Outside edge of front tires stairstepping

To make any significant difference to your particular issue, you would possibly need to go beyond that range.

Have a look at SAI (Steering Axis Inclination) as well. SAI and caster angles usually increases the positive camber angle of the inside tire and decreases positive camber angle of the outside tire during a turn though this will depend on the steering system employed. This is a designed in effect that you can easily and inadvertently affect when playing around with other angles.

Unless you have a really good understanding of steering geometry, you are playing around in the dark.

Just because a tire meats the minimum specifications does not mean it is the best tool for the job. Some conditions require more.

My wife's car can happily exist on $100 tires. She rarely goes on the highway, never drives in snow, rarely goes more than a few miles at a time. OTOH, I drive some weeks 2000 miles. speeds sometimes in triple digits, on hills in the snow, on highways in the heat. Do you think the $100 tire is going to perform as well as a Nokian WR3G? It is about double the price but can keep you safer in severe condition.

I don't buy on price and minimum specs, I buy on the performance that I need.

A cheap screwdriver can drive the occasional screw, but if you do it often you'll find the more expensive ones fit your hand better and thus work better. Meantime, enjoy your hamburger. I'm having a steak.

Interesting that you mention that. yes, there is always a range. yet you mention that your tires meet the minimum specifications of the auto manufacturer so they are good enough. Tires come in a rather wide range of specs and characteristics and in your particular situation, you can do better with other than minimum.

Outside of specialty tires, they are a commodity.

Now you are talking logic!

I buy on value. I never buy on price.

Hence it's a given that my tires are better than the OEM tires.

Better speed rating. Better load carrying capacity. Better traction. Better treadwear. Quieter tread (less aggressive than OEM since I don't go off road).

Knowing how manufacture's aim for economies of scale, I am sure my tires cost more than the OEM tires did, but I don't aim for price.

I aim for logical value.

I am well read enough to know that steering geometry gets complex fast because everything affects everything else.

The manufacturer understood the steering geometry. The manufacturer understood the tires.

I start with their spec and stay within range.

For example, on tires, the OEM spec is considered, by most people I've talked to anyway, as a MINIMUM spec. For example, the speed rating (S) is a minimum spec. If I get an H-rated tire, that's "likely" to be a better tire than that spec'd by the manufacturer (other things taken into account).

The load range, as I recall, is 102, so, likewise, if I get a load range of

105, I'm getting a "tougher" tire (yes, I know it simply means the weight it can carry reliably - but there's a manufacturing aspect to the sidewall to allow it to carry that weight).

To your point of exceeding the range specified by the manufacturer, if I go to a Z speed rating or a 125 (or whatever) load range, then the compromises start to take their toll.

Same with alignment.

Everything depends on the numbers but lets say, for the best argument, that I'm on the high end of the positive camber range, and on the high end of the positive toe range.

It probably would be a "logical" thing to ask the alignment shop to consider putting the camber and toe at the lower end of the positive range if my main goal was to reduce the feathering that occurs on steep slow downhill corners.

Does that logic make sense (to a point that isn't carried to the extreme)?

What you're saying is true but what you're also saying is, essentially, nothing.

It's like me saying that just because an alignment meets minimum specifications does not mean it's the best alignment for the job.

There's no substance, no meat in those rhetorical sentences. They're both just rhetoric.

Nothing wrong with rhetoric. But there's no meaningful information in it that wasn't already agreed upon before the two sentences were uttered.

I realize you think that tires can be measured by dollars, but I must respectfully disagree.

I'm sure I'm not the only person with marketing degrees here where the express purpose of the millions of dollars spent on marketing every month is to make people make exactly the kinds of decisions you seem to be making.

Hence, I can't fault you for making your buying decisions based on price but I can only suggest that you use logical reasoning in that we both know that I can find, for any spec you want to ask about, different tires that meet that spec at a different price for each tire, all of which meet the spec.

Price is meaningless in terms of specs. Facts are everything.

The great thing about marketing is that very few people understand anything I said above, so they fall for every marketing trick in the book. And that's great because it makes them waste lots of money.

I had one professor who devoted an entire lecture to outlining how a typical consumer wastes more than half her disposable income because she is unduly influenced by marketing alone.

Why not get her a less expensive set of tires which are far better than the ones she has now and then use the remaining disposable income to buy her flowers?

She gets better tires, and flowers!

I'm never going to be able to give you a degree in economic theory, nor in marketing, nor even in logic.

If you actually think that price is a reliable indicator of quality, then I'm never going to change your mind. Never. It's actually great (for marketing people) that you think that way because you are so easily manipulated.

For example, do you ever wonder why the Google Pixel was priced *exactly* the same as the iPhone it wanted to compete with? Think about the beauty in that very simple marketing decision, and then contrast that with Google's previous price strategy.

A favorite expression of one of my professors was:

• Marketing is genius.

• People who fall for it are not.

I buy on value. All I use is logic and effort.

To buy on price only takes the absolute minimum of logic but no effort. To buy on value takes far more logic and far more effort.

Take this simple logic, for example:

• You can buy Craftsman screwdrivers individually, or,

• You can buy a whole set of them for a lower unit price.

The price per screwdriver could be twice as much for the individual screwdriver than for the set. Assuming you need a set (which is a decent assumption, and adjusting the unit price to remove the couple of crapware items they include in the numbers), you can easily have a unit cost for the set to be about half the unit cost individually.

This is called economies of scale (not scope - which was my bad).

At twice the cost per screwdriver, how is buying screwdrivers individually going to get you a better screwdriver than buying them as a set?

HINT: Commodities are different than specialty items.

I only buy Craftsman screwdrivers. The ones with the red and blue colors on the clear plastic handle and with that little ball on top. That's because I found they seem to work the best for me and I can replace them if I abuse them (because they're not going to wear out unless I abuse them).

I don't buy the yellow and black handled screwdrivers you see everywhere, and I don't buy SnapOn screwdrivers either.

I buy Craftsman quality, and the round-top quality inside of Craftsman. And I buy them, on sale, and as a set (if I need a set that is).

I also give them as gifts to kids who buy their first car (I actually give them an entire toolbag which I assemble separately for them to put in the trunk).

Since we are talking about screwdrivers, they periodically go on sale (Father's day is a good one to aim for), and I can schedule gifts easily.

Why do you insist that if I pay double for the screwdriver, I get a better screwdriver than if I pay half?

Your argument makes no logical sense to me.

Maybe it makes sense to you and to others to pay twice as much for the same thing, thinking it's "better" somehow, just because you paid twice as much for it?

This makes logical sense that the industry might not benefit from having a $25 alignment check only.

In a way, one could argue that it's like having an appointment to the doctor where they only checked your eyes for the need for glasses and nothing else.

Again this is logical. An hour could easily be $100 shop rate.

I never disagreed that it's best to have the alignment checked. I only pointed out the "opportunity cost" was an entire mounted tire.

Cost of alignment check = cost of 1 mounted tire

The logic is so inescapable that I was surprised people had trouble with that math, since it's simple logical math that they teach you in school all the time ("opportunity cost") although the "true cost" is what I need to calculate, not just the upfront cost.

Yes. I know. I talk to them while they're aligning my vehicle and I ask what they're doing. Sometimes they kick me out behind the yellow line but other times they let me walk around with them.

This is a good point in that it's the standard cost of maintaining a car just like rotating the tires and changing the oil is.

I just wish it didn't cost as much as the thing it's trying to save! I think the price point is set too high - but you've made a point that it's an hour and an hour costs what an hour costs. Period.

Trust in the mechanic is also important. I agree.

I changed the inner and outer tie rod ends in my crappy Dodge truck, being careful to compare the parts and counting treads. I thought I did pretty go od and had my mechanic adjust the toe-in. He said it was it was about an in ch off. The truck tracks beautifully now. He did a most wonderful job.

For you. But OP is waiting for someone to agree with him that $200 for a new pair of tires every couple of months is a better value than a $100 alignment.

There is no lower priced tire that would give me the performance I need. Easy logical decision. If there was, I'd buy it. The tire was bought based on performance, not name brand or anything else.

I know a guy that started a company that made the clear plastic packing tape we see on most packages. He tried selling it for less than half the price of the name brands. Could not sell it. He raised the price to be 5% less and the sales started coming in. After a few yers he sold the company and retired.

I think we are saying the same thing. I buy on performance I need. No matter the price, it is not a good value if it does not do the job. A

28 foot ladder is $300. I can get a ladder that will take the same wight, works just as well and is only $120. Better value? not if it is 20 feet and does not reach my roof.

Hint: If I only need a #2 Phillips for $5, it is a waste to buy a set of 10 screwdrivers that will never be used for $10. Unless I can sell what I won't use.

You changed the argument. If you are only going to use a screwdriver one in your life for one screw, it makes no sense to buy a set on sale at Father's day for gifts. I want to drive that screw today.

Never said that. I buy what I need or buy what I want. Sometimes what I want does not come in other prices and models. I make the decision, yes or no based on desire and wallet.

I am quite aware of exactly what you're saying, so I welcome that you are a logical thinker when you say that passenger car tires are a commodity.

To the manufacturer, passenger tires are commodities (almost certainly). To most consumers, passenger tires "should" be a commodity too! :)

I knew that would come up so you may note that I crafted the sentences when I was talking about commodities to indicate that the buyer decides whether something is a commodity (to them) or not.

I used the example of propane gas since it's one of the definitions of a commodity (as are pork bellies) but to any one person, if the marketing organization can convince them that their propane is better than someone else's propane, or that their pork bellies are somehow better, then they can charge more, which is really the name of the game.

So, yes, tires are a commodity. But if I said that here, they'd kill me.

Based on the logical and sound advice given here? Nobody who was logical suggested the problem was the tires themselves.

Sure, they suggested higher air pressure, but that's not the tires. They suggested a smaller width, but I'm already at OEM width (225mm) where they were assuming 245 and larger widths. Some suggested thicker sidewalls which I already have with a greater load range (I actually think the OEM load range is 99, but I'd have to check but I already have a higher load range). They suggested slower downhill cornering, but that's not the tires' fault. They suggested less +camber & less +toe, but that's not the tire's either. They suggested more frequent rotation, but that's not a tire's fault. And they suggested better treadwear, but 380 isn't a terrible rating.

So to your point, nobody logical suggested the fault was the tires.

I bought the best value at the time for my tires.

Could I get better value now? Maybe.

Everything depends on the value of the current options, where tire prices change by large percentages between models (but not overall).

What I mean by that is that any individual model may change in price (up or down) in any given month of the year, but some other tire model will also change in price (up or down) in that same given month so I have to look at value at any given time, where the only time that matters is when I need tires (since you can't stock them easily like you can commodities like propane which don't degrade over time and which fit innocuously in a 1000 gallon tank).

If I get a better value with economies of scale by stocking tires with low inventory costs, I would consider that but it's just frankly not possible to stock tires for a typical homeowner with low inventory costs, given the length of time and space required.

So I make the value decision and do all the research when I need tires.

I understand that you said that you always buy the "loaded" car, which in marketing terms of "good/better/best" L/XL/GXL means you buy the most expensive object.

I also know that we are taught to take the same object and to then differentiate it so that we can coax the most amount of money from people like you, and, better yet, we get compensated greatly for accomplishing that simple goal.

We don't put any effort into the "L" "good" model. We put a lot of effort to extract more money for the "XL" better model. But we put the most effort into gaining customers like you seem to be.

Why? Because "GXL" is where the company makes the most money per item.

I think you want to hear what you want to hear. I never said even once that I buy products on the minimum spec unless they are commodities.

A commodity, by definition, is only ruled by price.

Neither of us considers a tire a commodity, so now we must buy on value. If we buy on value, we have to compare performance with cost.

To compare performance of a tire is a difficult thing because you might have an "in" at Bridgestone where you can get the manufacturer's tests for their tires but you won't at the same time have an "in" at Cooper to get the same comparison information.

So what do you have to compare tires? Lots.

• You have the specs that the manufacturer specified

• You have the specs on the current tires to improve upon if you want

• You have reviews of tires on the net (of varying degrees of usefulness)

• You have forums such as this ng to ask questions

For you to say I buy only the minimum spec is for you to deprecate what I have been saying about making a logical decision based on value.

I realize I said economies of "scale" when I meant economies of "scope".

The marketing genius in the L/XL/GXL lineup is that you get everyone if you break your product into three fundamental "good/better/best" ranges (where the idea is to gouge as much money as you can from the consumer).

What you do is offer the item which does the job at the "L" level. Then you add a few nice-to-haves at a good price markup for the "XL level. Then you throw in highly marketed costly items for the "GXL" level.

Most marketing is aimed to get people to jump to the GXL level, while most consumers will resist the extremely high price, but they don't want the "cheap stuff" which is why you have to have a "good/better/best" range.

They "think" they're getting a good value by going for the "better" because they don't want to "think" much when they buy. They just want to associate dollars to quality, so you make that association for them with the good/better/best L/XL/GXL pricing tier.

You can't make the L-to-XL pricing jump too high, but you can get away with making the XL-to-GXL price jump very high (because you're playing on consumer emotions).

Everyone wins when you market it right.

• the cost-conscious consumer thinks they got good product at a good price.

• the value-conscious consumer thinks they got a better value at not too much of a bump in price

• the status-conscious consumer pays through the nose for status and gets it if the marketing department can maintain the status feelings

• the company makes out because they sold essentially the same product to three different types of customers, making the most profit on the third type but still making profits on the first and second type due to economies of scale (volume) and economies of scope (differentiation).

• the marketing department wins awards and bonuses for increasing the perceived value of the GXL "best" model, even though it's essentially the same item as the other two (only it has special options and gold trim and free coffee and free car washings, or whatever makes people feel good).

You don't do maintenance to save your tires. You do maintenance to save your life.

Maybe you have a tie rod going bad. Maybe you have a steering knuckle wearing out. Probably not, but unless you check it, you don't know. And if you do have a front end problem, the only symptom you may have is odd tire wear. So you check it out.

You check the front end because the consequences of front end failure on a twisty road are very, very bad and may well involve your head becoming separated from the rest of your body as your vehicle rolls down the side of the mountain.

Tire life? Who cares. Tires are cheap, passengers are expensive.

--scott

ing careful to compare the parts and counting treads. I thought I did prett y good and had my mechanic adjust the toe-in. He said it was it was about a n inch off. The truck tracks beautifully now. He did a most wonderful job.

Looking for complex solutions for the simplest of problems is a good way to kill time and burn cash. Persons looking to do both should just pick up a hobby - like collecting stuffed unicorns.

A $100 tire is NOT a high quality tire. PERIOD. Yes, it MAY meet the legal requirements, but it is, as you are finding, a 4000 to 8000 mile tire, at best, on your vehicle on those roads. What year is your 4 Runner that it comes with 225 series tires - and what aspect ratio and what diameter?

There is a range that is acceptable, but a car can be "within spec" in EVERY measurement and still handle like a cow on skates, wear tires like a bugger, and generally be a handfull on the road. This is why I said a GOOD alignment tech can tell you if your alignment is a problem

- and a good alignment tech WILL test drive the car both before and after alignment. There is a certain combination of caster and camber lead that will give the required stability and steering feel as well as the best tire wear, and combined with that there is a PROPER amount of toe-in or toe out that will provide the lowest rolling resistance and the best tire wear. Knowing that comes with a LOT of experience, and an excellent understanding of the angles and forces involved. Sometimes getting the camber or caster lead that is IDEAL is not possible, so compensating with the other angle can be used to make the car run straight down the road. A car will pull to the side of the most negative camber, or the most positive caster. So if the caster and camber ar within spec but at the maximum neg cater and pos camber on one side, and reverse on the other, it will want to do circles around itself going down the road - as an example.

That is all you get for $100 from the majority of "tire specialist" shops and "big box" tire stores. As for "checking" alignment, that's all you need. The machine will tell you very accurately and simply and quickly what your alignment is set to, and if it is within spec. This does not take an expert. A reasonably intelligent highschool graduate can be trained to operate a sophisticated alignment rack in a matter of hours - days at most, of all you need to do is CHECK alignment.

Determining if the alignment is the best it can be, and making the required adjustments to solve particular problems - THAT takes sxpertise!!!!

A 4 wheel alignment is still required forsome issues on that 4 runner

- checking to make sure the vehicle is tracking properly etc. You can read all you like about alignment and still not understand all the ramifications. To check the suspension on a 2 wheel drive 4 runner after it is driven onto the rack is less than a 15 minute job. Setting up the rack and doing an alignment check for a 2 wheel alignment can take as little as another 15 minutes.

We had a "scuff guage" that would tell me as I drove a vehicle into the shop if the toe-in was out far enough to cause tire wear in less than 15 seconds.

That said, my STRONG suspicion is you have a combination of the wrong tires and the wrong pressures - the front end of a 4 runner is HELLISHLY STOUT!!! You have to mistreat it pretty badly to throw it out of alignment, and at your mileage there should not be much wear. Like I've said NUMEROUS times - AIR UP - and see what happens.

You have still not told me what year your runner is and what size or type of tire you have other than it is a 225 width. What aspect ratio, what diameter, what make (brand) and model tire?

- what kind of tread?

Tell me what you have and I'll tell you if it is a tire application issue - and pretty much tell you what pressure setings you should be using.