Front tire wear, is this normal?

[NORTON]

.>... Doesn't that throw off the speedo accuracy?
>>GM must have had a reason for using bigger tires and rims in back.

>That's a good point.
A larger diameter would indicate slower speeds, correct?
I'm running stock tire sizes. My Garmin nuvi shows I am going 1 mph faster than the speedo. I've never had a car with speedo error in that direction.

>> I suspect they selected the smaller size in the front just to bump the EPA range testing to the 82 mile mark. That, and the use of LRR tires are just to advertise 'range'. All manufacturers chase that EPA number. Maybe it also helps to keep it an 'understeer' car.

I have more than enough range for my needs so I installed performance tires. I wish I had known about using 195's all around at that time.

Can anyone running 195's report on speedo error?

Thanks, N

 

[nikwax]

I suppose there is a reason for the front to back difference, but what would it be? The drive tires should be smaller? The weight is 50/50 front to rear, so no need for larger rears for that.


The diameters are <1% difference, I don't think the speedo is that accurate ;-)

 

[NomadMac]

I suppose there is a reason for the front to back difference, but what would it be? The drive tires should be smaller? The weight is 50/50 front to rear, so no need for larger rears for that.

Earlier discussions pointed towards reducing oversteer, IIRC.

 

[oregonsparky]

I suppose there is a reason for the front to back difference, but what would it be? The drive tires should be smaller? The weight is 50/50 front to rear, so no need for larger rears for that.


The diameters are <1% difference, I don't think the speedo is that accurate ;-)

The stated reason for larger tires in the rear is to support additional weight of the battery pack.

Note that 50/50 weight distribution front to rear is without passengers. Load four adults in the car and some luggage in the back and you would exceed tire capacity rating if they didn't use larger tires in the rear.

And if you never intend to haul passengers, then I would assume that you could go with same size tires front and back similar to the gasoline version of the car.

Jeff

 

[Sparkler]

My tires lost their wear bars at 6k miles. At over 9k, there's almost no tread left. They slip and slide a little more on wet pavement now, too. But what the heck. ...

This is a very dangerous thing to do kids, don't try this at home!

Seriously, go get new tires when you first see the wear bars appear. Doing otherwise is a very selfish act out, not to mention illegal...

Plenty of tread left on my fronts @ 12K miles...

 

[nikwax]

I suppose there is a reason for the front to back difference, but what would it be? The drive tires should be smaller? The weight is 50/50 front to rear, so no need for larger rears for that.


The diameters are <1% difference, I don't think the speedo is that accurate ;-)

The stated reason for larger tires in the rear is to support additional weight of the battery pack.

Note that 50/50 weight distribution front to rear is without passengers. Load four adults in the car and some luggage in the back and you would exceed tire capacity rating if they didn't use larger tires in the rear.

And if you never intend to haul passengers, then I would assume that you could go with same size tires front and back similar to the gasoline version of the car.

Jeff

OK...but then why not have the larger tires in the front as well?


And I ran the numbers on the tire load rating, the smaller tires would handle full payload just fine.

 

[oregonsparky]

I suppose there is a reason for the front to back difference, but what would it be? The drive tires should be smaller? The weight is 50/50 front to rear, so no need for larger rears for that.


The diameters are <1% difference, I don't think the speedo is that accurate ;-)

The stated reason for larger tires in the rear is to support additional weight of the battery pack.

Note that 50/50 weight distribution front to rear is without passengers. Load four adults in the car and some luggage in the back and you would exceed tire capacity rating if they didn't use larger tires in the rear.

And if you never intend to haul passengers, then I would assume that you could go with same size tires front and back similar to the gasoline version of the car.

Jeff

OK...but then why not have the larger tires in the front as well?


And I ran the numbers on the tire load rating, the smaller tires would handle full payload just fine.

The rear wheels have larger rims as well? This would 1give the wheel more load capacity.

I have read here it is not safe to rotate tires front to back due to clearance isssues. There is not sufficient clearance.for larger wheel in front.

Jeff

 

[NORTON]

I have read here it is not safe to rotate tires front to back due to clearance isssues. There is not sufficient clearance.for larger wheel in front.
Jeff

It's not possible to run the rear wheels on the front (or visa-versa, it's here somewhere...). They hit the calipers.
It is possible to run larger wheels all around. Search for it here. One guy claims to have 16" wheels and low profile tires mounted, with pictures!! What I want someday as my summer setup !

I think 'load capacity' of the tires is not a factor. All tires in this range that I looked at are rated 1050 -1200 + lbs. each.

 

[SteveC5088]

My tires lost their wear bars at 6k miles. At over 9k, there's almost no tread left. They slip and slide a little more on wet pavement now, too. But what the heck. ...

This is a very dangerous thing to do kids, don't try this at home!

Seriously, go get new tires when you first see the wear bars appear. Doing otherwise is a very selfish act out, not to mention illegal...

Plenty of tread left on my fronts @ 12K miles...

Well, yesterday, I finally broke down and bought new Bridgestone Ecopia EP422 tires for the front. $270 with installation, TPM charges, fees and taxes.

The tires were almost bald, except for the radial grooves -- 10,200 miles. My average mileage is 3.6 m/kwh. So, my tire expenses are about equal to my electricity charges, total expense works out to about 5.6 cents per mile. Oh, and the rear tires? The rubber will rot before they ever wear out.

Looking at it another way: my expenses for 2.5 years of driving are $560, so that's $19 per month. OUCH!!!
Still having fun driving that little hot rod.

Now in 2.5 more years, we will see what Bridgestone says about their 70k mileage warranty on the tires. I asked at Americas Tire, and they said the co would back half the mileage if tires couldn't be fully rotated (like the Spark EV). ...so that's a 35k miles warranty, I should still get a nice rebate.

 

[sensij]

I'm going to replace the Ecopias before they show much wear. I'll keep them and put them back on at lease end. Not many choices if you want to keep the OE sizes , LRR, and have a matching set of 4. A new one has popped up on Tire Rack: Firestone Champion Fuel Fighter. Comes in H or V rated, and the UTQG is 600 AA. Anyone tried those yet? I'm thinking I'll get a set. Firestone gives a 30 day return privilege in case I don't like them. I mostly want less road noise, more precise handling and better on center feel.

Just passed the halfway point on my lease, 18 mo in and 22500 miles. Looking to keep maximum range on the replacements... did you try the Firestone Champion Fuel fighters? Any feedback?

 

[Sross222]

Will I notice much difference in handling (less torque steer) if I replace the stock front tires with the Bridgestone Ecopia EP422? I know a few of you have done this...

I would love to have 4 new tires with better grip, but I'm unwilling to shell out the cash or incur the range hit to do that. And from what I read it may not be safe to put completely different tires just on the front while keeping the stock tires on the back.

 

[CCIE]

Will I notice much difference in handling (less torque steer) if I replace the stock front tires with the Bridgestone Ecopia EP422? I know a few of you have done this...

I would love to have 4 new tires with better grip, but I'm unwilling to shell out the cash or incur the range hit to do that. And from what I read it may not be safe to put completely different tires just on the front while keeping the stock tires on the back.

I doubt you'll notice a lot of handling difference. Though the stock tires are so horrible that anything would be an improvement. I have EP422 Plus tires on my Volt and they seem fine to me. No loss in range from the OEM Goodyear tires. Do note that they make an EP422 and EP422 Plus. My research said the non-plus version should be avoided.

I also saw a recent thread from someone who installed the new Firestone LRR tires on their Spark EV and gave a god initial review. Also, unlike the EP422 Plus, the Firestone can be purchased in the correct size for both the front and rear.

 

[Jedi2155]

Looking at the reviews for the EP422, a lot of people are complaining that the tires will not meet the 70,000 mile treadwear warranty. Most are having to replace theirs around 25-40k miles.
https://www.amazon.com/Bridgestone-Ecopia-EP422-All-Season-Radial/dp/B004QGZEQ4

I'm debating between the Champion Firestone and the Kumho Ecsta 4X II that some people have praised. I'm at 20k miles and my fronts are basically slicks.