Making the switch to 175 65 r14 Barum Brillistas today.

[Dirk Diggler]

One thing thats good is the treads on these are thick and deep as hell. If anyone on here has a bad rear axle and are eating thru tires I would recommend these. Theyre cheap and you might just get 20k miles out of them vs the 10k miles from the 165s Ive read about on here for severe alignment owners.

[Wallythacker]

One thing thats good is the treads on these are thick and deep as hell. If anyone on here has a bad rear axle and are eating thru tires I would recommend these. Theyre cheap and you might just get 20k miles out of them vs the 10k miles from the 165s Ive read about on here for severe alignment owners.

That idea makes sense but can't anyone still get an axle fix under warranty in the US?

[Mark]

One thing thats good is the treads on these are thick and deep as hell. If anyone on here has a bad rear axle and are eating thru tires I would recommend these. Theyre cheap and you might just get 20k miles out of them vs the 10k miles from the 165s Ive read about on here for severe alignment owners.

I have 15,000+ miles on a pair of Federal SS657 165/65-14 tires so far. Don't see myself replacing them any time soon. Inuvik is on his second pair of Federal tires, & I believe he got 40,000+ miles out of the first set.

I wouldn't slam the 165 tires, because someone's car is out of alignment. That would shorten the life of any tire.

If your tires did everything extremely well, they wouldn't be $37 tires. I would say the same for any cheaper tire including the Federal tires. Federal also has a 165/65-14 LRR tire, but I haven't heard many people talk about them. Not sure they are worth the extra cost over the SS657?

I haven't noticed a mpg hit, but I am using a pair up front with Dunlop tires on back.

[Dirk Diggler]

I have 15,000+ miles on a pair of Federal SS657 165/65-14 tires so far. Don't see myself replacing them any time soon. Inuvik is on his second pair of Federal tires, & I believe he got 40,000+ miles out of the first set.

I wouldn't slam the 165 tires, because someone's car is out of alignment. That would shorten the life of any tire.

If your tires did everything extremely well, they wouldn't be $37 tires. I would say the same for any cheaper tire including the Federal tires. Federal also has a 165/65-14 LRR tire, but I haven't heard many people talk about them. Not sure they are worth the extra cost over the SS657?

I haven't noticed a mpg hit, but I am using a pair up front with Dunlop tires on back.

You misunderstood. Im not slamming the 165s, Im saying if u happen to have one of the cars with an alignment issue and your eating thru the skinnier 165s, give the Barrums a look because theyre cheap and thick. In other words if you cant get your rear axle fixed under warranty give the Barums a look to get extra time and save money.

[Dirk Diggler]

That idea makes sense but can't anyone still get an axle fix under warranty in the US?

Not if you bought used like I did. Luckily my alignment is only slightly out of spec so Ill just have to live with it.

[Wallythacker]

I notice when tire shopping some start out with 3/8" of tread, others with 9/32" (numbers might not be precise) so that's 3/32" extra. I don't know what that translates to in terms of miles but if the compound is harder and you are shaving rubber off because of alignment having an extra 3/32" to begin with certainly can't hurt.

[Top_Fuel]

...can't anyone still get an axle fix under warranty in the US?

If the car is less than 5 years old and has less than 60,000 miles, yes. Amazingly, some Mirages make it through that warranty period with a bad axle...which is what Mitsubishi is counting on.

I notice when tire shopping some start out with 3/8" of tread, others with 9/32"...

One way to cut the cost of a tire (and lower its rolling resistance at the same time) is by manufacturing the tire with less tread depth. The Enasave is a perfect example...having a new tread depth of 9/32". Many tires have 11/32" of tread depth when new. I see new tires sold where the tread depth isn't even listed in the specs!

I don't know what that translates to in terms of miles...

On my Bridgestone Ecopias 1/32" of tread wear represents roughly 9,000 miles. On a Dunlop Enasave, I would guess that 1/32" of tread represents about 6,000 miles.

[Wallythacker]

Thanks for the explanations.

I think, if someone from the UK will chime in, a good must be fit for purpose and there is no limit on discovery. If you find out a good is not fit for purpose,say, 8 years down the road the .mfg is still responsible for a fix.

I thought there was something in the US stating a car .mfg was liable for a manufacturing defect in perpetuity if they knew about the defect and sold the cars anyway.

I'm ashamed to say I don't know what the official stance is here in Canada. I know if you discover a hidden warranty has been in effect the dealer is obligated for a free fix regardless of time.

The whole tire thing is confusing. When it's time my order of importance is size, price, then features*. I might look for LRR first then size, then price then features* last. Maybe.

* When I say features that entails all else, shipping costs, mount/balance costs, warrranty, performance both wet/dry.

[Top_Fuel]

I thought there was something in the US stating a car .mfg was liable for a manufacturing defect in perpetuity if they knew about the defect and sold the cars anyway.

In the US a car manufacturer is only on the hook "forever" for recalls. Recalls here are only issued for safety-related design failures (think air bags, brakes, fire hazards, etc.). I have a 1999 Eclipse that got new ball joints (for free) under a safety recall just a few years ago.

The rear axle problem is annoying for the owner...but it's not really a safety-related issue. So there will never be a recall issued to check/replace deficient rear axles in Mirages.

[Wallythacker]

That's what I was thinking of then. Safety related = free fix forever. Makes sense. Did US Honda recall all the rusty hunks of junk they made in the late 80s-90s?