| |
Much depends on their 100 point inspection, guarentees, and coverage. A
used car comes with any modifications the previous owner may have made,
including ill-choice of tires (caveat emptor). With a dealership, they may
or may not be responsible for the tires. Check the various documents you
signed when you purchased the car (little teeny tiny type on with poorly
contrasting color, no doubt). State laws may give you rights not delienated
in the contract (ahhhh, the fun of finding them, though). If the inspection
includes tires, I'd press them on the matter, but you need to document what
the problem is exactly.
Some changes within certain bounds are okay with tires - I tend to doubt
that the tires would effect the struts unless they were grossly oversive or
new wheels were put on without properly adjusting the offset. My car came
with 185/60 tires, and I replaced them with 195/55 and there's no problem,
for example. I'd most likely call up a reputable place like Tire Rack, ask
them what tires come standard with your model (or just look it up) and ask
them if the problem tires are reasonably correct.
Looking a little closer, I see they said the tires are 65 vs 60. Tires come
in sizes like 185/60 R14 (my Miata's stock size). The first number is the
tread width, the third the wheel radius size. The second number (the 65 or
60 they are quoting) is not an absolute - it is a ratio. By itself, it does
not tell you if the tire is taller (greater radius at the tread) than a
different tire, since it refers to the sidewall/tread ratio. In my example
in the previous paragraph, the 185/60 I replaced with 195/55 are virtually
the same height, just the latter is wider. A 65 that was narrower (most
likely cheaper, but snow tires work better if narrower, for example - not
that I'd trust the opinion of someone from SoCal about snow tires) than the
stock tire for your car may not be oversized.
Bruce
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In January of this year I purchased a used '98 Ford Contour from a
> local dealership. The purchase package included a much-touted 100-point
> inspection and an assortment of various guarantees and coverages. To date,
> I've had no mechanical difficulties with the vehicle.
> On the way to work yesterday I found that I had a flat tire, so I put
> the donut on and continued on my merry way. The only reputable company near
> my workplace (ie, to which I could take my vehicle during lunch) was Sears.
> Ergo, I took my car there, outlined the problem, selected the brand of tire
> I wanted, and proceeded to stroll around the mall while they replaced the
> flat. My intent was to purchase two new tires and rotate two of the
> remaining ones from front to back. Upon my return an hour later, the techs
> informed me that the tires on my car were slightly larger than the correct
> size (65 vs 60), and the tires had been rubbing against the struts, causing
> wear to the surface. I don't believe this to have been a factor in the one
> tire going flat, however. In any case, Sears said they would not be able to
> perform the rotation, and I had to purchase four new tires for a grand total
> of about $445. Sears wouldn't put the wrong-sized tires back on my vehicle,
> and I can understand their position; if they knowingly put the incorrect
> tires on my vehicle and I subsequently suffered an accident as a result of
> the tires, Sears could conceivably be held liable. It seems to me that if
> the tires were indeed too large for the vehicle, then the agency that
> supplied them (ie, the dealership) should compensate me for the extra two
> tires I had to purchase.
> When I got back to work, I contacted my dealership and informed them of my
> disappointment at their choice of tires. I further questioned the alleged
> 100-point inspection, which I would assumed to cover such middling
> automotive details as tires. The sales manager with whom I spoke was
> argumentative and, frankly, a butthead, and he told me that Sears had
> "snowed" me. Sears, he explained, is in the business of trying to sell
> tires, so of course they'd try to sell me two extra. Ford, I pointed out to
> the sales mgr, is likewise in the business of sales (and would doubtless
> want to avoid compensating me), so I had no reason to take his word over
> theirs. In fact, he offered to sell me two tires, and I have several
> suggestions re: where he can align them.
> So here's my question: if in fact the dealership put the wrong size
> tires on my vehicle, and if as a result I was forced to purchase four tires
> from Sears (or any agency, for that matter) is it inappropriate to request
> that Ford compensate me for the cost? It seems to me (and I am fiendishly
> tempted to point this out to the sales mgr) that Ford would be inclined to
> present the appearance of a company greatly concerned about tire quality,
> given their recent problems with the Explorer. I expect that if one of the
> tires had blown as a result of the undue wear, and if I had suffered injury,
> the person responsible for the undue wear might be liable if the wear could
> be demonstrated as a cause of the blowout. Would I have to have suffered an
> accident before the dealership could be held responsible for the wrong tires?
> I know this is trivial compared to questions of whether or not I would
> be entitled to screw Wal*Mart just because I figured out how to do it, but
> since I have $222.50 at stake, I wanted to get other people's insight before
> I discuss it with the dealership tomorrow.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Hosed?
|
| In January of this year I purchased a used '98 Ford Contour from a local dealership. The purchase package included a much-touted 100-point inspection and an assortment of various guarantees and coverages. To date, I've had no mechanical (...) (22 years ago, 31-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
