Firestone Tires

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lancer94
  • Start date Start date
L

Lancer94

Anybody know if Honda Canada has (or will) replace/recall vehicles with
Firestone Tires?
 
Why would they? The problem with Firestone was only with the Ford Explorer.
There are no known problems with the Firestone tires that came on the Civics
except for the fact that they were really crappy. Also, I noticed that the
new 2004 Civic comes with Bridgestone tires. Not like they're much better
but I doubt Honda is about to start putting Michelins in the Civic. It
would just cost too much.
 
Sean Donaher said:
Why would they? The problem with Firestone was only with the Ford Explorer.
There are no known problems with the Firestone tires that came on the Civics
except for the fact that they were really crappy. Also, I noticed that the
new 2004 Civic comes with Bridgestone tires. Not like they're much better
but I doubt Honda is about to start putting Michelins in the Civic. It
would just cost too much.
Click to expand...

Firestone makes some good tires... you just have to buy their expensive
ones. Some of the best tires I've had were Firestone SH30 performance
tires - they stuck like glue and had good performance wet or dry.
 
I read an article in the newspaper of a class action settlement
with Bridgestone/Firestone for Firestone tires. The problem was
certainly not only with the Firestone tires on the Explorer.
There was a long list of tires covered by the litigation
settlement. The Article I saw was in the Chicago Tribune,
perhaps if you did a web search there you could find the
information you need.


mike hunt
 
I know that but Bridgestone is supposed to be their better line.
 
Sorry to burst your bubble but Bridgestone tires are NOT Firestone tires! In
fact it is just the opposite. Firestone tires ARE Bridgestone tires!
Bridgestone purchased the Firestone company, invested megabucks in new
equipment, upgraded facilities, and better quality control. Furthermore, it
is interesting to note that here in Alaska (cool temps/year round) we didn't
have a single instance (of which I am aware) of tread lifting or separation
of a Firestone tire even those on Exploders. This makes one wonder about the
cause of the many cases of failure in the "smaller states". Heat? A large
part of the whole problem revolves around the customers demand for a "soft"
ride in a suv like the Explorer. Short of redesigning the entire suspension
to achieve a softer ride (also a lowering of suspension performance) the
other option is to reduce the air pressure in the vehicle tires. As I
recall, the recommended tire pressure on the Explorers of those years was
26psi front and rear. A really soft tire! This pressure was what they
shipped from the factory. What do you suppose the pressure was after a
couple of years? I worked in a tire shop during the period just prior to the
lawsuit and recall and can assure you that I saw vehicles come into the shop
with pressures in the 19-22psi range. A low pressure tire is more
drastically effected by changes in temp (more room to flex and higher
internal temps therefrom). Short trip driving, kids to school, run to the
mall, run to soccer practice, etc. results in cool tires being run up to
high temps, cooled down, run up, cooled down, and on and on. The flexing
begins to break down the tire and tread separation is one of the possible
results. Now having said that, it is also known and admitted to by
Bridgestone/Firestone that QC (quality control) procedures were either
insufficient or were not followed in several cases resulting in batches of
tires from several plants being shipped out that were sub-standard.
Conclusion: not all of the fault for all of the tire failures can be placed
at the Bridgestone/Firestone door. Some fault must be borne by those
consumers who demand that a vehicle and its components perform a role for
which they were not designed. Some of the fault lies with the auto
manufacturers who knowingly design a vehicle that is not intended for the
type of service in which it will be placed and who buy tires by getting the
least expensive, discontinued lines, overstocks and the end of each tire
manufacturing year. Wow! Sorry 'bout that. Didn't to climb upon that soap
box again.

Respectfully,
Dave D
 
Most of the problem with the firestones and explorers was 'ford' running
them underinflated to make up for there crappy suspension. Any tire is more
susceptible to failure when run underinflated..

I bought a 2003 civic, and planned from the start to replace the firestones,
cause I didn't like the way they cornered, lack of traction, etc. Started
out looking at Michelin MXV4 Plus, cause I wanted a good touring tire and
have had Michelins for the past 20 years. Found ratings on tires, and a lot
of customer comments on www.tirerack.com that were very good, and researched
tires on there. Michelin's were not rated very good at all, with very bad
wet traction. Checked on other tires, read the reviews and ended up buying
Bridgstone Turanza's. Figured I couldn't go wrong with a 30 day ride
guarantee. They are by far better than any Michelin I've ever had. Improved
ride, cornering, and traction more than I could have ever hoped for. I've
taken corners harder than I have ever been able to before without a squeal,
or slip.

I've never cared for Firestones, mostly because I bought a set back in 78,
had them for 3 months, until I could afford to replace them, and put
Michelins on my car cause I couldn't stand the Firestones, and at the time
the 731's or 721's, whatever they were called, was there top of the line
tire, and they sucked. The firestones that came OE on my Civic also sucked
bad.
 
Might want to do a little more research on that one. I wouldn't want you to
spend your life spouting off stupid comments like that..

www.tirerack.com
 
If your talking about the Michelin MXV4 Plus, your way better off with
Bridgestone tires.
 
Maybe same company who owns them, but different factory and processes that
make them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest threads

Back
Top