Lexusfreak Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 I shall!I mean even within a tire line, say OEM MXV4s are lesser quality than replacement MXV4s. ← That's intresting, I've never heard that to be honest........I doubt the tire maker will admit that if that is in fact the case. B) Why would they make an inferior OEM tire of the same line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW03ES Posted August 5, 2005 Author Share Posted August 5, 2005 Not inferior, just cheaper. Think about it, the company makes much less per tire when they sell OEM than they do aftermarket. I'm sure there are differences in quality. Look at the reviews on tirerack, most people who have the tires OEM on their cars hate them, most people who have the tires installed love them. Its that way for almost all tires, even the Bridgestone Potenza RE92 (which even have a different sidewall design when OEM and when aftermarket). Firestone Radial ATX on the Explorer. EVERY tread seperation was on a tire installed OEM by Ford, no tread seperations were ever reported with tires purchased aftermarket, on Ford Explorers or not. On my dad's 98 LS400, came with Dunlop SP Sport 4000s which we were unhappy with because they didnt wear long enough. Replaced with 5000s which weren't stellar, replaced with 4000s again and they were great, and lasted twice as long as the first set. Most car owners either put on what the car had before or whatever the tire guy reccomends. The maker has a pretty good chance of just selling the owner ANOTHER set ASAP and making even more. I think it was vbdenny who has knowledge of the tire industry and turned me onto this. It makes perfect sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexusfreak Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 I wonder if we can get this info out of the tire makers? I agree it seems to make sense & it is very eye opening! It tells me that they (tire makers) do not have 'safety' on the top of their list despite what they advertise on TV, radio and the like, but the all mighty dollar. :( I guess I can't say that I am suprised however. :whistles: :chairshot: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW03ES Posted August 6, 2005 Author Share Posted August 6, 2005 Thats bi-nness! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexusfreak Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 Thats bi-nness! ← I hear ya. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartkat Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 Not inferior, just cheaper. Think about it, the company makes much less per tire when they sell OEM than they do aftermarket. I'm sure there are differences in quality.Look at the reviews on tirerack, most people who have the tires OEM on their cars hate them, most people who have the tires installed love them. Its that way for almost all tires, even the Bridgestone Potenza RE92 (which even have a different sidewall design when OEM and when aftermarket). Firestone Radial ATX on the Explorer. EVERY tread seperation was on a tire installed OEM by Ford, no tread seperations were ever reported with tires purchased aftermarket, on Ford Explorers or not. On my dad's 98 LS400, came with Dunlop SP Sport 4000s which we were unhappy with because they didnt wear long enough. Replaced with 5000s which weren't stellar, replaced with 4000s again and they were great, and lasted twice as long as the first set. Most car owners either put on what the car had before or whatever the tire guy reccomends. The maker has a pretty good chance of just selling the owner ANOTHER set ASAP and making even more. I think it was vbdenny who has knowledge of the tire industry and turned me onto this. It makes perfect sense. ← OEM tires are made and priced to suit the auto manufacturers. In most cases their prime consideration is nice ride and low noise. Yes, they get a really good price due mostly to volume. Distribution costs are minimal when you are shipping to car makers. If you look at it from a roundness, balance, comfort standpoint, the tires going to OEM are at the tightest end of the spec. The aftermarket, except for brand loyalty, is quite different. Used to be that aftermarket tires had a wider spec than OEM on ride quality parameters. You could see that difference, for instance, by how much weight it took to balance a OEM tire as opposed to many of the aftermarket tires, as one example. At least one company, years ago, went to a quality standard called "OE or Scrap". They did not let any tires on the market if they didn't meed OE specs. There was some considerable scrap at first, but it didn't take long to meed that standard. Sort of a sink or swim thing for the plants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 Not inferior, just cheaper. Think about it, the company makes much less per tire when they sell OEM than they do aftermarket. I'm sure there are differences in quality. ← OEM tires are made and priced to suit the auto manufacturers. In most cases their prime consideration is nice ride and low noise. Yes, they get a really good price due mostly to volume. Distribution costs are minimal when you are shipping to car makers. If you look at it from a roundness, balance, comfort standpoint, the tires going to OEM are at the tightest end of the spec. ← I don't agree with the theory proposed by SW03ES (or vbdenny?) on Automotive manufacturers putting less than aftermarket quality tires on new cars (or b-stock). It makes sense in one direction from a pure pennies standpoint, but not from a warranty/complaint/customer satisfaction standpoint. While I cannot speak for tires, I can speak directly from job experience at a Tier I automotive supplier for radios and say this is most definitely not the case. The radios that go into a vehicle on the production lines have far tighter specs than aftermarket radios you pick up off crutchfield.com, etc. (A stock versus B stock). I recognize that tires are a consumable and are therefore a different beast, but before I accept said argument, I'd want to see proof. Good lord... can you imagine the bad press after the Ford Firestone saga if it came out that some automotive manufacturer was putting b-stock on all their new cars? On top of that... how foolish would it be for a tire manufacturer to allow people's first impression of their tire to be of their b-stock? (it is my opinion that many people stick with whatever tire they already have on a car, so the only time they see a new type of tire is when they change cars). Anyway... those are my thoughts on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 With my experience now I'm no longer interested in the ratings on these internet sites. I think everyone has a different set of expectations and you get a lot of "groupthink" where people are too shy to post an opinion that goes against the group. They're also OEM tires, and I'm convinced OEM tires are lesser quality than replacement tires, the vast majority of reviews are about OEM tires, compared after they're worn out to totally new tires. Hardly a fair assessment. I also was very happy with the Dunlop SP Sport 4000s and felt they gave the best ride out of the many tires my dad had on his 98 LS, and they have quite poor ratings. TireRack has a way of being pretty "trendy" and older tires like the MXV4s and the SP 4000s aren't "cool" and "in" like tires such as the Turanza LS-V and Goodyear Triple Tread. Makes them appear like lesser tires when really they're not, they just don't have the same marketing blitz and glitz.I'm not looking for miracles in the snow, but I do expect a FWD car with traction and yaw control to be able to move up a driveway with 2 inches of snow on it. It could with the Bridgestones, it couldn't with the Toyos, we'll see about the Michelins. As for value, they cost less than the Toyos and they're worth twice as much. I'm happy. I see why they cost $200 a peice retail now. ← It is very strange that your experience is so opposite my experience (unless of course the aftermarket-OEM theory, see note above this one, is correct and my OEM tires just sucked). I had MXV4's as OEM on my car, and when I went to replace them at about 30-35K, I read the forums and chose the Toyo TPT's. I noticed 2 things immediately and consistently thereafter. 1. The Toyo's were much louder than the MXV4's (I did not notice a degradation in ride) 2. the Toyo's gripped far far better than the MXV4's and performed better in foul whether (was driving them in Detroit MI). Unfortunately after 35-40K, I am not looking at getting tires again and am going through the same thought process.. which to get, is there better technology/tires out there, etc. See this thread on the MXV4's just caught me off guard... I will consider them again (they had been out of the running due to traction/handling) ... I miss the quiet, but don't want to sacrifice traction where I'm living now (hilly, snowy, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW03ES Posted October 18, 2005 Author Share Posted October 18, 2005 That may go back to my experience that typically people with OEM MXV4s are far less happier than those with aftermarket MXV4s. Couldn't tell you why... I'm very pleased, even thrilled, with my MXV4s. They improved the ride (by ride I mean smoothness and noise, the TPTs are mainly louder I agree) so drastically that I actually stopped considering upgrading to an LS right now... As for traction, my TPTs were great at first but the snow traction was terrible and the rain traction got that way as they wore. They seem to be a pretty inconsistent tire. You might be better off going to a snow tire in your area... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.