Some Firestones from certain factories were made wrong, with glue that
was older than its rated shelf life.

But the fact is that he did pay and was told that they'd use high
quality paint.

I don't see why people go to franchises for service, like transmission
repair or auto painting, because a national chain can't be any better
or cheaper than an independent shop, and if anything, the chain shops
tend to be more expensive because they have to pay so much to the
franchiser, an amount equal to 1/3 of their profits.

OTOH I've heard of people getting good paint jobs from Earl Scheibe if
they bring the car in already prepped, included the masking.  But
independent shops will probably charge no more because something like
80-90% of the cost of a paint job is in the prep work.

So why is Tire Rack so cheap for American, German, and Japanese brand
tires?  And if you get what you pay for, how do you explain the awful
quality of Jaguars and Rolls-Royces?  If anything, "you get what you
pay for" is only a best-case scenario.

Don't you mean the infamous 500 story?  Many Firestone 500 tires were
made improperly so that water became trapped between the steel cords
and rubber that coated them, which eventually lead to formation of
corrosive ammonia and then tread separation. The 721 was the successor
to the 500 and was meant to be free of its problems.

Some years ago wife and I had nearly identical cars (one model year apart).
Mine was 48,000 miles old and needed tires and I decided to try Firestone.
I insisted on the best traction they could supply for the car, paid a
good buck for them.

I'm glad I saved the old Goodyears. The brand new, A-traction Firestones
didn't grip the ground half as well as the 48,000 mile old tires. I mixed
sets so that each car had two old Goodyears on the front (FWD cars) and
two new Firestones on the back.

Well I have the opposite experience -

1975 Datsun 280Z, I was on a budget so I installed Grand Prix Radials -
turned out to be private labeled Firestone 500's - horrible tires, recalled
1978 Ford Fairmont, came with Firestone 721 Radial -horrible tires, replaced
at 10,000 miles they were so bad
1981 Audi Coupe - came with Firestones - horrible tires, one developed a
sidewall bulge and was replaced under warranty (after waiting three weeks
for the replacement), every other tire on the car ended up with a puncture.
Replaced the tires at 15,000 miles with Michelins, never had another
puncture
1983 Mazda 626 - at the first tire change, I installed Bridgestone (I know
not really Firestones) - road like they were made out of steel, but I didn't
keep the car, so I can't comment further except I hated the tires
1992 F150 - Came with Firestones, horrible tires, would not stay balanced,
picked up nails like crazy, finally replaced all four before 15,000 miles
with Michelins. Michelins were still on the truck when I sold it this year
with 100,000 miles.
1999 Ford Ranger - came with Firestone tires, horrible tires, two of four
"split" in the middle of the tread pattern. The other two were replaced by
Ford for free (thank god).
2003 Saturn Vue - delivered with Bridgestone tires  -actually pretty decent
tires, I'd buy them again.

My rule is - if the name on the tires is Firestone, I am buying something
else. In over 35 years of driving, I have never owned a decent set of tires
manufactured by Firestone. I've had good and bad tires from other
manufacturer's (Bridgestone, Goodyear, Michelin, BF Goodrich, General, etc),
but as far as delivering consistently horrible tires, Firestone stands
alone.

Ed