Possibly the worst OEM tires I've ever owned

[slacktide_bitog]

OE tires usually suck

Even when an OE tire shares the same name with something you'd buy from Tire Rack, Walmart, or your local tire shop, they are not the same.

The OE tires are mainly designed to be cheap and maybe slightly better mpg.

 

[SZR48207]

Originally Posted by GSCJR
That's why they're called Goodyear. They're only good for one year.



LOL

 

[MrMoody]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I'm actually tempted to replace them, despite them having less than 20,000Km on them at this juncture.

If it was me, I would. I can't stand tires with poor wet traction, to me it's like a ticking time bomb. I pull them off before they hit the wear bars for the same reason.

Something a lot of people don't know is that the UTQG Traction letter rating actually represents wet traction, not dry.

 

[Danno]

Question is: What will you get to replace them?

Some thoughts:

Continental TerrainContact A/T
Contiental CrossContact LX25
Pirelli Scorpion Verde All Season Plus II - I have the OE version on my JGC, pretty impressed so far, low noise, good grip, handle well. I've hit some serious standing water with these and the Jeep didn't flinch. So much, that the water came over the hood. It was raining so hard I didn't see the deeper water.

 

[Rand]

Originally Posted by Danno
Question is: What will you get to replace them?


Since its Overkill I'm guessing Michelin Defender LTX M/S

 

[GSCJR]

with ya Reddy45.

 

[wdn]

I had Kumho KH16 tires on my 2010 Elantra. They were not terrible but they were at 3/32" and needed to be replaced at 33,000 miles. For a set of tires on a brand new car that is not a lot. The car has Michelin Defenders on it now that 42,000 miles after they were installed, are about half used up. The car has 75K on it now. The Kumho were never safe during the winter though, they were terrible in snow. My son drive it now and commutes 150 miles a day.

 

[Skippy722]

Originally Posted by Tjbouwhu
Have have several "worst" OEM tires over the years, Goodyear Wrangler SRA's being one of them...currently replacing a set of Bridgestone Ecopia H/L 422Plus (before winter) with only 22k miles on them.


I HATED those Ecopia's. Okay when dry, not very good when dry, even worse in snow.

 

[CKN]

Originally Posted by Rand
Originally Posted by Danno
Question is: What will you get to replace them?


Since its Overkill I'm guessing Michelin Defender LTX M/S



Yep-those will dry rot before they wear out!

 

[edyvw]

ANY Bridgestone RFT. Good performance wise, but no any road manners at all compared to other RFT's.
Bridgestone Turanza ER300. Excellent tire once when it warms up. But it needs 20 minutes of HWY driving to warm up.
Got on CC (it was CPO) Kumho Ecsta LTX or something like that. I genuinely thought that tires are trying to kill me in rain.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Rand
Originally Posted by Danno
Question is: What will you get to replace them?


Since its Overkill I'm guessing Michelin Defender LTX M/S


Yeah, I'm thinking that tire, given my experience with its predecessors.

 

[CapriRacer]

The OP - Overkill - was complaining about the OE tires on his Ram - and he mentioned that they were the same make and model as on his SRT.

I wonder what affect Fiat is having on the tire qualification process. It's always been my opinion that Pirelli tires tend to be slippery in the wet, and for the longest time, you'd be hard pressed to buy a new Italian car without Pirelli's on it. I've always made the connection.

But that is not what is going on today. Both the car business and the tire business are now global in nature. The fact that you can buy a Ford and it might come with a Japanese brand tire speaks to that.

So are Chrysler products now coming with tires that are tested in Italy and it's those test surfaces that are driving the wet traction? Similar to the way Japanese car manufacturers use test surfaces in Japan and those tires have poor wet traction in the US?

Plus, OE tires aren't made cheaply or out of cheap materials. They are designed to the vehicle manufacturer's specs which usually call for Low levels of rolling resistance in order to get good fuel economy - and that means wear and/or traction have to be sacrificed.

The result is tires that don't perform up to the consumers expectations. And while the OEM don't pay very much for tires, it's because of the sheer volume of tires they buy and the ease of shipping - a steady flow from point A to point B for years. That greatly reduces the hidden cost.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by CapriRacer
The OP - Overkill - was complaining about the OE tires on his Ram - and he mentioned that they were the same make and model as on his SRT.


They aren't quite the same, the ones on the Charger were the Eagle RS-A's, these are the Touring. But my experience is similar.

 

[meep]

I've had several used cars with goodyears. most have been really bad with the wet, with 2 exceptions: set of Eagles on a miata - great tires; and a set of assurance triple treads which were fabulous tires in every condition we get down here including a pretty good snowstorm.

 

[Danno]

Originally Posted by CapriRacer
The OP - Overkill - was complaining about the OE tires on his Ram - and he mentioned that they were the same make and model as on his SRT.

I wonder what affect Fiat is having on the tire qualification process. It's always been my opinion that Pirelli tires tend to be slippery in the wet, and for the longest time, you'd be hard pressed to buy a new Italian car without Pirelli's on it. I've always made the connection.

But that is not what is going on today. Both the car business and the tire business are now global in nature. The fact that you can buy a Ford and it might come with a Japanese brand tire speaks to that.

So are Chrysler products now coming with tires that are tested in Italy and it's those test surfaces that are driving the wet traction? Similar to the way Japanese car manufacturers use test surfaces in Japan and those tires have poor wet traction in the US?

Plus, OE tires aren't made cheaply or out of cheap materials. They are designed to the vehicle manufacturer's specs which usually call for Low levels of rolling resistance in order to get good fuel economy - and that means wear and/or traction have to be sacrificed.

The result is tires that don't perform up to the consumers expectations. And while the OEM don't pay very much for tires, it's because of the sheer volume of tires they buy and the ease of shipping - a steady flow from point A to point B for years. That greatly reduces the hidden cost.


Basically an infomercial on Pirelli by TFL Truck, but worth a watch IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=xkpsVoKlrIg

 

[SteveSRT8]

Our RAM had the SR-A's or RS-A's, I can't be sure. We took them off early for EXACTLY this reason, very poor wet performance.

I have 70k miles on our LTXMS2's and they are still good!

 

[GumbyJarvis]

The Wrangler SRAs that came with my truck were some of the worst tires I've ever come across. They only had 15-16K on them when I bought the truck. After about 1000 miles of sliding all over the place when it rained, I switched to BF Goodrich Rugged Terrains, which although get a bad rap on some sites, are lightyears ahead of the Goodyears when it comes to wet or slick roads.

 

[OVERKILL]

So it sounds like this is SOP for these tires. OK, well, time to consult with the wife, lol.

 

[OVERKILL]

Wife says we should do the LTX's, so probably order them tomorrow. Thanks for the feedback guys!

 

[wdn]

There are Michelin Defender LTX M/S on two of my vehicles (one has the Sam's Club club-only version of it) they are great tires. Really good in the snow, very quiet and comfortable on the road and good braking. They are wearing excellent on my Tundra. I am fortunate to have both Sam's and Costco nearby so the tire prices are really low. The Tundra's are perfectly round and wearing evenly, over 10/32" of tread after 14,000 miles so the value is there.