00 Max. I put Michelin MXV4 plus tires on it 20k miles ago (front). Its alignment was such that it drove perfectly until recently, and it very slightly goes to the left...so basically alignment was not a problem.

However, these tires are REALLY worn. At their current rate I'll need to change them in 5k miles. So, 25k for front tires...that sucks. I am pretty easy on this car, and by no means a harsh driver (although I am a lot faster than most of the grandmas on the road, but I don't do burn outs or give it full throttle often or anything). These were fairly inexpensive tires, but still is this normal? Thanks! 18 months ago, BTW, from sears and I opted for no warranty of any kind.

 

Just because a car doesn't pull doesn't mean that that alignment is out.

Have you rotated them every couple of thousand miles?

 

Not really, though every couple thousand is definitely overkill...but the tires are pretty evenly worn! I think unless alignment is out evenly on both sides (ie. both have equal toe in or both have equal camber problems), then if the car drives straight and true you can be pretty safe that alignment is not a problem.

Other than rotating to ensure that front and back wear evenly, what's the benefit of rotating? Our cars are definitely not weight balanced anyway, so I just take the approach of replacing the rears when they're worn (which is pretty darn slow) and changing out the fronts more often, as they naturally wear much faster.

 

Absolutely not true. Although I don't think you have an alignment issue going on with your tire wear, your next statement is what caused your short tire life.

So you get more then 25K miles out of the whole set of tires you purchased. Thats why you have worn out just the fronts prematurely. Rotate your tires every 7500 miles for even wear from all 4 which will give you the maximum life from the set. You would have probably got over 40K miles out of your set of MXV4's had you rotated them correctly.

 

I've got 57,700 miles on my OEM Goodyear Eagle RSAs that everyone rails about. They will probably last another 5K and would have lasted longer but I blew the side wall out of one about 3 years ago and that has precluded me from rotating them as my spare is on the right rear. However, I did get creative recently and rotated the left two tires and probably should have some time back as it would have extended their life. I have an SE on the original 15" sawblades and it came with a full-size spare. I went out and bought a used POS as a spare and haven't had to use it.

 

Why would you need any other benefits? The cost savings are enough for me. I rotate my tires every 5K miles when I change my engine oil.

 

I should note I did start rotating when I bought the car (it had new tires), but with a blown rear I had to replace just the rears. At that point the tires were out of sync, which is why I haven't really been rotating them. I guess I wanted to know what average tire life is on these cars. if 25k front-only or 50k if I did the whole set, wearing them all down at the same time, then that's normal. I guess I could rotate them in the future, but then I have to replace four tires every 50k instead of 2 tires every 25k, so there doesn't seem to be much diff! Given that, there is no money saved rotating tires. Is evenly wearing them the only benefit, because I can't think of another one...

It might be marginally safer to have all tires evenly worn, but as I mentioned our cars are front heavy anyway, so it's not like an otherwise properly balanced car is thrown off by overly worn tires, though with healthier rear it would give more of an understeer issue.

 

the front tires take a lot of abuse just for the fact that they have power and turn. not rotating will definitely lesson the life of your tires. i really dont rotate either but do have to bye new front tires more than necessary.

 

You should replace 4 tires at once anyway. That way, all tjhings are equal from the start. Also, some tires get discontinued after a few years and you'll end up with mismatched treads at some point if you replace them in pairs. Me thinks you're in denial about tire safety with your rationale.

 

I thought denial is a river in Egypt, lol!

 

When the remaining two are in good condition it just doesn't make sense to replace them, just so everything is done as a set. I'm still waiting to see what's wrong with my "rationale". I see everyone here says to rotate, but besides all four dying at 50k instead of just the front two at 25k I'm still not really sure what the benefits are!?

I'm still waiting to here how money can be saved by rotating tires

 

It's so bloody simple. Why get 25K miles out of a 50K miles tire? You are throwing away 50% of the potential life of the tire. That's how you save money. If you can't grasp that, you just like throwing away money IMO.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I thought I broke it down quite clearly. Let's put aside wear on the rear, for now, since rear tires receive very little wear. Two scenarios:

1) Don't rotate tires. Front tires then wear out after 25k. After 25k you then pay $300 for new front tires

2) Rotate tires frequently. All tires receive pretty equal wear and ALL tires have worn out after 50k. After 50k you pay $600 for a new set.

25k = $300
50k = $600

Like you said, pretty simple, so I'm still waiting to see what the cost benefit of rotating tires is. This is not a difficult question, but the responses seem to keep kind of throwing the same generic "just cause" answer at it Now, if you're the sort of person who has to replace all four tires when only the front are worn, and the rear are in good shape, yes then you're right--you're losing half of the tire wear--but from what I've experienced, if you don't rotate, your front tires go bald and the rear are still in great shape, and don't need to be changed.

Thanks for the input!

 

It's yo world man. If you want to throw away 25K miles by not rotating it's all good. I replace 4 at a time because all of my tires wear evenly. That's because I rotate them on a regular schedule. As long as you think inside the box, you will never see the reason you seek for the "cost benefit." If you have a shortage of funds, that's another story. If that's the case, why not just come out and say it. $600 is not much for tires when you consider some people pay close to $1000 for 4 in some cases. You already stated yourself that "you're losing half of the tire wear". That should be reason enough. IMHO you're still throwing away money.

 

I really don't think I can simplify it anymore than I already did. My math proves that no money is lost, because you will spend half as much money twice as often, not the same amount twice as often. I only said you're losing tire wear if you replace all four at the same time--something that is not otherwise a necessity.

I'd be more than happy to break down the numbers in different scenarios, but this is not graduate level math. A tire "is not good for 50k". A tire "is good for a certain amount of wear". If that wear if on the front, it's good for less. If it's on the back, it's good for more. That's a good starting point.

 

Stay in your world man. I have 80K mile Michelins on my truck and I'll get at least 70K miles out of them. I'm done with it. Tightwad.

 

Your posts don't even really answer anything brought up in the thread. I could just as well be posting about dandruff shampoo and your responses would be as meaningful. "Inside the box", "stay in your world". What have you offered besides repeating the same factless conclusions, rife with aplomb the whole time? As I mentioned, I've no interest in an arguement; I just want to know the facts on rotating, but your responses are not helping anything. It seems to me that you've never actually thought about the benefits of rotating, but I just "must be wrong". Can you not understand my numbers? Very elementary and should be quite easy to grasp.

As I mentioned rotating tires only saves money if you insist on replacing all four at once If you're willing to "think outside the box", then no money is saved. You can't refute that, so you keep rehashing the same silly statements.

 

BMW does not recommend tire rotation on its cars.

 

Interesting, and of course on cars like the 350Z you CAN'T rotate the tires.

 

Ummm my 330i has a tire rotation schedule right in the owners manual.

There are only a few BMW models that don't have tire rotation schedules because of different size rims from front to rear. I think most models equipped with a sports package are set up like that.

 

Ahh...ok.

I have seen several BMWs on the road with their staggered, directional tires on the wrong sides of the car.

 

I promise this will be my last response. The reason I rotate my tires s to get the maximum mileage from all 4 tires. There is no sense in buying 2 tires at a time earlier than I normally would have to. You can't see the waste involved because you choose to change 2 at a time. At the end of it all, you still have to spend the money. The car is designed to function with 4 tires being equal in traction. If you put new ones on one axle and have old ones on the other, it can affect the handling in certain conditons. In th process of your front tires wearing out before your rears, you jeopardize your traction. I choose to get all the mileage possible by getting even wear all around. Always have and always will. I understand your numbers but not your logic. But then again, I don't have to because you have your way and I have mine. Good day Sir.

 

Gotcha You're right that money has to be spent in either case. I do agree that it will upset the balance on the car.

 

Why would you want to drive around with two bald tires? Didn't you buy a Maxima SE because of its handling characteristics? You will never experience the potential of your car being a cheapskate. Obviously handling and safety aren't of any concern to you, SkoorbMax.

 

If they're bald they should be replaced.