"Unsafe" tires at 15K

[azcat]

I've got the Goodyear RSA OEM tires. I took my AWD GT in for the 15K service today, and my tires are "unsafe" and at least the front two should be replaced. Had them rotated at this dealer at 5k and 10k miles. Tread depth varies from place to place on the tire, but there are no indications of an alignment problem. I'm thinking "belt separation."

To their credit, the dealer is "going to try to" replace all four under warranty. I'll know more Monday.

I expect tread life of 17k-18k miles on my Miata's Toyos--they're gumballs and soft rubber wears quickly. But these? Anyone else checked their tires lately?

 

[giddyup]

Yea, my front goodyear rsa's were close to bald after 10k miles. So I rotated them and then had to replace all 4 after 15k miles. Goodyear actually prorated them 50% so the new forteras i bought were half price. They are wearing great after 10k miles. I started rotating them every 5k miles too. They still look new.

 

[CX-7owner]

I've got the Goodyear RSA OEM tires. I took my AWD GT in for the 15K service today, and my tires are "unsafe" and at least the front two should be replaced. Had them rotated at this dealer at 5k and 10k miles. Tread depth varies from place to place on the tire, but there are no indications of an alignment problem. I'm thinking "belt separation."

To their credit, the dealer is "going to try to" replace all four under warranty. I'll know more Monday.

I expect tread life of 17k-18k miles on my Miata's Toyos--they're gumballs and soft rubber wears quickly. But these? Anyone else checked their tires lately?

I'm at 9K and they're about to be bald soon too, They just don't seem to be very good tires. I had them rotated at 4.9K and again at the 7.5K service.

 

[HeavyH20]

Well, the OEM tires are good for about 20K, tops, with any type of spirited driving. The tread compound is rated the same as the Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3 series and the tread is a bit shallow. I have noticed some very detectable wear even at 3400 miles.

 

[azcat]

The Mazda rep offered 75% of the cost of two new RSAs and 100% of the cost of a four-wheel alignment. I took it.

There just doesn't seem to be much choice of all-season tires in this size. I'm thinking of going to three-season hp tires and counting on good weather...

 

[1Sleepy93]

You can do that or do a plus zero size. Quite a few more options open up with that but fuel mileage may suffer with the wider contact patch.

 

[AWmustang]

What does plus zero size mean?

Same rim but wider rubber?

 

[HeavyH20]

The rolling height is the same, but they are wider at a lower aspect ratio. So, a 255/55-18 would be considered a Plus Zero to 235/60-18. This would be the widest recommended tire on the stock rim.

 

[1Sleepy93]

The rolling height is the same, but they are wider at a lower aspect ratio. So, a 255/55-18 would be considered a Plus Zero to 235/60-18. This would be the widest recommended tire on the stock rim.

(2thumbs)

 

[AWmustang]

The rolling height is the same, but they are wider at a lower aspect ratio. So, a 255/55-18 would be considered a Plus Zero to 235/60-18. This would be the widest recommended tire on the stock rim.

How wide is the stock rim? 7 or 7.5 inches?

I think I'll be getting 255/55 -18 tires when it comes time to replace. It doesn't look like there would be much difference in price according to Tire Rack. The tread rating on the Goodyears is 260 and the Bridgestones are 300. There are some very nicely rated Pirelli's for about what the Goodyears cost.

What have other's replaced the OEM tires with on the stock rims?

 

[HeavyH20]

The stock rims are 7.5 inches wide. I will go with the 255-55-18 size when it comes time, as well. I will go with the Nitto or the BFG g-Force.

 

[erhayes]

I think that using a non standard rim will defeat the low-tire-warning-system, if that is important to you. In addition; the rim will easer to damage since the tire aspect ratio is lower. In addition to that, is the pound per square inch as related to the tire foot print will be lower. A larger foot print will mean the wider tire will have poorer hydroplaning resistance if the tread pattern remains the same. Just my observations front investigating the + and - of going outside the factory recommendations. Ed

 

[HeavyH20]

No mention of a non standard rim and there is no real downside to the slightly wider tire. Rolling resistance is nominally greater which can be defeated by running the tires with a little more pressure. The lower sidewall is not an issue since a 55 series tire is hardly low profile. The load bearing is probably higher than stock and sidewall deflection when turning will be less. It will probably drive the same or a bit better.

 

[offset_98]

That actually seems like the way to go.
The stock tire has a 5.6 inch sidewall, 14.6 inch radius, 29.1 inch diameter, 91.4 inch circumference and revolves approx. 693 times per mile.

The wider +0 tire would have a 5.5 inch sidewall, 14.5 inch radius, 29 inch diameter, 91.2 inch circumference and revolve 694 times per mile.

Hardly anything to worry about damaging a rim over.

So, the speedometer reading with the non-stock tire would only be 0.2% fast meaning when you're driving 60 mph the gauge will say you're driving 59.9 mph.

It doesn't get much better than this for +0 tire upgrades. When my CX-7 needs tires, I will do the wider tire as well.

 

[1Sleepy93]

The TPS doesn't care what rim/tire you have on as long as it's there. It will still trip the light at the same low psi as stock.

The rim won't be easier to damage with a +0 because the tire is wider which means it will bulge out a little from the stock rim even though the aspect ratio is lower.

Yes, if you don't have a better tread pattern it will hydroplane easier and snow/ice traction will suffer no matter what. Although, with the crappy tires that come stock, you may break even on that aspect.

 

[AWmustang]

Guys... the aspect RATIO is lower, however the actual inches between road and rim are so close that it doesn't even matter when concerned about ride or rim protection. That measurement has to be close so that the overall diameter of the tire doesn't change, speedometer is still accurate and all that good stuff.

If you'd like to check it out.... http://www.1010tires.com/TireSizeCalculator.asp

 

[HeavyH20]

Guys... the aspect RATIO is lower, however the actual inches between road and rim are so close that it doesn't even matter when concerned about ride or rim protection. That measurement has to be close so that the overall diameter of the tire doesn't change, speedometer is still accurate and all that good stuff.

If you'd like to check it out.... http://www.1010tires.com/TireSizeCalculator.asp

Yup, that is the definition of Plus Zero.

 

[erhayes]

I thought +0 is one size lower aspect ratio such as 235 to 245, not 255. Maybe I don't fully understand what other magaznes stated the meaning of + 0 is one step lower. The comment about the tire pressure monitor not working was a written Mazda statement, not of my making. Mazdas comment was addressing different rims (size) that fit but, were different than factory rims.

 

[HeavyH20]

Apect ratio is the ratio between the width of the tire and the overall height. So, a wider lower aspect tire is the same overall sidewall height as a narrower higher aspect.

 

[erhayes]

Apect ratio is the ratio between the width of the tire and the overall height. So, a wider lower aspect tire is the same overall sidewall height as a narrower higher aspect.

I disagree. The lower aspect ratio tire has less sidewall height for a given rim diameter.