Another dumb car maintenance question

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Hmm. Unless you're bucketing over rocky roads each time you turn the key, eating tires like that, I'd be suspicious of your wheel alignment.

There is no wheel alignment on engineered designed cars. Whereas cars designed by bean counters still have adjusters that must be corrected every year, the engineer designed car has no such adjusters - no need for annual wheel alignment. This has been common knowledge for over 25 years and has been posted previously.

UG may be confusing wheel alignment with wheel balancing. If the wheel throws a weight, then that wheel will vibrate at higher speeds.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But that will make her headlights slanty.

Be very fearful of any car that winks at you.

[classicman]

what about from the accident? The alignment could have been affected from that. Obviously, one would assume that was taken care of, but three sets of tires in 70,000 miles is a little much.

[HungLikeJesus]

I have a car that only weighs 1900 pounds. It's gone through two sets of tires in 44,000 miles (meaning almost no tread left on the front tires).

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

what about from the accident? The alignment could have been affected from that.

If alignment is off due to bent metal, then a solution is not to align to bent metal. The solution is to straighten or replace that bent metal.

No reason for any car to do less than 50,000 on a set of tires. For example, my first two Accords did 107,000 and 98,000 on the first tires. Two sets of tires in 44,000 implies a defect.

Same driver who got 107,000 on an Accord could never get more than 40,000 miles (per four tires) on a Chevy. But then the Chevy was designed poorly. Those three sets of radial tires were not the reason for poor tire life.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by tw

No reason for any car to do less than 50,000 on a set of tires. For example, my first two Accords did 107,000 and 98,000 on the first tires. Two sets of tires in 44,000 implies a defect.
...
.

I understand what you're saying,tw. I've had the alignment checked, and it's within specification. The question that wasn't asked is: What kind of driving have the tires been exposed to?

[monster]

Hit the happy medium, Cloud. Like they say some stuff deteriorates with time, other stuff with mileage, but rather unsuprisingly, the manufacturer's recommendations are a little service-happy. (IMeuropeanO)

I would go when you hit the halfway point (timewise) between time and when you envisage you will hit the average mileage for the current age. Or you could go with if you do half the average mileage, get a service when you done 1.5 times the recommended mileage for the next service. Of course these happy mediums requires a little math juggling, but you're smart. What "should" you have on the clock now? 84Kish?

[tw]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

I understand what you're saying,tw. I've had the alignment checked, and it's within specification. The question that wasn't asked is: What kind of driving have the tires been exposed to?

Clearly something is wrong if two tire sets only get 44,000 miles. Type of driving, two foot driving (one always suspended on the brake pedal), parking brake always on, etc. Something has caused unacceptable tire wear.

[Cloud]

I think I've replaced half a set, twice. Probably extra wear and tear because of hot conditions, and because I don't keep them properly inflated. I've had flats on the sidewalls, and they keep telling me I can't just replace one, I need to replace both, either the front, or the back, at once.

I do NOT 2-foot drive!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Cloud

I think I've replaced half a set, twice. Probably extra wear and tear because of hot conditions, and because I don't keep them properly inflated. I've had flats on the sidewalls, and they keep telling me I can't just replace one, I need to replace both, either the front, or the back, at once.

That should have resulted in a full size spare tire; replacing the 'donut' spare tire.

Depends on how worn the other (undamaged) tire is. If the undamaged tire has good tread, then little reason to replace it.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

That should have resulted in a full size spare tire; replacing the 'donut' spare tire.

Depends on how worn the other (undamaged) tire is. If the undamaged tire has good tread, then little reason to replace it.

Full sized spare does not fit in the space available in my "poorly designed" vehicle. hmm...

Also re: tire wear - there are tires now that are designed to last for only 40,000 miles.

[kerosene]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

I have a car that only weighs 1900 pounds. It's gone through two sets of tires in 44,000 miles (meaning almost no tread left on the front tires).

Do you drive up and down a mountain on dirt roads every day? That could be a contributor.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by case

Do you drive up and down a mountain on dirt roads every day? That could be a contributor.

I drive up and down a mountain on very curvy roads every day. The dirt road is only about an eighth of a mile.

Look at the cars in the Indy and Daytona races. They can't even get 500 miles out of a set of tires.

[Cloud]

so, I took car to get worked on today; oil change, state inspection, check all around; and guess what?

They said I need 4 new tires!

They said that all my treads are worn to 4/32". And that one tire has a bald spot, seeming to indicate "I'm putting my brakes on too hard." I told them I'd think about it. What do you think?

[glatt]

Do you own a penny?