Last post on Jul 25, 2013 at 9:08 AM
You are in the Honda Accord
What is this discussion about?
Honda Accord, Tires
#405 of 435 Need help with Michelin tires issues
Nov 15, 2011 (7:30 am)
I have a 2006 Honda Accord EX-V6. I purchased the car in Nov. 2005 and replaced the tires in July 2008. The car had V rated tires, but I never enjoyed the ride as it was not smooth to me. I replaced them with Michelin Primacy MXV4 H tires at 38K miles. Now, at 85K miles, the tires on the rear were worn to the thread, while the front was getting fairly close. Also, the salesman pointed out I had dry rot on all four tires. I decided to replace them all. I questioned them about the dry rot, but they did not have much to say. Should they have?
I replaced the tires with the same brand and model with the Michelin Primacy MXV4 H. As soon as I drove the car, it was BUMPY beyond belief. It was as if I was in a wagon traveling in the West, before it was developed. Well, maybe not that bad, but did not drive like the old set, at all. I returned the car to the tire dealer today. The air in the tires were set at 37 PSI. according to the tire dealer and 40 PSI, according to my car repairman (checked with him prior to going back to the tire shop). The Honda manufacturer recommends 32 PSI front and 29 PSI back. The tires have a recommended 40 PSI, I was told. The tire salesman said he would drive the car before and after letting air out to see if that would help. However, when he called he told me he did not have time. I told him to drive it because I did not want to take the car back and forth after just paying over $1K for 4 tires. He called back to say he thought it was okay, but if I was not pleased, they would work with me about other tires. I went to pick up the car. Before leaving, the owner said he drove the car and did feel every bump in the road. He thought the air reduction might help though. Both of the them said I was just probably not used to new tires though. Not true, as I remember what a great feel they had in 08 when I first drove the old set. The feel of these tires are not even similar.
I will now be going in a THIRD time for $1K tires, which seems totally unacceptable. I feel all the bumps in the road still. as the air reduction DID NOT help very much, at all. Between the owner and the salesman, they have told me this about four times I could get new tires. Am I missing something here? Do you think they think they are defective?
Are there known problems with Michelin? I had always liked the old set of Michelin. Could the bumpy ride be due to defective tires? Note the steering wheel does not shake and the car does not veer to either side. There did seem to be a lot of play in the steering wheel when I picked up the car though. I am not sure why.
Nov 15, 2011 (9:15 am)
I have the same tires and love them. Just got them this summer and have 12k miles on them. I can hardly see any sign of wear. I expect them to last about 100k miles. They handle well ride well and seem to be efficient. I keep them at 40 psi and the ride is fine.
How on earth were they a thousand dollars. They were half that at Sams club with lifetime balance etc. There was a $70 rebate at the time (for all 4 not each).
I will say that when mine were brand new they seemed a little skittish because of the oils in the top layer and the nubs take a long time to wear off. Also tread squirm is its worst at full depth tread.
Have different michelins on the minivan and noticed that made a strange sound going over bumps (sounded like a big red gym ball bouncing - sproing). That went away after a few thousand miles.
Tires change a lot over their lifetime. They tend to get better in every way except for wet/snow traction. If it never rained we would all drive with bald tires as they provide maximum dry grip and have no tread squirm.
I recommend that you drive 1,000 miles or so to get the tires broken in then have them rebalanced. At that point they should start feeling better. You might even rotate them then too to help the nubs wear off sooner. Also rotating well help you figure if there is a bad tire, since moving a bad tire from the front to the back will change the way your car feels.
#407 of 435 Re: - [dudleyr]
Nov 15, 2011 (9:46 am)
The other quote in town was $1250! As I had the same tires earlier, I know what they SHOULD feel like new. I really believe there is a problem within the tires. I can even feel vibration under my seat just driving down the road. For the owner to admit he felt every bump in the road, I can't help but think there may be a problem.
For me, these tires did not even began to last 100K though. They were full of dry rot in all four tires. My old tires lasted 47,000 miles and were down to the thread. I googled Michelin and dry rot and found consumer complaints about Michelin dry rot. I called Michelin and they said all tires have dry rot. They also said I can not go a rating down from V rated to H rating. He said that was the reason they did not ride well. He could not explain why the other tires rode well from the start. Hmmm.... He argued repeatedly about it as if I never told him the previous Michelins rode great. Also, I told him I was told you could go down ONE rating from V to H, but he said the tire salesmen were all wrong on telling me that previously.
I'm not sure what I am going to do at this point. I seriously doubt I am keeping this particular set of tires though.
#408 of 435 Re: - [dudleyr]
Nov 15, 2011 (9:46 am)
Here in the Detroit area, the savings for H vs. V with the Primacy is about $100 (for a set of 4) -- significant, but not in itself a deal maker, for me.
First of all, trying to improve the ride of the Accord with softer tires doesn't seem to work well, from the reviews that I've seen. An Accord is what it is -- most of us were prepared for the rougher ride when we bought it. I've got no complaints.
What concerns me most, though, is the potential for damage to wheels and suspension with the more pliable sidewall of the H rated tire. Potholes are inevitable, as much as I try to avoid them, and tires are the first line of defense. So far, my V- rated tires have held up very well (Michelins are, no matter what the critics say, a quality tire, and probably worth the premium pricing). I'm inclined to replace the original set with a V-rated Primacy set, until someone convinces me that I'm wasting my money. For protection's sake, if nothing else.
Nov 15, 2011 (12:30 pm)
Fortunately tires don't dry rot in South Dakota - not enough pollution.
When were the tires made - you can check on the sidewall for the date code it is the year and the week 1108 is the 8th week of 2011. Old tires might have problems. I doubt it is all 4 tires that are bad, but one may be - rotate them and it will be apparent which one.
I also went from V to H. No problems. I don't think that this would cause a problem when other models of the same car with the same engine etc come standard with H.
Tire give is more a function of tire pressure than sidewall stiffness.
#410 of 435 VSA vs Tire Size
Dec 14, 2011 (9:02 pm)
Just bought a 2012 LX-S coupe, a little old fashioned - not a big fan of the 17 inch low profile tire look. Want to put some after market 16 inch wheels and 225/60/16 tires on. Any one here know how this will affect the VSA? Tire height changes 1 inch and speedometer 1.9 %.
Thanks for any help.
#411 of 435 Re: VSA vs Tire Size [twomotor]
Dec 15, 2011 (3:49 am)
Tire Rack recommends a 215/60R16 for its winter package - so I think that's a better choice.
#412 of 435 Re: VSA vs Tire Size [capriracer]
Dec 15, 2011 (4:15 am)
I assume that is the standard size for the 4 cyl? I know on my 2005, it was 205/60-16 base, and the V6 had 215/50-17.
Instead of aftermarket, I would try to find someone looking to upgrade from the base 16". At least you won't have to worry about quality, or offset. And th VSA should not care.
for that, Isn't the bigger issue difference in diameter between the tires on the car?
I actually have 3 H rated and 1 V rated Yokohama on my 2005 (the V has 8K less on it) thanks to a rear tire that decided to disintegrate on the highway. Then again, I don't have VSA or even TC.
#413 of 435 Re: VSA vs Tire Size [capriracer]
Dec 16, 2011 (12:32 am)
The 215 is 1/2 inch narrower and I am trying to gain as much sidewall height as I can without going too big is why I was looking at the 225.
Dec 16, 2011 (7:24 am)
If you want sidewall height go with 15's it won't effect your speedometer. I run 205 65 15 in the winter. Same diameter as my 205 60 16 summer tires. Put the snow tires on aftermarket alloys from tirerack. I like the extra cushion in the winter when roads are bad.
The base Accord tire is a 195 65 15 (on the DX model) and is slightly smaller.