Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

stickguy · March 2017

funny how the group here seems to go on a particular brand run at times. Has been BMW, VW, now Infiniti.

qbrozen · March 2017

stickguy said:

funny how the group here seems to go on a particular brand run at times. Has been BMW, VW, now Infiniti.

Don't forget Caddy!

graphicguy · March 2017

explorerx4 said:
@graphicguy,
Don't want you to relive this whole episode with your 2016, but how did it start?
I'm not sure I remember correctly.

Was introduced to a GM at a Caddy dealer in 2014. Made me a super offer on a '14 CTS with a few hundred miles. Immediately had suspension issues. Dealer immediately swapped it out for another CTS (which I thought quite unusual).

2nd one had all sorts of steering, electrical issues, just a bunch of problems. Selling dealer was no help, at all. Cadillac (not the dealer did a swap out for the current '16 CTS. That's the story up until the issues with the current one. Binding arbitration who ordered a buyback and total refund (no mileage or excess wear and tear deductions).

That's the Reader's Digest version.

carnaught · March 2017

With my last Sirius/XM renewal time due, the cancellation department no longer would offer me a promotional price, so I just cancelled. After the cancellation was done, I went to link below, where better offers were now available, and I got 6 mos. for between $30-35 including taxes and all fees. Got to just remember to call a day or two prior to the end of the subscription period to make sure your CC is not charged to renew at full price.

The link for these promotions is as follows, but again, only after cancelling service:
https://care.siriusxm.com/winback_view.action?plans=sir_aud_evt,promo - select - 5mo - 19.99

abacomike · March 2017

nyccarguy said:

I've got some good news to report. I took delivery of my 2015 Infiniti Q40 AWD his evening! I love everything about it!

I wish you nothing but good with your new Infinity!!!

fordfool · March 2017

isellhondas said:
Does anyone remember Blue Coral? Now, THAT was an ALL DAY assignment but the results always looked great!

Blue Coral was rated the #1 car wax by Consumer Reports many years ago.
And I still use it for its long-lasting shine. (That should get me a few free cans.)

sda · March 2017

graphicguy said:

explorerx4 said:
@graphicguy,
Don't want you to relive this whole episode with your 2016, but how did it start?
I'm not sure I remember correctly.
Was introduced to a GM at a Caddy dealer in 2014. Made me a super offer on a '14 CTS with a few hundred miles. Immediately had suspension issues. Dealer immediately swapped it out for another CTS (which I thought quite unusual).

2nd one had all sorts of steering, electrical issues, just a bunch of problems. Selling dealer was no help, at all. Cadillac (not the dealer did a swap out for the current '16 CTS. That's the story up until the issues with the current one. Binding arbitration who ordered a buyback and total refund (no mileage or excess wear and tear deductions).

That's the Reader's Digest version.

I forgot that you had two defective '14s and then a defective '16! You were batting 1000, sir. And then the issues your mom had with hers, jeez.

qbrozen · March 2017

I also did not remember the 2nd 2014. Thought all the issues were just one of those. Wow.

graphicguy · March 2017

sda said:

graphicguy said:

explorerx4 said:
@graphicguy,
Don't want you to relive this whole episode with your 2016, but how did it start?
I'm not sure I remember correctly.
Was introduced to a GM at a Caddy dealer in 2014. Made me a super offer on a '14 CTS with a few hundred miles. Immediately had suspension issues. Dealer immediately swapped it out for another CTS (which I thought quite unusual).

2nd one had all sorts of steering, electrical issues, just a bunch of problems. Selling dealer was no help, at all. Cadillac (not the dealer did a swap out for the current '16 CTS. That's the story up until the issues with the current one. Binding arbitration who ordered a buyback and total refund (no mileage or excess wear and tear deductions).

That's the Reader's Digest version.
I forgot that you had two defective '14s and then a defective '16! You were batting 1000, sir. And then the issues your mom had with hers, jeez.

Yeah....my family's issues with Cadillac have not been good. In fairness, my late Mother's issues were mostly dealership related. Although, when the rear window blew out on her STS for no reason, and Cadillac pulled the "hey, nothing to see here" routine they're so good at, really left a bad taste in my mouth.

That said, up until that point (early oughts), she had had good success with the brand. I had problems with the same dealership, too. I think they initially sold me a car as new that had been wrecked and tried to hide that fact. Sleazy dealer.

Overall, I just get the feeling the CTS was rushed to market and the intent was to fix whatever shortcomings it had in the field. Still, Qbrozen had no issues with his CTS-V and AB has had but one recall on his ATS. Neither had their cars at the dealership for repairs anywhere near the amount of time I did.

One thing's for sure, where Cadillac really falls down is their Customer Service. Said it before, if they want to compete with the M-Bs, BMWs, Acuras, Infiniti, Lexus, etc of the world, they are woefully underestimating what it takes.

driver100 · March 2017

jmonroe said:

driver100 said:

jmonroe said:

driver100 said:

jmonroe said:

driver100 said:
RR The thinking is, when you have a BMW that doesn't shake, leave it alone.

In the 80s I took two cars in for tire rotations....both times the tires wore out very soon afterwards.

I have not had tires rotated ever since. I would rather let the front ones wear out, replace them, and buy two new tires at a time instead of rotating them. I think the tires get used to wear they are, and they start to wear at a faster rate when they are rotated. But, that's just this layman's opinion.
At least you are honest about that being your "layman's opinion" because that statement makes no technical sense whatsoever.

Now will you stop eating that Denny's Bourbon Chicken?

jmonroe
Makes no technical sense but it works for me. Like I said, as soon as I did a tire rotation my tires wore out with flat spots and uneven wear, twice. If I leave them put the fronts go first and I replace them with new tires. At the time I could afford replacing 2 tires instead of 4 a lot better anyways.

I have a friend who does know a lot about cars, and he came to the same conclusion completely independent of my experience.

The experts sometimes think what seems to make sense technically is the best solution, this time the novice is the one who knows better.

Comes from eating a low fat high protein diet.
OK, if you say so but I'm still going to do the standard rotation thing at around 5K miles on the Subie. On the Genny, I can't do standard. Just side to side because of the different tire sizes front and rear. While I don't like that it could be worse, like having different sizes AND directional rotation tires. :@

jmonroe
Haven't you been through one tire on the Subie already and decided to buy two? That was probably about 5000 miles ago, right after the rotation.
No I bought all 4.

I doubt that the way that car is driven I will have 5K miles on it in 10 more months but they said they would do another tire balance and rotation if I wanted to bring it in then. I bought the lifetime balance so why not take advantage of it and since I bought the lifetime alignment years ago for the Subie that will be done too.

All I have to do is check all 20 lug nuts before I leave the lot after they do their work.

jmonroe

And, don't try to install and balance the new tires yourself......or you will void the warranty.

driver100 · March 2017

NYC....I really like your new Infinity, wear it well.

driver100 · March 2017

It is important so I will print from Popular Mechanics:

When replacing only two tires, the new ones go on the rear.

The truth: Rear tires provide stability, and without stability, steering or braking on a wet or even damp surface might cause a spin. If you have new tires up front, they will easily disperse water while the half-worn rears will go surfing: The water will literally lift the worn rear tires off the road. If you're in a slight corner or on a crowned road, the car will spin out so fast you won't be able to say, "Oh, fudge!"

There is no "even if" to this one. Whether you own a front-, rear- or all-wheel-drive car, truck, or SUV, the tires with the most tread go on the rear

Very convincing video (2 minutes)

https://youtu.be/oa9hzcjdi5Q

jpp75 · March 2017

@nyccarguy I love the pics of the Q40, congrats and enjoy!

houdini1 · March 2017

imidazol97 said:

driver100 said:

stickguy said:
as to tires, not sure when that became the norm, but the logic is if the traction is going to be different, you want more in the back. better to have the front end slide out (understeer) than to have the back end slide out (oversteer). At least for the average driver!
I think someone should look this up....just to make sure.

Not me, it is past my bed time. I will look for the answer in the morning.
Several sets of tires back the local Bridgestone/Firestone store where I buy my Michelins insisted on putting the two new ones on the back. I insisted on the front. I switched stores for service on the tires. Later at another store in the group, the manager had a letter posted from the company about a lawsuit over someone's having an accident because the rear tires had less tread and the fronts had new good tread which, they claimed, caused the front to grip and the rears to slide sideways on a curve. The car went out of control. And the driver sued.

Nothing about the driver possibly outdriving the tires and grip for the conditions...

Front or back for new tires. I wonder if fwd or rwd matters?

houdini1 · March 2017

driver100 said:
It is important so I will print from Popular Mechanics:

When replacing only two tires, the new ones go on the front.

The truth: Rear tires provide stability, and without stability, steering or braking on a wet or even damp surface might cause a spin. If you have new tires up front, they will easily disperse water while the half-worn rears will go surfing: The water will literally lift the worn rear tires off the road. If you're in a slight corner or on a crowned road, the car will spin out so fast you won't be able to say, "Oh, fudge!"

There is no "even if" to this one. Whether you own a front-, rear- or all-wheel-drive car, truck, or SUV, the tires with the most tread go on the rear

Very convincing video (2 minutes)
https://youtu.be/oa9hzcjdi5Q

Your first sentence says the new tires go on the front, then you explain why they should go on the rear? Dyslexia?

driver100 · March 2017

houdini1 said:

imidazol97 said:

driver100 said:

stickguy said:
as to tires, not sure when that became the norm, but the logic is if the traction is going to be different, you want more in the back. better to have the front end slide out (understeer) than to have the back end slide out (oversteer). At least for the average driver!
I think someone should look this up....just to make sure.

Not me, it is past my bed time. I will look for the answer in the morning.
Several sets of tires back the local Bridgestone/Firestone store where I buy my Michelins insisted on putting the two new ones on the back. I insisted on the front. I switched stores for service on the tires. Later at another store in the group, the manager had a letter posted from the company about a lawsuit over someone's having an accident because the rear tires had less tread and the fronts had new good tread which, they claimed, caused the front to grip and the rears to slide sideways on a curve. The car went out of control. And the driver sued.

Nothing about the driver possibly outdriving the tires and grip for the conditions...

Front or back for new tires. I wonder if fwd or rwd matters?

Good question.........new tires always go on the back, RWD, FWD, AWD.

However due to a front-wheel drive vehicle's front tires' responsibility for transmitting acceleration, steering and most of the braking forces, it's normal for them to wear faster than rear tires. Therefore if the tires aren't rotated on a regular basis, tires will typically wear out in pairs rather than in sets. And if the tires aren't rotated at all, it's likely that the rear tires will still have about 1/2 of their original tread depth remaining when the front tires are completely worn out.

Intuition suggests that since the front tires wore out first and because there is still about half of the tread remaining on the rear tires, the new tires should be installed on the front axle. This will provide more wet and wintry traction; and by the time the front tires have worn out for the second time, the rear tires will be worn out, too. However in this case, intuition isn't right...and following it can be downright dangerous.

"When tires are replaced in pairs...the new tires should always be installed on the rear axle and the partially worn tires moved to the front."

In the lean years I liked to replace front tires when they get worn, move backs to the front, put new pair on the back. I get longer life and can buy my tires in pairs, instead of one big payment. These days I would probably just buy 4 tires unless there was a huge difference.

driver100 · March 2017

houdini1 said:

driver100 said:
It is important so I will print from Popular Mechanics:

When replacing only two tires, the new ones go on the front.

The truth: Rear tires provide stability, and without stability, steering or braking on a wet or even damp surface might cause a spin. If you have new tires up front, they will easily disperse water while the half-worn rears will go surfing: The water will literally lift the worn rear tires off the road. If you're in a slight corner or on a crowned road, the car will spin out so fast you won't be able to say, "Oh, fudge!"

There is no "even if" to this one. Whether you own a front-, rear- or all-wheel-drive car, truck, or SUV, the tires with the most tread go on the rear

Very convincing video (2 minutes)
https://youtu.be/oa9hzcjdi5Q
Your first sentence says the new tires go on the front, then you explain why they should go on the rear? Dyslexia?

I don't think it is dyslexia though it could be. I think it is because I wrote that at 7 a.m. before fully awake!

*I changed it on my original...now you can do it on your copy and delete the correcting post and don't tell anyone about my dyslexia and they will never know.

stickguy · March 2017

My cars don't wear much different front to rear. Just rotated every 10k miles seems to be plenty to have them all due for replacement at the same time.

roadburner · March 2017

nyccarguy said:

Beautiful!!!

roadburner · March 2017

graphicguy said:

sda said:

graphicguy said:

explorerx4 said:
@graphicguy,
Don't want you to relive this whole episode with your 2016, but how did it start?
I'm not sure I remember correctly.
Was introduced to a GM at a Caddy dealer in 2014. Made me a super offer on a '14 CTS with a few hundred miles. Immediately had suspension issues. Dealer immediately swapped it out for another CTS (which I thought quite unusual).

2nd one had all sorts of steering, electrical issues, just a bunch of problems. Selling dealer was no help, at all. Cadillac (not the dealer did a swap out for the current '16 CTS. That's the story up until the issues with the current one. Binding arbitration who ordered a buyback and total refund (no mileage or excess wear and tear deductions).

That's the Reader's Digest version.
I forgot that you had two defective '14s and then a defective '16! You were batting 1000, sir. And then the issues your mom had with hers, jeez.
Yeah....my family's issues with Cadillac have not been good. In fairness, my late Mother's issues were mostly dealership related. Although, when the rear window blew out on her STS for no reason, and Cadillac pulled the "hey, nothing to see here" routine they're so good at, really left a bad taste in my mouth.

That said, up until that point (early oughts), she had had good success with the brand. I had problems with the same dealership, too. I think they initially sold me a car as new that had been wrecked and tried to hide that fact. Sleazy dealer.

Overall, I just get the feeling the CTS was rushed to market and the intent was to fix whatever shortcomings it had in the field. Still, Qbrozen had no issues with his CTS-V and AB has had but one recall on his ATS. Neither had their cars at the dealership for repairs anywhere near the amount of time I did.

One thing's for sure, where Cadillac really falls down is their Customer Service. Said it before, if they want to compete with the M-Bs, BMWs, Acuras, Infiniti, Lexus, etc of the world, they are woefully underestimating what it takes.

The manufacturer and the dealer can make or break the ownership experience. My nearest Cadillac dealer is none too impressive(sales OR service) and as a result I really can't consider owning one.

dino001 · March 2017

driver100 said:

Intuition suggests that since the front tires wore out first and because there is still about half of the tread remaining on the rear tires, the new tires should be installed on the front axle. This will provide more wet and wintry traction; and by the time the front tires have worn out for the second time, the rear tires will be worn out, too. However in this case, intuition isn't right...and following it can be downright dangerous.

"When tires are replaced in pairs...the new tires should always be installed on the rear axle and the partially worn tires moved to the front."

Yes, I remember reading that somewhere, too and being quite surprised by that. It sounded intuitively "obvious" that the good tires should go where the drive is. I dug deeper and, as I recall, the issue is most cars are made to have slight-to-moderate understeer, as it is much easier to handle by a non-professional driver in emergencies. To maintain that you need good friction in the back, so the car doesn't break loose too early. When rear tires are too worn and break loose in a corner, that's an oversteer situation, which in combination with FWD can be truly disastrous for an unskilled driver. In a RWD or AWD, oversteer can be corrected by releasing the throttle, which is intuitive, however, in FWD oversteer needs to be corrected by pressing harder on the throttle (front wheels would pull the car out to a straight line), which is not intuitive. Releasing the throttle may actually deepen the back slide, as vehicle angular momentum (around the front) takes over and there is zero additional control from the drive wheels (those being in the front, so they can't contribute) and low side friction in the back. BTW, this was a reason why first traction control devices were applied in rear wheel drive vehicles (first large trucks, then high-end limousines) and they were not as helpful in cheaper FWD vehicles, until their programming became more sophisticated and able to account for the vehicle dynamics, not just traction. Worn tires in the back can lower the threshold for oversteer to occur, thus the advice above is exactly how it should be done, regardless of type of car drive.

jmonroe · March 2017

ab348 said:

jmonroe said:
@ab348, here's hoping that whatever is decided you will come through it fine and be back to normal, quickly.

jmonroe
Thanks JM. The frustration is that the surgeon who worked on me in 2009 said that given the hard time I had after that, my valve be replaced using a TAVR procedure where they snake the new valve up through an artery via the groin instead of opening you up. So today I met with the surgeon who does that and she's not so sure about doing that given my history. So it looks like we start the whole process again from the top with new tests, etc. What fun.

The only funny part of the day was when the surgeon, an attractive lady of maybe 35 or so, called me "a young man". Wish other 35 year old women I meet would call me that.

Calling you "young man" is good. How would you like it when they call you Dad? Like when one youngin said to me, "hey Dad, put your feet up here".

The only thing worse would have been, "hey grandpa..." :@

jmonroe

jmonroe · March 2017

nyccarguy said:

Show off. :@

Have fun with it and give us your 1K mile report.

FWIW, kinda looks like the 2013 G37 that Son #1 bought used in 2015.

jmonroe

stickguy · March 2017

My neighbor has a long commute (prob 80 miles a day) and a few years back replaced his legend (the big sedan, rare 6 speed) with 180k on it with a black on black g37x. Seems to really like it. Probably pushing 100k by now.

stickguy · March 2017

Medical tech is so nest these days. The dog rescue I help with just had a dog get surgery for a liver defect. Had to insert a shunt. Did it through a tiny slit in his neck, fished it down an artery, and out in place. Only needed 2 tiny stitches I think, that were out in a couple of days. Just amazing stuff.

jmonroe · March 2017

You guys that are getting 60K miles and more from your tires are waaay ahead of me. I get my tires balanced and rotated on schedule and the best I have ever done is to get around 48K miles out of a set of Bridgestone's and that was on my old '95 Bonneville back in '99, I think.

I don't buy cheap tires and the Bridgestone Turanza Serenities are Bridgestone's top of the line tire, so I've been told by the Firestone dealer I have been going to for years. So, either Mrs. j is tracking our cars when I'm not looking or the tire gods don't like me. Whatever is going on I gotta get an answer.

I'd kiss the tire gods on the lips to get 60K + miles out of a set of tires.

jmonroe

Mr_Shiftright · March 2017

sda said:

Mr_Shiftright said:
Vintage Triumphs are great to ride---unlike the Harleys, they are feather-light and you can steer them with just the slightest body motion; and unlike the superbikes, they are built for moderate speeds on twisty roads, not long distance, high-speed cruising.

Every bike is built to a purpose. My friend's BSA Gold Star is a brute in comparison.

I remember sharing a similar opinion with Jay Leno, who loves these old British bikes. He said: "I like a motorcycle I can see through to the other side".

Looks great and I like the color combination. I'm sure you can't wait for that first ride!

Just took the first spin---it's not quite ready to ride any distance yet but I am *very* pleased with the strength and pull of this engine. It's noticeably quicker than my friend's '69 model. Maybe the 2 into 1 exhaust and proper jetting of the carb (and race gas!) gave it that extra punch. Still need to fix the clutch, get the tail light on, a working horn and then CHP has to inspect the frame #s for registration.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2017

fintail said:
Can you imagine if turn signal, crosswalk, lane discipline, distracted driving, etc regulations were enforced in such zealous ways? Roads would be safer and we could pay the national debt (or fund those sweet sweet CA pensions).

andres3 said:

I understand that if you show your speedometer was reading 5 MPH lower than actual speed, and you testify you were going the speed limit, you were indeed speeding. However, it doesn't pass the "absurdity" test as has come up with a frozen truck case on our most recent Supreme Court nominee.

Depends also on where you were speeding. In a school zone they are very strict, for instance. If the ticket *really* says just 5 mph over, the judge might toss it. That was a very chickengobble thing for the officer to do, in that case. But if he wrote him 15 over, no chance he'll get off.

qbrozen · March 2017

jmonroe said:
You guys that are getting 60K miles and more from your tires are waaay ahead of me. I get my tires balanced and rotated on schedule and the best I have ever done is to get around 48K miles out of a set of Bridgestone's and that was on my old '95 Bonneville back in '99, I think.

I don't buy cheap tires and the Bridgestone Turanza Serenities are Bridgestone's top of the line tire, so I've been told by the Firestone dealer I have been going to for years. So, either Mrs. j is tracking our cars when I'm not looking or the tire gods don't like me. Whatever is going on I gotta get an answer.

I'd kiss the tire gods on the lips to get 60K + miles out of a set of tires.

jmonroe

My wife is at 38k on the T&C's stock tires. 2 are at 6/32nds and 2 are at 4.5/32nds. So I'm guessing around 50k will finish them off. Not bad on a 4500-lb vehicle.

My tires don't last at all. I had destroyed the set on my Honda Fit in the 12k miles I owned it.

andres3 · March 2017

fintail said:
Can you imagine if turn signal, crosswalk, lane discipline, distracted driving, etc regulations were enforced in such zealous ways? Roads would be safer and we could pay the national debt (or fund those sweet sweet CA pensions).

andres3 said:

I understand that if you show your speedometer was reading 5 MPH lower than actual speed, and you testify you were going the speed limit, you were indeed speeding. However, it doesn't pass the "absurdity" test as has come up with a frozen truck case on our most recent Supreme Court nominee.

No need to enforce laws that actually improve safety. All the money is in speeding.

http://saferstreetsla.org/hot-topics/

With due process taken away, and camera's issuing tickets, CA will be able to pay for not only the pensions, but high-speed rail. Of course, if people take the train, that'll mean less revenue for the cameras!

graphicguy · March 2017

RB....interesting to note....the best dealership experience I've had was with my local BMW Dealership (BMW Cincinnati, North). I heard the other one in town is good, too.

One month in, the Infiniti dealer has been very communicative, sending me reminders to check out different features and how to use them. My sales person has called twice to make sure I like the car and understand it. So far, so good.

roadburner · March 2017

I'm shooting for 35K-40K miles on the Michelin PSS tires on the 2 Series. If they make it that far I'll be more than happy.

stickguy · March 2017

My experience is bridgestones don't last, but very dependent on the car.

I have michelins on my RDX. At 38k miles (but almost 5 years) they are down to about 4/32 I think. Lowest might be a touch under. Will probably replace at around 40. I will take that on this car. Our odyssey also came with michelins, totally shot at 30k. Replaced with yokohamas and at 45k when I sold it, they had lots of tread left.

andres3 · March 2017

thebean said:

jmonroe said:

@ab348, here's hoping that whatever is decided you will come through it fine and be back to normal, quickly.

jmonroe

@ab348, I hope you will get a plan for treatment that will be successful. I used the phrase "evil empire of GM" mostly tongue in cheek with you in mind (I knew it would chap you a bit

). Nothing personal, but I think Cadillac unnecessarily put GG through the ringer when they knew the car was unsatisfactory and should have been bought back earlier. We disagree about this most likely.

I sometimes wonder if the Executives in charge of denying rightful legitimate claims at Insurance companies, or auto companies sleep peacefully at night.

If they are not losing any sleep over their "evil" actions, I guess they chose the right career. I guarantee they know the difference between a legitimate denial based on solid legal grounds, verses one that is designed to only work if the adversary just gives up.

andres3 · March 2017

roadburner said:
I'm shooting for 35K-40K miles on the Michelin PSS tires on the 2 Series. If they make it that far I'll be more than happy.

How many track days will be included if they do reach $40K miles! That's impressive.

Not resting on their laurels, Michelin decided to outdo themselves though the competition couldn't, with a new Pilot 4S that is supposed to top the PSS.

Can't wait to use the Sport Cup 2's in Pahrump in a couple weeks.

driver100 · March 2017

dino001 said:

driver100 said:

Intuition suggests that since the front tires wore out first and because there is still about half of the tread remaining on the rear tires, the new tires should be installed on the front axle. This will provide more wet and wintry traction; and by the time the front tires have worn out for the second time, the rear tires will be worn out, too. However in this case, intuition isn't right...and following it can be downright dangerous.

"When tires are replaced in pairs...the new tires should always be installed on the rear axle and the partially worn tires moved to the front."
Yes, I remember reading that somewhere, too and being quite surprised by that. It sounded intuitively "obvious" that the good tires should go where the drive is. Worn tires in the back can lower the threshold for oversteer to occur, thus the advice above is exactly how it should be done, regardless of type of car drive.

Dino, not only would you think the newer tires should go on the front, that is what was always recommended. So, if we were raised to believe that was the case, that is what we may still believe, it is only more recent thinking and testing that has changed it.

From a tire dealer:
BETTER TIRES, FRONT OR REAR?
For many years, tire installers have wanted to put the better tires on the front, no matter what the vehicle. So, if you went to buy two tires instead of four, or even just to have the tires rotated, the new or better tires would normally be put on the front. However, we're pretty sure that all tire manufacturers are now recommending having the better tires on the rear. Not only will some retailers refuse to put new tires on the front when buying only two, we've even heard that putting new tires only in the front is illegal in some states (though we were unable to verify the latter). Why is this?

The Short Answer

Better tires on front will (usually) give better wear
Better tires on the back is safer

jmonroe · March 2017

andres3 said:

thebean said:

jmonroe said:

@ab348, here's hoping that whatever is decided you will come through it fine and be back to normal, quickly.

jmonroe

@ab348, I hope you will get a plan for treatment that will be successful. I used the phrase "evil empire of GM" mostly tongue in cheek with you in mind (I knew it would chap you a bit ). Nothing personal, but I think Cadillac unnecessarily put GG through the ringer when they knew the car was unsatisfactory and should have been bought back earlier. We disagree about this most likely.

I sometimes wonder if the Executives in charge of denying rightful legitimate claims at Insurance companies, or auto companies sleep peacefully at night.

If they are not losing any sleep over their "evil" actions, I guess they chose the right career. I guarantee they know the difference between a legitimate denial based on solid legal grounds, verses one that is designed to only work if the adversary just gives up.

Rest assured, they sleep very well.

You should be so lucky to have their dreams.

jmonroe

andres3 · March 2017

imidazol97 said:

driver100 said:

stickguy said:
as to tires, not sure when that became the norm, but the logic is if the traction is going to be different, you want more in the back. better to have the front end slide out (understeer) than to have the back end slide out (oversteer). At least for the average driver!
I think someone should look this up....just to make sure.

Not me, it is past my bed time. I will look for the answer in the morning.
Several sets of tires back the local Bridgestone/Firestone store where I buy my Michelins insisted on putting the two new ones on the back. I insisted on the front. I switched stores for service on the tires. Later at another store in the group, the manager had a letter posted from the company about a lawsuit over someone's having an accident because the rear tires had less tread and the fronts had new good tread which, they claimed, caused the front to grip and the rears to slide sideways on a curve. The car went out of control. And the driver sued.

Nothing about the driver possibly outdriving the tires and grip for the conditions...

If I was on the jury, I would find the driver at-fault for the driver should know what condition their tires are in before driving the vehicle. I know when I have brand new tires, and I know when I have worn out tires, and drive accordingly in relation to the weather.

The driver should also know if the newer tires are in front or in back; problem solved. This is a good example of suing for anything. Costco is deathly afraid to use common-sense when it comes to tire load and speed ratings. If the stamp on the car says 94Y, they want 94+ and Y. For those that know about load and speed ratings, they know this can be silly.

driver100 · March 2017

jmonroe said:
You guys that are getting 60K miles and more from your tires are waaay ahead of me. I get my tires balanced and rotated on schedule and the best I have ever done is to get around 48K miles out of a set of Bridgestone's and that was on my old '95 Bonneville back in '99, I think.

I don't buy cheap tires and the Bridgestone Turanza Serenities are Bridgestone's top of the line tire, so I've been told by the Firestone dealer I have been going to for years. So, either Mrs. j is tracking our cars when I'm not looking or the tire gods don't like me. Whatever is going on I gotta get an answer.

I'd kiss the tire gods on the lips to get 60K + miles out of a set of tires.

jmonroe

I agree with you JM, I haven't got nearly 60k plus miles from tires. Maybe we had all season tires which are softer and wear faster, or some of these gys are in really snowy areas and use snow tires for half the year.

driver100 · March 2017

jmonroe said:

ab348 said:

jmonroe said:
@ab348, here's hoping that whatever is decided you will come through it fine and be back to normal, quickly.

jmonroe
Thanks JM. The frustration is that the surgeon who worked on me in 2009 said that given the hard time I had after that, my valve be replaced using a TAVR procedure where they snake the new valve up through an artery via the groin instead of opening you up. So today I met with the surgeon who does that and she's not so sure about doing that given my history. So it looks like we start the whole process again from the top with new tests, etc. What fun.

The only funny part of the day was when the surgeon, an attractive lady of maybe 35 or so, called me "a young man". Wish other 35 year old women I meet would call me that.
Calling you "young man" is good. How would you like it when they call you Dad? Like when one youngin said to me, "hey Dad, put your feet up here". The only thing worse would have been, "hey grandpa..." :@

jmonroe

I wonder if they call me "Sir". Is that a show of respect or because they think I am a lot older?

andres3 · March 2017

berri said:
Graphic - I like the win. GM, Cadillac and the dealer jerked with you way too much. Could have settled this for less and on a happier customer basis way back, but threw bureaucracy at you instead. Big corporations are often rather arrogant places, so I'm glad to see they took a big loss for their behavior. So will these people all learn a lesson? Almost certainly not as long as they have puffed up ego executives and too many lawyers. Next vehicle - well after this one you may want to put a lot of research and emphasis on something with good reliability ratings.

I think the problem at GM is the right people won't be punished for this poor result in the right ways.

They will probably get mad at the legal rep and agent that lost the arbitration.

They should being getting angry at the engineers and workers that installed the defective design in a defective way without sounding the alarm bells.

houdini1 · March 2017

driver100 said:

dino001 said:

driver100 said:

Intuition suggests that since the front tires wore out first and because there is still about half of the tread remaining on the rear tires, the new tires should be installed on the front axle. This will provide more wet and wintry traction; and by the time the front tires have worn out for the second time, the rear tires will be worn out, too. However in this case, intuition isn't right...and following it can be downright dangerous.

"When tires are replaced in pairs...the new tires should always be installed on the rear axle and the partially worn tires moved to the front."
Yes, I remember reading that somewhere, too and being quite surprised by that. It sounded intuitively "obvious" that the good tires should go where the drive is. Worn tires in the back can lower the threshold for oversteer to occur, thus the advice above is exactly how it should be done, regardless of type of car drive.

Dino, not only would you think the newer tires should go on the front, that is what was always recommended. So, if we were raised to believe that was the case, that is what we may still believe, it is only more recent thinking and testing that has changed it.

From a tire dealer:
BETTER TIRES, FRONT OR REAR?
For many years, tire installers have wanted to put the better tires on the front, no matter what the vehicle. So, if you went to buy two tires instead of four, or even just to have the tires rotated, the new or better tires would normally be put on the front. However, we're pretty sure that all tire manufacturers are now recommending having the better tires on the rear. Not only will some retailers refuse to put new tires on the front when buying only two, we've even heard that putting new tires only in the front is illegal in some states (though we were unable to verify the latter). Why is this?

The Short Answer

Better tires on front will (usually) give better wear
Better tires on the back is safer

They said, "after extensive testing over several years", they changed their minds. So it took several years to line up two cars with different tire configurations and run them thru a wet course? That is like the compliment my MIL gave me. "You were smart enough to recognize that the insurance business was full of very stupid people so you have done very well".

I should have tried the tire business.

andres3 · March 2017

Newer/better tires on the rear is only safer for the average driver that probably doesn't know what to do when a skid starts. If a driver is familiar with over-steer then it shouldn't be a problem, and having more traction for your turning wheels makes sense. Most cars have under steer built-in, and the tire tread being slightly different won't change that.

Then again, sometimes it's hard to get them to install wheels with tires at the wear bars, even if you sign-off on it.

stickguy · March 2017

I still can't understand how they had a massive design defect that only impacted 3 cars. Very odd.

jmonroe · March 2017

andres3 said:
Newer/better tires on the rear is only safer for the average driver that probably doesn't know what to do when a skid starts. If a driver is familiar with over-steer then it shouldn't be a problem, and having more traction for your turning wheels makes sense. Most cars have under steer built-in, and the tire tread being slightly different won't change that.

Then again, sometimes it's hard to get them to install wheels with tires at the wear bars, even if you sign-off on it.

Why would you want to drive a car with tires at the "wear bars"?

I thought you were a car person and likes to drive fast.

In PA if you are pulled over for any reason and your tires are worn out, and being at the "wear bars" is worn out, that's another ticket.

The fore coming explanation otta be good.

jmonroe

berri · March 2017

I've never had a decent pair of Bridgestone or Firestone tires, OE or aftermarket.

jmonroe · March 2017

The gimmick with tire manufactures, all of them from what I have experienced, is the tread wear warranty. Almost nobody, and me for sure, gets the stated wear. So, when the tire wears out you go back and get an "adjustment" and this results in you paying less for those tires.

Who is going to be so upset that they are going to switch to another brand and pay full price and probably run into the same thing with that brand? Not me, that's for sure.

The only way I switch brands is when I need replacement tires on a new car. Even when I do that, I don't get a brand that is all that much better than the one I already had.

For me they have been just round black things that cost too much and wear out too soon. Regardless of brand.

jmonroe

andres3 · March 2017

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:
Newer/better tires on the rear is only safer for the average driver that probably doesn't know what to do when a skid starts. If a driver is familiar with over-steer then it shouldn't be a problem, and having more traction for your turning wheels makes sense. Most cars have under steer built-in, and the tire tread being slightly different won't change that.

Then again, sometimes it's hard to get them to install wheels with tires at the wear bars, even if you sign-off on it.
Why would you want to drive a car with tires at the "wear bars"?

I thought you were a car person and likes to drive fast. In PA if you are pulled over for any reason and your tires are worn out, and being at the "wear bars" is worn out, that's another ticket.

The fore coming explanation otta be good.

jmonroe

CA is very dry so tires at the wear bars still have some good dry life left in them. They actually can exhibit better turn-in traction characteristics, since they have less "tread squirm." Sort of like a "slick" concept. Great for dry weather, not so good for rain or snow, but as long as the driver knows this, is aware of this, you can compensate accordingly.

Usually you'd do this to get a few more summer months out of them, or perhaps that one last track weekend to "do them in." From what I've gathered over the years, as long as you don't have cords showing, you are A.O.K.

Yes, it is a ticket, but it is a "fix-it" ticket. Chances of being pulled over for "bald tires?" Close to nil, only way you get this ticket is if you were pulled over for another reason.

coldinohio · March 2017

GG: nice job re Caddy; enjoy the Infinity; have a small batch bourbon for us
NYGC: Infinity looks sharp; no merging problems now; wonder how mileage will differ

andres3 · March 2017

jmonroe said:
The gimmick with tire manufactures, all of them from what I have experienced, is the tread wear warranty. Almost nobody, and me for sure, gets the stated wear. So, when the tire wears out you go back and get an "adjustment" and this results in you paying less for those tires.

Who is going to be so upset that they are going to switch to another brand and pay full price and probably run into the same thing with that brand? Not me, that's for sure.

The only way I switch brands is when I need replacement tires on a new car. Even when I do that, I don't get a brand that is all that much better than the one I already had.

For me they have been just round black things that cost too much and wear out too soon. Regardless of brand.

jmonroe

Consumer Reports would be your friend here. They put tires through rigorous "long-term" tests, so you don't have to guess which tires will last longer. Of course different cars with different suspensions will change factors, but it stands to reason that a longer lasting tire will last longer than a shorter lasting tire regardless of the vehicle they are mounted upon.

Also, Tirerack has extensive reviews from users that report mileage and wear ratings.

Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy