I drive a 1999 Accord in Seattle, Washington. I bought “100 mile tires” in 2004 from les schwab (the tires, apparently, were manufactured in 2002). I took it to the dearler last week for an oil change and they told me that though my tires appeared to be in good shape i needed to get them replaced. I’ve only driven about 50k on them since buying them… do I really need new ones now?
If you car had sat out in the Arizona desert outside all that time you might need new tires due to the sidewalls being cracked.
I doubt whether the “tropical” Seattle sunlight has done that to your tires. If you examine them carefully, and there are little or no cracks they are good for a few more years, provided you have enought tread left for safe driving.
Dealer service departments are HUNGRY for business, and love gullible clients. In any case, if you eventually do need tires, don’t go to the dealer; Costco has much better deals and gives you a lifetime free rotation and balance with it!
I agree with Docnick. Have you considered taking your car somewhere else for service? I also own an Accord and I never use the dealer for service. The cost is high and the one time I had a question for the shop, they were no help at all. As friends and coworkers who they use for service. If you get good recommendations for one or two places from several people, you should check them out.
Just because they called them 100K tires does NOT mean you can expect them to last that long. Tires are amazingly durable and replacing them just because they have been on the ground for 5 years is NOT required. If they still have serviceable tread, drive on…
Why do you take it to The Dealer for an oil change?? When your warranty ended, that was the last time you needed to take your car there…
Technically, the dealer is correct. 8 year old tires should be replaced. But we all do things we shouldn’t do and get away with it. If I were you, I’d go to a trusted independent who DOESN’T sell tires, and ask for an evaluation for weathering.
Don’t buy into the 100k miles tires as that is hardly ever the case.
There are several reasons why the tire replacement could be recommended (other than a lot of wear at 50k miles) and underinflation, dry rot, alignment or balance problems, etc.
They should tell you why the replacement is necessary and it’s also your job to ask them this question.
I do want to point out that rubber does degrade over time. Cracks and dry rot are easy to spot, but weakened, degraded rubber is not always so. There have been a lot of news stories about old tires with good tread and looking almost new, but blowing out at highway speeds due to deteriorated rubber because of age. The stories came about because of tires that were 6, 10, and even 12 years old, sitting in warehouses, and finally sold and mounted. These tires were blowing out and causing accidents, some with fatal consequences.
I suspect the OP knows this, since he mentioned knowing the tires were manufactured in 2002 and purchased in 2004. I commend you for knowing this, as I suspect 95% of the general public doesn’t know how old their tires really are. I just want to point out that the tire manufacturer’s are supporting a 10-year expiration date on tires from date of manufacture. Under this guideline, you should have 2 more years of service from your tires unless there are visible signs of distress, like dry rot and cracks. You can read more of this at Tire Rack :http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=138