I’ve never bought tires at a dealership. I have no idea what their constraints are on what tires they can offer. These may well have been the best they could put on.
texases asked: in your opinion, were any of the OP’s problems the result of the wrong load range tire being installed by the dealer?
No. All the things mentioned either were random events that happen to all tires, or had nothing to do with the tires themselves.
Why are you guys slamming the Kumho Solus tires so much?
Granted, they’re not expensive Michelins, but they are definitely not the lowest of the low
At some point, Consumer Reports gave them a pretty respectable rating
I’ve had them on some of my cars, and they didn’t cause any sorts of noise or handling problems
I think I’d rather have Kumho Solus tires, versus store brand tires of questionable origin and performance
Are you saying your Kumho tires didn’t collect nails with some kind of magnetic attraction?
My Kumho tires repelled all nails
LOL
Yes, let the world know my powers.
When a service manager concedes this easily he is likely charging the error against the parts department. There are three departments in a car dealership that usually can’t get along. The service manager doesn’t want to take this loss against the service departments monthly gross.
For what it’s worth it’s been about 2 years now, 16,000 miles, and I haven’t had a single flat. I had 6 flats in a 2 year time frame with the wrong load rated tires on the vehicle. I have even ran over a beer bottle since. Pretty sure that the improper tires were the problem. Even if I get a flat tomorrow I’m convinced the problem before was the improper load rated tires.
Side story - “during” my tire incident - actually, while I was out of town dealing with flats on a road trip - apparently there was a major fire at the Mazda Dealership I was going to. And the Google ratings for them overall have dropped from what it used to be 4.x to 3.1 out of 5 stars. I severed ties with them and found another dealership. They did take care of me, but they could have killed me and my wife, dog, and/or cat.
Not according to the NHTSA. The tires in question were prone to tread separation st normal speed. And the tires were built at the Decatur Illinois plant caused by manufacturing/design defect.
First, thanks f00dl3, for bringing us up to date. It’s always good to know what happened after we dispense advice.
But I am going to take issue with your conclusions. Flats are not an indicator of tire quality. They are completely random events - and as such suffer from the problems of random events - sometimes there are long periods where the events do not happen - and sometimes the events will occur in close proximity with one another.
And it wasn’t that the wrong load rating tires were used - it’s that it was different than what was specified. I don’t think the load rating contributed in any way to any problem being reported by the OP.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure it was the load rating. I rarely ever drive as I bike to work, except on weekends. I put about 8000 miles on my car a year. So to get a new set of tires, and have 3 flats before I even put 5000 miles on them - 6 flats in a 10,000 mile range… and then not have a single flat in 17,000 miles since they put the right tire on… I think it has EVERYTHING to do with the load rating. Especially given the fact I’ve known I’ve driven over glass car wreck leftovers at highway speeds on these new ones.
My suspicion is that since the flats all happened on the highway, the heat that tires build up driving 75 to 80 MPH causes the tires by nature to become more plyable, and if they are already barely able to handle the vehicle weight, it causes the weight of the car to bear down harder on the “foot” the tire forms on the road. Which explains why a reflective lane divider bore a gash in one of the 6 problematic tires.
I would listen to Capri, the resident tire expert. Load ratings are what is marked on the tire for the weight each tire can hold. Speed ratings are the speed the tires can safely be operated at. You have been talking speed ratings, not load ratings, but neither one would have much to do with picking up a nail or two.
Edit: OK I was uninformed. The number (90, 93, etc.) is the load range (1350, 1500, etc.). The letter, (V, etc.) is the speed rating. My trailer tires though have the load pounds marked on them though.
Here’s the list of tire problems:
I don’t see how any of them would be caused by improper load rating.
1 Like
Are you sure?
I’m talking LOAD not SPEED. Speed rating for the tires was 140 MPH, so 75-80 MPH has nothing to do with the SPEED rating.
Load rating for the bad tires was 90… minimum stated in the manual was 93.
As I stated above, if the tires already were not the minimum required load rating for the vehicle, the tire would have a larger boot (footprint area) on the road. This would make the tires a literal magnet for road debris - as the area in contact with the surface would increase dramatically since the tires were not designed for the weight of the vehicle + passengers.
Immediately after I purchased the set of tires on 3/2/2013 at 87,745 miles the rear driver-side tire went flat due to a sidewall puncture
On 3/19/2013 at 90,158 miles (~300 miles later) the other rear tire started a slow leak on a trip from Kansas to Florida and I had air it up every 200 miles. They found a damaged tire and replaced it.
^ This flat could have been easily caused by this scenario, as the extra foot print would cause the center of gravity of the tire to, on rotation, cause the tire to have air leak out between the seam where the tire meets the wheel. Which is kind of what I suspected was happening, as you could visually see a gap between the tire seam and wheel.
4,300 miles later at 94,451 miles (8/5/2013) on the next trip the front driver tire developed a sidewall bubble and had to be replaced.
^ this could have been because the same scenario above - air could have entered the tire through a gap in the seal between tire and wheel
At 95,631 miles on 9/24/2013 after that the only other tire that wasn’t replaced had to be replaced due to a leaking TPMS sensor
^ Not sure about this one
On 12/21/2013 at 97,848 miles a nail was found and a broken valve stem again in the rear driverside tire, and the tire was patched up.
^ Again, bigger foot would make it easier to catch a nail. Or make the tire not able to “repel” debris
On a trip to Des Moines yesterday (at 104,154 miles) the rear tire had to be replaced at Tires Plus due to a 3 inch slice in the tire.
^ caused by a lane divider! again, bigger footprint of the tire under heavier weight than designed to carry would easily make anything rip a tire open.
You misunderstand load rating. It has little/nothing to do with sidewall stiffness. Tires of the same size, and at the same pressure, but different load rating, would look pretty much identical for a given load.
So having a tire load rated at 150 lbs per tire on a 3000 lbs vehicle wouldn’t matter as long as the tire was the same size and pressure?
Of course it’ll matter, the tire will fail. That’s not what we’re talking about here, right?
In theory they would fatigue before they fail. And when they fatigue, the footprint / boot / surface contact area would become quite huge as the weight presses down on the tire like a rock pressing down on a balloon rolling on a gravel surface with some imperfections. Under normal conditions the balloon would repel debris unless it was pointed right into the balloon, but if weighted down the balloon would be popped by even a pebble with a slightly sharper edge. Similar to pinch flats on a under-inflated bicycle tire.
Nope, that’s not how it works. We’re dealing with steel cords here, not balloons.
Load rating was called ply rating for many years but whatever it is called increasing the load on a given tire size requires increasing the maximum pressure that the tire can withstand. The chart that was linked above clearly indicates that situation. The tire retailers use confusing ratings charts to upsell customers but that can result in customers blaming them for failures.