If the tires are worn down to the wear bars before the mileage warranty, they will offer you new tires for (actualMiles/warrantyMiles)*(current cost of tire) + mounting and disposal.

Come back when the wear bars are flush to claim your warranty.

 

Instead of going on a forum why not ask Costco why your measurements does not match there's ? Or you could even have another tire shop measure and see what they measure.

 

why not use your canned response of "have you tried using a google search" like all your other replies? why do you ask rhetorical questions to every question? why are you even on here? :rofl:

 

I've never understood how a manufacture can warrant a tire. The wear and tear on the tire is a lot of times dependent on the environment and application. For example, if I bought the same shoes as someone else, I'm sure we'll both wear that out differently in a set amount of miles. I never get anywhere near the thread-wear on the tires but thats because how I drive and how my car is.

But yes, you might need to consult on their way they measure their tires. Even have a third party license shop measure.

 

the link appears to be an analog gauge. and even with my digital one, depending on how level you hold it against the tire, which tire you measure (RF will be less than LR) and which of 2,3, or 4 rain grooves you decide to use (inside grooves will be different than outside grooves), and whether or not the tires are inflated properly or hot or cold (not driven more than 1 mile), you could easily have a 1mm error or more.
after all, the only gauge that really matters is the one at the tire shop that warrants the tires.
tony

 

The warranty expires at the wear bars. So that's the most accurate measurement. There's no way they'll look at the tread down to the wear bars and then claim the gauge told otherwise.

As mentioned, you can take the gauge back and compare with theirs. One of them is wrong.

 

OK, Thanks. I shall wait then. It is just a bit scary to drive near wear bar. It is doable here at SF Bay Area b/c there is no rain from May to October. In other places with rain/snow year round, this is simply not feasible. I guess tire makers can save a lot of money this way. I paid top dollars for these tires and seeing them gone so quickly is not great. (Two have about 29k, two have about 21k miles. I have put the better pair on the front for a while and stopped rotation.)

 

Is the alignment correct? I've always been able to get about the advertised mileage out of Michelins from Costco, although the older rubber formulations there tend to be dry rot cracks on the side wall. I hope Michelin fixed it.

 

I have the exact problem. The side wall has lots of hairline cracks. This happened to 2 sets of Primacy and 1 set of Latitude Tour HP. All of them are top of the line tires in their segments. Quite disappointed with Michelin here.

I did an alignment 1 year before these tires were put on. Maybe alignment has changed? I am not sure. The tread wear looks okay. Of course, I am not sure this can be used as proof of good alignment as of now.

 

If tread wear is ok and Costco didn't complain, then you should be good.

As suggested, you might want to check out General Altimax.

 

There is something else. Costco's worker told me that any promotion is not available if tires are not bought with full regular price. Costco's best deal is $70 off a set of 4, plus free installation (about $60 value). This is roughly 1 free tire when you buy 3 for Michelin of this size. 25% off. If tread is 10/32 new and gone at 2/32. 25% of that is also 2/32. It seems that obtaining the warranty is roughly a wash with losing regular promotion. The system is set up to help tire makers. I probably will just stop right here. Thanks for all you guys' help!

 

QQ,

I grew up in the East Bay Area through the 50's, 60's and a early 70's when roads were, for the most part, extremely smooth and well maintained. Potholes were filled immediately and re-paving or oiling was pretty constant. I recently visited family there and was amazed at how roads have deteriorated. That may be playing a part in your tire wear.

When measuring tread depth, you should always measure at multiple points inside and outside the tire around the entire circumference. You can use the shallowest measurement but as others have mentioned, tires aren't considered worn out until the wear bars are even with the tread.

Cheers

 

Yeah, the roads here are super crappy. It seems they are designed by car suspension shops and tire stores. Here in the past few years, sales tax increased from 8% to 10%. Some places even try to break this psychological ceiling to 11%. Home price doubled, so property tax must increased a lot too. But the roads are getting worse and worse. Schools are getting worse and worse b/c high quality teachers moved somewhere else due to high living cost. The only thing increasing is crime. Sooner or later, this place is going down.

 

Best tires should be on the back for safety.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

Ideally you should have good tires on all four, but that is difficult if your trying to even out the wear.

The back will always not wear as fast as front (align exceptions). Tires would need to be rotated on schedule or when the front are noticeably more worn than rear to even out the wear and maximize the life of the tires. As long as the tires are not past wear bars (legal limit) or the OP understands the reduce traction on the slightly worn rear tires (rotated from front), he should be fine.

 

From "Popular Mechanics"

"2. When*replacing only two tires, the new ones go on the front.

The truth: Rear tires provide stability, and without stability, steering or braking on a wet or even damp surface might cause a spin. If you have new tires up front, they will easily disperse water while the half-worn rears will go surfing: The water will literally lift the worn rear tires off the road. If you're in a slight corner or on a crowned road, the car will spin out so fast you won't be able to say, "Oh, fudge!"

There is no "even if" to this one. Whether you own a front-, rear- or all-wheel-drive car, truck, or SUV, the tires with the most tread go on the rear. Don't believe it?*Watch this."



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

From "Popular Mechanics"

"2. When*replacing only two tires, the new ones go on the front.

The truth: Rear tires provide stability, and without stability, steering or braking on a wet or even damp surface might cause a spin. If you have new tires up front, they will easily disperse water while the half-worn rears will go surfing: The water will literally lift the worn rear tires off the road. If you're in a slight corner or on a crowned road, the car will spin out so fast you won't be able to say, "Oh, fudge!"

There is no "even if" to this one. Whether you own a front-, rear- or all-wheel-drive car, truck, or SUV, the tires with the most tread go on the rear. Don't believe it?*Watch this.

The only problem I have with that advice is that it's usually given with zero allowance for slight differences. If that rule was applied strictly, one would never rotate tires after putting a new set on a front wheel drive vehicle. Because after only a few thousand miles, if measured carefully, the front tires are guaranteed to have less tread than the rear tires. It might be only a 1/32" difference, or even less. But the front tires *will* have less tread.

Nearly shot tires go on the front, and new on the rear?... Yep, no argument.

 

That article doesn't answer my question, which I'll admit was not very clear. How much of a difference in tread depth must there be for the rule to be applied? The article says, rather vaguely:

However, if the front tires have significantly more tread depth than the rear tires, the rear tires will begin to hydroplane and lose traction on wet roads before the fronts. This will cause the vehicle to oversteer (the vehicle will want to spin).

My question is simply; how much is "significantly"?

My experience from a while ago: My Avy had tires on it that were at about 75% tread depth. I did some front end work and spaced off doing an alignment. A short time later, I noticed the two front tires had exposed steel belts showing on the inside edge. So I went to get two new matching tires installed at Sam's Club. The tire guy told me the new tires had to go on the back or I had to sign a release to put 'em on the front. Even though the older two tires were at 75%. I did not want to have the new tires on the rear, because:

A) It would never make sense to rotate the tires. The fronts would always have less tread, and rotating them would break "the rule".
B) With no tire rotations, the fronts would go bald long before the rears (again), and I'd be stuck in the same boat, unless I decided to replace all 4 at the same time, and throw away a partially used pair of tires.

 

Thanks. I know these arguments perfectly well. But remember I live in SF Bay Area where there is NO RAIN from May to October. So I am perfectly fine with fatter tires on the front. In November, I am going to throw them away and put on alloy wheels with a set of almost new tires. No worries here. Thanks.

 

I've done similiar when I was younger, dumber & couldn't afford more.:wink: Beware of "almost new tires". Regardless of how much tread, check sidewall for DOT "when made". Ex: michelins warr. goes by...miles or time..which ever comes first. Maybe other tire mfgs same?
If tires have or develop sidewall cracks, its a no brainer to replace asap. Dont ask me how I know. :wink:
Anyhow, hopefully u make right decision.

 

Age of the tire is a bit important. Take note above.

Tires from 2011 might start showing signs of dry rot if the car is always in the sun. My mom's tires from 2013 was getting dry rot a bit but still very decent treads. My mom got new tires and gave the old tires to my friend which has been going good the last year or so.

 

For the sake of my curiosity, I finally found the time to verify the accuracy of my tread depth gauge. I found a new Scion FR-S on the dealer's lot. The tire is Michelin Primacy HP 215/45R17 87W SL. According to Tire Rack, the tread depth for brand new tires should be 9.5/32. I put my Amazon tire gauge into the middle groove and held my breath. Lo and behold, the reading was right at 8/32. Guess the Costco guy was honest with me. Sorry for second guessing him.

I started to examine my tread gauge carefully. I put it on a flat surface and the reading is not 0! (But from 0 to 32, the distance is exactly 1 inch.) So gauge is totally crap. But its deficiency can be easily compensated. Just add 1.5 to the reading! Also we cannot take tire age very seriously. The tires on the new car in the dealer lot were made in 4515. They are already 1.5 years old!

 

Sounds like your tire gauge was meant to read from the wear indicator, not the absolute depth. Tires need at least 2/32 thread to displace water, and 4/32 to be any good in the snow. Also, less thread makes the tire easier to puncture. Bold tires cannot displace water and will easily hydroplane, making them extremely dangerous. Most states require 2/32 thread minimum to pass vehicle inspection. The tabs in the grooves on your tires are 2/32 to indicate that tire needs changing when worn to those indicators. I've also read somewhere that those indicators make the tire noisy when worn to give the driver an audible hint, but I don't know if it's true. In dry, bold tires are even better for performance - that's why race cars run slicks without any grooves. They will pit and change to rain tires with grooves in the wet though, and that's not something you can do on the street.