Sears Tires

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:26:06 -0700 (PDT), ransley
<Mark_Ransleym> you wrote:

>On Sep 14, 6:19 am, 01dyna <01d...@noplace.com> wrote:

>
>6 years they are junk, they start to loose traction from day 1, I
>notice a difference from 1-2 years, at 5, I change them. Milage is not
>the critical component, the rubber compound is and in snow and ice 5
>yr old tires dont work where I live.

From "day 1"? Really? Do you have any evidence of such?

Also, I don't think the discussion had anything to do with mileage, it
was about how long a tire sat on the rack before it was sold and what
was the longevity of a tire based on age.

I don't think anyone brought in the factor of mileage but you.

On Sep 14, 12:57 pm, 01dyna <01d...@noplace.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:26:06 -0700 (PDT), ransley
>
> <Mark_Rans...m> you wrote:
> >On Sep 14, 6:19 am, 01dyna <01d...@noplace.com> wrote:
>
> >6 years they are junk, they start to loose traction from day 1, I
> >notice a difference from 1-2 years, at 5, I change them. Milage is not
> >the critical component, the rubber compound is and in snow and ice 5
> >yr old tires dont work where I live.
>
> From "day 1"?  Really? Do you have any evidence of such?
>
> Also, I don't think the discussion had anything to do with mileage, it
> was about how long a tire sat on the rack before it was sold and what
> was the longevity of a tire based on age.  
>
> I don't think anyone brought in the factor of mileage but you.

Evidence? You age from day one, so does rubber, think about it.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:50:16 -0700 (PDT), ransley
<Mark_Ransleym> you wrote:

>On Sep 14, 12:57 pm, 01dyna <01d...@noplace.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:26:06 -0700 (PDT), ransley
>>
>> <Mark_Rans...m> you wrote:
>> >On Sep 14, 6:19 am, 01dyna <01d...@noplace.com> wrote:
>>
>> >6 years they are junk, they start to loose traction from day 1, I
>> >notice a difference from 1-2 years, at 5, I change them. Milage is not
>> >the critical component, the rubber compound is and in snow and ice 5
>> >yr old tires dont work where I live.
>>
>> From "day 1"?  Really? Do you have any evidence of such?
>>
>> Also, I don't think the discussion had anything to do with mileage, it
>> was about how long a tire sat on the rack before it was sold and what
>> was the longevity of a tire based on age.  
>>
>> I don't think anyone brought in the factor of mileage but you.
>
>Evidence? You age from day one, so does rubber, think about it.

of course. But that's not the question. The question is for the poster
to quantify how one day after manufacture noticeably affects the tires
performance. I say it doesn't.

On Sep 14, 4:15 pm, 01dyna <01d...@noplace.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:50:16 -0700 (PDT), ransley
>
>
>
>
>
> <Mark_Rans...m> you wrote:
> >On Sep 14, 12:57 pm, 01dyna <01d...@noplace.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:26:06 -0700 (PDT), ransley
>
> >> <Mark_Rans...m> you wrote:
> >> >On Sep 14, 6:19 am, 01dyna <01d...@noplace.com> wrote:
>
> >> >6 years they are junk, they start to loose traction from day 1, I
> >> >notice a difference from 1-2 years, at 5, I change them. Milage is not
> >> >the critical component, the rubber compound is and in snow and ice 5
> >> >yr old tires dont work where I live.
>
> >> From "day 1"?  Really? Do you have any evidence of such?
>
> >> Also, I don't think the discussion had anything to do with mileage, it
> >> was about how long a tire sat on the rack before it was sold and what
> >> was the longevity of a tire based on age.  
>
> >> I don't think anyone brought in the factor of mileage but you.
>
> >Evidence? You age from day one, so does rubber, think about it.
>
> of course. But that's not the question. The question is for the poster
> to quantify how one day after manufacture noticeably affects the tires
> performance.  I say it doesn't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What, 1 day, you are really missing something here, he said 2 years
old.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:37:01 -0700 (PDT), ransley
<Mark_Ransleym> you wrote:


>
>I dont know what you are reading but quit drinking and read it right,
>One day is not any issue from OP

I don't know what *your* drinking. YOU'RE the one that said this:

> >> >> >6 years they are junk, they start to loose traction from day 1

wanna cite a reference that shows there's ANY measurable difference of
traction on a tire after ONE day?

I thought so.

I bought a set of four Goodyear Weatherhandlers at Sears recently. The
tires had been made three months before I bought them.....and the difference
in ride was incredible, just terrific.

On Sep 16, 10:36 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Sparki wrote:
> > I checked and lo and behold two of the tires were manufactured in 2008
> > but the third tire I just bought last week was manufactured in mid
> > 2006.  That thing has been sitting around for 2 years somewhere.  My
> > question is what should I do?  Do I confront Sears about it?  How much
> > rubber deterioration could have taken place in those two years?  I've
> > read that the deterioration isn't always visible on the outside - but
> > starts on the inside.  These are not cheap tires by the way.  They are
> > Michelin tires and 3 of those things cost me over $400.
>
> I doubt if Sears would do anything for you. The tires were stored
> inside, and even though they are older, it's not like they were outside
> and deteriorating from the sun, road salt, etc.
>
> Bottom line is to buy tires at a high volume retailer. Where I live,
> most people buy tires at Costco. You can see Costco's green valve caps
> everywhere (indicating that the tires are filled with nitrogen).
>
> Costco has many advantages over Sears (and most other stores):
>
> -Low prices, usually lower than any other store for the base tire
> (tirerack.com is often lower, but without shipping).
>
> -No charge for valve stems
>
> -No charge for road hazard warranty
>
> -Low charge for mounting and balancing
>
> -Tires filled with nitrogen, not plain air
>
> -No hassles over tread life warranty (a big deal since most tires won't
> last their rated mileage, but most tire stores will use excuses to not
> honor the tread life warranty).
>
> We don't have Sam's Club in my area so I don't know how many of the
> Costco advantages that they share.

O3- Ozone, ruins tires inside buildings. Tires are manmade and
deteriorate inside and out. You pay top dollar, you should get the
best. O3 is an oxidiser, just like those Air Ioniser Air Purifiers
that Oxidise lungs, you dont believe me! so google, O3 Air Purifiers -
Asthma- Lung Disorders- Oxidisers. Remember Rust is an Oxidation, as
is dry cracked rubber. A year or two old, is bad when sold as new, My
MICHELIN tires go hard, slippery, dangerous. and worthless at 5 years

On Sep 23, 12:25 am, "Pszemol" <Psze...@PolBox.com> wrote:
> "ransley" <Mark_Rans...m> wrote in message
>
> news:c39bc9a4-e2c8-4a11-a37c-88d730122ac5@d45g2000hsc..com...
>
> > 6 years they are junk, they start to loose traction from day 1, I
> > notice a difference from 1-2 years, at 5, I change them. Milage is not
> > the critical component, the rubber compound is and in snow and ice
> > 5 yr old tires dont work where I live.
>
> What would you say about my original full-size spare tire in my 1995 camry?
> Car was made november 1994, tires of course earlier. I have forgotten about
> it totally until I had to use it couple of weeks ago when I got a flat on my
> 2-years old tire. I could not feel the difference in ride when I was on my
> spare, but there was middle of the summer and there was no snow or ice on
> the road. Have to check the date code on this tire - it looks and feels OK
> after 14 years :-)

One easy test is stick your fingernail into it to see how soft the
rubber is, first it wont oxidise like tires on the car its is sealed
up a bit from new air and sun. Suns UV rays, Ozone and other
pollutants eat rubber. An example, one year I replaced the fronts,
with same Michelin type, all 4 were maybe 40000m 4 years old. I went
around a corner I used to navigate with all 4 older Michelins but with
the new fronts it was ice one day and I did now know it, well I
fishtailed, the rears at 4 years were actualy harder i could feel it,
they had Oxidised hard so I went out and got rid of Michelin rears
with only 40000 on them and I handled OK. It might be ok but if you
drive on snow or ice newer is better and safer. A spare is a spare.

On Sep 23, 12:25 am, "Pszemol" <Psze...@PolBox.com> wrote:
> "ransley" <Mark_Rans...m> wrote in message
>
> news:c39bc9a4-e2c8-4a11-a37c-88d730122ac5@d45g2000hsc..com...
>
> > 6 years they are junk, they start to loose traction from day 1, I
> > notice a difference from 1-2 years, at 5, I change them. Milage is not
> > the critical component, the rubber compound is and in snow and ice
> > 5 yr old tires dont work where I live.
>
> What would you say about my original full-size spare tire in my 1995 camry?
> Car was made november 1994, tires of course earlier. I have forgotten about
> it totally until I had to use it couple of weeks ago when I got a flat on my
> 2-years old tire. I could not feel the difference in ride when I was on my
> spare, but there was middle of the summer and there was no snow or ice on
> the road. Have to check the date code on this tire - it looks and feels OK
> after 14 years :-)

14 years is old, maybe just get a new one and keep it for a spare, It
probably will feel noticably hard compared to a new tire.