As mentioned in a previous post, I have had the dubious pleasure of experiencing extreme tyre wear on my MB C 200 K after 10000 miles, strongly influenced by suspension misalignment on all wheels. Chrysler Benz kindly replaced two tyres for me, though this included an initial technical refusal, and a lot of further carefully written persistance on my part. Many thanks to HJ contributor Simon Saxton who recommended persistance via MB customer assistance.
Bear with me on this para's preamble.
Careful tread measurement of all tyres indicated that the rear tyres were extremly but more evenly worn, with a working tread depth of 0.5 to 0.7 mm above the minimum 1.6 mm on one tyres outer main tread channel. The inside tread channel had a range of 1.5 to 1.7 mm above the minimum depth.
The front tyres were less worn with tread depth varying from 3.1 to 2.5 mm above minimum depending on inner or outer channel, but both had a greater gradient accross the tread than the rear tyres.
So is modern suspension design using tyres just a little too efficiently, and am I out of date re the 30000 miles I regularly obtain on my old 1.6 Cavalier?
I don't go hurtling round corners, but I can certainly feel the responsiveness of the cars suspension. BMW 3 series are still recognised to hold the yardstick for suspension design, so do they also suffer from short tyre life? My B in L tells me that he is lucky to get 15K from the rear wellies of his XK 8.
I'm intrigued rather than grumpy, their is I guess a price to pay for the improved handling of heavy cars.
Regards,
Julian
|
Well Done Julian-persistance pays!
My experience with MB tyres is disappointing-I used to extract circa 30k+ from my previous model (190 2.6) but my wife was predominant user & I only cleaned the cylinders of carbon on occasions.
I have heard tales of 12-15k being the norm on 3litre + models.
regards
Simon
|
|
|
Well Done Julian-persistance pays!
My experience with MB tyres is disappointing-I used to extract circa 30k+ from my previous model (190 2.6) but my wife was predominant user & I only cleaned the cylinders of carbon on occasions.
I have heard tales of 12-15k being the norm on 3litre + models.
regards
Simon
|
|
|
Julian
There do seem to be some cars which are heavier on tyres than others, and certainly some suspension can cause uneven wear patterns. it is also clear that even minor misalignment can cause havoc.
I had major problems with an Escort a couple of years back which eat the outside edge of the NSF tyre - bald in 4k miles. Huge problems getting dealer to admit there was a fault, and finally an independent 4-wheel alignment showed the car was misaligned badly. I never got the tyres replaced though. Sold in disgust.
Like you I'm not heavy on tyres, and having driven a couple of the cars you mention I can comment.
1992 1.8 Cavalier. Fronts down to 2mm in 30k, backs down a couple of mm.
1996 Vectra 2.0 fronts down to 2mm in 23 - 28k depending on make. Rears Changed at 50k - inside edge down to 1mm, rest 4mm. Definitely a suspension effect and apparently common on Vectras
1990 318i four new tyres at 50k, all down to 3mm. Very even wear patterns. Original owner was a friend, and 'sensible' driver.
My current 2.5 litre 3 series appears to be on its original tyres at 31k, showing 3.5 mm tread. Very even wear patterns. Immaculate car so original owner seems a careful type.
Regards
John
|
Julian,
The only horror story I have to tell is on my old S6 Audi.
Initially, he tyres all wore evenly.
Then, the front tyres started to wear unevenly - both had 4mm on the outside but were bald on the inner edge (I didn't notice this until it was almost too late, due to the high milage I covered and the narrow gaps between wheel and wheel arches). I don't remember hitting anything...
I had Audi check the suspension alignment, which seemed to be 'almost' correct. They made a 'minor' adjustment (their words). After that the tyres wore evenly again.
All this was very expensive (at £130+ per tyre)!
Other than that, the only thing that I can report is that FWD Audis wear out the NS front faster than the OS front - nearly evenly, except that the NS outer edge seems to 'feather'. Has anyone else noticed this?
|
|
|
|
Do these findings suggest that more experience in e.g. suspension design is being transferred from F1 (or other racing) to production cars? Clearly in F1 etc. tyre life is almost irrelevant.
|
|
|
On my Mondeo, the first set of front tyres lasted 20,000 miles and the second set a couple of thou more.
On the Peugeot 406 that I have now, the fronts are over 4 mm at 30,000 miles. When having a puncture repaired, I mentioned this to the mechanic, who said that all Fords had a suspension set up that was hard on tyres.
Not exactly scientific, but there it is.
Having had two FWD Cavaliers, it was not difficult to get 40,000 miles on the front tyres.
Driving style must have something to do with it, but I gave up GP starts years ago.
|
|
|
|
I too question whether modern tyres / suspension can give the same tyre life as a few years ago.
In my working days I had a succession of Cavaliers, from '85 to '95 models. The front tyre life of each Cavalier was very consistent at 27,000 miles from new, although the weight and power gradually increased over time.
Now that I have retired and driving more sedately, honest, I expected to get better mileage out of an Astra as it was slightly lighter than the last Cavalier, but the front tyres will have to be replaced at 21,000. The dealer says that 20,000 is average so won't entertain any claim.
Now I don't know whether it is a softer tread compound, the tread design or the suspension design but modern tyres don't last like they used to.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the answer is more simple and one of economics. Wear out tires faster=buy more (source Goodyear Tire Co 5 Year Strategic Planning Dept)
|
It appears in the last ten years or so that the tyre manufacturers themselves have had a hand in this. Changes in tyre compound mean that it's now possible to go from one extreme to the other - a hard compound that's noisy, wears slowly and gives poor grip in the wet to a soft compound which is quieter, wears out quicker, but grips the road like a limpet in the wet. I suspect that a lot of "performance" cars are now fitted as standard with the grippy, soft compound tyres so that handling is kept at the expense of wear.
Andy
|
|
|
|
