Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Ford / Ford Focus / July 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

tyre life

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Nospam - 03 Jun 2006 15:02 GMT
Hi,

I am looking at a used focus 1.8 Ghia, Sept. 2004 (54 plate) 19k on the
clock.

What make of tyres should they come with?

They have Continental Conti-Eco CP 195/60 R15

Are these not Kwikfit's own brand, if so what are they doing on a car
with 19k on the clock?

surly a car with this mileage should have the original tyres still on
it!

the tyres are down to 4 mm. (1.6 is the legal minimum, I think, so only
2.6 mm left)

is this right for 19k?

What depth do new tyres start with, is it 7 mm?

how many miles do you get (average driving etc......) per mm of tread?

Thanks for any advice.
Signature

Nospam

Chris Whelan - 03 Jun 2006 16:05 GMT
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Thanks for any advice.

A lot depends on how you drive. If the car you are looking at has done 19k
on the original tyres and they still have 4mm left, it hasn't been
thrashed!

My '99 1.8 LX came with Continental Eco-Contact. I found these really good,
but fronts sometimes only lasted 10k miles! (I always get the tracking
checked, wear patterns are always equal, but I do change them at 2mm). I
kept using them until recently.

I'm currently using Goodyear Eagle NCT5's. These seem to be lasting much
better, but absolute grip is not quite as good and they tend to tramline a
bit on poor surfaces.

HTH

Chris

Signature

Remove prejudice to reply.

nospam - 03 Jun 2006 18:38 GMT
Chris Whelan <cawhelan@prejudicentlworld.com> writes

>> Hi,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
>Chris

Thanks for the reply.

It seems that they might be the original tyres then, if yours came with
Continental Eco-Contact.

I was going to change them at 2 mm also.

I will trade tyre life for better grip, especially in the wet.

I have been looking at the specs on the kwik fit web site of various
tyres, but I would much prefer personal recommendations as to the best
grip than the sales info they give out.

Thanks again.
tim - 06 Jun 2006 11:13 GMT
> Chris Whelan <cawhelan@prejudicentlworld.com> writes
[snip]
>>A lot depends on how you drive. If the car you are looking at has done 19k
>>on the original tyres and they still have 4mm left, it hasn't been
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Thanks again.

    At the moment I've got Toyo T1-Rs fitted at the suggestion of
the (non-Ford) garage I use. They're much quieter than the Pirellis they
replaced and a little quieter than the Continental Eco-Contacts on my
brother's Focus. They're good in the dry and excellent in the wet. After
5k miles they seem to be wearing well.
Signature

       Tim.

    tim@spiny-norman.net

Alan - 03 Jun 2006 18:24 GMT
>Hi,
>
>I am looking at a used focus 1.8 Ghia, Sept. 2004 (54 plate) 19k on the
>clock.
>
>What make of tyres should they come with?

Probably whatever was the cheapest at the time of manufacturer. I don't
think that Ford use a single source of tyres.

I purchased my car second hand with 9.5K miles on the clock and I needed
a new set of front tyres at around 18/19K. I now need a new set of front
tyres at 41K. The back tyres are still okay and I don't rotate them.

20K miles for a front set of tyres may not be out-of-order.

>how many miles do you get (average driving etc......) per mm of tread?

It depends on the driving style.

Signature

Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

Timothy J. Lee - 08 Jun 2006 22:29 GMT
>I purchased my car second hand with 9.5K miles on the clock and I needed
>a new set of front tyres at around 18/19K. I now need a new set of front
>tyres at 41K. The back tyres are still okay and I don't rotate them.

Won't handling characteristics get strange if the tires have greatly
different amounts of wear?  I.e. worn front with unworn back tires
may have more grip in front when dry, but more grip in back when wet.

Signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Alan - 08 Jun 2006 23:03 GMT
>>I purchased my car second hand with 9.5K miles on the clock and I needed
>>a new set of front tyres at around 18/19K. I now need a new set of front
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>different amounts of wear?  I.e. worn front with unworn back tires
>may have more grip in front when dry, but more grip in back when wet.

I haven't noticed much difference in handling but I don't wear my tyres
down to the UK legal minimum before replacing them. The Ford UK owners
handbook details a fall off in safety with treads below 3mm.

Tyre manufacturers recommend that the better tyre is fitted to the rear
so as front tyres wear a lot faster than rear tyres by not rotating them
the majority of the time the optimum configuration is maintained.

The cult of tyre rotation seems to be more of a North American tradition
much in the same way they believe oil should be changed every 3000
miles. The UK Focus handbook does not suggest tyre rotation is required

Signature

Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

Nospam - 08 Jun 2006 23:39 GMT
>>>I purchased my car second hand with 9.5K miles on the clock and I needed
>>>a new set of front tyres at around 18/19K. I now need a new set of front
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>3000 miles. The UK Focus handbook does not suggest tyre rotation is
>required

I got a graph from one of the high street tyre resellers websites sites.

the graph states that the stopping distance at 80 km/h are:

tread    Breaking
depth    distance
(mm)       (m)
  7          24
  6          23 (yes less)
  5          24
  4          25
  3          27
  2          30
  1          37

Signature

Nospam

Alan - 09 Jun 2006 00:12 GMT
>I got a graph from one of the high street tyre resellers websites sites.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>  2          30
>  1          37

The UK highway code gives the average stopping distance figures for
50mph (80km/p) of 53 metres (175 feet) which is a _lot_ more than your
figures.   Other web sites give similar figures of around 170 feet.

I'm sure the weight of the car and the tyre pressures would change the
figures.

It's not just stopping (braking) distance that falls off with a reduced
tread depth.  The warning in the Ford owners handbook mentions the
danger of aquaplaning with tread depths of  3mm or below.

Signature

Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

Timothy J. Lee - 12 Jun 2006 22:15 GMT
>The cult of tyre rotation seems to be more of a North American tradition
>much in the same way they believe oil should be changed every 3000
>miles. The UK Focus handbook does not suggest tyre rotation is required

While the common US habit of oil changes every 3000 miles are a waste in
most cases if you use the correct spec oil, tire rotation does have the
following advantages:

1.  All of your tires wear evenly, so that you avoid handling oddities
   that may occur with greatly different amounts of wear.

2.  All of your tires wear out at the same time, so that you can replace
   them as a matched set of whatever tires you want, instead of having
   to match your old tires with your new ones.

3.  You are less likely to have tires deteriorate by age before they are
   worn out.

4.  It's free because you can rotate the tires whenever the wheels come
   off for brake pad inspection.

Signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Caesar Romano - 13 Jun 2006 00:07 GMT
>While the common US habit of oil changes every 3000 miles are a waste in
>most cases

Not if you:

1) Sell oil and/or oil-change service.

2) Want to conjure a justification to void a warranty.
Signature

Slimes-Daily motto: 1) Tax and Spend, 2) Change the Constituion to make it easier to do (1).

Andy Lee - 15 Jun 2006 11:47 GMT
>>The cult of tyre rotation seems to be more of a North American tradition
>>much in the same way they believe oil should be changed every 3000
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>1.  All of your tires wear evenly, so that you avoid handling oddities
>    that may occur with greatly different amounts of wear.

Whilst this may be true I've yet to experience any sort of problem by
not rotating the tires. Mine stay on the axle they were balanced on
otherwise I would have to have the balancing do on every tire rotation

>2.  All of your tires wear out at the same time, so that you can replace
>    them as a matched set of whatever tires you want, instead of having
>    to match your old tires with your new ones.

I guess unlss you pick some rare brand/type this should never really
be a problem as replacing with the same model just relies on the
fitting shop having them in stock

>3.  You are less likely to have tires deteriorate by age before they are
>    worn out.

I can't imagine this happening unless you do only a very low annual
mileage

>4.  It's free because you can rotate the tires whenever the wheels come
>    off for brake pad inspection.

As I mentioned above this is only safe if you have the wheels balanced
of the car (IMHO this is not the best option)
Just Facts - 21 Jun 2006 05:45 GMT
> >>The cult of tyre rotation seems to be more of a North American tradition
> >>much in the same way they believe oil should be changed every 3000
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >most cases if you use the correct spec oil, tire rotation does have the
> >following advantages:
For 3,000 miles in 4 to 6 months it is desirable to reduce sludge.
I keep my cars 10+ years and never have any unusual engine maintenance.
At 100K miles my engines still run as new, with no added oil necessary.

> >1.  All of your tires wear evenly, so that you avoid handling oddities
> >    that may occur with greatly different amounts of wear.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> be a problem as replacing with the same model just relies on the
> fitting shop having them in stock
Tire models are always different when I need a new set.  They change
every few years.

> >3.  You are less likely to have tires deteriorate by age before they are
> >    worn out.
>
> I can't imagine this happening unless you do only a very low annual
> mileage
True, but I only need a set at least every 4 or 5 years. If I didn't
rotate they the rear tires on a FWD car would be in dangerous territory
after 6 years.

> >4.  It's free because you can rotate the tires whenever the wheels come
> >    off for brake pad inspection.
Where I get service, not the dealer, the pad inspection and rotate is
free every 12 months.

> As I mentioned above this is only safe if you have the wheels balanced
> of the car (IMHO this is not the best option)
Wheel balancing off the car is how I've done it forever.  I have no
balancing problems, although I only drive up to 70MPH.
Okidiver - 23 Jun 2006 01:18 GMT
Not so sure about that.  Last time I balanced a tire, it was balanced on the
wheel.  You are actually balancing the wheel/tire assembly.
However, I've heard if you don't rotate your tires, you should not have to
balance them as often.  YMMV, and wheel/tire variances make general
estimates semi-worthless.
I balance on my Focus when I rotate, and then only the fronts (formerly the
rears).  The light Focus rear end (and I've got a ZTW!) will unbalance a
wheel in 3-5 K miles, which kinda sucks, but it's just periodic maintenance.
My old GTI was the same.

Signature

Rapid Rick
"Just Drive, Baby"

somebody pounded away at the keyboard and said...

Whilst this may be true I've yet to experience any sort of problem by

> not rotating the tires. Mine stay on the axle they were balanced on
> otherwise I would have to have the balancing do on every tire rotation
Spam Hater - 12 Jul 2006 18:27 GMT
> Not so sure about that.  Last time I balanced a tire, it was balanced on the
> wheel.  You are actually balancing the wheel/tire assembly.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> wheel in 3-5 K miles, which kinda sucks, but it's just periodic maintenance.
> My old GTI was the same.
I've rotated tires for years, both on FWD and RWD, and have seldom had
to balance tires during their life.
Since I went to lovely Michelins about 30 years ago I've never had to
rebalance tires.
Just Facts - 21 Jun 2006 05:36 GMT
> The cult of tyre rotation seems to be more of a North American tradition
> much in the same way they believe oil should be changed every 3000
> miles. The UK Focus handbook does not suggest tyre rotation is required
It's the much more extreme climate in NA.
Just Facts - 21 Jun 2006 05:35 GMT
> I purchased my car second hand with 9.5K miles on the clock and I needed
> a new set of front tyres at around 18/19K. I now need a new set of front
> tyres at 41K. The back tyres are still okay and I don't rotate them.
With my last two cars I change my tires at about 65K miles, with tread
still on them, but IMO not adequate for another winter.
 Michelin all seasons on NA Chrysler Mid sized cars; LeBaron GTS 2,900
lbs and Concord 3,400 lbs.
In the past on other cars with GoodYear I got about 30K miles and only
20K miles with Firestone.
Yes I rotate my tires; the only way to get the full wear out of them.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.