Thanks for listing that link TSM. I just had a guy ask yesterday about tire codes.
Model year?
Engine?
2008 Mazda6 i Value Edition. i4 engine.
I just looked at your owner’s manual online, and Tires Plus is correct
You should have P215/50R17 93V tires
Which would mean your Mazda dealer installed tires with an incorrect load rating
So you don’t have to flip through the whole manual, it’s on page 10-7
If you can’t find yours, let me know, and I’ll post the link
Thank you. Found it. Now I just have to talk to management to get a proper set of tires when I get there Monday, as well as a new donut as this saga has caused me to put at least 1,000 miles on it. Higlighted the manual.
While there’s some flexibility on the speed rating, there’s not on the load rating. Ford’s problems with blowouts on the Explorer was at least partly caused by specifying too low of a load rating.
Michelin says this about load rating:
“A tire with a higher load index than that of the Original Equipment tire indicates an increase in load capacity. A tire with a load index equal to that of the Original Equipment tire indicates an equivalent load capacity. A tire with a lower load index than the Original Equipment tire indicates the tire does not equal the load capacity of the original and should not be considered for installation on the vehicle.” (emphasis is mine)
The Mazda dealer never should have installed tires with the lower load rating. If you don’t get satisfaction from the dealer, you should contact Mazda customer service and report this incident. I would go to the Service Manager and complain since the people out front don’t seem to understand the issue.
If the GVWR is under 5300#, the 90 speed rating is adequate. But it is more likely over 5700, and the 93 rating is proper. You should find the GVWR in your owner’s manual somewhere. But since the manual already says that the 93 load rating is correct, that implies that the GVWR is a little over 5700#.
Could the “load index” specification be a marketing ploy? Load range and maximum load have been on tire sidewalls for quite some time. Most tires are capable of carrying half the total weight of the vehicle they are mounted on.
The gross weight for that car is 4279 lbs, so it would be well under the 5300 max for those tires. The curb weight is 3093 lbs.
I don’t know if there needs to be a specific margin between the gross weight and the load index for the tires, but if not, that doesn’t sound like the reason for the problems.
The dealership still should have installed the proper tires, however.
OK, everyone. It’s a bit more complicated than what has been stated.
First, the original tires were Extra Load, but the inflation pressure specified is 32 psi - which means Mazda could have specified Standard Load tires, but for some reason didn’t. So while the Mazda dealer didn’t do exactly as he should have done, what he did isn’t exactly wrong either.
So f00dl3, don’t try to “correct” the dealer. Not only is that a bad idea (they don’t kindly to non-experts), you can’t really point out a technical error on their part.
So, Yes, it was bad luck. It is unfortunate that you were the guy at the short end of the stick.
Tire load ratings, do they matter ? Ahhh, yes !
Load ratings yes, load index??? Load ratings are the old ply ratings, @dagosa. As in 4-ply rated tires which have actually been 2 ply construction for 40+ years. It seems like a lot of razzle dazzle to me.
Not to be confused with puncture and sidewall resistance to damage.
Considering your experience with these tires and the fact that they did not meet OEM requirements, I would demand the dealership install a set of decent, quality tires on your car…perhaps ones that do not say Kumo on the sidewall. If you hit a brick wall there, drive over to COSTCO and have them install a set of Mitchelin’s meeting the specs in your owners manual (or better) and put your tire problems behind you. Have them take a look at the TPM’s too and service that system if required…
I went there and they are going to 1 - replace the full set with a set that meets the requirements listed in the manual, 2 - re-imburse me for the Tires Plus tire, 3 - replace the donut that now has 1000 miles on it, and 4 - provide a rental car until it’s all done. I’m happy for now - spoke with the manager and he saw the error.
Yes…they matter a lot. Case in point…I answered an ad for a set of “new” tires and wheels that were the size I needed. When I got there…the tires and wheels were still mounted on the truck. In the course of our verbal exchange…the owner said that he wrecked on an open road when he lost control and flipped over in a field. When he filed the insurance claim…it was denied. I took a real close look at tires and gave him an answer for the denial. The tires were new but they were light “ST” trailer tires. Legally, in our state anyway, they can’t even be mounted on a motor vehicle. I told him he needed to change the ad but it was still the same a week later. Some people…I think he knew the reason for the insurance claim denial all the time.
Some people....I think he knew the reason for the insurance claim denial all the time.@missileman, He DID know exactly why! Insurance companies do not deny a claim for no reason. They tell you the exact reason, otherwise they would be in court 24/7 fighting denial of claims battles.
@PvtPublic … I agree 100%. He was also a kind of shady individual who wouldn’t tell me where he bought the tires in the first place. He also talked way too much. That’s a big red flag right there.
FooD13, the O.P., started this thread yesterday, Sunday… when car dealerships are normally closed… Now, at 8:45 am Monday he reports all his tire problems have been solved by the dealership and he is a happy camper…Wow, that’s some kind of record for dealer service…
@f00dl3, I think you should tell your friends and neighbors this story. It is a good advertisement for the dealer. They deserve good press when they do something right. You learn a lot about people when there is a problem. In this case you learned that this dealer will admit their mistakes and make you whole.