the manufacture date on your tires, just so you know.
>However, it is probably a good idea to look at the manufacture date on your tires
I looked for a recent manufacture date on the last set I bought. There were in a stack on the showroom floor. I would ask to see the tires before they're put on.
The last Michelins I had on the car were getting harder and were about 6 years old. A friend who is in the tire business had told me the cracking didn't mean anything but the hardening did. So I want fresh tires to begin with.
2007 Hyundai Santa Fe AWD w/35,000 mi. New tire has 10/32 tread. Remaining tires have 6/32 tread. If I put one new tire on will it cause mechanical problems for the AWD system? This is an electronic system that operates in FWD until loss of traction in front wheels, then transfers some power to the rear.
I have a Subaru Outback, and it is recommended that all tires be changed at same time since the diff diameter could cause issues with AWD. Not sure about AWD on Santa Fe though. Why would you want to change just one tire anyway?
The Subaru Outback distributes power to all wheels at all times. Subaru recommends that differences in tire circumferences not exceed 1/4" so you are correct that if I had a Subaru I should replace all 4 tires.
The 2007 Santa Fe has electronically controlled AWD that is normally in FWD unless slippage is detected in the front wheels.
New tire tread depth is 10/32". The existing tires have a tread depth of 6/32". The sidewall of one tire was damaged and the tire must be replaced. Since the tires have 30 - 40% wear left, I would like to replace just the damaged tire.
It is my intention to install the new tire on the rear. Since the rear axles are normally freewheeling, this should not cause a problem with the AWD components.
At a minimum, if you have some wear left on the original tires, then you should replace not one but TWO tires, with the newer tires placed in the rear. That way, both the left and right sides have equal tread depth both at the front and rear of the vehicle.
Whether it's FWD, RWD, or AWD, you should at least keep equal tread depth on both tires of an axle. It's a safety issue more than anything else...
I'm not all that familiar with the AWD system of the Santa Fe, but it might not work exactly as one would assume...
If it detects slippage in the front by measuring the difference in rotation speed between the front and back, then even that one larger tire in the back could cause the rear wheels to kick in...
Does the car have a spare? If so, wouldn't it be new? Move the tire that was opposite the bad one to the spare, then use the spare and the one new tire on an axle..
The spare is the same circumference as the regular tires, but is a dedicated spare only (50 mph max.).
I thought the same thing about the slippage (or faster rotation on the front) perhaps activating the AWD transfer of power to the rear wheels. From that point of view, the new tire should be placed on the front. However from a safety point of view, it is always best to put the best tread on the rear (AWD, FWD or RWD).
I am trying to gain additional information on the Hyundai system, but have not been too successful so far.
The manual does not have any cautions on replacing tires in sets.
Tires aren't always that consistent in diameter.. 10/32nds vs. 6/32nds is only a 1/4" difference in diameter... A tire from a different batch could be easily be enough smaller to make up for half of that difference...
So, before you shave a new tire, compare it to the other ones... It might not be far enough off to matter.. (Of course, it could be off the other way, as well..)
That is what I am thinking. The new tire is identical to the existing (Bridgestone Dueler 235 R60 18) and I find it hard to believe that there should be any issue at all.
However, Subaru states that there can be no more than 1/4" difference in the circumference of any tire, or problems with the AWD system will result.
1/16" difference in tread depth would translate to (circumference = pi 2r) (pi x 1/16 x2)) 3.14 x 1/8 = 3.14/8 or close to 1/4" difference in circumference.
I find it hard to believe that any vehicle, Subaru or not, can maintain tolerances that closely.
Don't forget.. you have tread on top and bottom of the tire... 4/32nds on top and bottom = 8/32nds = 1/4" difference in diameter.. That's almost 7/8" difference in circumference... (assuming new tire is 4/32nds" more tread)
But... get the tire.. measure it... see how close.. I bet you can get it shaved to match for $20...
EDIT: A Subaru has a more sophisticated AWD system than a Hyundai or Honda... It might be a lot more sensitive to differences.. I also agree that 1/4" tolerances in circumference is a little tight, and maybe not realistic..
4/32" in tread difference translates to 8/32" or 1/4" in diameter which translates to a little over 3/4" in circumference of the tire.
Let's say that the tire/wheel diameter of the existing tires is 29" (circumference 91.06"). Then the diameter of the new tire/wheel is 291/4" (circumference 91.85").
The existing tires will turn 685 times in a mile. The new tire will turn 690 times in a mile.
I cannot believe that this in anyway exceeds cornering situations that will be experienced in normal situations.
Had a rear tire flat the other day that was unfixable. Looked around at home and found another Goodyear rear that I had saved from my last set, so I decided to use it rather than order 2 new rears.
Problem? The two are slightly different in width. One is 275/35, the other is 265/35.
I've mounted them, and the 10 mm difference is not noticeable visually, and other than another car geek, I don't expect to be busted and embarrassed
I've driven a few hundred miles in the 2 weeks since I did this, and the car has not complained about the 7mm diff in rolling diameter - no ABS or Traction control issues. If it works I'll probably leave them alone until I do the winter tire swap, then replace all four tires in the spring.
How have you liked your Toyo's? Wondered about the wear,noise, handling from actual experience. I've got a 2005 Ody that I as thinking about putting the Toyo's on.
I wonder if anyone has changed tires (same size and style but different brand) and noticed a significant effect on gas mileage. I was reading some tire reviews on Tirerack the other day and two different posters said their mileage drop 3-5 mpg after replacing their OEM tires with Kumho tires. One was a Camry and one an Accord. I find it hard to accept that two identical sized and style (all season) tires could affect mileage that much but I've been wrong before
I don't know about mileage, but my Falkens are wearing like crazy, and I have them overinflated by 4 lbs over OEM recommendation because they began wearing on all 8 outer edges otherwise.
If I decide i want a real sports car for racing on a track, I would consider Falkens, but never again form my passenger vehicle. There are many other tires that provide as good dry wet traction but have much much better longevity.
I had the same thing happen twice. On a 2000 Maxima when switching from oem to Goodyear Comfortread I lost about 2 mpg and the car felt like a slug. Rode like a lexus though. On my Corvette I gained 2 mpg after dumping the run flats.
I wonder if anyone has changed tires (same size and style but different brand) and noticed a significant effect on gas mileage. I was reading some tire reviews on Tirerack the other day and two different posters said their mileage drop 3-5 mpg after replacing their OEM tires with Kumho tires. One was a Camry and one an Accord. I find it hard to accept that two identical sized and style (all season) tires could affect mileage that much but I've been wrong before
Tires that are identically sized can very over 1/2" in actually road width, tread compounds can very (Michelin "Energy" MXV4s use a very hard compound for fuel economy at the expense of handling and ride quality relative to a tire like the Bridgestone RE960). The tread design plays a role (some designs create more friction and drag, good for handling and braking, bad for fuel economy) and some tires are heavier than others.
1) Replacing worn tires with new tires, which, everything else being equal, is going to hurt fuel economy.
2) OEM tires give better fuel economy than tires designed specifically for the replacement market. On the plus side, you'll get much better wear with tires desogned for the replacement market.
From everything I've read, it would seem that the claims of a 5 mpg drop are probably exaggerated. Rolling resistance appears to be less than 10% of the overall losses so it seems unlikely a 30 mpg car would lose 5 mpg (more than 16%) just from a tire change. I'll go for the high treadwear rating and bump the pressure up a couple psi for long highway trips.
I'll go for the high treadwear rating and bump the pressure up a couple psi for long highway trips.
A high treadwear rating typically means a harder tread compound which should lead to lower rolling resistance. I don't understand why that would hurt and not help.
most of these milage claims are for marketing purposes only. chances are you will never duplicate the test conditions. thus never realize the difference. as to air pressure increases as long as they are within 5lbs. of oem recomendations you will have no ride or handling changes.
"A high treadwear rating typically means a harder tread compound which should lead to lower rolling resistance. I don't understand why that would hurt and not help."
You misread something somewhere. I expect a higher treadwear rating to result in ever so slightly (perhaps not even measurable) better mileage. My current tire rating is 260 which is pretty low for an all-season tire (yet with 29K miles, they still have 7/32" tread depth).
This tire (Bridgestone EL400) is a popular OEM choice yet has one of the lowest Tirerack survey ratings of any all-season tire and is more expensive than Michelin and Goodyear replacements that have at least 2x the treadwear rating and much, much higher ratings/satisfaction from Tirerack customers in every category.
Hard rubber + over inflation= unhappy driver with back ache.
Add a firm suspension to the equation and you've got a sore rear end in addition to the back ache (on long trips). I keep my Goodyear Tripletreds at the recommended 35psi. Anything higher just isn't worth it. :sick:
I just ordered a set of these tires from the The Tire Rack based on two previous sets of Kumho Touring A/S tires I had on my Corolla and on my Tercel. The A/S tires were a 70K tire whereas the Solus is an 80K tire. The A/S was an excellent tire for the money, and I'm hoping the Solus will be just as good or better. Do any of you have these tires and if so, how do you like them?
I am running Yokohama AVS DB S2 on my Mercedes LS500. I have 21,000 miles on the tires and need to replace them. The front tires are worn out. The car darts into the worn ruts on the interstate and creates a dangerous driving situation.
The original set of tires also created the car to move eradically into the freeway "tracks" and when the Yokohamas were new, they didn't dart to the worn part of the freeway as they do now. We know that the problem is the tires and not the car.
I realize I'm probably just conversing with myself here :confuse: , but I had a set of the KR21's installed yesterday. The only thing I've really had the opportunity to notice about them is they are very quiet. I'm making a trip to OH this weekend which will present a good opportunity to check my fuel economy with these tires. I will post my results.
i don't believe the tires will cause this problem. with that in mind how would changing brands help? some over size tires will cause this problem and or alignment. :confuse:
My '09 Forester XT's stock Yoko Geolanders are rumored to be bad on snow and ice (CU's braking tests suggest they are not so good in wet either).
Not being able to have dedicated winter tires (no place to store), I'm looking at three replacements:
Yokohama W.Drive Nokian WR Nokian WRG2
Unfortunately the WRG2's are not in warehouses and seem impossible to find. The WR's supposedly reduce mileage. The W.drive I know little about. They are all very expensive and I don't want to guess.
Any comments, suggestions? I would like the Forester to be better able to deal with the frequent Ice storms we have in Portland OR during the winter. Thanks!
Nokkian WRs have a great reputation and are still considered an "all season" tire, IIRC. I am planning to acquire a set for the Legacy for the winter driving season in the midwest. There are more aggressive winter tires available, but then you compromise dry road grip. You might want to investigate the ratings on tirerack.com and see if something meets your needs.
> The original set of tires also created the car to move eradically into the freeway "tracks" and
I agree with otto that there is a suspension or alignment problem there. A deeper tread is a little more forgiving at slight alignment variations than shallower tread is, but you're describing alignment factors.
I checked on the Yokohama site and they did not mention any temperature limitations. But I did put a query into their Customer support...will be interesting to see what comes back.
Apparently no one in here has the Kumho's which is suprizing given their level of performance for the price. My previous tires were the Kumho 795 Touring A/S. They were a 70K mile tire. They had about 70K on them when I replaced them due to a blowout I suffered when hitting a huge pothole. They probably had about 5K miles left before they would've been down to the wearbars. They were very good tires (excellent, considering the price). They provided good traction in all weather conditions, good handling, good ride, and they were very quiet until about the last 15K miles where the road noise increased only moderately. This is why I chose their replacement, the Solus KR21. At just $51 a piece from the Tire Rack, if these tires are as good or better than the 795's they replaced, I will be extremely happy with them.
I had the Ecsta STX installed on my 2003 Ford Ranger. Ran about 3K miles on them before selling the truck. I guess they were ok as I didn't notice excessive road noise nor rough ride. Good tires for an excellent price. Not sure if 3K is a good sample size.
I'm also looking to replace tires on my vette and will be looking at the Kumho Ecsta SPT. Reviews said not as good as some of the other brands but for the price can't be beat.
I bought an 03 Saab 9-5 Aero that came with an extra set of wheels and winter tires. The owner told me that the Bridgestone Blizzak LM22's were runflat tires. I don't see aything marked on the tire to indicate that they are indeed runflats. Any clues?
Comments
But 20/20 correctly pointed out that they found some 6 year old tires being sold - and that's not good. Correctly stored, tires remain pretty good for 3 years.
The real problem is heat. If tires are stored where it is hot - or used where it is hot - they chemically do not last as long. Needless to say, the length of time is going to be dependent on how hot it is over the course of several years. Places like Minneapolis will not experience as much heat as a place like Phoenix.
And surprisingly, Florida has been found to be one of those places where heat is a tire problem. Even though it doesn't get blisteringly hot like in Phoenix, the temperature is fairly constant year round.
So when you are buying tires, don't fret much about the age. The price is usually adjusted to reflect how old the tires are. Put another way, tire manufacturers tend to discount the price the longer the tires sit in the warehouse. Needless to say, this is never discussed doing the buying transaction. Just be aware that bargains are exactly that - and sometimes the reason for the bargain is the age of the tire.
However, it is probably a good idea to look at the manufacture date on your tires, just so you know.
I looked for a recent manufacture date on the last set I bought. There were in a stack on the showroom floor. I would ask to see the tires before they're put on.
The last Michelins I had on the car were getting harder and were about 6 years old. A friend who is in the tire business had told me the cracking didn't mean anything but the hardening did. So I want fresh tires to begin with.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Subaru Outback distributes power to all wheels at all times. Subaru recommends that differences in tire circumferences not exceed 1/4" so you are correct that if I had a Subaru I should replace all 4 tires.
The 2007 Santa Fe has electronically controlled AWD that is normally in FWD unless slippage is detected in the front wheels.
New tire tread depth is 10/32". The existing tires have a tread depth of 6/32". The sidewall of one tire was damaged and the tire must be replaced. Since the tires have 30 - 40% wear left, I would like to replace just the damaged tire.
It is my intention to install the new tire on the rear. Since the rear axles are normally freewheeling, this should not cause a problem with the AWD components.
Whether it's FWD, RWD, or AWD, you should at least keep equal tread depth on both tires of an axle. It's a safety issue more than anything else...
If it detects slippage in the front by measuring the difference in rotation speed between the front and back, then even that one larger tire in the back could cause the rear wheels to kick in...
Does the car have a spare? If so, wouldn't it be new? Move the tire that was opposite the bad one to the spare, then use the spare and the one new tire on an axle..
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Good points, thanks.
The spare is the same circumference as the regular tires, but is a dedicated spare only (50 mph max.).
I thought the same thing about the slippage (or faster rotation on the front) perhaps activating the AWD transfer of power to the rear wheels. From that point of view, the new tire should be placed on the front. However from a safety point of view, it is always best to put the best tread on the rear (AWD, FWD or RWD).
I am trying to gain additional information on the Hyundai system, but have not been too successful so far.
The manual does not have any cautions on replacing tires in sets.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Choice 2) 1 new tire, then have it shaved down to match the others..
I'd pick #2..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
So, before you shave a new tire, compare it to the other ones... It might not be far enough off to matter.. (Of course, it could be off the other way, as well..)
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
That is what I am thinking. The new tire is identical to the existing (Bridgestone Dueler 235 R60 18) and I find it hard to believe that there should be any issue at all.
However, Subaru states that there can be no more than 1/4" difference in the circumference of any tire, or problems with the AWD system will result.
1/16" difference in tread depth would translate to (circumference = pi 2r) (pi x 1/16 x2)) 3.14 x 1/8 = 3.14/8 or close to 1/4" difference in circumference.
I find it hard to believe that any vehicle, Subaru or not, can maintain tolerances that closely.
But... get the tire.. measure it... see how close.. I bet you can get it shaved to match for $20...
EDIT: A Subaru has a more sophisticated AWD system than a Hyundai or Honda... It might be a lot more sensitive to differences.. I also agree that 1/4" tolerances in circumference is a little tight, and maybe not realistic..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
If yes, look at shaving.
If no, enjoy life.
That is exactly what I am thinking.
4/32" in tread difference translates to 8/32" or 1/4" in diameter which translates to a little over 3/4" in circumference of the tire.
Let's say that the tire/wheel diameter of the existing tires is 29" (circumference 91.06"). Then the diameter of the new tire/wheel is 291/4" (circumference 91.85").
The existing tires will turn 685 times in a mile. The new tire will turn 690 times in a mile.
I cannot believe that this in anyway exceeds cornering situations that will be experienced in normal situations.
The existing tires will turn 696 times in a mile. The new tire will turn 690 times in a mile.
I cannot believe that 6 additional rotations in a mile will set off spin sensors and activate the AWD system.
Normal cornering must create greater rotational differences over a mile.
The logo on the lug cap is two parallel black bars with a red line crossing the two black bars. Kina looks like an "H" with a gold background.
Problem? The two are slightly different in width. One is 275/35, the other is 265/35.
I've mounted them, and the 10 mm difference is not noticeable visually, and other than another car geek, I don't expect to be busted and embarrassed
I've driven a few hundred miles in the 2 weeks since I did this, and the car has not complained about the 7mm diff in rolling diameter - no ABS or Traction control issues. If it works I'll probably leave them alone until I do the winter tire swap, then replace all four tires in the spring.
Thoughts?
If I decide i want a real sports car for racing on a track, I would consider Falkens, but never again form my passenger vehicle. There are many other tires that provide as good dry wet traction but have much much better longevity.
Tires that are identically sized can very over 1/2" in actually road width, tread compounds can very (Michelin "Energy" MXV4s use a very hard compound for fuel economy at the expense of handling and ride quality relative to a tire like the Bridgestone RE960). The tread design plays a role (some designs create more friction and drag, good for handling and braking, bad for fuel economy) and some tires are heavier than others.
First read this:
http://www.geocities.com/barrystiretech/rrandfe.html
You took 2 hits:
1) Replacing worn tires with new tires, which, everything else being equal, is going to hurt fuel economy.
2) OEM tires give better fuel economy than tires designed specifically for the replacement market. On the plus side, you'll get much better wear with tires desogned for the replacement market.
A high treadwear rating typically means a harder tread compound which should lead to lower rolling resistance. I don't understand why that would hurt and not help.
You misread something somewhere. I expect a higher treadwear rating to result in ever so slightly (perhaps not even measurable) better mileage. My current tire rating is 260 which is pretty low for an all-season tire (yet with 29K miles, they still have 7/32" tread depth).
This tire (Bridgestone EL400) is a popular OEM choice yet has one of the lowest Tirerack survey ratings of any all-season tire and is more expensive than Michelin and Goodyear replacements that have at least 2x the treadwear rating and much, much higher ratings/satisfaction from Tirerack customers in every category.
Add a firm suspension to the equation and you've got a sore rear end in addition to the back ache (on long trips). I keep my Goodyear Tripletreds at the recommended 35psi. Anything higher just isn't worth it. :sick:
The original set of tires also created the car to move eradically into the freeway "tracks" and when the Yokohamas were new, they didn't dart to the worn part of the freeway as they do now. We know that the problem is the tires and not the car.
What tires do other SL owners recommend?
Thanks!
Not being able to have dedicated winter tires (no place to store), I'm looking at three replacements:
Yokohama W.Drive
Nokian WR
Nokian WRG2
Unfortunately the WRG2's are not in warehouses and seem impossible to find. The WR's supposedly reduce mileage. The W.drive I know little about.
They are all very expensive and I don't want to guess.
Any comments, suggestions? I would like the Forester to be better able to deal with the frequent Ice storms we have in Portland OR during the winter.
Thanks!
You might want to investigate the ratings on tirerack.com and see if something meets your needs.
Krzys
The original set of tires also created the car to move eradically into the freeway "tracks" and
I agree with otto that there is a suspension or alignment problem there. A deeper tread is a little more forgiving at slight alignment variations than shallower tread is, but you're describing alignment factors.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Solus KR21
You might check Consumers Union or other sites for more info.
I'm also looking to replace tires on my vette and will be looking at the Kumho Ecsta SPT. Reviews said not as good as some of the other brands but for the price can't be beat.
The owner told me that the Bridgestone Blizzak LM22's were runflat tires.
I don't see aything marked on the tire to indicate that they are indeed runflats.
Any clues?