TPMS for 2011 Chevy Aveo LT

My owner's manual does NOT tell me how to reset the TPMS after tire
rotation. It simply says take to dealership.

I did internet search and found this: does it sound right? A Bartech
tool to do this costs well in excess of $1 thousand.
===============================================

The TPMS matching process is outlined below:

Set the parking brake. Turn the ignition switch to ON/RUN
with the engine off.

Press and hold the Remote Keyless Entry (RKE) transmitter's
LOCK and UNLOCK buttons, at the same time, for about five
seconds to start the TPMS learn mode. The horn sounds twice
indicating the TPMS receiver is ready and in learn mode. Start
with the driver side front tire. The driver side front turn
signal also comes on to indicate that corner's sensor is ready
to be learned.

Remove the valve cap from the tire's valve stem.

Activate the TPMS sensor by increasing or decreasing the
tire's air pressure for about eight seconds. The horn chirp, can
take up to 30 seconds to sound.

It chirps one time and then all the turn signals flash one
time to confirm the sensor identification code has been matched
to the tire/wheel position.

The passenger side front turn signal comes on to indicate
that corner sensor is ready to be learned. Proceed to the
passenger side front tire and repeat the procedure in Step 5.

The passenger side rear turn signal comes on to indicate
that corner sensor is ready to be learned. Proceed to the
passenger side rear tire and repeat the procedure in Step 5.

The driver side rear turn signal comes on to indicate that
corner sensor is ready to be learned. Proceed to the driver side
rear tire, and repeat the procedure in Step 5.

After hearing the single horn chirp for the driver side rear
tire, two additional horn chirps sound to indicate the tire
learning process is done. Turn the ignition switch to LOCK/OFF.

If no tires are learned after entering the TPMS learn mode,
or if communication with the receiver stops, or if the time
limit has expired, turn the ignition switch to LOCK/OFF and
start over beginning with Step 2.

Set all four tires to the recommended air pressure level as
indicated on the Tire and Loading Information label. Put the
valve caps back on the valve stems.

Lg

On 09/25/2011 10:00 AM, Nicholas wrote:
<snip irrelevance>

why are you even contemplating tire rotation in the first place? this
is not a rhetorical question.

tire rotation is an anachronism dating back to bias ply tires - and this
vehicle is not fitted with bias ply tires. not only is rotation
impossible or specifically recommended against on many high end vehicles
where actual tire performance is important, it masks, not cures poor
alignment. and it can /increase/ an individual tire's wear rate.

tires wear to rotation and station on the car. to move them from that
position means you no longer have the same amount of actual rubber on
the road [the individual block surface contact area decreases] and thus
you can end up with inferior handling, or worse, inferior emergency
braking. if you think you need to rotate because a tire is wearing
unevenly, you need to get the vehicle's alignment fixed. if you think
you need to rotate because you haven't bothered to learn the facts as to
why you shouldn't, take the time to reeducate yourself and forget the
last 50 years of unthinking dogma that belongs with the era of
non-detergent motor oil and steering wheel ignition timing adjusters.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:53:45 -0700, jim beam > wrote:

>On 09/25/2011 10:00 AM, Nicholas wrote:
><snip irrelevance>
>
>why are you even contemplating tire rotation in the first place? this
>is not a rhetorical question.
>
>tire rotation is an anachronism dating back to bias ply tires - and this
>vehicle is not fitted with bias ply tires. not only is rotation
>impossible or specifically recommended against on many high end vehicles
>where actual tire performance is important, it masks, not cures poor
>alignment. and it can /increase/ an individual tire's wear rate.
>
>tires wear to rotation and station on the car. to move them from that
>position means you no longer have the same amount of actual rubber on
>the road [the individual block surface contact area decreases] and thus
>you can end up with inferior handling, or worse, inferior emergency
>braking. if you think you need to rotate because a tire is wearing
>unevenly, you need to get the vehicle's alignment fixed. if you think
>you need to rotate because you haven't bothered to learn the facts as to
>why you shouldn't, take the time to reeducate yourself and forget the
>last 50 years of unthinking dogma that belongs with the era of
>non-detergent motor oil and steering wheel ignition timing adjusters.

Tire Rotation
Tires should be rotated every
12 000 km (7,500 miles). See
Scheduled Maintenance on
page 11.2.
The purpose of a regular tire
rotation is to achieve a uniform
wear for all tires on the vehicle.
This will ensure that your vehicle
continues to perform most like it
did when the tires were new.
Any time you notice unusual
wear, rotate your tires as soon
as possible and check wheel
alignment. Also check for
damaged tires or wheels. See
When It Is Time for New Tires
on page 10.55 and Wheel
Replacement on page 10.60 for
more information.

On 09/25/2011 11:48 AM, Nicholas wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:53:45 -0700, jim > wrote:
>
>> On 09/25/2011 10:00 AM, Nicholas wrote:
>> <snip irrelevance>
>>
>> why are you even contemplating tire rotation in the first place? this
>> is not a rhetorical question.
>>
>> tire rotation is an anachronism dating back to bias ply tires - and this
>> vehicle is not fitted with bias ply tires. not only is rotation
>> impossible or specifically recommended against on many high end vehicles
>> where actual tire performance is important, it masks, not cures poor
>> alignment. and it can /increase/ an individual tire's wear rate.
>>
>> tires wear to rotation and station on the car. to move them from that
>> position means you no longer have the same amount of actual rubber on
>> the road [the individual block surface contact area decreases] and thus
>> you can end up with inferior handling, or worse, inferior emergency
>> braking. if you think you need to rotate because a tire is wearing
>> unevenly, you need to get the vehicle's alignment fixed. if you think
>> you need to rotate because you haven't bothered to learn the facts as to
>> why you shouldn't, take the time to reeducate yourself and forget the
>> last 50 years of unthinking dogma that belongs with the era of
>> non-detergent motor oil and steering wheel ignition timing adjusters.
>
> Tire Rotation
> Tires should be rotated every
> 12 000 km (7,500 miles). See
> Scheduled Maintenance on
> page 11.2.
> The purpose of a regular tire
> rotation is to achieve a uniform
> wear for all tires on the vehicle.

ask yourself why they say this. other than doubling the costs of tire
purchase at any time, there is no technical advantage to having 4 bald
tires all that the same time - it is actually more dangerous.


> This will ensure that your vehicle
> continues to perform most like it
> did when the tires were new.

legal translation: "this will protect our ass from your widow's lawyers
by hiding behind 'industry standard' tradition if you lose control of
the vehicle and die due to known inferior braking and/or cornering
traction."

fact: brand new tires don't have as much grip as tires that have worn
in to their position.

fact: if you have tires with rotation direction, and/or different sizes
per axle, you /cannot/ rotate.

do not lose sight of the facts when witnessing legal ass-covering.


> Any time you notice unusual
> wear, rotate your tires as soon
> as possible and check wheel
> alignment.

implied legal corollary: "...thereby ensuring that our ass is covered
against class actions while we imply that you failed to maintain the
vehicle correctly - because we know from experience that most customers
never notice they have an alignment issue if they rotate".


> Also check for
> damaged tires or wheels.

no duh.


> See
> When It Is Time for New Tires
> on page 10.55 and Wheel
> Replacement on page 10.60 for
> more information.

you can do what you want - cover their ass or cover yours. but if you
want maximum safety for yourself, as opposed to maximum safety for the
manufacturer's legal department, you will /not/ rotate, and you will
instead spend the money ensuring your vehicle's alignment is properly
maintained.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:
> On 09/25/2011 10:00 AM, Nicholas wrote:
> <snip irrelevance>
>
> why are you even contemplating tire rotation in the first place? this
> is not a rhetorical question.

Every car I have ever had had greater wear on the edges of the
front tires than either the middle of the tires or the rear tires.
The wear is due to cornering.
In order to not have to buy new front tires every 10k miles
I rotate them.
Rotation definition = front to back, back to front,
not side to side.

On 09/25/2011 01:23 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> On 09/25/2011 10:00 AM, Nicholas wrote:
>> <snip irrelevance>
>>
>> why are you even contemplating tire rotation in the first place? this
>> is not a rhetorical question.
>
> Every car I have ever had had greater wear on the edges of the
> front tires than either the middle of the tires or the rear tires.
> The wear is due to cornering.

so you might think at first glance, but this wear doesn't happen on
wishbone suspension vehicles that are correctly aligned. [and if you
think about it, given that the vast majority of a tire's life is spent
in the straight-ahead position, not cornering, it's what you'd expect.]
what you're actually witnessing is the lack of camber control that's a
fundamental "feature" of macpherson suspension.


> In order to not have to buy new front tires every 10k miles
> I rotate them.

if rotation didn't accelerate wear for the reasons previously explained,
rotation would then simply average the wear rate over all the tires.
neither are logical reasons to do it.


> Rotation definition = front to back, back to front,
> not side to side.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 09/25/2011 04:46 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/25/2011 01:23 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> On 09/25/2011 10:00 AM, Nicholas wrote:
>>> <snip irrelevance>
>>>
>>> why are you even contemplating tire rotation in the first place? this
>>> is not a rhetorical question.
>>
>> Every car I have ever had had greater wear on the edges of the
>> front tires than either the middle of the tires or the rear tires.
>> The wear is due to cornering.
>
> so you might think at first glance, but this wear doesn't happen on
> wishbone suspension vehicles that are correctly aligned. [and if you
> think about it, given that the vast majority of a tire's life is spent
> in the straight-ahead position, not cornering, it's what you'd expect.]
> what you're actually witnessing is the lack of camber control that's a
> fundamental "feature" of macpherson suspension.

No, it's just poor suspension design. My VWs and Porsches didn't do
that. Every FWD Chevy I've looked at closely does, however - some of
them very badly.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:16:42 -0400, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>On 09/25/2011 04:46 PM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 09/25/2011 01:23 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> On 09/25/2011 10:00 AM, Nicholas wrote:
>>>> <snip irrelevance>
>>>>
>>>> why are you even contemplating tire rotation in the first place? this
>>>> is not a rhetorical question.
>>>
>>> Every car I have ever had had greater wear on the edges of the
>>> front tires than either the middle of the tires or the rear tires.
>>> The wear is due to cornering.
>>
>> so you might think at first glance, but this wear doesn't happen on
>> wishbone suspension vehicles that are correctly aligned. [and if you
>> think about it, given that the vast majority of a tire's life is spent
>> in the straight-ahead position, not cornering, it's what you'd expect.]
>> what you're actually witnessing is the lack of camber control that's a
>> fundamental "feature" of macpherson suspension.
>
>No, it's just poor suspension design. My VWs and Porsches didn't do
>that. Every FWD Chevy I've looked at closely does, however - some of
>them very badly.
>
>nate

My PT Cruiser doesn't do it but the 93 Corsica I had would wear the
edges off like no tomorrow no matter how perfect the alignment was.

On 09/29/2011 05:38 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:16:42 -0400, Nate >
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/25/2011 04:46 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>> On 09/25/2011 01:23 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> On 09/25/2011 10:00 AM, Nicholas wrote:
>>>>> <snip irrelevance>
>>>>>
>>>>> why are you even contemplating tire rotation in the first place? this
>>>>> is not a rhetorical question.
>>>>
>>>> Every car I have ever had had greater wear on the edges of the
>>>> front tires than either the middle of the tires or the rear tires.
>>>> The wear is due to cornering.
>>>
>>> so you might think at first glance, but this wear doesn't happen on
>>> wishbone suspension vehicles that are correctly aligned. [and if you
>>> think about it, given that the vast majority of a tire's life is spent
>>> in the straight-ahead position, not cornering, it's what you'd expect.]
>>> what you're actually witnessing is the lack of camber control that's a
>>> fundamental "feature" of macpherson suspension.
>>
>> No, it's just poor suspension design. My VWs and Porsches didn't do
>> that. Every FWD Chevy I've looked at closely does, however - some of
>> them very badly.
>>
>> nate
>
> My PT Cruiser doesn't do it but the 93 Corsica I had would wear the
> edges off like no tomorrow no matter how perfect the alignment was.

while it is possible to set macpherson up so it doesn't wear in the
straight-ahead position, it's hard to do because the minute you change
loading outside of whatever its design spec was [some 90lb small
person?], the camber is off. the cheap stuff you're talking about
doesn't even try to get it right, it's just there to get the vehicle off
the showroom floor as cheaply as possible, then relies on tire rotation
to mask the problems until it's out of warranty.

you could attempt to fudge it by deliberately putting the toe "out of
spec" [toe out] to compensate, but it's a crap shoot, and you'll likely
continue to wear tires until you get it right. but you'll still prolong
life more than setting it per factory. [adjustable camber helps too.]


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 09/29/2011 08:38 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:16:42 -0400, Nate >
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/25/2011 04:46 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>> On 09/25/2011 01:23 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> On 09/25/2011 10:00 AM, Nicholas wrote:
>>>>> <snip irrelevance>
>>>>>
>>>>> why are you even contemplating tire rotation in the first place? this
>>>>> is not a rhetorical question.
>>>>
>>>> Every car I have ever had had greater wear on the edges of the
>>>> front tires than either the middle of the tires or the rear tires.
>>>> The wear is due to cornering.
>>>
>>> so you might think at first glance, but this wear doesn't happen on
>>> wishbone suspension vehicles that are correctly aligned. [and if you
>>> think about it, given that the vast majority of a tire's life is spent
>>> in the straight-ahead position, not cornering, it's what you'd expect.]
>>> what you're actually witnessing is the lack of camber control that's a
>>> fundamental "feature" of macpherson suspension.
>>
>> No, it's just poor suspension design. My VWs and Porsches didn't do
>> that. Every FWD Chevy I've looked at closely does, however - some of
>> them very badly.
>>
>> nate
>
> My PT Cruiser doesn't do it but the 93 Corsica I had would wear the
> edges off like no tomorrow no matter how perfect the alignment was.

I believe remnants of that design live on in the current Impala, and it
too is a ridiculous tire eater. Handles like a pig too.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel