New tire purchase/ old DOT dates

[llademan]

I am new to RV world and just purchased a 2005 Monaco Dynasty that needed new tires 295/80R/22.5   Hard to find.  I priced local companies and found Firestones at $700 vs most shops at $900.

I didn't think to check manufacture date and now see that dates are from 2016 and 2017. I called tire company and they said I shouldn't  be concerned. Should I insist on 2019 manufacture date? Any comments are greatly appreciated.

[wolfe10]

llademan

Welcome to the FMCA Forum.

In a word, YES.

You will be replacing them based on time, not wear.

 

[richard5933]

I certainly would. They sold you tires already a third of the way through their life. At the very least they should have consulted you and asked your approval before mounting tires that old. I'd look for tires with a date no older than 6 months if possible.

[manholt]

Yep!  The younger, the better, just like a battery!  My tires all 8 are 7/2014, they where put on 8/14 and I'll be getting new ones between 8/2020 to 4/2021...no tread ware, peace of mind...I have alreaady started to look for cracks (spider web) in sidewall.  

What make tires did you have, before the change?  

[hermanmullins]

 

 

3 hours ago, manholt said:

I have already started to look for cracks (spider web) in sidewall.  

 

Good advice. I have one thing to add. While checking the side walls don't forget to look between the treads. I have found, at times, found good side walls with bad cracking between the treads.

Herman 

[tireman9]

Did you ask when the warranty clock started ticking? It might be based on date of sale which means you definitely want to keep the receipt as proof.

 

Was it a bad deal?    You saved 22% which is about 1/5 of the price.    If you assume 10 year life max then if you get 8 years use you got a reasonable deal.

 

Do the rest of you agree with my analysis?

 

[elkhartjim]

I don't go 8-10 years on my vehicle tires and would never go that long on a Class A Diesel Pusher.

In my opinion, the original poster purchased tires that have a useful life of 3-4 years, therefore it was a terrible financial deal. 

[wildebill308]

23 hours ago, tireman9 said:

Did you ask when the warranty clock started ticking? It might be based on date of sale which means you definitely want to keep the receipt as proof.

 

Was it a bad deal?    You saved 22% which is about 1/5 of the price.    If you assume 10 year life max then if you get 8 years use you got a reasonable deal.

 

Do the rest of you agree with my analysis?

 

Well in a word no. I don't understand " You saved 22% which is about 1/5 of the price." Does this mean if someone quote $1200 ea and he didn't buy from them he saved more? Probably the only way to compare cost is  to break it down to cost per year of service. It looks to me as he has lost a couple of years of service which would increase his cost per year.

You also throw out this statement. "If you assume 10 year life max then if you get 8 years use you got a reasonable deal."

Yes, Michelin says the absolute maximum life is 10 years. However they also say starting at 7 years the tire must be broken down and inspected on the inside by a qualified inspector. That isn't a small cost. Quick survey found a cost of $60.00 ea That was $50.00 for the dismounting mounting and $10. 00 to balance. So $60.00 X  6 = $360. X the 3 years left to the 10 MAX  is $1080.00. That would buy me 2 new tires and there is NO tire company out there saying they will pay for the damage a blowout would cause to your RV. If there is please get us the information.

It is to bad the OP didn't know about or use the FMCA program as he could have saved more and had a better experience.

Bill

 

 

 

[manholt]

Good deal/Bad deal?  Horrible!  Somewhere, I'm not an "Expert", I read, that ALL tire manufacturers went by the 7 year rule, no matter if it's on a car/bus/OTR!  The reason being that you may not see any  tread ware, but the inside of the tire, could be & in all probability is a mess, ready to blow!  

Never go by mileage on a coach!  For me it's DOT + 6 years, max! 

[elkhartjim]

The following information is copied from the Michelin Tire website.

1- Keep five years in mind

After five years or more in use, your tires should be thoroughly inspected at least once per year by a professional.

2- Ten years is a maximum

If the tires haven't been replaced 10 years after their date of manufacture, as a precaution, Michelin recommends replacing them with new tires. Even if they appear to be in usable condition and have not worn down to the tread wear indicator.
This applies to spare tires as well.

 

This brings up another question that Tireman has also recommended, have the tires thoroughly inspected at least once per year by a professional. I've never seen a tire shop that employees someone I would trust as a professional tire inspector.

 

[richard5933]

1 hour ago, elkhartjim said:

This brings up another question that Tireman has also recommended, have the tires thoroughly inspected at least once per year by a professional. I've never seen a tire shop that employees someone I would trust as a professional tire inspector

I'm scheduled to take my coach to a commercial tire dealer in town next week just for this purpose. The tires all look great to me, but they're 8 years old. I'm open to replacing them, but cash is tight. Hopefully a pair of new tires on the front is all I'll need, and I'm hoping that being stored indoors for the majority of their life the tires in the rear can last one more season.

I 'interviewed' a couple of shops in town until I found this one - I didn't feel comfortable taking it to the first two shops since it sounded like they just wanted to sell me tires and nothing more. The third shop had a manager that seemed to know his stuff and was more interested in earning a long-term customer than a one-time sale.

I'll report back how things go and what I think of the inspection process.

[elkhartjim]

BTW....even though the original poster hasn't been back to post, I apologize the thread took a turn after tiremans post asking for our agreement on his financial analysis and running tires for 10 years. 

[manholt]

Ditto...Got my Vote! 

[tireman9]

9 hours ago, WILDEBILL308 said:

Well in a word no. I don't understand " You saved 22% which is about 1/5 of the price." Does this mean if someone quote $1200 ea and he didn't buy from them he saved more? Probably the only way to compare cost is  to break it down to cost per year of service. It looks to me as he has lost a couple of years of service which would increase his cost per year.

You also throw out this statement. "If you assume 10 year life max then if you get 8 years use you got a reasonable deal."

Yes, Michelin says the absolute maximum life is 10 years. However they also say starting at 7 years the tire must be broken down and inspected on the inside by a qualified inspector. That isn't a small cost. Quick survey found a cost of $60.00 ea That was $50.00 for the dismounting mounting and $10. 00 to balance. So $60.00 X  6 = $360. X the 3 years left to the 10 MAX  is $1080.00. That would buy me 2 new tires and there is NO tire company out there saying they will pay for the damage a blowout would cause to your RV. If there is please get us the information.

It is to bad the OP didn't know about or use the FMCA program as he could have saved more and had a better experience.

Bill

 

 

 

I believe it is reasonable to do the 7 year inspection after 7 years of use. 

I thought I did look at the cost per year. The OP could have paid $900 for newer tires and after 7 years paid the $1080 for 3 more years and then need new tires for a total cost $648 a year   ($900 x6 + $1080)/10  

or

Spend the $700 per tire and after 7 years needed new tires. Cost per year ($700 x 6)/7 = $600 a year

If we set aside the hassle what if you were offered 6 tires at $200 ea but knew you could only use them for  3 years then had to scrap them  ($200x6)/ 3  = $400 a year cost.

 

or am I missing something?

 

 

 

[wildebill308]

46 minutes ago, tireman9 said:

or am I missing something?

Well yes you are. First please explain how this statement is relevant. "The OP could have paid $900 for newer tires" Paying more will not guarantee newer tires, you have to request newer date codes. Trying to use fake inflated numbers to make your argument sound better is pretty disingenuous.

It is to bad the OP didn't know about the FMCA tire program he could have gotten newer date codes (by requiring them) and bought Continentals for $547.27ea.

You still haven't told me who is going to cover the cost of a blow out on my coach if I follow your advice that 10 years is ok. Strange I can't find any qualified tire expert who says going past 7 years on a RV is acceptable risk.

Bill

[elkhartjim]

Michelin specifically states to begin inspecting tires after five years. Of course Michelin has been the tire manufacturer with most of the zipper blowout issues.

 

[manholt]

We all know that Michelin is the most expensive tire!  Does that mean that all others, are inferior?  Think not.  Someone has to pay for the advertisement...guess who?

Same with click here, or there...advertisers pay for each click!

[richard5933]

7 hours ago, WILDEBILL308 said:

...Strange I can't find any qualified tire expert who says going past 7 years on a RV is acceptable risk...

Bill

The differences between the answers on this forum (and in the RV world in general) as compared to other places I've asked this question are astounding.

In the course of maintaining my coach I regularly talk with a few men who have been in the bus industry for decades, including a few who have had responsibility for maintaining fleets in the past. They are all involved with bus conversions now which are used for recreational use. While in the RV world the prevailing wisdom is to replace tires at 7 years or before based primarily on age, many of these bus guys seem to be more inclined to keep a set of tires till the ten year point, IF they pass their pre-trip inspection and show no signs of problems (as well as annual inspections after a certain time).

One of the bus 'gurus' was actually surprised I was considering replacing my tires - his answer was get them properly inspected and carry on if they pass.

My observation is that many of the tires marketed towards the RV buyer are simply not up to the task as well as some other tires out there. They may provide a softer ride, but this is done at the expense of shorter life. Michelin tires seem to be more prone to sidewall cracking than many other brands - so much so that they even talk about it in their owners' literature. Worries me that a company has to specify how much cracking is acceptable.

The other thing I see in many RVs is the use of tires with marginal weight load capacity. Running any system at or near its capacity is not a good idea, even more so with tires. The added stress doesn't add to the life of the tire, that's for certain.

My preference is to make decisions based on facts. One of the facts I'd love to find is this - Of all the RV tire failures in recent years, how many were due to age alone vs. how many were due to tires which were damaged by some other factor such as being run low on air, being used over loaded, physical damage to tires, etc.?

 

[manholt]

In your neck of the woods, I would suspect chemical interaction failure...on all vehicle tires! What I would like to see, is a chart of Bias Ply vs Radial Ply, in bus application!  Did the pre 1980's Bias, give you a longer life than current Radial? 

[rayin]

On 4/18/2019 at 11:46 AM, WILDEBILL308 said:

Well in a word no. I don't understand " You saved 22% which is about 1/5 of the price." Does this mean if someone quote $1200 ea and he didn't buy from them he saved more? Probably the only way to compare cost is  to break it down to cost per year of service. It looks to me as he has lost a couple of years of service which would increase his cost per year.

You also throw out this statement. "If you assume 10 year life max then if you get 8 years use you got a reasonable deal."

Yes, Michelin says the absolute maximum life is 10 years. However they also say starting at 7 years the tire must be broken down and inspected on the inside by a qualified inspector. That isn't a small cost. Quick survey found a cost of $60.00 ea That was $50.00 for the dismounting mounting and $10. 00 to balance. So $60.00 X  6 = $360. X the 3 years left to the 10 MAX  is $1080.00. That would buy me 2 new tires and there is NO tire company out there saying they will pay for the damage a blowout would cause to your RV. If there is please get us the information.

It is to bad the OP didn't know about or use the FMCA program as he could have saved more and had a better experience.

Bill

 

 

 

Actually Michelin says annual de-mounted inspection should begin at 5 yrs of age. https://www.michelintruck.com/assets/pdf/bulletins/TB_Service_Life_RV_Tires.pdf That increases your total amount by 2 yrs of costs.

I have read posts that told of a tire company paying for RV repairs due to tire failure, but we both know about believing everything we read on the internet_.

[manholt]

It's happened, by court order, to both Goodyear and Michelin!  On cars, it was Firestone 500 & Goodyear! 

[richard5933]

1 hour ago, manholt said:

On cars, it was Firestone 500 & Goodyear! 

I remember those Firestone 500 tires well! My family was driving on an elevated section of Rt 22 into NYC when it sounded like an explosion took place under the car. It was one of the tires blowing itself apart and putting holes through the fender of the car. I don't think my father ever bought Firestones again after that.

[wildebill308]

18 hours ago, richard5933 said:

I don't think my father ever bought Firestones again after that.

I don't think I would either.

Bill

[manholt]

Firestone made 2 bad mistakes...500 was one of them!  Liberia, was the other!  Any company, that will back a Dictator, will get no $$ from me! 

[wildebill308]

9 hours ago, manholt said:

Firestone made 2 bad mistakes...500 was one of them!  Liberia, was the other!  Any company, that will back a Dictator, will get no $$ from me! 

Absolutely. I think I remember reading that it was Ford who had a big hand in the problem by running the tire way soft for a better ride. Perhaps our resident tire expert can enlighten us as he was probably working in the industry back then.

Bill