If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Michelin tires and their problems
I have used Michelins for years but I find that I can find a lot of complaints on the internet about sidewall failure, especially with Costco tires.
Does anyone know if Costco is getting a lower quality product made to be more price competitive? dq |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:03:50 GMT, "RQ" > wrote:
>I have used Michelins for years but I find that I can find a lot of complaints on the internet about sidewall failure, especially with Costco tires. >Does anyone know if Costco is getting a lower quality product made to be more price competitive? > > >dq No - all suppliers get the same quality tires if they are the same model. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
My Michelin X-Ones from Costco are checking on the sidewalls - and are
cracking in the tread area where the blocks meet the tire body - about 50k on them and 4-5 yrs old, I'm starting to think about replacing them, I found that after 4-5 yrs any tire I've owned is usually toast ( poor snow & wet traction) I will replace the X-Ones with another set of X-Ones > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:03:50 GMT, "RQ" > wrote: > > >I have used Michelins for years but I find that I can find a lot of complaints on the internet about sidewall failure, especially with Costco tires. > >Does anyone know if Costco is getting a lower quality product made to be more price competitive? > > > > > >dq > No - all suppliers get the same quality tires if they are the same > model. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Tires get an expiration date
Tuesday, May 31, 2005 By Timothy Aeppel, The Wall Street Journal http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05151/513329.stm ----------- Main points: Drivers are being advised to start paying attention to the age of their tires. Ford has begun urging drivers to replace tires after six years, regardless of wear. The tire industry says it's more important to monitor tread depth than age and recommends that treads be at least 1/16 of an inch thick. Some European car makers as well as Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. have long warned drivers that tires are perishable. ----------- Drivers who know to check tires for worn treads and low air pressure now have something else to worry about: vintage. Ford Motor Co., in a move roiling the tire industry, has started urging consumers to replace tires after six years. The car maker says its research shows that tires "degrade over time, even when they are not being used." That means even pristine-looking spares that have never left the trunk should be pitched after a half-dozen years. That's a radical concept in the staid U.S. tire business, which insists there's no scientific evidence to support a "use by" date for tires. It would also surprise most motorists, who are taught that a tire's lifespan is measured mainly by tread depth. The tire industry says that tires are safe as long as the tread depth is a minimum of 1/16th of an inch, no matter what the age, and there are no visible cuts, signs of uneven wear, bulges or excessive cracking. Other trouble signs are if tires create vibration or excessive noise. "Tires are not milk," says Daniel Zielinski, a spokesman for the Rubber Manufacturers Association, the tire industry's main trade group. For many consumers, the issue never comes up, since passenger-car tires last an average of 44,000 miles -- meaning they are usually replaced before hitting the six-year mark. But many people simply assume that unused spare tires -- even those that are a decade old -- are as durable as brand-new tires, and sometimes use those spares as full-time replacements for the regular tires. Classic-car buffs and others who drive only infrequently could also be affected by the latest research. In its new stance on tire safety, Ford is getting some support from other researchers. Sean Kane, president of Safety Research & Strategies Inc., an auto-safety research firm working with lawyers who are preparing lawsuits arising from accidents thought to be linked to aging tires, says older tires are a road hazard. Mr. Kane's group has collected a list of 70 accidents involving older tires, which resulted in 52 deaths and 50 serious injuries. In a sense, the U.S. car industry is just catching up to global standards. Many European car makers as well as Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. have long warned drivers, including those who buy their cars in the U.S., that tires are perishable. Many of them also use a six-year threshold for the age of a tire. DaimlerChrysler AG has already adopted a position parallel to Ford. The car maker's Mercedes division had been telling drivers that tires last only six years. But starting last fall, the Chrysler group began including such a warning in 2005 owner's manuals. "We did do some research and we found that's just a pretty safe and steady guideline," says Curtrise Garner, a Chrysler spokeswoman, adding that "it's a recommendation, not a must-do." Other car makers are also taking up this question, and some are reaching a different conclusion than Ford. General Motors Corp. spokesman Alan Adler says GM has discussed the aging issue, but doesn't have any research that supports a move to such a guideline. "We're not joining in the six-years-is-the-magic-number thing right now," he says. The age of tires already appears on tires, but as part of a lengthy code that is difficult for average consumers to decipher. To find the age of a tire, look for the letters DOT on the sidewall (indicating compliance with applicable safety standards set by the U.S. Department of Transportation). Adjacent to these letters is the tire's serial number, which is a combination of up to 12 numbers and letters. The last characters are numbers that identify the week and year of manufacture. For example, 1504 means the fifteenth week of the year 2004. Not only are the numbers difficult to interpret, but they can be hard to locate: The numbers are printed on only one side of the tire, which sometimes is the one facing inward when the tire is mounted on a wheel. Ford's new stance on tire aging is a direct outgrowth of the Firestone tire recall that began in August 2000. That episode involved Firestone tires failing suddenly, mostly on Ford Explorers, leading to a wave of deadly crashes. The crashes sparked a series of lawsuits, including monetary and personal-injury claims, some of which are pending. Ford's new position won't affect those lawsuits. But it could play a role in future legal action. Some attorneys who have sued over the Firestone case are now mounting cases that focus on tire age. John Baldwin, a Ford materials scientist who studied the root cause of the Firestone problems and has spearheaded the car maker's continuing research on tire aging, says Ford's intention is to develop a test to help prevent another Firestone-type debacle. He says Ford's research into the Firestone problem showed that as tires age, the chemistry of the rubber changes as oxygen migrates through the carcass of the tire. This leads to a weakening of the internal structure that can result in tire failures. Driving in hot climates or frequent heavy loading of vehicles speeds this aging process, he says. In April, Ford posted a warning on its Web site saying that "tires generally should be replaced after six years of normal service." The company also plans to include similar wording in owner's manuals starting with the 2006 model year. Firestone spokeswoman Christine Karbowiak says the company can't comment on Ford's new recommendation, because it hasn't seen Ford's research. Tire makers certainly don't want to see the six-year rule become any more deeply ingrained. While it might seem that putting a limit on the lifespan of tires would be a boon to tire makers, who would presumably sell more tires, the costs and complications it could create are considerable. Among other things, the industry is worried about the logistical problems that would arise if customers suddenly started demanding only the "freshest" tires. In some cases, tires take months to move through distribution channels from factories -- through wholesalers, and then on to retail outlets. "We don't have any data to support an expiration date (for tires)," says Mr. Zielinski of the RMA. He agrees that age can be a factor in tire performance, but says it shouldn't be used as the sole reason to determine that a tire is no longer usable. Mr. Zielinski says Ford went public with its position without sharing its research with the tire association or individual tire makers. Ford, in turn, says that it presented its research in trade publications and at a series of public forums, including a technical meeting of the rubber division of the American Chemical Society in San Antonio, Texas, two weeks ago. Ford has also given its research to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is developing a test to simulate the effects of aging on tires. Ford's test involves putting inflated tires into an oven for weeks at a time. The tires are then taken out and studied to see, among other things, how well the layers of rubber hold together. Strategic Research wants tires to be labeled more clearly with the date they were produced, so consumers can better identify older tires and, ultimately, an explicit expiration date. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
MoPar Man wrote:
> ... He says Ford's research into the Firestone problem showed > that as tires age, the chemistry of the rubber changes as oxygen > migrates through the carcass of the tire. This leads to a > weakening of the internal structure that can result in > tire failures. An argument that seasonal tires (still mounted to wheels) should be stored with the air taken out of them (ie deflated) ? Also an argument that tires be filled with nitrogen? Perhaps some other gas? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ... > On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:03:50 GMT, "RQ" > wrote: > > >I have used Michelins for years but I find that I can find a lot of complaints on the internet about sidewall failure, especially with Costco tires. > >Does anyone know if Costco is getting a lower quality product made to be more price competitive? > > > > > >dq > No - all suppliers get the same quality tires if they are the same > model. I am not absolutly positive but when I worked at a Ford store they were a Goodyear tire dealer and we price matched with any competitor exept Wal-mart,Costco and Sams because they had the same tire with the same part number but they are different tires specifically made for those vendors,the parts manager at the Ford store told me they are completely different tires. like I said I don't *know*because I was just told that by the parts manager. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
MoPar Man > writes:
> > Drivers are being advised to start paying attention to the age of > their tires. > > Ford has begun urging drivers to replace tires after six years, > regardless of wear. Wish I'd been thinking in those terms a month ago. Tires with less than 5000 miles, but over six years old, and I had a tread separation just outside Austin. Cost me a fender skirt and a wheel cover on my '78 Newport, (anybody out there got a hex dome type wheel cover, Chrysler part numbers 3699496 (cover) + 3880842 (cap), Hollander interchange 397A? I'd felt a little vibration a week before, and had my tire shop look at them. They noticed they needed rebalancing, but didn't notice anything else. Oops. My original factory space-saver spare is now in my garage, and a real spare is now in my trunk... -- Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer skype: jjpfeifferjr |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:14:46 -0500, "TNKEV"
> wrote: > > wrote in message .. . >> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:03:50 GMT, "RQ" > wrote: >> >> >I have used Michelins for years but I find that I can find a lot of >complaints on the internet about sidewall failure, especially with Costco >tires. >> >Does anyone know if Costco is getting a lower quality product made to be >more price competitive? >> > >> > >> >dq >> No - all suppliers get the same quality tires if they are the same >> model. >I am not absolutly positive but when I worked at a Ford store they were a >Goodyear tire dealer and we price matched with any competitor exept >Wal-mart,Costco and Sams because they had the same tire with the same part >number but they are different tires specifically made for those vendors,the >parts manager at the Ford store told me they are completely different tires. > like I said I don't *know*because I was just told that by the parts >manager. > Seems he knew about as much as most parts managers -------- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:54:22 -0400, MoPar Man > wrote:
>Tires get an expiration date >Tuesday, May 31, 2005 >By Timothy Aeppel, The Wall Street Journal >http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05151/513329.stm > >--- Tires DO deteriorate with age - and there are many factors that contribute. Filling the tires with nitrogen instead of atmospheric air extends the life of tires considerably, because atmospheric air is about 21% Oxygen. The oxygen oxidizes components of the rubber - notably the plasticizers, from the inside out. The oxygen (in the air) migrates though the inner liner, around the cords, and eventually to the atmosphere by osmosis. Keeping tires out of direct sun and heat also helps - as both UltraViolet and Ozone also deteriorate rubber. Just about any tire I have had for more than 4 or 5 years, regardless of mileage and tread-depth has lost significant wet traction, and also start squealing on warm pavement. I threw away a 4 year old set of TigerPaw Touring tires last fall with 3/4 tread on them so I would not be tempted, in a moment of weakness, to put them back on the van when the snows came off this spring. Those tires wore like iron - and had about the same amount of traction. When new, they were pretty good, but by 4 years, they were definitely getting dangerous. -------- > >Main points: > >Drivers are being advised to start paying attention to the age of >their tires. > >Ford has begun urging drivers to replace tires after six years, >regardless of wear. > >The tire industry says it's more important to monitor tread depth than >age and recommends that treads be at least 1/16 of an inch thick. > >Some European car makers as well as Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. have >long warned drivers that tires are perishable. > >----------- > >Drivers who know to check tires for worn treads and low air pressure >now have something else to worry about: vintage. > >Ford Motor Co., in a move roiling the tire industry, has started >urging consumers to replace tires after six years. The car maker says >its research shows that tires "degrade over time, even when they are >not being used." That means even pristine-looking spares that have >never left the trunk should be pitched after a half-dozen years. > >That's a radical concept in the staid U.S. tire business, which >insists there's no scientific evidence to support a "use by" date for >tires. It would also surprise most motorists, who are taught that a >tire's lifespan is measured mainly by tread depth. The tire industry >says that tires are safe as long as the tread depth is a minimum of >1/16th of an inch, no matter what the age, and there are no visible >cuts, signs of uneven wear, bulges or excessive cracking. Other >trouble signs are if tires create vibration or excessive noise. > >"Tires are not milk," says Daniel Zielinski, a spokesman for the >Rubber Manufacturers Association, the tire industry's main trade >group. > >For many consumers, the issue never comes up, since passenger-car >tires last an average of 44,000 miles -- meaning they are usually >replaced before hitting the six-year mark. But many people simply >assume that unused spare tires -- even those that are a decade old -- >are as durable as brand-new tires, and sometimes use those spares as >full-time replacements for the regular tires. Classic-car buffs and >others who drive only infrequently could also be affected by the >latest research. > >In its new stance on tire safety, Ford is getting some support from >other researchers. Sean Kane, president of Safety Research & >Strategies Inc., an auto-safety research firm working with lawyers who >are preparing lawsuits arising from accidents thought to be linked to >aging tires, says older tires are a road hazard. Mr. Kane's group has >collected a list of 70 accidents involving older tires, which resulted >in 52 deaths and 50 serious injuries. > >In a sense, the U.S. car industry is just catching up to global >standards. Many European car makers as well as Japan's Toyota Motor >Corp. have long warned drivers, including those who buy their cars in >the U.S., that tires are perishable. Many of them also use a six-year >threshold for the age of a tire. > >DaimlerChrysler AG has already adopted a position parallel to Ford. >The car maker's Mercedes division had been telling drivers that tires >last only six years. But starting last fall, the Chrysler group began >including such a warning in 2005 owner's manuals. "We did do some >research and we found that's just a pretty safe and steady guideline," >says Curtrise Garner, a Chrysler spokeswoman, adding that "it's a >recommendation, not a must-do." > >Other car makers are also taking up this question, and some are >reaching a different conclusion than Ford. General Motors Corp. >spokesman Alan Adler says GM has discussed the aging issue, but >doesn't have any research that supports a move to such a guideline. >"We're not joining in the six-years-is-the-magic-number thing right >now," he says. > >The age of tires already appears on tires, but as part of a lengthy >code that is difficult for average consumers to decipher. To find the >age of a tire, look for the letters DOT on the sidewall (indicating >compliance with applicable safety standards set by the U.S. Department >of Transportation). Adjacent to these letters is the tire's serial >number, which is a combination of up to 12 numbers and letters. The >last characters are numbers that identify the week and year of >manufacture. For example, 1504 means the fifteenth week of the year >2004. > >Not only are the numbers difficult to interpret, but they can be hard >to locate: The numbers are printed on only one side of the tire, which >sometimes is the one facing inward when the tire is mounted on a >wheel. > >Ford's new stance on tire aging is a direct outgrowth of the Firestone >tire recall that began in August 2000. That episode involved Firestone >tires failing suddenly, mostly on Ford Explorers, leading to a wave of >deadly crashes. The crashes sparked a series of lawsuits, including >monetary and personal-injury claims, some of which are pending. > >Ford's new position won't affect those lawsuits. But it could play a >role in future legal action. Some attorneys who have sued over the >Firestone case are now mounting cases that focus on tire age. > >John Baldwin, a Ford materials scientist who studied the root cause of >the Firestone problems and has spearheaded the car maker's continuing >research on tire aging, says Ford's intention is to develop a test to >help prevent another Firestone-type debacle. He says Ford's research >into the Firestone problem showed that as tires age, the chemistry of >the rubber changes as oxygen migrates through the carcass of the tire. >This leads to a weakening of the internal structure that can result in >tire failures. Driving in hot climates or frequent heavy loading of >vehicles speeds this aging process, he says. > >In April, Ford posted a warning on its Web site saying that "tires >generally should be replaced after six years of normal service." The >company also plans to include similar wording in owner's manuals >starting with the 2006 model year. > >Firestone spokeswoman Christine Karbowiak says the company can't >comment on Ford's new recommendation, because it hasn't seen Ford's >research. > >Tire makers certainly don't want to see the six-year rule become any >more deeply ingrained. While it might seem that putting a limit on the >lifespan of tires would be a boon to tire makers, who would presumably >sell more tires, the costs and complications it could create are >considerable. Among other things, the industry is worried about the >logistical problems that would arise if customers suddenly started >demanding only the "freshest" tires. In some cases, tires take months >to move through distribution channels from factories -- through >wholesalers, and then on to retail outlets. > >"We don't have any data to support an expiration date (for tires)," >says Mr. Zielinski of the RMA. He agrees that age can be a factor in >tire performance, but says it shouldn't be used as the sole reason to >determine that a tire is no longer usable. > >Mr. Zielinski says Ford went public with its position without sharing >its research with the tire association or individual tire makers. >Ford, in turn, says that it presented its research in trade >publications and at a series of public forums, including a technical >meeting of the rubber division of the American Chemical Society in San >Antonio, Texas, two weeks ago. Ford has also given its research to the >National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is developing a >test to simulate the effects of aging on tires. > >Ford's test involves putting inflated tires into an oven for weeks at >a time. The tires are then taken out and studied to see, among other >things, how well the layers of rubber hold together. > >Strategic Research wants tires to be labeled more clearly with the >date they were produced, so consumers can better identify older tires >and, ultimately, an explicit expiration date. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"RQ" > wrote in message news:GjYre.1696729$8l.849605@pd7tw1no... I have used Michelins for years but I find that I can find a lot of complaints on the internet about sidewall failure, especially with Costco tires. Does anyone know if Costco is getting a lower quality product made to be more price competitive? dq Below is a cut and paste from an e-mail in response to my query of Michelin, Canada Thank you for visiting our Web site and sending us your e-mail. Regarding your message: <I have been buying Michellin tires at Costco for some years and it seems to me that I am not getting the milage from them that I should be. I am also finding a lot of info on the internet about side-wall failures that mention Costco and your tires. Here is my question: Do you produce different levels of quality for different retailers. I know you usually get what you pay for, Costco is very competitive on price and service, are they buying a lower quality product, and how do I tell what grade of tire I am buying. Thank you.> All tires with the Michelin name are built to Michelin quality standards. There are different tires built for different purposes and expectations but the quality would be the same. If the tire has the same name on the sidewall it would be the same tire regardless of where it was purchased. If you have additional questions, please respond to this email or you may call us at 1-888-871-4444 (toll-free) between 8:30AM and 6:00PM Eastern Time Monday through Friday to allow one of our Consumer Relations Representatives to assist you. Michelin North America Consumer Relations Department |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|