Hi everyone, I posted last week about replacing tires on a 2000 Civic with 43k miles that appeared to have adequate tread left but were looking a little old with some "dry rot". The front tires look somewhat worn (less tread, more sidewall wrinkling than the rears) but the rears cosmetically look good (good tread, little wrinkling). Anyhow, at everyone's advice I asked a few different places for their advice and here are the results:
- Local tire/brake/alignment shop (nice guys but seemed a little like hustlers):
new tires." He took out a tread depth gauge and said, "new tires come with TWELVE/32 tread. On the front you only have FIVE. On the back you only have SIX. IT IS TIME FOR NEW TIRES." I asked him what a cheaper set is, and he said Falkens. He said "I will give them to you for $46 each and install for free." Bottom line was $279 for 4 installed out the door.
- Town Fair Tire (very polite) Employee looked at the tires, said there's adequate tread on them, so technically still ok to use. When I asked him about "dry rot" he said it is there, but he can't quantitate how much a risk for tire failure that is. His suggestion was to replace the front tires but keep using the rears because they still have a lot of tread. He noted, correctly, that the edges of the front tires are disproportionately worn, the outer edges more than the inner edges. He said perhaps an alignment would help. So, his suggestion was to replace 2 front tires and get a
- Costco tire (very polite) I always get good service here; of note, the tire center employees are on flat salary without commission, and are getting slammed with work lately because Costco has a tire sale going on right now. The employee looked at the tires, said the tread is ok, but he sees deterioration ("dry rot/cracking") in all the tires. He said probably best to replace all 4 tires. I asked if it's wasteful to replace the rears since they have so much tread left, and he said that it should be ok to replace them since the condition of the rubber isn't great ("dry rot"). I asked him about whether he thought the outer edges of the front tires being disproportionately worn means the alignment's bad too. He said maybe, but that since the inner edges are also pretty worn, though less so, maybe the tires were just underinflated for much of their life (my wife did drive on 22PSI for a while before I met her, so maybe). With Costco's current sale (I don't know how often they go on sale) it is 3 out the door (including lifetime balancing, rotation, road hazard warranty) for a set of 4 BF Goodrich "Premier Touring" tires, which is a subtype I think made just for Costco.
- NTB, National Tire and Battery (very polite) Employee said the tires still had acceptable tread, but the fronts don't have much tread, so he would suggest replacing the front pair at the minimum, and probably replacing the rear tires too to save time, since they likely would need replacement in a year. He said the tires don't look that bad right now though, so he'd recommend just having them done sometime in the springtime (we are in Boston, it is freezing right now). Quoted about 0 out the door for a cheap set. I asked him if the car needs an alignment, he said that based on the tire wear patterns, if the alignment's off, it's minor, but he'd recommend it anyways for about more.
--Maybe I should just get the set of 4 from Costco right now, as they are probably reasonable quality tires and the do have good service (lifetime rotation/road hazard warranty, etc) included. I think Town Fair Tire includes these services in their price while NTB charges extra. I am not sure what my local shop that quotes $279 for 4 Falkens installed includes in their price-- I didn't feel comfortable there so didn't inquire further. My sense is also that if in 44k miles the non-rotated front tires are not too asymmetrically worn, that I can probably hold off on an alignment right now.
What do you all think? John