I should have written it as a reply to tornado455 post. He stated that he did not buy particular tires because they were asymmetric (look I checked the spelling this time ;-) I was trying to find why asymmetric tires are worse than symmetric for him/her. That is all.
I have to wonder if there really are any asymmetrical, directional tires. It seems unlikely since they would haves to produce, and suppliers would have to inventory, specific right-side and left-side tires.
Perhaps I wonder about you skipping over the example I cited of an asymmetrical and directional tire?? You can easily research it at www.tirerack.com GY Eagle F1 SuperCar. 265 40-17, 295 35 18.
So for ANOTHER example, I have another set of tires that are marked left/right.
..." have to wonder if there really are any asymmetrical, directional tires. It seems unlikely since they would haves to produce, and suppliers would have to inventory, specific right-side and left-side tires. "..
He stated that he did not buy particular tires because they were asymmetric
Actually, I stated three reasons: higher price, lower CR score, and asymmetric. Not that asymmetric is bad, but being that I've never had asymmetric before, it was a variable I wanted to leave out of this particular tire purchase.
But mainly I wanted to try the Hankook because it had the narrower tread width which I thought would look better on my stock rims. And it does. Much better.
I'm very happy with these tires from both cosmetic and performance standpoints. Best tires I've ever had by far.
Indeed that was one of the reasons why I did not want to get the oem asymmetric tire as a replacement. However, sometimes the applications and sizes are so specicialized, there are other constrains.
If you are in a more common size and applications, and tire technology improvements (some not so ground breaking changes also) are so rapid, since you are almost totally at choice, you can almost always select the BEST tires you have ever had by far !!!
An example of a common size 205-55-16, on tire rack.com just for the brands it carries yields 151 tires.
Spending $40K for a new FORD truck and I'm having a difficult time understanding why 20" aluminum wheels/tires filled with nitrogen? Wouldn't steel rims be more sensible? especially since it's a pickup?
Nokian, a tire company from Finland, make an asymmetrical directional tire. Check out their WRG2 model. Each tire has a specific side and must be mounted specifically with an inside and outside identified.
Where did you find information about left and right versions of this tire? When I was investigating winter tires I checked WR G2 and I do not recall this.
I am currently running a set of Nokian WRG2's and had a set of the WR's that preceeded them. The WRG2 is asymmetrical, but not directional, so you can use an X rotation pattern of your choice. The prior gen was directional, but not asymmetrical, so the tires had to stay on the same side of the car during rotation.
I just replaced my OEM Dunlops on my 2005 Toyota Sienna Mini van. The tires were worn more on the outside than in the middle. The dealer said it might be because OEM tires are made this way. Is that correct?
Could this be a driving style issue or an alignment issue?
Steer tires tend to wear in the shoulders, and drive tires tend to wear in the center.
On RWD, these wear patterns will develop on different ends of the vehicle, which is why rotating tires on RWD is important.
On FWD, the steer tires and the drive tires are the same, so they tend to wear evenly, but more rapidly, in the front.
HOWEVER, If your driving tends to have more turning that the average, or your turning is more "spirited" than the average, then the shoulder wear it tend to dominate. Nose heavy vehicles, such as vans, tend towards worsening this effect. Plus if the tire wears more on one shoulder than the other, you have an alignment issue.
And lastly - yes, it is a trick to get better rolling resistance out of a tire if the tire is designed to engage less of the tread shoulders in the contact patch. There are a number of ways to do this, but the net effect is that the shoulders tend to wear out first. Many OE tires use this trick, but very few replacement market tires do.
My kid bought 2 Kumho Solus tires from tire rack about a year ago. This weekend I happened to notice that they are just about completely worn out. These have a warranty for 60,000 miles and have a gov't treadwear rating of 440.
He does not put many miles on and after checking records we figued out that these tires have only about 6000 miles on them. I am astonished at this rapid wear.
Could there possibly have been some sort of defect with his particular tires that has resulted in such rapid wear? I can not believe that the company is normally putting out tires that would have such poor wear characteristics and based on the government rating, while I might not expect to get 60,000 out of them, I would certainly expect to get at least 30-40K miles.
They are worn pretty evenly, one side is very near the wear bars while on the other there is mabye an extra 1/32 or 2/32 left.
As I pointed out above, front tires on a FWD wear more rapidly than the rears. The data I have been able to amass says the rears last 2 1/2 times longer.
Plus, you should be aware that most tire wear occurs in cornering. The fact that only 6K miles have been put on in a year tends to say that the car is driven in the city a lot - lots of turns per mile.
Further, alignment can cause tires to wear more rapidly. If the tires are not worn evenly, then there is an alignment problem with the vehicle and the warranty would not apply. 2/32nds difference might be enough to point to an alignment condition.
Tires were mounted by Walmart. I think he intends to pursue the warranty, but I just find it unbelievable that tires could possibly wear this quickly...in only 10% of the warranted mileage.
The mfr website says maximum difference of 2/32 is allowed, I think he is within that. The tires were on the rear for a short period of time, maybe 1000-2000 miles, but still even using your 2.5 factor and assuming they were only on the front, that would mean they'd only last 15,000 miles on the rear.
It has been suburban driving. For the first couple months he drove 3 miles to HS (not counting entering and leaving the driveway) that route has about 5 turns, then he had a summer with driving a couple miles to work, probably 4 turns. Since late august, most of the miles have been to and from tech school, about 8 miles with maybe 5 turns. Of course, there were other miscellaneous miles put on going here and there...those miles were likely mostly similar to the tech school trips.
I think you might have some very spirited driving going on, that you may not be aware of. There's no way that minimum mileage is 'normal' driving on a set of tires.
For new drivers, you might want to invest in TravelEyes2, or some equivalent. Easy to install, you tuck the GPS sensor up under the dash, and the unit can be either under the dash or in false bottom of the center console. Depending on the vehicle, if installing in the console can pick up power in the console or off of the power seats. If installing under the dash there's plenty of places, but usually you have to be a contortionist to get your head under the dash.
Also good for recording/reviewing vehicle location and speed if any accidents or tickets have occurred.
Indeed !! It would be hard to NOT come to this conclusion. Probably a short ride would validate the differences in "perceptions".
Some short years ago (44 to be exact) , I was taught (by my father) that fast was smooth and/or vice versa and paradoxically SLOW. He challenged me to drive using the brakes as little as possible and said look at the unplanned use of your brakes as mistakes in judgement AND correct accordingly. When you HAVE to use your brakes look to use them as little as possible.
So for lack of a better word, it is a game within a game.
So for example, while I think I flog this car, I got 112,300 miles from a set of oem GY LS-H's, which were rated APP 25/26 th on www.tirerack.com . In addition @ 118,000 miles, the oem front and rear brake pads are projected to go a min of 200,000 miles.
The "kid" is 19 and has not had a single ticket or collision. I don't have amy reason to attempt to spy on him, it is his car, his tires, and his money.
It's 6000 miles!!! I really don't see how his driving could be spirited enough to have the tires be worn as evenly as they are, if the cause were aggresive driving.
I tend to take corners fairly fast in my car and it's tires are just fine with 20K miles and mine only have a wear rating of 360 vs. 440 for his.
...'''The "kid" is 19 and has not had a single ticket or collision. I don't have amy reason to attempt to spy on him, it is his car, his tires, and his money.
It's 6000 miles!!! I really don't see how his driving could be spirited enough to have the tires be worn as evenly as they are, if the cause were aggresive driving.
I tend to take corners fairly fast in my car and it's tires are just fine with 20K miles and mine only have a wear rating of 360 vs. 440 for his. "...
Well... true. So if it is his car, tires, and money.... why are you then... concerned?
Then replace the tires with a totally different brand with like a 600 wear rating, and if he wears the next set out in < 10K miles you'll know it wasn't the tires, and it must be something else. You can also go get it aligned. Also go buy one of the little tire depth gauges, and you can take your own monthly readings to ensure you get the wear you desire. If you see a trend you don't like, then investigate further immediately so you don't wait until the tires are totally worn down....and it's too late to do anything for that set of tires. . . You have lots of options.
Well, I was not really posting here to get suggestions for a research project .
As my question had indicated, I was just curious if there was perhaps some strange defect that I'd never heard of that could somehow result in tires having such rapid wear.
Right and tell all the folks how you let the little old ladies get in front of you on the way to church on the ONE day they actually take out their "cream puffs".
Has anyone needed to replace the OE Michelin Pilot HX MXM4 tires? If so what type of life did you get from them and any recommendations for an All Season replacement?
No secret. I drive the car like it's on fire is the secret. Nope, no warranty---it's a FWD, pretty heavy car, lots of torque on the r/f wheel with the turbo, and I live in an area with lots of twisty roads, so there you go. Same with my Subaru...I have GOOD tires on there, (premium Toyos) and geez, I carved a lot of rubber off the front tires already.
I DO let the old ladies (or gentemen) in front of me on Sundays, you bet. I drive fast but I'm not dangerous.
I think the best I ever did on tires was on my small light Scion xA. I got about 28,000 out of the OEM tires before they hit the wear bars.
And there you have it !! As I mentioned( and others have said) in a prior message and as Mr Shiftright has confirmed; it is hard to NOT come to this conclusion....
Sure, there is a very very BERY remote chance your son got the absolute statistically worst set of tires they (Kumho) EVER made. ... So have him bring it to the dealer for warranty fulfillment. The worst they can say is no. Pitch a fit, they might give in to keep the customer happy.
Well some tires ARE more prone to wear, and I LIKE those tires because they are tenaciously sticky. I drive fast and in bad weather and last time I looked, the only thing attaching my car to the road are 4 patches of rubber about the size of my hand. :P
I'm not saying 6,000 miles is NORMAL...we are on the same page there.... it is NOT normal. The question is what makes it abnormal.
I'd have to examine the tire or see a VERY good photo of the wear to comment further.
Indeed. Pictures are worth thousands of words. Given the even wear all around....This would seem to indicate less likihood of mechanical, alignment or balance issues....
Off the topic, All 3 sets of Toyo's I have in use (T,H, Z/Y), seem "sticky" for their segments. While it hardly rains south of you, all three are sticky/grippy in the rain.
Yeah but WHEN it rains here, with a stiff wind blowing off the ocean, and every turn a 300 foot plunge into instant death....I like good tires. Those hard-as-nails, 50,000 mile railroad wheels might be fine in the desert or in L.A., but I'm willing to sacrifice wear for grip.
The Z/Y Toyo tires are mainly used for higher speed, longer distance touring, so "NOT driving in inclement weather" is not as simple as being at home and NOT driving in the rain, for example. Highway 1 is part of the car's regular routine.
One trip I went from Las Vegas, Nv to Grand Canyon, AZ and it rained 4 inches in 4 hours during the entire trip. As you know, it NEVER rains in the higher deserts. Even at that, grip was pretty incredible.
Another time I was caught in a flash snow storm in the Rocky Mountains where 300 foot drops are like pot holes,... comparatively. There was a period of time where I was wondering if it were better to park the car and come back in spring... While I would never recommend it, there was no problem getting the 265 40-17's and 295 35 18's (UTOQ of 220/280?) off the mountains with several inches of snow.
My kid is getting two 100% free new tires...he will pay only for M+B. He ended up going to Sears, which is an "authorized dealer" and they just checked that the wear was even enough and ordered the tires, as they did not have them in stock. Apparently they measured only about a 1 mm difference in wear across the each tire.
I'm not sure why they are giving him the tires free, rather than charging him 10% based on almost 6000 miles vs. the 60,000 mile warranty :confuse: .
I am glad to hear that Sears honored the warranty portion for those Kumho's. Sears seems to be the one of the last of the BIG and old style vendors that seemingly still gives great service.
Now I have heard nothing but bad news and for a long while about Sears. However when I had a "lifetime" alignment program with them, they were nothing but excellent. I would literally receive an alignment check and adjustment (when needed), tire balance check (and rebalance when needed) each 5,000 miles the suv was brought in for a tire rotation. $75.00 for what turned out to be 250,000 miles. or app 50 of the above procedures.
I also had nothing but good dealings on their batteries. Almost all of them lasted 10 years. Those that didn't were normally prorated, albeit a little most costly than the "real brands."
The local Sears will never touch another car of mine, unless I take them up on the warranty lifetime on Monroe Sensatrak struts on my car with 160K miles on it. Even then I may drive to one of the other stores around the metro.
They were fulfilling the tire balance and rotation warranty on NTB tires. They had crossthreaded a lug nut when they balanced tires on previous trip. I had rotated tires myself at home and didn't realize the nut had been thorough cross-threaded. Then when they go to zip it off with their high speed guns, it jams coming off. They wouldn't replace the lug at their cost. I told them to retighten the nut and I'd do it at home. They left the nut loose and told me they tightened it. After replacing it at home the rotor was warped. The manager of the store couldn't have cared less. I see few cars at that store any more, and I know why. It's only people who are stuck that have them work on their cars.
Way back in December I mentioned that I put a new set of tires on my older Chrysler and it changed the track of the car while driving. Before the tire change the car had a very slight drift to the right and after putting the new tires on it drifted to the left. When checked, the tires had equal pressure.
Fast forward 5 months and while in for some other work I asked my trusted service guy to check the alignment and any other factors (such as worn steering gear) that might have caused this.
When I picked up the car I saw they had rotated the tires but done no other work related to fixing my "drift" problem. To my surprise the simple rotation almost totally cured the problem. The service guy said this was a common problem with new tires and mentioned something about a tire that might have "thrown a belt". As he was very busy I never got a further explaination.
Does any of this make sense to you tire experts? I have never even heard of this kind of thing before let alone had it happen to me. I could see an out of balance tire causing vibration or handling problems but changing how a car tracks doesn't seem logical. And how would a rotation of said tire fix it? :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Do you have any play in the tires? When lifted can you move the tires in and out from the car pulling on the top then the bottom? Just curious cause rotating the tires will coverup a lot of problems, temporarily anyway.
No, this does not make sense at all. If a tire had "thrown" a belt, that's a failure - and you would see a steel belt instead of tread.
It's possible he was trying to say "shifted belt" - and that's also incorrect. Belts are encased in rubber and CAN'T change position. This is sometimes used to describe a "tread separation", and a "thrown belt" is the last thing that happens in the sequence. And that is also not possible for a new set of tires. (and rotating tires doesn't "fix" a "shifted belt", so your mechanic is terribly misinformed.)
But there is a simple test that is run:
Swap the front tires, side to side:
1) If the pull changes direction, it's the tires. 2) If the pull doesn't change, it's alignment. 3) If the pull disappears, it's both.
Since you have completely different tires on the front after rotation, and there isn't a pull, then you can't be sure which is which.
BUT
You did have a pull to the right before new tires and a pull to the left after new tires - and that is also inconclusive.
So I'd recommend either:
1) Leave it alone, knowing that when the tires are rotated again that you will get the pull back, and the direction will tell you if the vehicle is out of alignment or not.
2) Put the rear tires back on the front and do the diagnostic work to see if it is the tires or the alignment. If it's the tires, you are well passed the point where the warranty would apply, so you are stuck with the problem for a while. But if it is alignment, then fixing that will help prevent the tires from wearing out prematurely.
I think the normal term for that is "tire pull". I have had this a few times with tires, if they are new it is considered to be a defect. I have had tires replaced under warranty for tire pull. Other times when there was not much warranty left, and because of past hassles over "is it a tire pull or is it an alignment issue?", I just drove with them.
The reason the rotation "fixed it" is because while there would still be a pull with the tire on the rear it is less than if it is on the front.
Comments
If only I could tell what the heck you were trying to say. :shades:
He stated that he did not buy particular tires because they were asymmetric (look I checked the spelling this time ;-)
I was trying to find why asymmetric tires are worse than symmetric for him/her.
That is all.
Krzys
symmetric,
asymmetric,
directional,
asymmetric and directional (in this case there are left and right tires)
Krzys
So for ANOTHER example, I have another set of tires that are marked left/right.
Wow!
:P
:shades:
You have to wonder no longer !! :P
Actually, I stated three reasons: higher price, lower CR score, and asymmetric. Not that asymmetric is bad, but being that I've never had asymmetric before, it was a variable I wanted to leave out of this particular tire purchase.
But mainly I wanted to try the Hankook because it had the narrower tread width which I thought would look better on my stock rims. And it does. Much better.
I'm very happy with these tires from both cosmetic and performance standpoints. Best tires I've ever had by far.
If you are in a more common size and applications, and tire technology improvements (some not so ground breaking changes also) are so rapid, since you are almost totally at choice, you can almost always select the BEST tires you have ever had by far !!!
An example of a common size 205-55-16, on tire rack.com just for the brands it carries yields 151 tires.
When I was investigating winter tires I checked WR G2 and I do not recall this.
Krzys
PS
http://www.nokiantires.com/tyre?id=11899&group=1.01.02&name=Nokian+WRG2
It mentions the tire to be asymmetric but nothing about being directional.
Maybe that's just in certain sizes for certain vehicles?
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Both sets were 195/65-15 for a VW Passat.
I just replaced my OEM Dunlops on my 2005 Toyota Sienna Mini van. The tires were worn more on the outside than in the middle. The dealer said it might be because OEM tires are made this way. Is that correct?
Could this be a driving style issue or an alignment issue?
On RWD, these wear patterns will develop on different ends of the vehicle, which is why rotating tires on RWD is important.
On FWD, the steer tires and the drive tires are the same, so they tend to wear evenly, but more rapidly, in the front.
HOWEVER, If your driving tends to have more turning that the average, or your turning is more "spirited" than the average, then the shoulder wear it tend to dominate. Nose heavy vehicles, such as vans, tend towards worsening this effect. Plus if the tire wears more on one shoulder than the other, you have an alignment issue.
And lastly - yes, it is a trick to get better rolling resistance out of a tire if the tire is designed to engage less of the tread shoulders in the contact patch. There are a number of ways to do this, but the net effect is that the shoulders tend to wear out first. Many OE tires use this trick, but very few replacement market tires do.
He does not put many miles on and after checking records we figued out that these tires have only about 6000 miles on them. I am astonished at this rapid wear.
Could there possibly have been some sort of defect with his particular tires that has resulted in such rapid wear? I can not believe that the company is normally putting out tires that would have such poor wear characteristics and based on the government rating, while I might not expect to get 60,000 out of them, I would certainly expect to get at least 30-40K miles.
They are worn pretty evenly, one side is very near the wear bars while on the other there is mabye an extra 1/32 or 2/32 left.
What vehicle? Where the tires were mounted?
Krzys
Plus, you should be aware that most tire wear occurs in cornering. The fact that only 6K miles have been put on in a year tends to say that the car is driven in the city a lot - lots of turns per mile.
Further, alignment can cause tires to wear more rapidly. If the tires are not worn evenly, then there is an alignment problem with the vehicle and the warranty would not apply. 2/32nds difference might be enough to point to an alignment condition.
The mfr website says maximum difference of 2/32 is allowed, I think he is within that. The tires were on the rear for a short period of time, maybe 1000-2000 miles, but still even using your 2.5 factor and assuming they were only on the front, that would mean they'd only last 15,000 miles on the rear.
It has been suburban driving. For the first couple months he drove 3 miles to HS (not counting entering and leaving the driveway) that route has about 5 turns, then he had a summer with driving a couple miles to work, probably 4 turns. Since late august, most of the miles have been to and from tech school, about 8 miles with maybe 5 turns. Of course, there were other miscellaneous miles put on going here and there...those miles were likely mostly similar to the tech school trips.
For new drivers, you might want to invest in TravelEyes2, or some equivalent. Easy to install, you tuck the GPS sensor up under the dash, and the unit can be either under the dash or in false bottom of the center console. Depending on the vehicle, if installing in the console can pick up power in the console or off of the power seats. If installing under the dash there's plenty of places, but usually you have to be a contortionist to get your head under the dash.
Also good for recording/reviewing vehicle location and speed if any accidents or tickets have occurred.
Some short years ago (44 to be exact) , I was taught (by my father) that fast was smooth and/or vice versa and paradoxically SLOW. He challenged me to drive using the brakes as little as possible and said look at the unplanned use of your brakes as mistakes in judgement AND correct accordingly. When you HAVE to use your brakes look to use them as little as possible.
So for lack of a better word, it is a game within a game.
So for example, while I think I flog this car, I got 112,300 miles from a set of oem GY LS-H's, which were rated APP 25/26 th on www.tirerack.com . In addition @ 118,000 miles, the oem front and rear brake pads are projected to go a min of 200,000 miles.
It's 6000 miles!!! I really don't see how his driving could be spirited enough to have the tires be worn as evenly as they are, if the cause were aggresive driving.
I tend to take corners fairly fast in my car and it's tires are just fine with 20K miles and mine only have a wear rating of 360 vs. 440 for his.
It's 6000 miles!!! I really don't see how his driving could be spirited enough to have the tires be worn as evenly as they are, if the cause were aggresive driving.
I tend to take corners fairly fast in my car and it's tires are just fine with 20K miles and mine only have a wear rating of 360 vs. 440 for his. "...
Well... true. So if it is his car, tires, and money.... why are you then... concerned?
.
.
You have lots of options.
As my question had indicated, I was just curious if there was perhaps some strange defect that I'd never heard of that could somehow result in tires having such rapid wear.
Thanks, what was your "secret" to accomplishing this? Spinning the wheels a lot???
Did they wear fairly evenly?
Did you ever pursue a warranty claim on the tires and if so what happened?
I DO let the old ladies (or gentemen) in front of me on Sundays, you bet. I drive fast but I'm not dangerous.
I think the best I ever did on tires was on my small light Scion xA. I got about 28,000 out of the OEM tires before they hit the wear bars.
Sure, there is a very very BERY remote chance your son got the absolute statistically worst set of tires they (Kumho) EVER made. ... So have him bring it to the dealer for warranty fulfillment. The worst they can say is no. Pitch a fit, they might give in to keep the customer happy.
I'm not saying 6,000 miles is NORMAL...we are on the same page there.... it is NOT normal. The question is what makes it abnormal.
I'd have to examine the tire or see a VERY good photo of the wear to comment further.
Off the topic, All 3 sets of Toyo's I have in use (T,H, Z/Y), seem "sticky" for their segments. While it hardly rains south of you, all three are sticky/grippy in the rain.
One trip I went from Las Vegas, Nv to Grand Canyon, AZ and it rained 4 inches in 4 hours during the entire trip. As you know, it NEVER rains in the higher deserts.
Another time I was caught in a flash snow storm in the Rocky Mountains where 300 foot drops are like pot holes,... comparatively. There was a period of time where I was wondering if it were better to park the car and come back in spring... While I would never recommend it, there was no problem getting the 265 40-17's and 295 35 18's (UTOQ of 220/280?) off the mountains with several inches of snow.
My kid is getting two 100% free new tires...he will pay only for M+B. He ended up going to Sears, which is an "authorized dealer" and they just checked that the wear was even enough and ordered the tires, as they did not have them in stock. Apparently they measured only about a 1 mm difference in wear across the each tire.
I'm not sure why they are giving him the tires free, rather than charging him 10% based on almost 6000 miles vs. the 60,000 mile warranty :confuse: .
Now I have heard nothing but bad news and for a long while about Sears. However when I had a "lifetime" alignment program with them, they were nothing but excellent. I would literally receive an alignment check and adjustment (when needed), tire balance check (and rebalance when needed) each 5,000 miles the suv was brought in for a tire rotation. $75.00 for what turned out to be 250,000 miles. or app 50 of the above procedures.
I also had nothing but good dealings on their batteries. Almost all of them lasted 10 years. Those that didn't were normally prorated, albeit a little most costly than the "real brands."
They were fulfilling the tire balance and rotation warranty on NTB tires. They had crossthreaded a lug nut when they balanced tires on previous trip. I had rotated tires myself at home and didn't realize the nut had been thorough cross-threaded. Then when they go to zip it off with their high speed guns, it jams coming off. They wouldn't replace the lug at their cost. I told them to retighten the nut and I'd do it at home. They left the nut loose and told me they tightened it. After replacing it at home the rotor was warped. The manager of the store couldn't have cared less.
I see few cars at that store any more, and I know why. It's only people who are stuck that have them work on their cars.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
link title
Fast forward 5 months and while in for some other work I asked my trusted service guy to check the alignment and any other factors (such as worn steering gear) that might have caused this.
When I picked up the car I saw they had rotated the tires but done no other work related to fixing my "drift" problem. To my surprise the simple rotation almost totally cured the problem. The service guy said this was a common problem with new tires and mentioned something about a tire that might have "thrown a belt". As he was very busy I never got a further explaination.
Does any of this make sense to you tire experts? I have never even heard of this kind of thing before let alone had it happen to me. I could see an out of balance tire causing vibration or handling problems but changing how a car tracks doesn't seem logical. And how would a rotation of said tire fix it? :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
It's possible he was trying to say "shifted belt" - and that's also incorrect. Belts are encased in rubber and CAN'T change position. This is sometimes used to describe a "tread separation", and a "thrown belt" is the last thing that happens in the sequence. And that is also not possible for a new set of tires. (and rotating tires doesn't "fix" a "shifted belt", so your mechanic is terribly misinformed.)
But there is a simple test that is run:
Swap the front tires, side to side:
1) If the pull changes direction, it's the tires.
2) If the pull doesn't change, it's alignment.
3) If the pull disappears, it's both.
Since you have completely different tires on the front after rotation, and there isn't a pull, then you can't be sure which is which.
BUT
You did have a pull to the right before new tires and a pull to the left after new tires - and that is also inconclusive.
So I'd recommend either:
1) Leave it alone, knowing that when the tires are rotated again that you will get the pull back, and the direction will tell you if the vehicle is out of alignment or not.
2) Put the rear tires back on the front and do the diagnostic work to see if it is the tires or the alignment. If it's the tires, you are well passed the point where the warranty would apply, so you are stuck with the problem for a while. But if it is alignment, then fixing that will help prevent the tires from wearing out prematurely.
The reason the rotation "fixed it" is because while there would still be a pull with the tire on the rear it is less than if it is on the front.