Tire suggestions
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire suggestions
Here's my experience with Michelins:
I bought a new '89 Honda Accord for my wife in '89 and it came equipped with
Michelins. I took the road hazard policy for the tires with it. The guy who
closed the deal told me that if we had a tire problem that was other than
normal wear and tear, to just bring the tire in and they (the dealer) would
make it right.
The Michelins were leaky. I had to check the pressure constantly and pump them
up weekly. I took the car back to the dealer several times in about a six-month
period to have the tires checked for damage and, although they couldn't find
any leaks in the tires, they did find leaks in the beads, so they re-mounted
the tires twice during the course of my visits. And on one such visit they even
replaced two of the wheels, but to no avail; one of the tires was still leaky.
I decided to live with it and hoped that they would wear out soon.
In addition to this, the Michelins were lousy in the snow, even on a
front-wheel-drive car.
A few months later my wife was driving through a construction zone and had a
blowout. A 1/8"-thick metal plate with a 2"-long spur sticking out of it was
leaning against a curbing opposite an open trench in the zone. The flagman and
barricades forced her to swerve to the right to clear the workers and in doing
so she ran too close to the curb and against the metal plate. The spur sticking
out of the plate slashed the sidewall of her right-front tire. She called me
and I, wearing my shining armor, rode in on my white horse, changed her tire,
retrieved the plate, and saved her from certain peril.
OK. Nothing too unusual here; typical "road hazard" covered by the policy,
right? Keep reading...
So I took the tire to the dealer as instructed. I then showed him the tire,
showed him the road hazard policy, showed him the metal plate, and asked him to
make it better. After pecking on his computer for a few minutes, he said that
I'd have to take it to a Michelin dealer.
OK. No problem-o.
So I toddled off to the Michelin dealer, road hazard policy in one hand,
shredded tire in the other, metal plate in a third hand, and asked him to make
it right. He looked at the tire, looked at the plate, glanced at the policy,
scratched, pecked on his computer, then told me that I'd have to take it to the
Michelin distributor.
Fortunately, the Michelin distributor is just a few miles down the road from
where I live. So off I went with my road hazard policy, shredded tire and metal
plate in hand and asked him to fix it. He looked at the tire, looked at the
plate, glanced at the policy, and finally said that there was no way that the
plate had caused the damage. He then said that it looked like vandalism to him,
which wasn't covered by the policy. We discussed this for several minutes
(read: argued) and I finally left with my road hazard policy, shredded tire and
metal plate in hand, no better off than when I'd walked into the place.
I went to the Goodyear dealer the next day and had him replace the Michelins. I
later sold the remaining three tires in a yard sale.
I haven't bought a set of Michelins since, and never will. In fact, when my
wife bought a '00 Olds van, I had the dealer replace the Michelins that were on
it with whatever other brand he had in stock. We never had a tire problem with
that van.
Scotty
'99 TJ Sahara
'99 XJ Sport
'03 BMW Z4
*** This reply was processed using all-natural ingredients ***
"Cherokee-LTD" wrote
> Michelin is one brand I don't mind paying a premium for. I can't wait for my
> tires to wear out on my van so I can put Michelins on.
> -Brian
> "DougW" wrote
>> The Michelin LTX M/S tires are starting to get there.
>> P225-75R15
>> ( SNIP... )
>> Probably another 10,000 left but my driving style tends
>> to wear the outer edges. (it's not alignment, it's my
>> tendency to push corners) :/
>> DougW
I bought a new '89 Honda Accord for my wife in '89 and it came equipped with
Michelins. I took the road hazard policy for the tires with it. The guy who
closed the deal told me that if we had a tire problem that was other than
normal wear and tear, to just bring the tire in and they (the dealer) would
make it right.
The Michelins were leaky. I had to check the pressure constantly and pump them
up weekly. I took the car back to the dealer several times in about a six-month
period to have the tires checked for damage and, although they couldn't find
any leaks in the tires, they did find leaks in the beads, so they re-mounted
the tires twice during the course of my visits. And on one such visit they even
replaced two of the wheels, but to no avail; one of the tires was still leaky.
I decided to live with it and hoped that they would wear out soon.
In addition to this, the Michelins were lousy in the snow, even on a
front-wheel-drive car.
A few months later my wife was driving through a construction zone and had a
blowout. A 1/8"-thick metal plate with a 2"-long spur sticking out of it was
leaning against a curbing opposite an open trench in the zone. The flagman and
barricades forced her to swerve to the right to clear the workers and in doing
so she ran too close to the curb and against the metal plate. The spur sticking
out of the plate slashed the sidewall of her right-front tire. She called me
and I, wearing my shining armor, rode in on my white horse, changed her tire,
retrieved the plate, and saved her from certain peril.
OK. Nothing too unusual here; typical "road hazard" covered by the policy,
right? Keep reading...
So I took the tire to the dealer as instructed. I then showed him the tire,
showed him the road hazard policy, showed him the metal plate, and asked him to
make it better. After pecking on his computer for a few minutes, he said that
I'd have to take it to a Michelin dealer.
OK. No problem-o.
So I toddled off to the Michelin dealer, road hazard policy in one hand,
shredded tire in the other, metal plate in a third hand, and asked him to make
it right. He looked at the tire, looked at the plate, glanced at the policy,
scratched, pecked on his computer, then told me that I'd have to take it to the
Michelin distributor.
Fortunately, the Michelin distributor is just a few miles down the road from
where I live. So off I went with my road hazard policy, shredded tire and metal
plate in hand and asked him to fix it. He looked at the tire, looked at the
plate, glanced at the policy, and finally said that there was no way that the
plate had caused the damage. He then said that it looked like vandalism to him,
which wasn't covered by the policy. We discussed this for several minutes
(read: argued) and I finally left with my road hazard policy, shredded tire and
metal plate in hand, no better off than when I'd walked into the place.
I went to the Goodyear dealer the next day and had him replace the Michelins. I
later sold the remaining three tires in a yard sale.
I haven't bought a set of Michelins since, and never will. In fact, when my
wife bought a '00 Olds van, I had the dealer replace the Michelins that were on
it with whatever other brand he had in stock. We never had a tire problem with
that van.
Scotty
'99 TJ Sahara
'99 XJ Sport
'03 BMW Z4
*** This reply was processed using all-natural ingredients ***
"Cherokee-LTD" wrote
> Michelin is one brand I don't mind paying a premium for. I can't wait for my
> tires to wear out on my van so I can put Michelins on.
> -Brian
> "DougW" wrote
>> The Michelin LTX M/S tires are starting to get there.
>> P225-75R15
>> ( SNIP... )
>> Probably another 10,000 left but my driving style tends
>> to wear the outer edges. (it's not alignment, it's my
>> tendency to push corners) :/
>> DougW
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire suggestions
Here's my experience with Michelins:
I bought a new '89 Honda Accord for my wife in '89 and it came equipped with
Michelins. I took the road hazard policy for the tires with it. The guy who
closed the deal told me that if we had a tire problem that was other than
normal wear and tear, to just bring the tire in and they (the dealer) would
make it right.
The Michelins were leaky. I had to check the pressure constantly and pump them
up weekly. I took the car back to the dealer several times in about a six-month
period to have the tires checked for damage and, although they couldn't find
any leaks in the tires, they did find leaks in the beads, so they re-mounted
the tires twice during the course of my visits. And on one such visit they even
replaced two of the wheels, but to no avail; one of the tires was still leaky.
I decided to live with it and hoped that they would wear out soon.
In addition to this, the Michelins were lousy in the snow, even on a
front-wheel-drive car.
A few months later my wife was driving through a construction zone and had a
blowout. A 1/8"-thick metal plate with a 2"-long spur sticking out of it was
leaning against a curbing opposite an open trench in the zone. The flagman and
barricades forced her to swerve to the right to clear the workers and in doing
so she ran too close to the curb and against the metal plate. The spur sticking
out of the plate slashed the sidewall of her right-front tire. She called me
and I, wearing my shining armor, rode in on my white horse, changed her tire,
retrieved the plate, and saved her from certain peril.
OK. Nothing too unusual here; typical "road hazard" covered by the policy,
right? Keep reading...
So I took the tire to the dealer as instructed. I then showed him the tire,
showed him the road hazard policy, showed him the metal plate, and asked him to
make it better. After pecking on his computer for a few minutes, he said that
I'd have to take it to a Michelin dealer.
OK. No problem-o.
So I toddled off to the Michelin dealer, road hazard policy in one hand,
shredded tire in the other, metal plate in a third hand, and asked him to make
it right. He looked at the tire, looked at the plate, glanced at the policy,
scratched, pecked on his computer, then told me that I'd have to take it to the
Michelin distributor.
Fortunately, the Michelin distributor is just a few miles down the road from
where I live. So off I went with my road hazard policy, shredded tire and metal
plate in hand and asked him to fix it. He looked at the tire, looked at the
plate, glanced at the policy, and finally said that there was no way that the
plate had caused the damage. He then said that it looked like vandalism to him,
which wasn't covered by the policy. We discussed this for several minutes
(read: argued) and I finally left with my road hazard policy, shredded tire and
metal plate in hand, no better off than when I'd walked into the place.
I went to the Goodyear dealer the next day and had him replace the Michelins. I
later sold the remaining three tires in a yard sale.
I haven't bought a set of Michelins since, and never will. In fact, when my
wife bought a '00 Olds van, I had the dealer replace the Michelins that were on
it with whatever other brand he had in stock. We never had a tire problem with
that van.
Scotty
'99 TJ Sahara
'99 XJ Sport
'03 BMW Z4
*** This reply was processed using all-natural ingredients ***
"Cherokee-LTD" wrote
> Michelin is one brand I don't mind paying a premium for. I can't wait for my
> tires to wear out on my van so I can put Michelins on.
> -Brian
> "DougW" wrote
>> The Michelin LTX M/S tires are starting to get there.
>> P225-75R15
>> ( SNIP... )
>> Probably another 10,000 left but my driving style tends
>> to wear the outer edges. (it's not alignment, it's my
>> tendency to push corners) :/
>> DougW
I bought a new '89 Honda Accord for my wife in '89 and it came equipped with
Michelins. I took the road hazard policy for the tires with it. The guy who
closed the deal told me that if we had a tire problem that was other than
normal wear and tear, to just bring the tire in and they (the dealer) would
make it right.
The Michelins were leaky. I had to check the pressure constantly and pump them
up weekly. I took the car back to the dealer several times in about a six-month
period to have the tires checked for damage and, although they couldn't find
any leaks in the tires, they did find leaks in the beads, so they re-mounted
the tires twice during the course of my visits. And on one such visit they even
replaced two of the wheels, but to no avail; one of the tires was still leaky.
I decided to live with it and hoped that they would wear out soon.
In addition to this, the Michelins were lousy in the snow, even on a
front-wheel-drive car.
A few months later my wife was driving through a construction zone and had a
blowout. A 1/8"-thick metal plate with a 2"-long spur sticking out of it was
leaning against a curbing opposite an open trench in the zone. The flagman and
barricades forced her to swerve to the right to clear the workers and in doing
so she ran too close to the curb and against the metal plate. The spur sticking
out of the plate slashed the sidewall of her right-front tire. She called me
and I, wearing my shining armor, rode in on my white horse, changed her tire,
retrieved the plate, and saved her from certain peril.
OK. Nothing too unusual here; typical "road hazard" covered by the policy,
right? Keep reading...
So I took the tire to the dealer as instructed. I then showed him the tire,
showed him the road hazard policy, showed him the metal plate, and asked him to
make it better. After pecking on his computer for a few minutes, he said that
I'd have to take it to a Michelin dealer.
OK. No problem-o.
So I toddled off to the Michelin dealer, road hazard policy in one hand,
shredded tire in the other, metal plate in a third hand, and asked him to make
it right. He looked at the tire, looked at the plate, glanced at the policy,
scratched, pecked on his computer, then told me that I'd have to take it to the
Michelin distributor.
Fortunately, the Michelin distributor is just a few miles down the road from
where I live. So off I went with my road hazard policy, shredded tire and metal
plate in hand and asked him to fix it. He looked at the tire, looked at the
plate, glanced at the policy, and finally said that there was no way that the
plate had caused the damage. He then said that it looked like vandalism to him,
which wasn't covered by the policy. We discussed this for several minutes
(read: argued) and I finally left with my road hazard policy, shredded tire and
metal plate in hand, no better off than when I'd walked into the place.
I went to the Goodyear dealer the next day and had him replace the Michelins. I
later sold the remaining three tires in a yard sale.
I haven't bought a set of Michelins since, and never will. In fact, when my
wife bought a '00 Olds van, I had the dealer replace the Michelins that were on
it with whatever other brand he had in stock. We never had a tire problem with
that van.
Scotty
'99 TJ Sahara
'99 XJ Sport
'03 BMW Z4
*** This reply was processed using all-natural ingredients ***
"Cherokee-LTD" wrote
> Michelin is one brand I don't mind paying a premium for. I can't wait for my
> tires to wear out on my van so I can put Michelins on.
> -Brian
> "DougW" wrote
>> The Michelin LTX M/S tires are starting to get there.
>> P225-75R15
>> ( SNIP... )
>> Probably another 10,000 left but my driving style tends
>> to wear the outer edges. (it's not alignment, it's my
>> tendency to push corners) :/
>> DougW
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire suggestions
Here's my experience with Michelins:
I bought a new '89 Honda Accord for my wife in '89 and it came equipped with
Michelins. I took the road hazard policy for the tires with it. The guy who
closed the deal told me that if we had a tire problem that was other than
normal wear and tear, to just bring the tire in and they (the dealer) would
make it right.
The Michelins were leaky. I had to check the pressure constantly and pump them
up weekly. I took the car back to the dealer several times in about a six-month
period to have the tires checked for damage and, although they couldn't find
any leaks in the tires, they did find leaks in the beads, so they re-mounted
the tires twice during the course of my visits. And on one such visit they even
replaced two of the wheels, but to no avail; one of the tires was still leaky.
I decided to live with it and hoped that they would wear out soon.
In addition to this, the Michelins were lousy in the snow, even on a
front-wheel-drive car.
A few months later my wife was driving through a construction zone and had a
blowout. A 1/8"-thick metal plate with a 2"-long spur sticking out of it was
leaning against a curbing opposite an open trench in the zone. The flagman and
barricades forced her to swerve to the right to clear the workers and in doing
so she ran too close to the curb and against the metal plate. The spur sticking
out of the plate slashed the sidewall of her right-front tire. She called me
and I, wearing my shining armor, rode in on my white horse, changed her tire,
retrieved the plate, and saved her from certain peril.
OK. Nothing too unusual here; typical "road hazard" covered by the policy,
right? Keep reading...
So I took the tire to the dealer as instructed. I then showed him the tire,
showed him the road hazard policy, showed him the metal plate, and asked him to
make it better. After pecking on his computer for a few minutes, he said that
I'd have to take it to a Michelin dealer.
OK. No problem-o.
So I toddled off to the Michelin dealer, road hazard policy in one hand,
shredded tire in the other, metal plate in a third hand, and asked him to make
it right. He looked at the tire, looked at the plate, glanced at the policy,
scratched, pecked on his computer, then told me that I'd have to take it to the
Michelin distributor.
Fortunately, the Michelin distributor is just a few miles down the road from
where I live. So off I went with my road hazard policy, shredded tire and metal
plate in hand and asked him to fix it. He looked at the tire, looked at the
plate, glanced at the policy, and finally said that there was no way that the
plate had caused the damage. He then said that it looked like vandalism to him,
which wasn't covered by the policy. We discussed this for several minutes
(read: argued) and I finally left with my road hazard policy, shredded tire and
metal plate in hand, no better off than when I'd walked into the place.
I went to the Goodyear dealer the next day and had him replace the Michelins. I
later sold the remaining three tires in a yard sale.
I haven't bought a set of Michelins since, and never will. In fact, when my
wife bought a '00 Olds van, I had the dealer replace the Michelins that were on
it with whatever other brand he had in stock. We never had a tire problem with
that van.
Scotty
'99 TJ Sahara
'99 XJ Sport
'03 BMW Z4
*** This reply was processed using all-natural ingredients ***
"Cherokee-LTD" wrote
> Michelin is one brand I don't mind paying a premium for. I can't wait for my
> tires to wear out on my van so I can put Michelins on.
> -Brian
> "DougW" wrote
>> The Michelin LTX M/S tires are starting to get there.
>> P225-75R15
>> ( SNIP... )
>> Probably another 10,000 left but my driving style tends
>> to wear the outer edges. (it's not alignment, it's my
>> tendency to push corners) :/
>> DougW
I bought a new '89 Honda Accord for my wife in '89 and it came equipped with
Michelins. I took the road hazard policy for the tires with it. The guy who
closed the deal told me that if we had a tire problem that was other than
normal wear and tear, to just bring the tire in and they (the dealer) would
make it right.
The Michelins were leaky. I had to check the pressure constantly and pump them
up weekly. I took the car back to the dealer several times in about a six-month
period to have the tires checked for damage and, although they couldn't find
any leaks in the tires, they did find leaks in the beads, so they re-mounted
the tires twice during the course of my visits. And on one such visit they even
replaced two of the wheels, but to no avail; one of the tires was still leaky.
I decided to live with it and hoped that they would wear out soon.
In addition to this, the Michelins were lousy in the snow, even on a
front-wheel-drive car.
A few months later my wife was driving through a construction zone and had a
blowout. A 1/8"-thick metal plate with a 2"-long spur sticking out of it was
leaning against a curbing opposite an open trench in the zone. The flagman and
barricades forced her to swerve to the right to clear the workers and in doing
so she ran too close to the curb and against the metal plate. The spur sticking
out of the plate slashed the sidewall of her right-front tire. She called me
and I, wearing my shining armor, rode in on my white horse, changed her tire,
retrieved the plate, and saved her from certain peril.
OK. Nothing too unusual here; typical "road hazard" covered by the policy,
right? Keep reading...
So I took the tire to the dealer as instructed. I then showed him the tire,
showed him the road hazard policy, showed him the metal plate, and asked him to
make it better. After pecking on his computer for a few minutes, he said that
I'd have to take it to a Michelin dealer.
OK. No problem-o.
So I toddled off to the Michelin dealer, road hazard policy in one hand,
shredded tire in the other, metal plate in a third hand, and asked him to make
it right. He looked at the tire, looked at the plate, glanced at the policy,
scratched, pecked on his computer, then told me that I'd have to take it to the
Michelin distributor.
Fortunately, the Michelin distributor is just a few miles down the road from
where I live. So off I went with my road hazard policy, shredded tire and metal
plate in hand and asked him to fix it. He looked at the tire, looked at the
plate, glanced at the policy, and finally said that there was no way that the
plate had caused the damage. He then said that it looked like vandalism to him,
which wasn't covered by the policy. We discussed this for several minutes
(read: argued) and I finally left with my road hazard policy, shredded tire and
metal plate in hand, no better off than when I'd walked into the place.
I went to the Goodyear dealer the next day and had him replace the Michelins. I
later sold the remaining three tires in a yard sale.
I haven't bought a set of Michelins since, and never will. In fact, when my
wife bought a '00 Olds van, I had the dealer replace the Michelins that were on
it with whatever other brand he had in stock. We never had a tire problem with
that van.
Scotty
'99 TJ Sahara
'99 XJ Sport
'03 BMW Z4
*** This reply was processed using all-natural ingredients ***
"Cherokee-LTD" wrote
> Michelin is one brand I don't mind paying a premium for. I can't wait for my
> tires to wear out on my van so I can put Michelins on.
> -Brian
> "DougW" wrote
>> The Michelin LTX M/S tires are starting to get there.
>> P225-75R15
>> ( SNIP... )
>> Probably another 10,000 left but my driving style tends
>> to wear the outer edges. (it's not alignment, it's my
>> tendency to push corners) :/
>> DougW
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire suggestions
Hey Scotty, enjoyed reading that post and you should do something about that
third hand - must cost you a fortune in gloves.
The problems you described can't all be blamed on the tires.
First off, they're OEM tires... that's not a knock on Michelin, almost all
OEM tires are substandard.
The leaky wheel is a bead issue that they could have solved with bead
sealer. It's most frequent with aluminium rims but I've had my share of
leaky steel rims as well.
Bad in the snow... again, OEM issue. If you had your pick of the crop
amongst Michelins when you ordered your car, you would likely not have
chosen the ones it was equipped with. A friend of mine had a '91 Accord, not
sure if they were the same Michelins but it wasn't great in the snow either.
I do recall him putting on another set non-name brand tires and they were
even worse.
The road hazard issue would have likely destroyed any tire. I think I would
have approached the construction company for related costs.. water under the
bridge now. This is where you have a strong and valid point. This repair was
completely mis-handled but I'd let the car dealer off the hook for it. The
Michelin dealer should have honoured the claim and if they had any sense at
all, they would up-sell you into an alignment, oil change, free
inspection... whatever. If your claim was within warranty period they should
have jumped at the chance to win a new customer. Instead, they passed the
buck and in turn the distributor lost Michelin a customer.
In all honesty, if this tire was replaced within the parameters of the
warranty (i.e.. pro-rated for mileage) would you have considered replacing
the worn out tires with Michelins from the that tire shop? I think I would
have and I look forward to your reply.
-Brian
"Scotty" <gotcherpicher@aol.common> wrote in message
news:20040307093327.28509.00000842@mb-m29.aol.com...
: Here's my experience with Michelins:
<snip>
: I haven't bought a set of Michelins since, and never will. In fact, when
my
: wife bought a '00 Olds van, I had the dealer replace the Michelins that
were on
: it with whatever other brand he had in stock. We never had a tire problem
with
: that van.
:
: Scotty
:
:
:
:
:
:
third hand - must cost you a fortune in gloves.
The problems you described can't all be blamed on the tires.
First off, they're OEM tires... that's not a knock on Michelin, almost all
OEM tires are substandard.
The leaky wheel is a bead issue that they could have solved with bead
sealer. It's most frequent with aluminium rims but I've had my share of
leaky steel rims as well.
Bad in the snow... again, OEM issue. If you had your pick of the crop
amongst Michelins when you ordered your car, you would likely not have
chosen the ones it was equipped with. A friend of mine had a '91 Accord, not
sure if they were the same Michelins but it wasn't great in the snow either.
I do recall him putting on another set non-name brand tires and they were
even worse.
The road hazard issue would have likely destroyed any tire. I think I would
have approached the construction company for related costs.. water under the
bridge now. This is where you have a strong and valid point. This repair was
completely mis-handled but I'd let the car dealer off the hook for it. The
Michelin dealer should have honoured the claim and if they had any sense at
all, they would up-sell you into an alignment, oil change, free
inspection... whatever. If your claim was within warranty period they should
have jumped at the chance to win a new customer. Instead, they passed the
buck and in turn the distributor lost Michelin a customer.
In all honesty, if this tire was replaced within the parameters of the
warranty (i.e.. pro-rated for mileage) would you have considered replacing
the worn out tires with Michelins from the that tire shop? I think I would
have and I look forward to your reply.
-Brian
"Scotty" <gotcherpicher@aol.common> wrote in message
news:20040307093327.28509.00000842@mb-m29.aol.com...
: Here's my experience with Michelins:
<snip>
: I haven't bought a set of Michelins since, and never will. In fact, when
my
: wife bought a '00 Olds van, I had the dealer replace the Michelins that
were on
: it with whatever other brand he had in stock. We never had a tire problem
with
: that van.
:
: Scotty
:
:
:
:
:
:
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire suggestions
Hey Scotty, enjoyed reading that post and you should do something about that
third hand - must cost you a fortune in gloves.
The problems you described can't all be blamed on the tires.
First off, they're OEM tires... that's not a knock on Michelin, almost all
OEM tires are substandard.
The leaky wheel is a bead issue that they could have solved with bead
sealer. It's most frequent with aluminium rims but I've had my share of
leaky steel rims as well.
Bad in the snow... again, OEM issue. If you had your pick of the crop
amongst Michelins when you ordered your car, you would likely not have
chosen the ones it was equipped with. A friend of mine had a '91 Accord, not
sure if they were the same Michelins but it wasn't great in the snow either.
I do recall him putting on another set non-name brand tires and they were
even worse.
The road hazard issue would have likely destroyed any tire. I think I would
have approached the construction company for related costs.. water under the
bridge now. This is where you have a strong and valid point. This repair was
completely mis-handled but I'd let the car dealer off the hook for it. The
Michelin dealer should have honoured the claim and if they had any sense at
all, they would up-sell you into an alignment, oil change, free
inspection... whatever. If your claim was within warranty period they should
have jumped at the chance to win a new customer. Instead, they passed the
buck and in turn the distributor lost Michelin a customer.
In all honesty, if this tire was replaced within the parameters of the
warranty (i.e.. pro-rated for mileage) would you have considered replacing
the worn out tires with Michelins from the that tire shop? I think I would
have and I look forward to your reply.
-Brian
"Scotty" <gotcherpicher@aol.common> wrote in message
news:20040307093327.28509.00000842@mb-m29.aol.com...
: Here's my experience with Michelins:
<snip>
: I haven't bought a set of Michelins since, and never will. In fact, when
my
: wife bought a '00 Olds van, I had the dealer replace the Michelins that
were on
: it with whatever other brand he had in stock. We never had a tire problem
with
: that van.
:
: Scotty
:
:
:
:
:
:
third hand - must cost you a fortune in gloves.
The problems you described can't all be blamed on the tires.
First off, they're OEM tires... that's not a knock on Michelin, almost all
OEM tires are substandard.
The leaky wheel is a bead issue that they could have solved with bead
sealer. It's most frequent with aluminium rims but I've had my share of
leaky steel rims as well.
Bad in the snow... again, OEM issue. If you had your pick of the crop
amongst Michelins when you ordered your car, you would likely not have
chosen the ones it was equipped with. A friend of mine had a '91 Accord, not
sure if they were the same Michelins but it wasn't great in the snow either.
I do recall him putting on another set non-name brand tires and they were
even worse.
The road hazard issue would have likely destroyed any tire. I think I would
have approached the construction company for related costs.. water under the
bridge now. This is where you have a strong and valid point. This repair was
completely mis-handled but I'd let the car dealer off the hook for it. The
Michelin dealer should have honoured the claim and if they had any sense at
all, they would up-sell you into an alignment, oil change, free
inspection... whatever. If your claim was within warranty period they should
have jumped at the chance to win a new customer. Instead, they passed the
buck and in turn the distributor lost Michelin a customer.
In all honesty, if this tire was replaced within the parameters of the
warranty (i.e.. pro-rated for mileage) would you have considered replacing
the worn out tires with Michelins from the that tire shop? I think I would
have and I look forward to your reply.
-Brian
"Scotty" <gotcherpicher@aol.common> wrote in message
news:20040307093327.28509.00000842@mb-m29.aol.com...
: Here's my experience with Michelins:
<snip>
: I haven't bought a set of Michelins since, and never will. In fact, when
my
: wife bought a '00 Olds van, I had the dealer replace the Michelins that
were on
: it with whatever other brand he had in stock. We never had a tire problem
with
: that van.
:
: Scotty
:
:
:
:
:
:
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire suggestions
Hey Scotty, enjoyed reading that post and you should do something about that
third hand - must cost you a fortune in gloves.
The problems you described can't all be blamed on the tires.
First off, they're OEM tires... that's not a knock on Michelin, almost all
OEM tires are substandard.
The leaky wheel is a bead issue that they could have solved with bead
sealer. It's most frequent with aluminium rims but I've had my share of
leaky steel rims as well.
Bad in the snow... again, OEM issue. If you had your pick of the crop
amongst Michelins when you ordered your car, you would likely not have
chosen the ones it was equipped with. A friend of mine had a '91 Accord, not
sure if they were the same Michelins but it wasn't great in the snow either.
I do recall him putting on another set non-name brand tires and they were
even worse.
The road hazard issue would have likely destroyed any tire. I think I would
have approached the construction company for related costs.. water under the
bridge now. This is where you have a strong and valid point. This repair was
completely mis-handled but I'd let the car dealer off the hook for it. The
Michelin dealer should have honoured the claim and if they had any sense at
all, they would up-sell you into an alignment, oil change, free
inspection... whatever. If your claim was within warranty period they should
have jumped at the chance to win a new customer. Instead, they passed the
buck and in turn the distributor lost Michelin a customer.
In all honesty, if this tire was replaced within the parameters of the
warranty (i.e.. pro-rated for mileage) would you have considered replacing
the worn out tires with Michelins from the that tire shop? I think I would
have and I look forward to your reply.
-Brian
"Scotty" <gotcherpicher@aol.common> wrote in message
news:20040307093327.28509.00000842@mb-m29.aol.com...
: Here's my experience with Michelins:
<snip>
: I haven't bought a set of Michelins since, and never will. In fact, when
my
: wife bought a '00 Olds van, I had the dealer replace the Michelins that
were on
: it with whatever other brand he had in stock. We never had a tire problem
with
: that van.
:
: Scotty
:
:
:
:
:
:
third hand - must cost you a fortune in gloves.
The problems you described can't all be blamed on the tires.
First off, they're OEM tires... that's not a knock on Michelin, almost all
OEM tires are substandard.
The leaky wheel is a bead issue that they could have solved with bead
sealer. It's most frequent with aluminium rims but I've had my share of
leaky steel rims as well.
Bad in the snow... again, OEM issue. If you had your pick of the crop
amongst Michelins when you ordered your car, you would likely not have
chosen the ones it was equipped with. A friend of mine had a '91 Accord, not
sure if they were the same Michelins but it wasn't great in the snow either.
I do recall him putting on another set non-name brand tires and they were
even worse.
The road hazard issue would have likely destroyed any tire. I think I would
have approached the construction company for related costs.. water under the
bridge now. This is where you have a strong and valid point. This repair was
completely mis-handled but I'd let the car dealer off the hook for it. The
Michelin dealer should have honoured the claim and if they had any sense at
all, they would up-sell you into an alignment, oil change, free
inspection... whatever. If your claim was within warranty period they should
have jumped at the chance to win a new customer. Instead, they passed the
buck and in turn the distributor lost Michelin a customer.
In all honesty, if this tire was replaced within the parameters of the
warranty (i.e.. pro-rated for mileage) would you have considered replacing
the worn out tires with Michelins from the that tire shop? I think I would
have and I look forward to your reply.
-Brian
"Scotty" <gotcherpicher@aol.common> wrote in message
news:20040307093327.28509.00000842@mb-m29.aol.com...
: Here's my experience with Michelins:
<snip>
: I haven't bought a set of Michelins since, and never will. In fact, when
my
: wife bought a '00 Olds van, I had the dealer replace the Michelins that
were on
: it with whatever other brand he had in stock. We never had a tire problem
with
: that van.
:
: Scotty
:
:
:
:
:
:
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire suggestions
Hi Brian,
> Hey Scotty,
> enjoyed reading that post and you should do something about
> that third hand - must cost you a fortune in gloves.
LOL! Yep, and it's a great conversation piece, too. 8-)
> The problems you described can't all be blamed on the tires... <SNIP>
I'm fully aware of this, and was at the time. However, this is the reason we
have "road hazard" insurance. If the policy pays like it's supposed to and one
or the other of the parties involved aren't a**holes, then there's no need to
lay blame on the tires, the road, the insured or the dealer.
> First off, they're OEM tires... that's not a knock on Michelin, almost
> all OEM tires are substandard. The leaky wheel is a bead issue that
> they could have solved with bead sealer. It's most frequent with
> aluminium rims but I've had my share of leaky steel rims as well.
Yep. But nevertheless, it was a royal PITA.
> Bad in the snow... again, OEM issue. <SNIP>
I know, but Michelin didn't do themselves any favors by selling junk tires to
Honda to put on the car. This just contributed to the bad attitude I had toward
Michelin tires by the time she had the blowout.
> The road hazard issue would have likely destroyed any tire. I think I
> would have approached the construction company for related costs..
> water under the bridge now. This is where you have a strong and valid
> point. This repair was completely mis-handled but I'd let the car
> dealer off the hook for it.
All very true. But as I said above, there shouldn't have been a need to hold
anyone accountable; the insurance policy should have been honored without
question. I paid for the policy, not Michelin, and the insurance underwriter
would have accepted the liability, not Michelin. All Michelin had to do was put
a new tire on that rim and collect their cost from the insurance carrier. It
was right there in the paperwork I had in one of my three hands. <BG>
She was eight months' pregnant at the time of the blowout, so if I'd have said
anything to the construction guys it would've been to that flagman, and I
would've said, "Thanks for slowing her down." Those sappy Michelin TV ads that
express Michelin's phoney concern for children riding in cars equipped with
their tires make me want to puke to this day.
I harbored no ill feelings toward the car dealer, either. The only fault the
dealer had in any of this was that his closing guy explained that I should
bring a damaged tire back to him (the car dealer), which was wrong. He
should've told me to take it to a Michelin tire dealer from the git-go. This
part ot the story was simply a misunderstanding; I didn't know any better and
he didn't have his facts quite straight, but it was no big issue. Nope, the car
dealer acted in good faith the entire time and bent over backwards trying to
fix the problems we had with these tires throughout the whole miserable
rigamarole.
I didn't fault the Michelin dealer, either. I think that the guy I talked to
was just ignorant of how to handle a road hazard claim. I dunno...
A couple more things that I failed to mention in my original post (I'm sorry,
it's because I'm getting old and forgetful) is that the tires weren't wearing
evenly, either. They also vibrated at hiway speeds. Some of the trips to the
car dealer were for these type of problems. The dealer couldn't find any
problems with the front-end alignment, shocks, wheel balance, or steering. I
think the tires were out-of-round or maybe the belting was faulty. I guess he
could've offered to replace the tires, but that's really not his
responsibility.
I apologize for not explaining all these other details in my original reply,
but I thought it was getting long-winded (long-pixeled?) enough as it was. The
worst problems (that is, the greatest pains in the butt) with the tires were
that they leaked and had no traction in snow, whatsoever.
> In all honesty, if this tire was replaced within the parameters of the
> warranty (i.e.. pro-rated for mileage) would you have considered
> replacing the worn out tires with Michelins from the that tire shop? I
> think I would have and I look forward to your reply. -Brian
It's hard to say. I had a real bad attitude toward Michelins from all of the
problems we'd had by the time she had the blowout. What really took the taco
was the jerk at the distributorship. When he started arguing that it was
vandalism and not road damage right out ot the chute, I knew that it was his
word against mine and that it was a lose-lose situation. The really stupid part
that makes this such a pisser was that it was no skin off Michelin's nose at
all -- the insurance carrier would've accepted the liability, which is the
whole point of the policy. Road hazard coverage is an insurance policy, not a
warranty. If he'd just have been decent about it and honored the claim, I might
have pretty much forgotten about all those trips to go change a flat for her,
all the trips to the dealership, etc. And I probably would've had a better
attitude about Michelins in general. So yeah, maybe I would've considered
another set of their tires. I dunno.
But that's not the way it worked itself out. We had their tires less than a
year, and as it stands today, Michelin saved the insurance underwriter a couple
hundred bucks and lost a customer for life.
BTW, we kept that car for 8 more years and through two sets of Goodyears and
had no more tire problems with it.
Scotty
'99 TJ Sahara
'99 XJ Sport
'03 BMW Z4
*** WARNING: Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this reply ***
> Hey Scotty,
> enjoyed reading that post and you should do something about
> that third hand - must cost you a fortune in gloves.
LOL! Yep, and it's a great conversation piece, too. 8-)
> The problems you described can't all be blamed on the tires... <SNIP>
I'm fully aware of this, and was at the time. However, this is the reason we
have "road hazard" insurance. If the policy pays like it's supposed to and one
or the other of the parties involved aren't a**holes, then there's no need to
lay blame on the tires, the road, the insured or the dealer.
> First off, they're OEM tires... that's not a knock on Michelin, almost
> all OEM tires are substandard. The leaky wheel is a bead issue that
> they could have solved with bead sealer. It's most frequent with
> aluminium rims but I've had my share of leaky steel rims as well.
Yep. But nevertheless, it was a royal PITA.
> Bad in the snow... again, OEM issue. <SNIP>
I know, but Michelin didn't do themselves any favors by selling junk tires to
Honda to put on the car. This just contributed to the bad attitude I had toward
Michelin tires by the time she had the blowout.
> The road hazard issue would have likely destroyed any tire. I think I
> would have approached the construction company for related costs..
> water under the bridge now. This is where you have a strong and valid
> point. This repair was completely mis-handled but I'd let the car
> dealer off the hook for it.
All very true. But as I said above, there shouldn't have been a need to hold
anyone accountable; the insurance policy should have been honored without
question. I paid for the policy, not Michelin, and the insurance underwriter
would have accepted the liability, not Michelin. All Michelin had to do was put
a new tire on that rim and collect their cost from the insurance carrier. It
was right there in the paperwork I had in one of my three hands. <BG>
She was eight months' pregnant at the time of the blowout, so if I'd have said
anything to the construction guys it would've been to that flagman, and I
would've said, "Thanks for slowing her down." Those sappy Michelin TV ads that
express Michelin's phoney concern for children riding in cars equipped with
their tires make me want to puke to this day.
I harbored no ill feelings toward the car dealer, either. The only fault the
dealer had in any of this was that his closing guy explained that I should
bring a damaged tire back to him (the car dealer), which was wrong. He
should've told me to take it to a Michelin tire dealer from the git-go. This
part ot the story was simply a misunderstanding; I didn't know any better and
he didn't have his facts quite straight, but it was no big issue. Nope, the car
dealer acted in good faith the entire time and bent over backwards trying to
fix the problems we had with these tires throughout the whole miserable
rigamarole.
I didn't fault the Michelin dealer, either. I think that the guy I talked to
was just ignorant of how to handle a road hazard claim. I dunno...
A couple more things that I failed to mention in my original post (I'm sorry,
it's because I'm getting old and forgetful) is that the tires weren't wearing
evenly, either. They also vibrated at hiway speeds. Some of the trips to the
car dealer were for these type of problems. The dealer couldn't find any
problems with the front-end alignment, shocks, wheel balance, or steering. I
think the tires were out-of-round or maybe the belting was faulty. I guess he
could've offered to replace the tires, but that's really not his
responsibility.
I apologize for not explaining all these other details in my original reply,
but I thought it was getting long-winded (long-pixeled?) enough as it was. The
worst problems (that is, the greatest pains in the butt) with the tires were
that they leaked and had no traction in snow, whatsoever.
> In all honesty, if this tire was replaced within the parameters of the
> warranty (i.e.. pro-rated for mileage) would you have considered
> replacing the worn out tires with Michelins from the that tire shop? I
> think I would have and I look forward to your reply. -Brian
It's hard to say. I had a real bad attitude toward Michelins from all of the
problems we'd had by the time she had the blowout. What really took the taco
was the jerk at the distributorship. When he started arguing that it was
vandalism and not road damage right out ot the chute, I knew that it was his
word against mine and that it was a lose-lose situation. The really stupid part
that makes this such a pisser was that it was no skin off Michelin's nose at
all -- the insurance carrier would've accepted the liability, which is the
whole point of the policy. Road hazard coverage is an insurance policy, not a
warranty. If he'd just have been decent about it and honored the claim, I might
have pretty much forgotten about all those trips to go change a flat for her,
all the trips to the dealership, etc. And I probably would've had a better
attitude about Michelins in general. So yeah, maybe I would've considered
another set of their tires. I dunno.
But that's not the way it worked itself out. We had their tires less than a
year, and as it stands today, Michelin saved the insurance underwriter a couple
hundred bucks and lost a customer for life.
BTW, we kept that car for 8 more years and through two sets of Goodyears and
had no more tire problems with it.
Scotty
'99 TJ Sahara
'99 XJ Sport
'03 BMW Z4
*** WARNING: Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this reply ***
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire suggestions
Hi Brian,
> Hey Scotty,
> enjoyed reading that post and you should do something about
> that third hand - must cost you a fortune in gloves.
LOL! Yep, and it's a great conversation piece, too. 8-)
> The problems you described can't all be blamed on the tires... <SNIP>
I'm fully aware of this, and was at the time. However, this is the reason we
have "road hazard" insurance. If the policy pays like it's supposed to and one
or the other of the parties involved aren't a**holes, then there's no need to
lay blame on the tires, the road, the insured or the dealer.
> First off, they're OEM tires... that's not a knock on Michelin, almost
> all OEM tires are substandard. The leaky wheel is a bead issue that
> they could have solved with bead sealer. It's most frequent with
> aluminium rims but I've had my share of leaky steel rims as well.
Yep. But nevertheless, it was a royal PITA.
> Bad in the snow... again, OEM issue. <SNIP>
I know, but Michelin didn't do themselves any favors by selling junk tires to
Honda to put on the car. This just contributed to the bad attitude I had toward
Michelin tires by the time she had the blowout.
> The road hazard issue would have likely destroyed any tire. I think I
> would have approached the construction company for related costs..
> water under the bridge now. This is where you have a strong and valid
> point. This repair was completely mis-handled but I'd let the car
> dealer off the hook for it.
All very true. But as I said above, there shouldn't have been a need to hold
anyone accountable; the insurance policy should have been honored without
question. I paid for the policy, not Michelin, and the insurance underwriter
would have accepted the liability, not Michelin. All Michelin had to do was put
a new tire on that rim and collect their cost from the insurance carrier. It
was right there in the paperwork I had in one of my three hands. <BG>
She was eight months' pregnant at the time of the blowout, so if I'd have said
anything to the construction guys it would've been to that flagman, and I
would've said, "Thanks for slowing her down." Those sappy Michelin TV ads that
express Michelin's phoney concern for children riding in cars equipped with
their tires make me want to puke to this day.
I harbored no ill feelings toward the car dealer, either. The only fault the
dealer had in any of this was that his closing guy explained that I should
bring a damaged tire back to him (the car dealer), which was wrong. He
should've told me to take it to a Michelin tire dealer from the git-go. This
part ot the story was simply a misunderstanding; I didn't know any better and
he didn't have his facts quite straight, but it was no big issue. Nope, the car
dealer acted in good faith the entire time and bent over backwards trying to
fix the problems we had with these tires throughout the whole miserable
rigamarole.
I didn't fault the Michelin dealer, either. I think that the guy I talked to
was just ignorant of how to handle a road hazard claim. I dunno...
A couple more things that I failed to mention in my original post (I'm sorry,
it's because I'm getting old and forgetful) is that the tires weren't wearing
evenly, either. They also vibrated at hiway speeds. Some of the trips to the
car dealer were for these type of problems. The dealer couldn't find any
problems with the front-end alignment, shocks, wheel balance, or steering. I
think the tires were out-of-round or maybe the belting was faulty. I guess he
could've offered to replace the tires, but that's really not his
responsibility.
I apologize for not explaining all these other details in my original reply,
but I thought it was getting long-winded (long-pixeled?) enough as it was. The
worst problems (that is, the greatest pains in the butt) with the tires were
that they leaked and had no traction in snow, whatsoever.
> In all honesty, if this tire was replaced within the parameters of the
> warranty (i.e.. pro-rated for mileage) would you have considered
> replacing the worn out tires with Michelins from the that tire shop? I
> think I would have and I look forward to your reply. -Brian
It's hard to say. I had a real bad attitude toward Michelins from all of the
problems we'd had by the time she had the blowout. What really took the taco
was the jerk at the distributorship. When he started arguing that it was
vandalism and not road damage right out ot the chute, I knew that it was his
word against mine and that it was a lose-lose situation. The really stupid part
that makes this such a pisser was that it was no skin off Michelin's nose at
all -- the insurance carrier would've accepted the liability, which is the
whole point of the policy. Road hazard coverage is an insurance policy, not a
warranty. If he'd just have been decent about it and honored the claim, I might
have pretty much forgotten about all those trips to go change a flat for her,
all the trips to the dealership, etc. And I probably would've had a better
attitude about Michelins in general. So yeah, maybe I would've considered
another set of their tires. I dunno.
But that's not the way it worked itself out. We had their tires less than a
year, and as it stands today, Michelin saved the insurance underwriter a couple
hundred bucks and lost a customer for life.
BTW, we kept that car for 8 more years and through two sets of Goodyears and
had no more tire problems with it.
Scotty
'99 TJ Sahara
'99 XJ Sport
'03 BMW Z4
*** WARNING: Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this reply ***
> Hey Scotty,
> enjoyed reading that post and you should do something about
> that third hand - must cost you a fortune in gloves.
LOL! Yep, and it's a great conversation piece, too. 8-)
> The problems you described can't all be blamed on the tires... <SNIP>
I'm fully aware of this, and was at the time. However, this is the reason we
have "road hazard" insurance. If the policy pays like it's supposed to and one
or the other of the parties involved aren't a**holes, then there's no need to
lay blame on the tires, the road, the insured or the dealer.
> First off, they're OEM tires... that's not a knock on Michelin, almost
> all OEM tires are substandard. The leaky wheel is a bead issue that
> they could have solved with bead sealer. It's most frequent with
> aluminium rims but I've had my share of leaky steel rims as well.
Yep. But nevertheless, it was a royal PITA.
> Bad in the snow... again, OEM issue. <SNIP>
I know, but Michelin didn't do themselves any favors by selling junk tires to
Honda to put on the car. This just contributed to the bad attitude I had toward
Michelin tires by the time she had the blowout.
> The road hazard issue would have likely destroyed any tire. I think I
> would have approached the construction company for related costs..
> water under the bridge now. This is where you have a strong and valid
> point. This repair was completely mis-handled but I'd let the car
> dealer off the hook for it.
All very true. But as I said above, there shouldn't have been a need to hold
anyone accountable; the insurance policy should have been honored without
question. I paid for the policy, not Michelin, and the insurance underwriter
would have accepted the liability, not Michelin. All Michelin had to do was put
a new tire on that rim and collect their cost from the insurance carrier. It
was right there in the paperwork I had in one of my three hands. <BG>
She was eight months' pregnant at the time of the blowout, so if I'd have said
anything to the construction guys it would've been to that flagman, and I
would've said, "Thanks for slowing her down." Those sappy Michelin TV ads that
express Michelin's phoney concern for children riding in cars equipped with
their tires make me want to puke to this day.
I harbored no ill feelings toward the car dealer, either. The only fault the
dealer had in any of this was that his closing guy explained that I should
bring a damaged tire back to him (the car dealer), which was wrong. He
should've told me to take it to a Michelin tire dealer from the git-go. This
part ot the story was simply a misunderstanding; I didn't know any better and
he didn't have his facts quite straight, but it was no big issue. Nope, the car
dealer acted in good faith the entire time and bent over backwards trying to
fix the problems we had with these tires throughout the whole miserable
rigamarole.
I didn't fault the Michelin dealer, either. I think that the guy I talked to
was just ignorant of how to handle a road hazard claim. I dunno...
A couple more things that I failed to mention in my original post (I'm sorry,
it's because I'm getting old and forgetful) is that the tires weren't wearing
evenly, either. They also vibrated at hiway speeds. Some of the trips to the
car dealer were for these type of problems. The dealer couldn't find any
problems with the front-end alignment, shocks, wheel balance, or steering. I
think the tires were out-of-round or maybe the belting was faulty. I guess he
could've offered to replace the tires, but that's really not his
responsibility.
I apologize for not explaining all these other details in my original reply,
but I thought it was getting long-winded (long-pixeled?) enough as it was. The
worst problems (that is, the greatest pains in the butt) with the tires were
that they leaked and had no traction in snow, whatsoever.
> In all honesty, if this tire was replaced within the parameters of the
> warranty (i.e.. pro-rated for mileage) would you have considered
> replacing the worn out tires with Michelins from the that tire shop? I
> think I would have and I look forward to your reply. -Brian
It's hard to say. I had a real bad attitude toward Michelins from all of the
problems we'd had by the time she had the blowout. What really took the taco
was the jerk at the distributorship. When he started arguing that it was
vandalism and not road damage right out ot the chute, I knew that it was his
word against mine and that it was a lose-lose situation. The really stupid part
that makes this such a pisser was that it was no skin off Michelin's nose at
all -- the insurance carrier would've accepted the liability, which is the
whole point of the policy. Road hazard coverage is an insurance policy, not a
warranty. If he'd just have been decent about it and honored the claim, I might
have pretty much forgotten about all those trips to go change a flat for her,
all the trips to the dealership, etc. And I probably would've had a better
attitude about Michelins in general. So yeah, maybe I would've considered
another set of their tires. I dunno.
But that's not the way it worked itself out. We had their tires less than a
year, and as it stands today, Michelin saved the insurance underwriter a couple
hundred bucks and lost a customer for life.
BTW, we kept that car for 8 more years and through two sets of Goodyears and
had no more tire problems with it.
Scotty
'99 TJ Sahara
'99 XJ Sport
'03 BMW Z4
*** WARNING: Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this reply ***
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire suggestions
Hi Brian,
> Hey Scotty,
> enjoyed reading that post and you should do something about
> that third hand - must cost you a fortune in gloves.
LOL! Yep, and it's a great conversation piece, too. 8-)
> The problems you described can't all be blamed on the tires... <SNIP>
I'm fully aware of this, and was at the time. However, this is the reason we
have "road hazard" insurance. If the policy pays like it's supposed to and one
or the other of the parties involved aren't a**holes, then there's no need to
lay blame on the tires, the road, the insured or the dealer.
> First off, they're OEM tires... that's not a knock on Michelin, almost
> all OEM tires are substandard. The leaky wheel is a bead issue that
> they could have solved with bead sealer. It's most frequent with
> aluminium rims but I've had my share of leaky steel rims as well.
Yep. But nevertheless, it was a royal PITA.
> Bad in the snow... again, OEM issue. <SNIP>
I know, but Michelin didn't do themselves any favors by selling junk tires to
Honda to put on the car. This just contributed to the bad attitude I had toward
Michelin tires by the time she had the blowout.
> The road hazard issue would have likely destroyed any tire. I think I
> would have approached the construction company for related costs..
> water under the bridge now. This is where you have a strong and valid
> point. This repair was completely mis-handled but I'd let the car
> dealer off the hook for it.
All very true. But as I said above, there shouldn't have been a need to hold
anyone accountable; the insurance policy should have been honored without
question. I paid for the policy, not Michelin, and the insurance underwriter
would have accepted the liability, not Michelin. All Michelin had to do was put
a new tire on that rim and collect their cost from the insurance carrier. It
was right there in the paperwork I had in one of my three hands. <BG>
She was eight months' pregnant at the time of the blowout, so if I'd have said
anything to the construction guys it would've been to that flagman, and I
would've said, "Thanks for slowing her down." Those sappy Michelin TV ads that
express Michelin's phoney concern for children riding in cars equipped with
their tires make me want to puke to this day.
I harbored no ill feelings toward the car dealer, either. The only fault the
dealer had in any of this was that his closing guy explained that I should
bring a damaged tire back to him (the car dealer), which was wrong. He
should've told me to take it to a Michelin tire dealer from the git-go. This
part ot the story was simply a misunderstanding; I didn't know any better and
he didn't have his facts quite straight, but it was no big issue. Nope, the car
dealer acted in good faith the entire time and bent over backwards trying to
fix the problems we had with these tires throughout the whole miserable
rigamarole.
I didn't fault the Michelin dealer, either. I think that the guy I talked to
was just ignorant of how to handle a road hazard claim. I dunno...
A couple more things that I failed to mention in my original post (I'm sorry,
it's because I'm getting old and forgetful) is that the tires weren't wearing
evenly, either. They also vibrated at hiway speeds. Some of the trips to the
car dealer were for these type of problems. The dealer couldn't find any
problems with the front-end alignment, shocks, wheel balance, or steering. I
think the tires were out-of-round or maybe the belting was faulty. I guess he
could've offered to replace the tires, but that's really not his
responsibility.
I apologize for not explaining all these other details in my original reply,
but I thought it was getting long-winded (long-pixeled?) enough as it was. The
worst problems (that is, the greatest pains in the butt) with the tires were
that they leaked and had no traction in snow, whatsoever.
> In all honesty, if this tire was replaced within the parameters of the
> warranty (i.e.. pro-rated for mileage) would you have considered
> replacing the worn out tires with Michelins from the that tire shop? I
> think I would have and I look forward to your reply. -Brian
It's hard to say. I had a real bad attitude toward Michelins from all of the
problems we'd had by the time she had the blowout. What really took the taco
was the jerk at the distributorship. When he started arguing that it was
vandalism and not road damage right out ot the chute, I knew that it was his
word against mine and that it was a lose-lose situation. The really stupid part
that makes this such a pisser was that it was no skin off Michelin's nose at
all -- the insurance carrier would've accepted the liability, which is the
whole point of the policy. Road hazard coverage is an insurance policy, not a
warranty. If he'd just have been decent about it and honored the claim, I might
have pretty much forgotten about all those trips to go change a flat for her,
all the trips to the dealership, etc. And I probably would've had a better
attitude about Michelins in general. So yeah, maybe I would've considered
another set of their tires. I dunno.
But that's not the way it worked itself out. We had their tires less than a
year, and as it stands today, Michelin saved the insurance underwriter a couple
hundred bucks and lost a customer for life.
BTW, we kept that car for 8 more years and through two sets of Goodyears and
had no more tire problems with it.
Scotty
'99 TJ Sahara
'99 XJ Sport
'03 BMW Z4
*** WARNING: Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this reply ***
> Hey Scotty,
> enjoyed reading that post and you should do something about
> that third hand - must cost you a fortune in gloves.
LOL! Yep, and it's a great conversation piece, too. 8-)
> The problems you described can't all be blamed on the tires... <SNIP>
I'm fully aware of this, and was at the time. However, this is the reason we
have "road hazard" insurance. If the policy pays like it's supposed to and one
or the other of the parties involved aren't a**holes, then there's no need to
lay blame on the tires, the road, the insured or the dealer.
> First off, they're OEM tires... that's not a knock on Michelin, almost
> all OEM tires are substandard. The leaky wheel is a bead issue that
> they could have solved with bead sealer. It's most frequent with
> aluminium rims but I've had my share of leaky steel rims as well.
Yep. But nevertheless, it was a royal PITA.
> Bad in the snow... again, OEM issue. <SNIP>
I know, but Michelin didn't do themselves any favors by selling junk tires to
Honda to put on the car. This just contributed to the bad attitude I had toward
Michelin tires by the time she had the blowout.
> The road hazard issue would have likely destroyed any tire. I think I
> would have approached the construction company for related costs..
> water under the bridge now. This is where you have a strong and valid
> point. This repair was completely mis-handled but I'd let the car
> dealer off the hook for it.
All very true. But as I said above, there shouldn't have been a need to hold
anyone accountable; the insurance policy should have been honored without
question. I paid for the policy, not Michelin, and the insurance underwriter
would have accepted the liability, not Michelin. All Michelin had to do was put
a new tire on that rim and collect their cost from the insurance carrier. It
was right there in the paperwork I had in one of my three hands. <BG>
She was eight months' pregnant at the time of the blowout, so if I'd have said
anything to the construction guys it would've been to that flagman, and I
would've said, "Thanks for slowing her down." Those sappy Michelin TV ads that
express Michelin's phoney concern for children riding in cars equipped with
their tires make me want to puke to this day.
I harbored no ill feelings toward the car dealer, either. The only fault the
dealer had in any of this was that his closing guy explained that I should
bring a damaged tire back to him (the car dealer), which was wrong. He
should've told me to take it to a Michelin tire dealer from the git-go. This
part ot the story was simply a misunderstanding; I didn't know any better and
he didn't have his facts quite straight, but it was no big issue. Nope, the car
dealer acted in good faith the entire time and bent over backwards trying to
fix the problems we had with these tires throughout the whole miserable
rigamarole.
I didn't fault the Michelin dealer, either. I think that the guy I talked to
was just ignorant of how to handle a road hazard claim. I dunno...
A couple more things that I failed to mention in my original post (I'm sorry,
it's because I'm getting old and forgetful) is that the tires weren't wearing
evenly, either. They also vibrated at hiway speeds. Some of the trips to the
car dealer were for these type of problems. The dealer couldn't find any
problems with the front-end alignment, shocks, wheel balance, or steering. I
think the tires were out-of-round or maybe the belting was faulty. I guess he
could've offered to replace the tires, but that's really not his
responsibility.
I apologize for not explaining all these other details in my original reply,
but I thought it was getting long-winded (long-pixeled?) enough as it was. The
worst problems (that is, the greatest pains in the butt) with the tires were
that they leaked and had no traction in snow, whatsoever.
> In all honesty, if this tire was replaced within the parameters of the
> warranty (i.e.. pro-rated for mileage) would you have considered
> replacing the worn out tires with Michelins from the that tire shop? I
> think I would have and I look forward to your reply. -Brian
It's hard to say. I had a real bad attitude toward Michelins from all of the
problems we'd had by the time she had the blowout. What really took the taco
was the jerk at the distributorship. When he started arguing that it was
vandalism and not road damage right out ot the chute, I knew that it was his
word against mine and that it was a lose-lose situation. The really stupid part
that makes this such a pisser was that it was no skin off Michelin's nose at
all -- the insurance carrier would've accepted the liability, which is the
whole point of the policy. Road hazard coverage is an insurance policy, not a
warranty. If he'd just have been decent about it and honored the claim, I might
have pretty much forgotten about all those trips to go change a flat for her,
all the trips to the dealership, etc. And I probably would've had a better
attitude about Michelins in general. So yeah, maybe I would've considered
another set of their tires. I dunno.
But that's not the way it worked itself out. We had their tires less than a
year, and as it stands today, Michelin saved the insurance underwriter a couple
hundred bucks and lost a customer for life.
BTW, we kept that car for 8 more years and through two sets of Goodyears and
had no more tire problems with it.
Scotty
'99 TJ Sahara
'99 XJ Sport
'03 BMW Z4
*** WARNING: Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this reply ***
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
S_A_W
Standard Auto Wreckers
0
05-29-2014 09:59 AM
Tripp Knightly
Jeep Mailing List
0
05-16-2004 03:35 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)