Time for tires..looking these, thoughts?

[Spectrem12]

So has anyone found tires where the warranty is NOT halved b/c of the split fit?
Michelin is the only company I have found that they specifically mention split fitments as halving the warranty.
No one else specifically calls it out, that I can tell.

 

[Manaz]

Split fitment - you mean different width front and rear?

Why on earth would that impact on the warranty on each individual tyre (especially when it comes standard from the factory that way on many cars)?

Seems crazy. Not blaming you at all for reporting it, but that's just nuts!

 

[CKeeler]

That's what my tire installer told me too when I replaced the rears

 

[Ty Davis]

Split fitment - you mean different width front and rear?

Why on earth would that impact on the warranty on each individual tyre (especially when it comes standard from the factory that way on many cars)?

Seems crazy. Not blaming you at all for reporting it, but that's just nuts!

Tire warranties assume that you have rotated the tires at regular intervals, to maximize their life.
The front and rear tires wear at different rates, one faster than the other. The rears wear faster on a RWD car like the Stinger.

With staggered tires, you cannot rotate them front to rear. So, the fronts are always on front and rear always at the rear. The tire warranty is halved, because the tires cannot be rotated to even out the wear between front and rear.

 

[MerlintheMad]

689788 As you can see, my front tires are at about "half". The rears are totally shot. I have over 17K miles on these OE Michelins (which is over twice as far as other rears on the Stinger have gone!). They are getting replaced this morning.

 

[Helo58]

Just looked at a random Bridgestone warranty... The fronts get the entire (full) mileage warranty while the rears get a half mileage warranty for staggered setups. At least you get the whole front warranty.

 

[MisterMac]

So has anyone found tires where the warranty is NOT halved b/c of the split fit?
Michelin is the only company I have found that they specifically mention split fitments as halving the warranty.
No one else specifically calls it out, that I can tell.

Though not all directly mention staggered or split fitment, EVERY tire warranty requires regular documented rotation schedules. If you don't meet those documented requirements, you will have half or no warranty.

 

[MerlintheMad]

Just looked at a random Bridgestone warranty... The fronts get the entire (full) mileage warranty while the rears get a half mileage warranty for staggered setups. At least you get the whole front warranty.
View attachment 29167

Now, if only I wanted Bridgestones. Heh! I've never heard of honoring full treadlife in front on a staggered setup.

 

[Doel]

I've used the Bridgestone S0-4 pole positions on other cars, very good tire I would consider them when I get a new set.

I had a blow out on the stock PS4 going maybe 15 mph, hit a medium size pot hole, sidewall had a micro crack. Won't be getting these again.

 

[MerlintheMad]

I've used the Bridgestone S0-4 pole positions on other cars, very good tire I would consider them when I get a new set.

I had a blow out on the stock PS4 going maybe 15 mph, hit a medium size pot hole, sidewall had a micro crack. Won't be getting these again.

Interesting. Last summer I hit a c. 2" high ridge in the pavement where a bridge joined the road. My speed was probably either side of 40 MPH. It was hard and loud enough that I wondered if I had dented in my rim and damaged the sidewall. But there was no evidence of any ill effects. And here you hit a pothole going 15 and lose your tire. Existence is mysterious.

 

[Helo58]

I've used the Bridgestone S0-4 pole positions on other cars, very good tire I would consider them when I get a new set.

I had a blow out on the stock PS4 going maybe 15 mph, hit a medium size pot hole, sidewall had a micro crack. Won't be getting these again.

I had this exact same experience with the exception that I was going closer to 40mph. It left me with little to no confidence in the sidewall strength of the Michelin. I am currently running Firestone Indy 500s in the stock sizes with no regrets. Before I switched to the Indys (a Potenza RE003 overseas), I ran S-04s on all of my cars. It was a great tire, but the Indy has given me the same Bridgestone experience for a fraction of the cost.

 

[MerlintheMad]

I had this exact same experience with the exception that I was going closer to 40mph. It left me with little to no confidence in the sidewall strength of the Michelin. I am currently running Firestone Indy 500s in the stock sizes with no regrets. Before I switched to the Indys (a Potenza RE003 overseas), I ran S-04s on all of my cars. It was a great tire, but the Indy has given me the same Bridgestone experience for a fraction of the cost.

With new Michelins on the rear, and the fronts half gone, I can look forward to both fronts and rears being worn out at c. the same time, sometime next summer. I will be facing replacing all four tires at once. The only negative about the Firehawk Indy 500 tire is the "W" rating. I want "Y" (186+ MPH).

 

[Helo58]

With new Michelins on the rear, and the fronts half gone, I can look forward to both fronts and rears being worn out at c. the same time, sometime next summer. I will be facing replacing all four tires at once. The only negative about the Firehawk Indy 500 tire is the "W" rating. I want "Y" (186+ MPH).

The 2 to 1 worked out great for you. My last car was 2 rears to every front and I loved it. This one (Stinger) may pan out that way but it is too early for me to tell. When my Michelin sidewall gave out, I replaced all four tires @7k miles because both right sides had the impact damage and they were already 1/2 way though the wear cycle. I am now at 12.5k miles and wearing nicely.

I understand the speed rating desire in spite of any reasons not to have it. It is kind of like horsepower, I would probably never use 1000hp, but I would sure love to have it.... just in case... The Michelins are a fine tire and my instance is surely an outlier or "perfect storm" of errors that caused the rupture. For me though, it is kind of like getting sick on a certain food. I usually don't eat it after that. Except cole slaw. I love cole slaw. Haha. Based on your experience, I would get the Michelins again in a heartbeat. They sound like they have been great tires for you and many others!

 

[Doel]

Interesting. Last summer I hit a c. 2" high ridge in the pavement where a bridge joined the road. My speed was probably either side of 40 MPH. It was hard and loud enough that I wondered if I had dented in my rim and damaged the sidewall. But there was no evidence of any ill effects. And here you hit a pothole going 15 and lose your tire. Existence is mysterious.

I bet if I was going faster I would have just traveled over the top of the thing without any problem. The slow speed allowed the tire to actually go into the pothole.

 

[MisterMac]

That's likely true. Spent much of my life driving wash-board dirt roads. Faster allows you to skip some dips

 

[MerlintheMad]

I understand the speed rating desire in spite of any reasons not to have it. It is kind of like horsepower, I would probably never use 1000hp, but I would sure love to have it.... just in case...

Good analogy. It shows understanding. "W" rated "UHP" should be good enough. Just like 365 HP is "good enough". I mean really, what possible NEED do we have to do even what a stock Stinger does so well? We want it. And we like it. And we avail ourselves of the pleasure. But we don't need any such extreme equipment. Traveling and accelerating at speed is a luxury and a hobby, nothing more. It is enough.

I want real UHP (and eventually even better brakes; even though I've proven that the OE brakes are plenty for this driver), not the "W" kind. (What is a Michelin "Y" UHP tire compared to a Firestone "UHP" Firehawk? Both say "UHP", so is Firestone just using hyperbole as a sales pitch?) I absolutely will never take this car above its limited (vaunted 167 MPH) top speed; so, nowhere near the Michelin capability. But I like knowing that the tire is capable of so much more than I will ever ask of it.

 

[Helo58]

... But I like knowing that the tire is capable of so much more than I will ever ask of it.

Until you hit a low speed pothole or manhole cover.

 

[MerlintheMad]

Until you hit a low speed pothole or manhole cover.

At least I can tell myself that will never happen, because I am so good at being on the lookout for road hazards. I've improved magnitudes over already being very good at that, since I got the Stinger!

(Yes, I haven't forgotten last October and my trip onto the raised median strip!? That also taught me a lot about me and this car. Won't happen again!!)

 

[Manaz]

I understand the speed rating desire in spite of any reasons not to have it. It is kind of like horsepower, I would probably never use 1000hp, but I would sure love to have it.... just in case...

I thought this to start with as well, but you need to consider that building a tyre to a higher speed limit generally means it is better built and may behave differently at lower speeds than the max rated in terms of failure modes.

Effectively, the benefit between a W rated tyre and Y rated tyre isn't only seen beyond the speed that the W rated tyre is rated to.

 

[Helo58]

I thought this to start with as well, but you need to consider that building a tyre to a higher speed limit generally means it is better built and may behave differently at lower speeds than the max rated in terms of failure modes.

Effectively, the benefit between a W rated tyre and Y rated tyre isn't only seen beyond the speed that the W rated tyre is rated to.

"Better built" is a fairly vague term depending on the metric you are evaluating. It is undeniable that the Michelin is more efficiently built based on the lighter weight and higher speed rating. I am not familiar enough with the differences between the Michelin and Firestone constructions to know where Michelin saved that 3-5 pounds per tire. This is why I hesitate to say it is better built. Based on my incident and a few others, I suspect they minimized considerations related to puncture resistance and sidewall thickness using fewer plies and different belting materials to accomplish their lightweight/sporting goals. That is purely a hunch though based, admittedly, only on my own experience base and anecdotes from others here and there.