Anyone dealt with replacing Firestone replacements yet...?

[JWood]

Firestone replaced my Wilderness tires with Bridgestone Dueller H/L tires in Sep 2000. Seemed like good tires at the time with a 60,000 mile "Limited Warranty" (prorated of course).

The tires have about 30,000 miles on them. My friendly Firestone store say they are now worn out and need to be replaced now.

So, their deal today, since it is the end of the month, is $439.68 drive out. I can't get a clear answer on the prorated value of the old ones (the invoice from Sep 2000 shows a price of $463.88, then a discount of the same amount for replacement making it a no charge invoice). They just say these new tires are at "Cost".

Am I missing something here or should they credit about $220 or so toward a new purchase...?

 

[jimbo74]

there are a lot of ways for a tire company/retailer to weasel out of warranties... you must look at the fine print..... i can surely tell you that they are not at cost.. i work at a repair place and cant give out too much information, but for example a 275/40/18 bridgestone s-03 pole positon tire retals for $360 and our cost is $200.... there is an average of a 40% markup on tires

 

[Audio_1]

i

 

[jimbo74]

how much tread is actually left on them? 1/16" is the legal limit.....

 

[JWood]

There's more than 1/16....

not sure of the exact measurement...but they are definitely worn down a lot.

 

[Dan Whitaker]

I would get a secomd opinion. I don't mean to put anyone down that works at a Firestone daeler, but i think they may be trying to sucker you into a new set of tires you don't need. Only geting half of the life seems fishy to me and if this all the longer the tires are going to last I would not buy that brand or style again.
I'm very happy with my BFG All Terain KO's.
Just my .02.

 

[JWood]

Dan - that was my first thought also...

a 2nd opinion, and why buy another set like that with only 30k miles usage. They tell me it's their best tire.....so I'll look elsewhere.

 

[SWLathrop]

Devil's advocate here...

Basically you'll find that since it cost you $0 for the Bridgestones 2 years ago, you have "0" warranty. Unless you purchased a warranty with the replacement tires. I mean think about it... Why would anybody warranty a tire that you didn't pay for? The only thing they would have to warranty on the replacement tires would be defects in material & MFG'g. Also, any tire MFG can find a reason why even their BEST tire wore out early on your vehicle.

 

[jimbo74]

not only that... but they can blame the half tire life on YOU.....were your tires air checked by them every month? were they repaired due to a flat at another dealer? were they rotated every 5000 miles? did you tow heavy loads? did you do any off roading? participate in any speed contests? there are a lot of things they can nail the consumer for.... basically, the 60k mileage warranty is only good if you never do anyhting not considered by DMV to be street appropriate....

 

[dogfriend]

Originally posted by SWLathrop
Devil's advocate here...

Basically you'll find that since it cost you $0 for the Bridgestones 2 years ago, you have "0" warranty.

I can't buy this arguement (no pun intended). The reason that he received the $0 tires was because the previous ones were causing death and destruction across the globe; they didn't give him new tires out of the goodness of their hearts, they were forced to because the previously warrented tires that were supplied as OEM tires were unsafe. Yes, he got mileage for free with the originals, but he could have had a tread peel prematurely given the right circumstances.

I'm sure that they gave him the pitch to get the Bridgestones for replacements because they were a great tire. I doubt that they qualified that by saying " You'll get better tread life with some Mitchelin tires, though." They should stand behind their product with a proper warranty, even if he didn't pay full price.

 

[jimbo74]

dogfriend... the bridgestones are a good tire.... but, if the mileage warranty was 60k and he only got 30k and did all the maintenance then there is a problem...... im looking at this situation 2 ways... i work in the retail tire industry and am an avid auto enthusiast..... the company will always try to sell you something you dont need, it the way we make money, but it is always your opinion if you need it or not..... although, in some spots, we can legally force you to buy parts and pay for labor if the vehicle isnt road worthy up to dot specifications.... the law is there to protect you from evil retailers... but it is also there to protect the retailers from evil people

 

[dogfriend]

I don't think that he is being evil by expecting some credit for the tires that only made it 30k with a 60k limited warranty. I agree that there could be something wrong with his truck or his driving habits, but they should point that out to him if they are denying him credit for the premature worn tires.

The part that I don't accept is saying that he is not entitled to any warranty because he didn't pay full price for the tires. He got the tires because the other ones were not safe. Firestone purchased the tires as part of a recall agreement. Unless they specifically put in writing that no warranty will be honored on the replacements, he should receive a warranty on the new tires just the same as if he had purchased them with his own money.

 

[jimbo74]

that warranty of mileage also depends on who warrants it.... if brigestone says they have a 60k milege warranty, call bridgestone and complain to them..... a tire retail (firestone in question) can make their own warranty independant of brigestones warranty.....

 

[dogfriend]

last attempt

Ignoring the fact that Bridgestone/Firestone are the same company - the original post leads me to believe that the tire shop told J Wood that the Bridgestone replacement tires had a 60k Limited Warranty. I don't know any details of the terms of the warranty, so I can't argue (and I'm not intending to argue) that point.

The opinion expressed that I don't agree with is that J Wood is not entitled to any warranty because he did not pay for the tires. Unless he was informed in writing at the time of purchase (even though Firestone bought the tires) that the warranty was not valid, he should expect to receive some credit for the worn out replacements.

Here is an analogy: You buy a car. You drive the car. The car is then recalled by the manufacturer for a safety defect. The defect cannot be repaired satisfactorily. Your car is replaced by the manufacturer.

Question: Are you entitled to a warranty on the replacement car? You didn't really pay for the second car, they gave it to you because they couldn't fix the original one that you paid for.

Would you accept a replacement car with no warranty from the same manufacturer that had to recall the first one? I wouldn't.

 

[jimbo74]

ok...going back and rereading those posts by j wood.... nowehere does he say they wouldnt warranty his tires..... all it does say is that a firestone shop said he needed his tires replaced and offered to sell him new ones..... since his tires were at 50% of their expectancy, and they said the tires were at cost, he is getting a prorated deal.... at cost is normally about 40% less than retail...... so about half...... im not defending nor attacking the firestone dealer.... they are not fully owned by firestone.... think of all the stockholders they must answer to... they cant do everything.... shops, even though they carry the firestone name, are most likely franchise locations having no contact with the firestone company in general other than buying tires from them.... just becuase it says firestone on the store, doesnt mean firestone owns it....