On 10/25/2013 1:36 PM, Ron wrote:
....

I don't know where you are getting your info from, ...

I'm reporting my experience over about 30 yr now...

--

On 10/25/13 1:11 PM, dpb wrote:
On 10/25/2013 6:59 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
...

Tires are one thing that have really improved over the years. It used to
be common to see people changing tires along the roads. It's fairly rare
now.

That depends on how many nails are in the roadways... On our country
roads there are always things every time they grade them chances are
pretty high of picking up something. It's rare to go a month without a
flat on at least one of the vehicles. Highway/town driving is far
safer from that standpoint -- I don't recall when I last had a flat on a
trip other than discovering a slow leak on second day out or so.


The road grader didn't make it past my parent's farm for a long
time one summer. A corn plant managed to grow and tassel on the road
before the grader got it. It was a bit surprising it managed to grow on
a gravel road.

On 10/25/2013 5:18 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
....

The road grader didn't make it past my parent's farm for a long time one
summer. A corn plant managed to grow and tassel on the road before the
grader got it. It was a bit surprising it managed to grow on a gravel road.

Definitely must rain there more than here...

Although they will certainly "weed over" pretty quickly if not enough
traffic and maintenance, indeed. This road now unfortunately has been
cut through on east and south into OK so it's a bypass route from town
to down that way that didn't used to be. That puts a lot more traffic
on it than was years ago -- plus the trucks heading to/from the
commercial feedlot east come down this one to avoid the long light at
the corner a mile north even though that way is all paved. They keep it
pretty well torn up...

--

On 10/25/2013 3:04 PM, dpb wrote:
On 10/25/2013 1:36 PM, Ron wrote:
...

I don't know where you are getting your info from, ...

I'm reporting my experience over about 30 yr now...

And, it should be obvious I'm not reporting on the overall treadwear
difference front/rear but the irregular wear on individual tires. I've
no interest in making all four wear out at once particularly; just get
the full longevity of each. I see no preferential outer wear on fronts
on the GM vehicles w/o rotation.

--

Ashton Crusher wrote in
:




Incidentally, 4x4 Explorers had lower fatality RATES then some
Mercedes cars and most other SUV's. Ford didn't screw anything, they
just got caught in a massive media frenzy over nothing



Over ONE incident. ONE is all it takes, these days. Never mind how many
millions of other identical actions occurred that year with no problems,
it's that ONE which counts.

Activists want the perfect world, and are quite willing to sacrifice you to
achieve it.



just like the
media frenzy of "exploding" crown vics. Another myth constructed
entirely in the media.



And just like the "stuck gas pedal" Toyota thing, which didn't even result
in ONE single crash or death.

But hey, that's government by activism, for you.


--
Tegger

Ashton Crusher wrote in
:

Ford also sold the same vehicle with Goodyear tires on it.
They had NONE of the alleged "low pressure" problems on the ones with
the Goodyear tires because it wasn't 'low pressure' that was the
problem, it was the crap firestone tires.



It was ONE incident. I'm quite certain that there were many more other
Firestone-equipped Explorers on the road that day in Texas, and all those
other ones made it to where they were going without driving straight into
the news..

Ford /did/ specify a lower pressure than Firestone recommended but, it
appears only ONE Explorer suffered for it.

If it were up to me, I'd prohibit any government worker from having the
power to mandate anything.

--
Tegger

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:30:33 +0000 (UTC), Tegger
wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote in
:

Ford also sold the same vehicle with Goodyear tires on it.
They had NONE of the alleged "low pressure" problems on the ones with
the Goodyear tires because it wasn't 'low pressure' that was the
problem, it was the crap firestone tires.



It was ONE incident. I'm quite certain that there were many more other
Firestone-equipped Explorers on the road that day in Texas, and all those
other ones made it to where they were going without driving straight into
the news..

Ford /did/ specify a lower pressure than Firestone recommended but, it
appears only ONE Explorer suffered for it.

If it were up to me, I'd prohibit any government worker from having the
power to mandate anything.

Then why pay them at all?

wrote in :



If it were up to me, I'd prohibit any government worker from having
the power to mandate anything.

Then why pay them at all?



I wouldn't. I'd lay them off and make them get jobs that are more
beneficial to the public at large, like sweeping floors or serving burgers.

--
Tegger

On 10/25/2013 8:57 AM, N8N wrote:
some cars are just bad about tires. I've seen too many FWD GMs with
the same wear patterns for it to be coincidence. ...

One additional point...as noted before, GM for sure on all the vehicles
I've had always recommends air pressure in the low 30s(*). That is
simply far too low for good tire performance. I'm certain a great deal
of the reason for the perception that GM FWD cars wear fronts is owing
to the fact that people generally follow those inflation guidelines.

I've had service on the cars/light trucks done at the dealership here
since they do it cheaper than even the quickie-lube places as sorta' a
"loss-leader" advertising. For years every stinkin' time I'd get a
vehicle back they'd have taken the air pressure back down from where I
had it and I'd have to remember to either make them correct it or do it
when got home. It took a couple of years of beating on the service
manager to get him to finally fix their service records computer on all
the vehicles that they were to leave air pressure alone or if did find a
low one by a psi or two to bring it up and let me know, _NOT_ let all
the rest down.

OK, with the background revisited, so on to the second point--when
combine that high likelihood for them to be run low with the aggressive
driving patterns one sees from 75-90% of the folks you meet, it's no
wonder they roll them on cornering and accelerating and thus wear the
outer edges down prematurely.

(*) And I just DAGS for "recommended LeSabre tire pressure" and found
30 psi cold for range of '98 thru '10 in a quick refresher. That's just
barely above running them flat.

--

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 10:06:59 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/25/2013 8:57 AM, N8N wrote:
some cars are just bad about tires. I've seen too many FWD GMs with
the same wear patterns for it to be coincidence. ...

One additional point...as noted before, GM for sure on all the vehicles
I've had always recommends air pressure in the low 30s(*). That is
simply far too low for good tire performance. I'm certain a great deal
of the reason for the perception that GM FWD cars wear fronts is owing
to the fact that people generally follow those inflation guidelines.

I've had service on the cars/light trucks done at the dealership here
since they do it cheaper than even the quickie-lube places as sorta' a
"loss-leader" advertising. For years every stinkin' time I'd get a
vehicle back they'd have taken the air pressure back down from where I
had it and I'd have to remember to either make them correct it or do it
when got home. It took a couple of years of beating on the service
manager to get him to finally fix their service records computer on all
the vehicles that they were to leave air pressure alone or if did find a
low one by a psi or two to bring it up and let me know, _NOT_ let all
the rest down.

OK, with the background revisited, so on to the second point--when
combine that high likelihood for them to be run low with the aggressive
driving patterns one sees from 75-90% of the folks you meet, it's no
wonder they roll them on cornering and accelerating and thus wear the
outer edges down prematurely.

(*) And I just DAGS for "recommended LeSabre tire pressure" and found
30 psi cold for range of '98 thru '10 in a quick refresher. That's just
barely above running them flat.

Been driving GM full, mid-size and "compacts" for +40 years. Never
once had unusual tire wear. And never saw it on family/friends GM
cars either.
But I have the suspensions checked when I get new tires, or if I feel
something wrong, like pulling (alignment off due to tie rod ends
wearing out of spec) or "looseness over rough road" (ball joint or
strut/shock wear.)
Used to do it all myself, but for the last 30 years or so leave the
alignment part to suspension pros. Maybe I'm lucky, but they've
gotten the suspension geometry right every time.
Last time I had unusual tire wear - wasn't real serious - was with my
'66 F-100, which had worn kingpins.

So I don't buy Nate's contention about GM suspension design and tire
wear. Seems it all come from him driving his company maintained
Impala's. I know there was an "issue" with '07/'08 model Impalas
wearing the rears, but that was resolved in later models, and could be
easily enough fixed for those model years.
I'm driving a 2003 impala now and it has no unusual tire wear.
You can wear tires and suspension badly with poor suspension/tire
maintenance or "bad" driving habits - always cornering hard, jack
rabbit starts and stops. I don't drive that way.

Also disagree with you about tire pressure. I keep them at 30-32
cold, and they can easily get to 35-37 hot.
I go by the auto mfg sticker for pressures. That's not just a guess,
but part of the entire suspension package. I've fooled around in the
past with higher pressures (35 cold) and maybe got a little better
mpg.
Also got a harsh ride, which also affects shocks/stuts and probably
suspension parts wear.
Not saying a couple pounds over makes a big difference, but I don't
want to go past that. Under-inflation is worse.

Besides the tire wear, some cars are more sensitive to tire pressure
in how they handle. I rented a 2004 Malibu for a long trip in '04.
Had 5000 miles on it. Drove fine around town, but after about 40
miles on the highway I was going to turn around and take it back, and
really screw up our vacation plans. It wandered all over and was a
real pain to drive. No way I was going to drive that for +3000 miles.
Tires all looked the same, even squatting down and looking at them
head on, but I didn't bring one of my 5 or 6 pressure gages with me.
So I bought another one as a last measure before turning around, and
found the left front had only 15 psi.
Really surprised me that I couldn't see that, but I was happy.
Putting all tires at 30-32 fixed that, and the car drove like a dream
afterwards. Never had another car that suffered such poor tracking
from a low tire.

Then of course there's the actual tire quality. Goodyear Integritys
came on my Impala. Not good at all on this car.
On topic, don't want anything to do with tire pressure sensors.
Don't trust them, and see them as a needless expense/complication.
My dad was "bragging" about having them on his Buick. A 2003 I think
it is. A week ago I was visiting and his wife asked me to check the
air in the tires because something didn't feel right when cornering.
Dad said they were okay because the light didn't come on.
But my cheap dial gage found the left front was 23 psi.
Maybe some of the sensor systems work, but since a one buck stick gage
has always been accurate IME, why take a chance?
Yeah, I need to sit on a bucket and get my fingers dirty checking the
tires. So there's the bucket and Gojo and a rag added to the mix.
BTW, I have 2 dial gages and about 5 stick gages, all cheap, and never
found more than a pound difference in what they measure.

Vic Smith wrote "Also disagree with you about tire pressure. I keep them at 30-32
cold, and they can easily get to 35-37 hot.
I go by the auto mfg sticker for pressures. That's not just a guess,
but part of the entire suspension package. I've fooled around in the
past with higher pressures (35 cold) and maybe got a little better mile"

Hear Hear, Vic!!

That's why I don't let ANY auto service place near my tires - even the tire reseller can't get pressures right!

There's a placard on the car's B-pillar for a reason. Shifting of load from one side of the car to the other during turns. Too much air, and the wheels inside of the turn could lose contact with the road. Too much air, and you burn rubber during the occasional inadvertent jack-rabbit acceleration..

2-3psi over the auto mfg's door placard, no harm. But if you're a mechanic and you go by the max PSI stamped on the tire, maybe it's time to reconsider your line of work.

On 10/26/2013 1:36 PM, wrote:
....

2-3psi over the auto mfg's door placard, no harm. But if you're a
mechanic and you go by the max PSI stamped on the tire, maybe it's
time to reconsider your line of work.

I run about 34-35 generally, depending on the tire size.

And _I_ disagree on the idea that 30 isn't _way_ too soft for optimum
tire wear.

One certainly doesn't want anything near the max ratings (generally
40-44 psi for passenger tires) as cold pressures for passenger vehicles,
certainly (and nothing I've said even hints at that). There's something
known as "too much of a good thing", too...

And yes, there's a reason for the psi rating on the door pillar -- and
much of it has to do with the cushy ride most GM customers want, _NOT_
performance or tire longevity.

--

dpb wrote "much of it has to do with the cushy ride most GM customers want, "

So the MARKETING dept dictates tire pressures, not engineering. smh...

On 10/26/2013 4:13 PM, wrote:
dpb wrote "much of it has to do with the cushy ride most GM customers want, "

So the MARKETING dept dictates tire pressures, not engineering. smh...

Marketing drives most engineering--from a 30+ yr engineer.

--

dpb wrote "Marketing drives most engineering--from a 30+ yr engineer. "

No wonder the Europeans and Asians are kicking our automotive butt!

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:30:33 +0000 (UTC), Tegger
wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote in
:

Ford also sold the same vehicle with Goodyear tires on it.
They had NONE of the alleged "low pressure" problems on the ones with
the Goodyear tires because it wasn't 'low pressure' that was the
problem, it was the crap firestone tires.



It was ONE incident. I'm quite certain that there were many more other
Firestone-equipped Explorers on the road that day in Texas, and all those
other ones made it to where they were going without driving straight into
the news..

Ford /did/ specify a lower pressure than Firestone recommended but, it
appears only ONE Explorer suffered for it.

If it were up to me, I'd prohibit any government worker from having the
power to mandate anything.


One of the things brought out in the lawsuits was the warranty claim
history for the tires and aside from whether a blowout might have
caused an accident (blowouts almost never do) the warranty history
clearly showed a VERY VERY LARGE difference in tire warranty claims
between the Firestone tires and the Goodyear tires. We had load range
E Firestones on one of our work vans and TWO of the four tires blew
out within 15,000 miles. These tires were scrupulously checked,
virtually daily, for tire pressure and were never run low and were way
over rated in terms of load capacity yet 50% of them failed. Yeah,
it's anecdotal but this has been a recurring story of Firestone tires.
Same thing happened on their original 500 series radials as well as
their 721 series radials.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:25:45 +0000 (UTC), Tegger
wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote in
:




Incidentally, 4x4 Explorers had lower fatality RATES then some
Mercedes cars and most other SUV's. Ford didn't screw anything, they
just got caught in a massive media frenzy over nothing



Over ONE incident. ONE is all it takes, these days. Never mind how many
millions of other identical actions occurred that year with no problems,
it's that ONE which counts.

Activists want the perfect world, and are quite willing to sacrifice you to
achieve it.



just like the
media frenzy of "exploding" crown vics. Another myth constructed
entirely in the media.



And just like the "stuck gas pedal" Toyota thing, which didn't even result
in ONE single crash or death.

But hey, that's government by activism, for you.


We see the same thing in the anti-gun hysteria. The media has people
so whipped into a frenzy it's beyond belief. I've talked to people
who will refuse to attend a meeting if guns are going to be TALKED
about and others who refuse to attend meetings if the organizers don't
institute a ban on guns. These same people are more likely to be
struck by lightening but they don't hide under their bed every time it
rains. American has turned into a nation of fools lead by fools and
it's heading down the crapper. People like to think we have some long
long history of "being right" in everything American but in terms of
world history the USA spans barely more then 2 centuries and it's not
hard to imagine there won't be much left of it by the time of its 300
year birthday. Things could change but I'm not optimistic.

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Tegger
wrote:

wrote in :



If it were up to me, I'd prohibit any government worker from having
the power to mandate anything.

Then why pay them at all?



I wouldn't. I'd lay them off and make them get jobs that are more
beneficial to the public at large, like sweeping floors or serving burgers.

+1, though I don't think they're capable of either.

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 15:21:37 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:25:45 +0000 (UTC), Tegger
wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote in
m:




Incidentally, 4x4 Explorers had lower fatality RATES then some
Mercedes cars and most other SUV's. Ford didn't screw anything, they
just got caught in a massive media frenzy over nothing



Over ONE incident. ONE is all it takes, these days. Never mind how many
millions of other identical actions occurred that year with no problems,
it's that ONE which counts.

Activists want the perfect world, and are quite willing to sacrifice you to
achieve it.



just like the
media frenzy of "exploding" crown vics. Another myth constructed
entirely in the media.



And just like the "stuck gas pedal" Toyota thing, which didn't even result
in ONE single crash or death.

But hey, that's government by activism, for you.


We see the same thing in the anti-gun hysteria. The media has people
so whipped into a frenzy it's beyond belief. I've talked to people
who will refuse to attend a meeting if guns are going to be TALKED
about and others who refuse to attend meetings if the organizers don't
institute a ban on guns.

Good! Make a CCW permit a requirement for voting. It's a good ID,
after all.

These same people are more likely to be
struck by lightening but they don't hide under their bed every time it
rains. American has turned into a nation of fools lead by fools and
it's heading down the crapper. People like to think we have some long
long history of "being right" in everything American but in terms of
world history the USA spans barely more then 2 centuries and it's not
hard to imagine there won't be much left of it by the time of its 300
year birthday. Things could change but I'm not optimistic.

The economy will crash and they'll die off. ...too stupid to live.

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:36:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

dpb wrote "Marketing drives most engineering--from a 30+ yr engineer. "

No wonder the Europeans and Asians are kicking our automotive butt!

If you don't think marketing drives European auto makers, you're
completely clueless.

On 10/26/2013 6:59 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:36:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

dpb wrote "Marketing drives most engineering--from a 30+ yr engineer. "

No wonder the Europeans and Asians are kicking our automotive butt!

If you don't think marketing drives European auto makers, you're
completely clueless.

It's true in all arenas; not just automotive. It's the (perceived
and/or target) marketplace that determines the pricing level, features,
etc., etc., etc., ...

Engineering is the task of incorporating those in a cost- and
production-effective manner while solving the ancillary technical issues
as, essentially, a byproduct.

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
On 10/26/2013 6:59 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:36:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

dpb wrote "Marketing drives most engineering--from a 30+ yr engineer. "

No wonder the Europeans and Asians are kicking our automotive butt!

If you don't think marketing drives European auto makers, you're
completely clueless.

It's true in all arenas; not just automotive. It's the (perceived
and/or target) marketplace that determines the pricing level, features,
etc., etc., etc., ...

Think Zune! (-:

--
Bobby G.

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:20:39 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/26/2013 6:59 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:36:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

dpb wrote "Marketing drives most engineering--from a 30+ yr engineer. "

No wonder the Europeans and Asians are kicking our automotive butt!

If you don't think marketing drives European auto makers, you're
completely clueless.

It's true in all arenas; not just automotive. It's the (perceived
and/or target) marketplace that determines the pricing level, features,
etc., etc., etc., ...

Sure, but I was responding to his specific point.

Engineering is the task of incorporating those in a cost- and
production-effective manner while solving the ancillary technical issues
as, essentially, a byproduct.

Absolutely. Engineering works for marketing. Always has. Always
will.