Anyone else have issues with OEM tire tread wear?

[twoqttsdad]

OE tires are often well built for their designated purpose and suffer minimal problems due to design or workmanship except for one that I know of. The Toyo A20 that initially came on the '08 Toyota Highlander. Tires were getting only about 5,000 miles before needing replacing due to irregular and premature tread degradation, but since rectified.

I agree though. OE treadwear generally sucks.

[murcod]

OE tires are often well built for their designated purpose and suffer minimal problems due to design or workmanship except for one that I know of. The Toyo A20 that initially came on the '08 Toyota Highlander. Tires were getting only about 5,000 miles before needing replacing due to irregular and premature tread degradation, but since rectified.

Never heard of Firestone tyres and Ford Explorer's?

I'm usually glad when the OEM tyres wear out so I can fit something decent.

I consider tyres part of my "insurance policy", they're all that's keeping you on the road in all sorts of road and weather conditions.

[twoqttsdad]

I hear you Murcod.
I understand that the Firestone tires that started all the current tire legislations had two problems. Old tires were being put on new vehicles and the load index was not sufficient to carry the Ford Explorers. The two faults when combined with the fact that the Wilderness AT tires that had only a temperature rating of C led to tread separation.
I wasn't a big fan of those tires because of their marginal performance and durability. I personally think Ford just tried to go the cheap route and fitted tires that were insufficient for their application.
Since then tire manufacturers (not all) will often over engineer tires past their labeled load index and speed ratings to cover their behinds.

[tbogan]

I know I'm probably in the minority here but I really like the OEM Dunlops. They're sticky as hell, decently quiet, and I think the tread wear issue has more to do with expectations of buyers who formerly drove touring type tires and/or non AWD vehicles. I've had Yokohoma Advan Envigors, Falken Ziex, Continental conti pro, and these Dunlops stack up very well.

Whenever you have independent front and rear suspension you're especially susceptible to getting out of alignment after hitting a pot hole, curb, etc and if it's not caught you'll wear your tires down quickly. AWD also affects tire wear. I've learned my lesson awhile ago that when I bring my car in for LOFR I have the alignment checked too. I live in Maine with a lot of pot holes, poor back roads, etc.

I've only got 3500 on them so my opinion may change but I do believe many of the folks (not just on this board btw) are not accustomed to a performance tire and the tread life trade off you deal with versus and touring tire. Also, the international shipping of these vehicles from Japan often causes the vehicle to go out of alignment so it's wise to have your dealership line them up when you purchase.

[~tc~]

Don't get me started on the Firestone/Explorer debacle.

Firestone took the fall for Fords shitty suspension design, tire pressure recommendations, and tire load rating selection.

[chazyouwin]

I too like the Dunlops - very responsive, nice for the three driving seasons. Just seems like a quality ingredient up to snuff with the other quality parts.

[Ronzuki]

I hear you Murcod.
I understand that the Firestone tires that started all the current tire legislations had two problems. Old tires were being put on new vehicles and the load index was not sufficient to carry the Ford Explorers. The two faults when combined with the fact that the Wilderness AT tires that had only a temperature rating of C led to tread separation.
I wasn't a big fan of those tires because of their marginal performance and durability. I personally think Ford just tried to go the cheap route and fitted tires that were insufficient for their application.
Since then tire manufacturers (not all) will often over engineer tires past their labeled load index and speed ratings to cover their behinds.

I owned 91 Explorer that had those exact tires on it and there wasn't a damn thing wrong with them as long as you didn't overload the vehicle (common sense), ignored Ford's ridiculous "make it ride like a car" air pressure settings in the door jamn, read the tire's requirements on the side walls and inflated them properly to 10 pounds more per wheel IIRC. Uhhh when you load up a vehicle with tires 10 lbs. underinflated, that's a huge problem and obviously will have a negative affect on 'performance' and 'durability'. I wore the OE set out and put the same damn thing back on it. There was nothing 'marginal' about those tires when applied properly (per the sidewall ratings). I'm sure they were swapped out by the next owner for no good reason as a result of the media fanned fear. I towed and hauled my family around plenty in five years w/ that truck and those exact tires. We drove it like it was a truck and not a freaking sports car or sedan (loaded or unloaded). Therefore, in summary, the two problems are (not the tires): Another classic example of human stupidity causing a s**t storm and the lawyers blaming everyone except the idiots that were at fault. That was all Ford, for the ridiculously low pressure settings, and owners for being stupid and lacking common sense. Obviously operating equipment they are incapable of understanding. Firestone got the shaft in that whole mess.

[twoqttsdad]

Not to get off topic but here's a good report on the Explorer/Firestone disaster finger pointing fiasco for those interested.

http://www.time.com/time/business/artic ... 98,00.html