When you buy a reasonably decent new car, one would hope that it came with tires that are appropriate for the car.

Based on cars in the lot, I'm guessing there are 3 primary tire models that come with the car; installed at the factory so not sure how it's chosen. Seems like 1 or 2 are decent. Of course, the car I buy (based on model, color and options) has the worst tires of the 3. And is ranked 46 out of 52 on a popular tire site. And has many reviews for poor wet performance.

WHY would a car manufacturer put shitty tires on a high volume model that sells well into the $20k range? Why would you put F level tires on a B level car? It makes no sense to me.

So, for the safety of my wife, even though we forked out close to $30k for the car, I have to spend another $1k to put decent tires on the car.

Surely there is a better way to enable purchasers to end up with desired tires instead of the crap the OEM chooses? It's not like the tire prices are that different (A level tire is $175 vs the F level tire at %165).

Pissed but keep repeating the serentity prayer.....

I believe it is a combination of lowest bidder coupled with quietest tire for sales purposes.
Mike

quote:

Originally posted by mcrimm:
quietest tire for sales purposes.

That, plus fuel economy concerns. It seems trivial, but every little portion of a mile per gallon gets counted.

Tangent note: I did some reading recently on how the selection of light bulbs in the car figures into demand on the electrical system, and in turn, fuel economy. It's simultaneously fascinating, maddening, and borderline ridiculous.

Congratulations on your new car.

Seems like the 3 possible tires for the car include: 1) Michelin, 2) Bridgestone, 3) Hankook.

I get Bridgestone (Japanese company, both). Michelin is generally a popular brand for tires so understand that as well. I would have preferred Conti DWS (too bad that's not a choice).

I ended up w/ the crap Hankook. I'm guessing there is a non-technical reason for the choice. And based on reviews, I'm thinking noise level is not (unless noisier is better).

Perhaps some eco/political reason - deal made w/ Korean govt to allow more sales of the car in Korea?

Unfortunately, "noisier" sometimes comes as a by-product of "better for fuel economy."

Another tangent: A friend of mine has three Mazda3 in his driveway (one each for the wife and daughters). The newest one, he disliked because it's noisier than the other ones. Why? Factory-issue tires. Once he replaced the tires on it, it was much quieter and just as well-loved as the other two.

On "average Joe" cars, factory tires are simply aimed more at the benefit of the carmaker than of the buyer.

Don't forget the "run flat" tires that are noisier and ride rougher. Why? Because the automakers can get rid of a heavy and expensive spare and jack.

I learned a long time ago to figure a new set of tires into the purchase price of a new vehicle. Of course, you can also use that as a negotiating tool. A dealer can order (for installation, not from the factory) any tires you’d like if they’re motivated to do so against the potential loss of a sale and then they can sell your factory tires to the next soccer mom that comes in for a set. And yes, people still go to dealers for tires.

I was pleasantly surprised that my 2015 Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk came with Firestone Destination A/Ts, which were actually quite good. It was nice to not have to upgrade them right away for a change.

-Rob

Knowing the type of car would help but Hankook actually makes some decent model tires and dependent upon car and tire model possibly would not be concerned.

But the reason you ask for is MOST people do not care at all what tires are on there especially if there is some sort of warranty on the car.

Not too surprising that if you buy a Korean car, it might have Korean tires.

The Bridgestones that came on my last 4Runner were crap. I barely got 2 years out of them with what I consider light use. I don't recall the model. I think they were Duellers. I've had good luck with Hankook tires on a couple on my wife and son's smaller cars (Hyundai Elantras) but no experience with their truck or SUV tires. I have Michelins on my Tundra and like them a lot two years in. I think all of the major tire companies have good and not so good tires in their line ups.

I absolutely detest the Hancook Kinergy tires that came on the 2017 VW Golf my wife got. Just replaced them with a set of Michelin's from Costco (only because they don't offer Continental's). The Hancook tires wore terribly and were a magnet for every nail and screw that was remotely close by. Didn't get even half of the 70,000 miles that they are warrantied for. They were the shittiest tires I've had on a car besides the Goodyear Eagle's I put on a Z-24 Cavalier my parents owned.


bobandmikako, I have to agree with you about those Bridgestone Dueller H/T's that come on the 4Runner. I've got about 2400 miles on my 2019 4Runner Off Road Premium and those tires are horrid. They are the 2nd worst rated tire for it's size. Terrible on road and even worse off road.

I got just over 20,000 miles on OEM, Dunlop.
Went to a DWS Continental tires. Have 18,000 on them & they still look great.

I work for a tire distributor, we sell a couple of million dollars worth of Hankook a year. It's rare that I hear complaints or have to adjust a tire. I have them on my three vehicles, am currently amazed at the mileage their AT tire has gotten on our Pilot, not real quiet, though.

I've been to the Hankook tech center, it was really interesting hearing what they go through to get an OE placement. That was years ago, I bet it's even more sophisticated now.

A few points to consider:
1. At one point Michilen owned about a 10% share of Hankook.

2. Hankook actually developed their own tire pattern and designs instead of cloning existing designs.

3. Hankook tends to have a fairly large following in the street racer type crowds (not high schoolers, but more like true racers).

Pretry sure every tire company has at least one model that is junk. Maybe the Hankooks you got are that model.

What gets me is how much it costs to replace OEM tires (not that you would want to).

My son drives a 2018 Mitsubishi Outlander and recently got a flat. He took it to Discount Tire and they told him he might need a new tire for $262.00, fortunately he was smart enough to call me first and after about 30 seconds of research I was able to find out that he could replace two tires with a different brand for less than one OEM.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
Knowing the type of car would help but Hankook actually makes some decent model tires and dependent upon car and tire model possibly would not be concerned.

But the reason you ask for is MOST people do not care at all what tires are on there especially if there is some sort of warranty on the car.

IIRC, from another post, the OP bought a Camry.

But as far as this thread, I'm was in the same boat. the OE Continental runflats on my car were quite stiff & noisy & were worn to the wear bars in under 15k miles.

Yea - car is a Camry. On the lot, all the Camry's had Michelin, Bridgestone or Hankook. I got the lucky draw with the Hankook. Lot's of reviews of bad experiences, hydroplaning, poor wet traction. And even for dry handling, while it sounds okay, a number of comments of flats (not a very robust tire).

I believe the Kinergy GT is made by Michelin (or has some association with Michelin).

I was thinking about using the tire through summer and replace before the rainy season. But the more reviews I read, the more I'm inclined to just replace them now.

Safety is king. $800 now is well worth it if it avoids a collision later.

With all the promotional info about safety at the dealerships (all these new safety features that come stock with new Toyota's), it just makes no sense to put such shitty tires on car when the ExtremeContact DWS is only $10 more per tire -- pass the delta onto me. Gladly accept that.

‘09 Altima came with Bridgestones....were shot at 36k.

‘12 Altima (slightly higher trim level) came with Michelin primacy...thought at 60k still had miles left on them. Waaaaay better tires.

Yep, crap shoot.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Yea - car is a Camry. On the lot, all the Camry's had Michelin, Bridgestone or Hankook. I got the lucky draw with the Hankook. Lot's of reviews of bad experiences, hydroplaning, poor wet traction. And even for dry handling, while it sounds okay, a number of comments of flats (not a very robust tire).

I believe the Kinergy GT is made by Michelin (or has some association with Michelin).

I was thinking about using the tire through summer and replace before the rainy season. But the more reviews I read, the more I'm inclined to just replace them now.

Safety is king. $800 now is well worth it if it avoids a collision later.

With all the promotional info about safety at the dealerships (all these new safety features that come stock with new Toyota's), it just makes no sense to put such shitty tires on car when the ExtremeContact DWS is only $10 more per tire -- pass the delta onto me. Gladly accept that.

If you just bought the car, call the dealer and complain about the tires and tell them you want one of the other 2 brands. They might swap them out for you for free or next to free, it doesn't hurt to ask.

My experience with original new vehicle tires:

- 2005 F-150 : Hankook: bald at 20,000 light duty miles, recalled by Ford
- 2006 Toyota Corolla: Bridgestone: 82,000 miles
- 2014 Tundra: Bridgestone: 32,000 miles, bald
- 2016 Rav4: Bridgestone: 30,000 miles, bald

I have Michelins on all 3 vehicles now but the jury is still out on their tread life (performance is great),