In reply to WildScotsRacingCampbellCougarSeed :
Yeah, I had the Indy 500 of a few years ago on my Mustang, and those were okay in the dry and hot garbage in the wet. In the snow they were horrid. I only bought them on the recommendation of a guy on the phone from Tire Rack and regretted not getting Yokohama S.Drive's instead.
Worst tires I ever had were on the only car I ever purchased new. All season Bridgestones on my Integra. The only thing they did well was make noise and frustrate me, sort of like if my ex-wife was a set of tires. When the tread was about halfway done, I switched to Yoko AVS intermediates(GREAT tires) and it was like I bought a different car. Turned and stopped with alacrity, not drama.
Saying almost any product today sucks because it sucked in the 70's is a little ridiculous just in general, but that's a little off topic. That said, having worked at FCAC for several years prior to selling cars, I used to hate when people would want to warranty out a tire (often on a car thats 1-2 years old) because it came with the car. I would usually just warranty it out & take the talking to from upper management, mainly because someone who thinks I had literally anything to do with the tires on the car they bought from a dealership probably isn't going to listen to reason anyways and will always call corporate and complain. The person who said basically honda is a competitor to fcac is correct. Honda bought those tires from Firestone directly, not from some 23 year old standing behind a counter at FCAC. And don't take this next part personally: I'm 99% sure when you bought the car, they offered you a warranty for literally this exact situation, which you admittedly declined. To complain later that it should be covered anyways is a little... shall I say "let me speak to your manager".
To summarize: yes you should have gotten the warranty, but yes they should have also just given you a new tire, because customer satisfaction.
In reply to Bob the REAL oil guy. :
I agree, I experienced the 500/721 years as a mechanic and because of that I will not purchase a Firestone tire. However, the Explorer tire issue came down to Ford wanting lower tire pressures so the vehicle would not ride like a truck.
If that happened to one of my old tires I don't I think I would want it replaced with another of the same. If that same failure occurs in one of the other fronts at speed in the wrong situation worse things can happen than a $400 loss. I would get 4 reputable tires and publish ev very thing that both Honda and firestone say in as many online locations as possible.
Exploder recall times were fun. People pulling tires out of junkyards, still with a mud line from being half buried and no longer on a rim, wanting free replacement. Chevy truck & Suburban owners wanting free tires from the Firestone store "because Ford is giving out free tires, why aren't you?". People bringing blown out tires from other brands (Kumho, for instance, once that I can remember) thinking that Firestone was replacing all blow-outs with free tires. Being told by people in the store that our products were unsafe, they needed to get new tires, but if they had to pay for them they weren't going to buy a tire from us. "Why would I pay for something unsafe if you aren't going to give me free tires?" People asking for free recalled tires because they thought the whole thing was overblown and saying our store was wasteful for not handing out used tires.
I still kind of miss the people aspect, honestly, but that probably speaks to something else about me.
MazdaFace said:That said, having worked at FCAC for several years prior to selling cars, I used to hate when people would want to warranty out a tire (often on a car thats 1-2 years old) because it came with the car. I would usually just warranty it out & take the talking to from upper management, mainly because someone who thinks I had literally anything to do with the tires on the car they bought from a dealership probably isn't going to listen to reason anyways and will always call corporate and complain. The person who said basically honda is a competitor to fcac is correct. Honda bought those tires from Firestone directly, not from some 23 year old standing behind a counter at FCAC. And don't take this next part personally: I'm 99% sure when you bought the car, they offered you a warranty for literally this exact situation, which you admittedly declined. To complain later that it should be covered anyways is a little... shall I say "let me speak to your manager".
Except for the fact that in this case the Firestone provided documentation that comes with the car specifically states that Firestone is responsible for the OEM tire warranty, and that it is to be carried out by any Firestone authorized retailer...Which I'm pretty sure would include FCAC.
In reply to Driven5 :
true enough. Like I said, I always warrantied them out. Usually under road hazard. The way to do it properly involves paperwork, as well as an RGA to send the tire back, where they look at it and say "yup thats impact damage" and then charge your store for the tire. Easier to just road hazard warranty it out, make a little note about customer satisfaction, & move on with my day lol
jharry3 said:And the reason Fords always came with Firestone tires is because way back one of Henry Ford's children married one of Harvey Firestone's children..
I didn't realize that tie in. I just know Harvey Firestone and Henry Ford had a bromance thing going on. Thomas Edison made often made it a menage a trois. They called themselves the vagabonds and went "camping", actually more like glamping.
In reply to pres589 :
The old Indy 500 Wide Oval did suck. I went through a set on my Miata. I'm not sure you are familar with the new Indy 500:
I won't use Firestone but for different reasons. I worked there as an assistant manager right out of college in the late '80's, and it was not a good experience. It was right after the Bridgestone buyout. A couple of things. First, we were required to recommend brake pads at 50% wear, and were also told not to do alignments if any part of the suspension moved in the least. These were not suggestions, but required. And there were others too. Basically if you were caught not doing these, you were let go pretty much on the spot.
And there were the tires. Most were not round, at all. I remember a Bridgestone tire engineer and I had a discussion at a class he was teaching, and he had a great way to tell a good tire from a poor tire simply by looking at it. One way was to look at all the excess rubber in terms of the little strips that build up outside the normal carcass. It should have none ideally. if it has a lot, the molds are beyond replacement and worn out. Firestones were all used to the point of being junk when I was there. Then they would sell them off again to other companies that would continue to use them for off brands. If you look at them today, you still see it. The Bridgestone engineers were not complimentary to them at all.
Anyway, worst two years of my working life. No other job even comes close.
In reply to WildScotsRacingCampbellCougarSeed :
No, I'm aware that they changed the Indy 500 drastically. I think they had to or they wouldn't have sold any due to word of mouth and reviews panning them.
The first thing listed under whats not covered in the warranty booklet posted is Road Hazards.
In reply to Opti :
Right. The warranty really only covers against manufacturer defects. From the sound of it, this could potentially be argued either way. That's why it would be important to call around and pre-screen "authorized retailers" to see which one(s) come across as the most sympathetic to considering this as such.
I had a '96 Contour SE with Firestones. GA runs in my mind. I ran them in a track day at Lime Rock and a couple autocross.
The rest was DD with a few long trips. 30K miles. lease car.
No complaints
You'll need to log in to post.
