Sorry for asking another tyre question....
My original set of tyres lasted me 41K miles (Bridegestone RE050, front and rear both the same), because of this I decided to buy another set the same to replace them. Now the fronts are down to 2mm after 19K miles (the rears are both 5.5mm), as far as I can see I haven't changed any driving parameters that could have affected them so much, the only difference between the sets was that the OE ones were made in Japan while the replacements, several years later, were made in Hungary/Poland, can this difference have caused such an increase in wear in half the time ? or maybe I was just very lucky the first time.
|
|
I suspect wear and tear in shock absorbers and springs have contributed too.
|
...I suspect wear and tear in shock absorbers and springs have contributed too...
A tyre specialist I spoke to agrees.
He told me the second set of tyres on a new car never lasts as long due to wear and tear of the suspension.
|
|
If the original set were _all_ worn down after 40k or so, and the newer set are well worn front but not back, is it possible they were being swapped front to rear (by the garage or whoever looks after it) as part of the servicing regime?
|
Purely an outside punt but ... could all the rock-salt that had been used last year have weakened our tyres somewhat?
|
If the original set were _all_ worn down after 40k or so, and the newer set are well worn front but not back, is it possible they were being swapped front to rear (by the garage or whoever looks after it) as part of the servicing regime?
This seems the only plausible explanation to me. The OP doesn't mention a vehicle but his profile shows a Golf TDI. It seems inconceivable to me that a front-heavy FWD car like that would (a) wear out its tyres evenly, or (b) make any of them last 41,000 miles.
The wear performance of the second set - pretty much as we'd expect from a car like this - tends to support the idea that the first set was rotated without the OP's knowledge.
|
|
If the spare is part of the original set, check the treadwear rating on the sidewall of the spare and compare it with the rating on the side(s) of the replacement tyres.
|
Afraid the spare is a space saver so I can't really compare it to the 'real' tyres, the original tyres weren't swapped front to rear, I just had a thought that the Japanese made tyres were of a harder compound than the newer European versions.
Now I've just got to choose on a new pair for the front.
|
>> I just had a thought
>> that the Japanese made tyres were of a harder compound than the newer European versions.
I think that's entirely feasible. The tyres on wifey's Honda Jazz (which was built in Japan just before Jazz came to Swindon) have worn very evenly front and rear.
We used to notice on our high mileage company cars that subsequent tyres never lasted as long as the originals. I'm not saying it's definitely wrong, but I don't buy the suspension wear explanation, I think the tyre compound is different, even though the original tyres often has really low treadwear ratings.
|
Second set of tyres on the front of my 2000 Passat 1.8T lasted a lot longer than the originals. Replacement tyres that lasted well were Avons. I didn't have any choice in those tyres.
It will be interesting to see how the 18" tyres on the current car last. And what they get replaced with. Coming up to 4 months... and only 4000 miles!
|
Im convinced tyres can be very different.
Our Bravo had Goodyear Efficient grip on all round. Come MOT time it required 4 new ones, and the tyre place didnt have any Goodyears in for immediate fitting, so for convenience went for 4 Bridgestones.
On the front, the Goodyears had lasted 30k miles (the previous Goodyears on the front also lasted this long).
On fitting the Bridgestones the consumption of the car immediately dropped by around 10% (from 50mpg to 45), and within 8k miles they were down to the markers. This was with the same driver, same journeys etc..
On talking with tyre fitter he said that Bridgestones are harder wearing than most. He did say he could send them back but that the standard answer is they have been driven hard so we didnt bother.
|
>> Im convinced tyres can be very different.
>>
>>
I'm sure about that too, but bemused how the same tyres fitted at the same time can wear at the same rate all round on a typical FWD diesel car.
I should add that the Bridgestone originals on SWMBO's (petrol) Fabia estate wore more evenly front to back than I'm used to (maybe 2:1), but the car has a light 3 cylinder engine and a bit more weight at the back than some of its ilk.
Last edited by: AnotherJohnH on Tue 21 Feb 12 at 09:56
|
Im convinced tyres can be very different.
And so they can - between types. Michelins last 50% longer on my Volvo than the Pirellis it came on. But it still wears out the front tyres first - that's a characteristic of the car. Night-and-day differences like the OP's, with the same type on the same car - must be due to some change in use or maintenance. Some garages do rotate as a matter of course - I'd rather they didn't because I prefer my tyres to wear out two at a time - and that would explain the OP's observations here.
|
>>The tyres on wifey's Honda Jazz (which was built in Japan just before Jazz came to Swindon) >>have worn very evenly front and rear.
Jazz from Japan before Swindon?
Jazz for the UK market were made in Japan originally, then China before Swindon.........maybe specific models (autos?) were still Japan.
|
|
I guess there could have been an outside chance that they were swapped at some point, but the thing is that both my rears started to wear very slightly on the inside (apparently a known issue with Mk5 Golf's coming from the factory) so once I had the alignment sorted out at the first service (14K) I know that these tyres stayed on the back because of the changed tread pattern.
|
One last thing, I've decided on the type of tyre to replace the fronts but the only thing that I've noticed is that some of the mobile fitting companies have the tyre listed and have a vehicle manufacture next to it, i.e. in my case 225/45 17 91W Mercedes or BMW, now they don't have it 'plain' so can I fit this marked tyre on my VW if all of the other details match (please tell me that's not a totally stupid question).
|
>> i.e. in my case
>> 225/45 17 91W Mercedes or BMW, now they don't have it 'plain' so can I
>> fit this marked tyre on my VW if all of the other details match (please
>> tell me that's not a totally stupid question).
>>
I have a Merc and the MO (Mercedes Option) tyre issue vexes many owners. My car came new with non MO Bridgestone's and personally I think it's all marketing bull. I did email Michelin, as I prefere Michelin tyres and they make great play of the MO versions. They told me the tyres are "tuned" to the characteristics of the car!
What makes this non-sensical to me, is that the same MO tyre can't be "tuned" for every (widely varying) MB model, or be suitable for cars which could vary from practically brand new to pretty old.
In summary, an MO tyre will be fine for your VW.
|
>> Jazz from Japan before Swindon?
>>
>> Jazz for the UK market were made in Japan originally, then China before Swindon.........maybe specific
>> models (autos?) were still Japan.
>>
The second generation Jazz (the current one) was made in Japan at first, and was produced in Swindon from Oct 2009. We got ours the month before.
|
|
Thanks BP, that's what I was hoping.
|
Why are my tyres so different? - VxFan
