Well I just got my car back from its first service call. I had posted in another thread how the back tires were wearing unevenly and were out of round. The honda rep said it was because I hadn't rotated my tires (I've got 12k miles on my car and rotated them myself at 8k).

Well I was vindicated today when it came back that many aspects of my alignment were way, way off. It even says on the alignment report for a bunch of measurements: 'This is out of spec and may cause uneven tire wear'.

So if any of you are experiencing some uneven tire wear and you haven't had your car long push for an alignment and get the report. It's not hard to argue that they need to replace your tires under warranty when it's possible the car was delivered misaligned. Especially with 12k miles on the car.

I'll post the report later.

Jayson

 

Glad this is working out for you. Seemed TOO odd.

 

You know, my 2006 has about 17,000 miles and they said I needed alignment and balancing.

I did it ($150 or so) but I thought it was odd that I needed it so soon.
I don't drive over potholes.

 

My first set of factory tires lasted less than 20k miles, and when I had my alignment checked, all the settings were very close. I think the factory tires are pretty much crap. BUT, the Michelins I replaced them with are definitely cutting into my gas mileage by 3 to 4 mpg.

 

How many lbs. are you running in your Michelin tires Bill? That is a big hit just because of tire brand! H

 

I am running 40 lb all around. They are Michelin all seasons. I might try inflating to 44 which is the max per the rating on the sidewall. I also ran 40 on the stock tires. This is the only change made to the car except for the 62km bug fix, and the battery cap recall. Oil is 0w-20 Mobil 1.

 

Are your Michelin replacements LRR (Low Rolling Resistance)? This supposedly can make a significant difference.
I'm still on my factory set of Dunlops (SP31), and at 15,000+ miles, look like they'll last at least another 15,000.

 

stock tire is 195/65/15 @ 18lbs, 5.6 inch tread width. What makes this a low rolling resistance tire is the tread width. About 2 inches less tread width than any other tires in that size. The sidewall flares out to give it the 195 section width specification. That's why our cars slide/push so easily even when encountering very low speed corners, and why they have such low grip levels.

Replacing a used OEM tire which is down to 14lbs worn with a non-LRR tire @ 20 lbs.new would net you not only 40% or more wider contact patch for the same size tire not rated as the LRR tire, but an additional 6 lbs of rotating mass per corner on the car also resulting in increased effort from the ICE and IMA. That will cause you to lose several miles per gallon. So, even though the factory tires are a bit more expensive and barely grip theroad, I'll be replacing them with OEM Dunlop sp-31's when the time comes.

www.tirerack.com sells them currently for 71.00 a piece + shipping, no tax.

While you may initially save $120 on the difference in price over some less expensive tires in the same size, their wider contact patch over 40k miles will cost you an additional $325 in gas over the same time period over the factory LRR tires.

Dave (former big name tire shop manager)

 

Gumby, the Michelins are probably not LRR. I did not ask for LRR tires. Here in the Pocono's I was more concerned with traction in the snow.

 

Dave,

Thanks for the info on what makes the tires LRR. However, my oem tires were worn down to the tread wear indicators in about 15,000 miles, and my wheels were not out of allignment. Normally I would expect to get 40 to 50k miles on a set of tires. So If I have to buy new tires every 15k, then the savings in gas is lost anyway, and I would rather have the safety of the extra traction.