daryll40

I have a question about tire rotation. Keep in mind that I live in Pittsburgh, where the up and down hills make tire and brake life rough. Anyway, that being said, I was out with my friend who has a 2 year old BMW X5 SUV that he bot new. It now has just shy of 30,000 miles on it and the only maintenance he has ever done is that he changed the oil once..he'll change it again at 30K. Apparently BMW has an extended oil life thing. I noticed that the front tires are about bald but the rears are much much better.

Anyway, I am not suggesting that we don't change oil on our Lexi for 15, 000 miles. But, I am wondering about tire rotation. Somewhere I read something interesting. The guy stated that he NEVER rotates tires. What he does is let the two front tires wear out first. He then buys 1 tire to match the spare and installs those two on the front, using one of the worn tires as a spare. Bottom line is that he gets almost 50,000 miles only buying one tire. This makes sense to me. I rotated tires at 5000 mile intervals for years and, in the end, don't seem to get much extension of tire life because of it.

I am just wondering if rotating tires isn't, perhaps, overmaintenance, especially in Pittsburgh, where tires get beaten no matter WHAT you do.

Daryll40

SRK

It is best to rotate tires front to back, on the same side, at regular intervals. That way all the tires wear out at the same time. It also allows you to replace the tires somewhat before they go bald. Even good tires loose much of their performance in the last half of their life, and as they age they do the same. So the idea of tires that last 100k miles doesn't do much for me. Why cruise around on worn out sidewalls?
Nothing beats buying a full set of new tires, and mixing worn and new at random prevents you from getting that feeling.
And changing the oil at huge intervals is a good way to save $50.00 and ruin a $10k engine. The first week's depreciation on that Bimmer would pay for oil changes every 3k for life! Makes no sense to me.

daryll40

changes. I think my point, however, is that unless you keep a car for 150,000 miles (and perhaps even if you DO), much of the maintenance beyond oil changes seems to be fluff and overkill.

mtsao

Daryll40,

I've also discussed with others the wisdom and practicality of tire rotation. From a performance standpoint, as I understand it, there is a sacrifice in traction immediately following a tire rotation. Each car wears tires in different ways at different corners--when you change things up, it takes some breaking in to reach the optimal surface contact with the road...and then, your tire goes back to 'uneven' wear!! However slight, no tire can wear perfectly evenly on it's own, and over time the unevenness will become more and more noticeable.

However, balancing normally happens with rotation, and I do view this as a good thing. Also, having the tires off allows visual inspection of brake components and a clue as to whether the alignment may need attention.

Ultimately, I don't know if the money spent for rotation and balance throughout a tire's life begins to pay for itself or not...assuming 8k rotation interval on 50k tires at average $50 per, that comes to $78 a tire spent on rotation and balance over its lifetime. It may be money better spent towards new tires...but to each their own.

One-tire-trick or no though, SRK is absolutely right--there's nothing that matches the feel of 4 new tires.

Also, I don't think I agree that beyond oil changes there is a lot of 'fluff and overkill'. Take my car for instance. I just recently bought a 90 LS. It has a complete Lexus service history and it looks like the previous owner spent loads of money on basically whatever he was told was needed by the dealerships. And guess what? 13 years later, every single system works!! Whether a car was maintained well really shows as it ages.

Mike

daryll40

Thanks for the insight on your '90 LS. I had that very car...and should have kept it a lot longer than the 2 years that I did. That was before kids and financial maturity! But now I am back...new LS430 ('03) that I hope to keep for a long time.

That being said, the truth is that even "for a long time" for me would probably be about 75,000 miles over 5 years. And while I have no desire to "screw" the next owner, the truth is that I'll get the same damn depreciated low value (relative to new) for the car with "adequate but not excessive" maintenance vs "babied" maintenance. I know because I just got rid of a 5 year old Mercedes S320 that I did baby...and all I could get was the Kelly Blue Book "good" value. Everyone said the same thing...even one that was babied and hand washed and waxed like mine (it still looks "showroom") isn't worth more than the going rate. And they are right.

I guess the reason to baby a car is if you want to get to 150K+ ON YOUR OWN so that YOU get that return of the extra money. Although as a counter argument, my neighbor has "your car"...a 1990 LS that he bot new. 200,000+ miles and he said he has never had to make ANY repairs. He does the basic maintenance and I think the "big" services. But the car has never been babied and runs well...although it's starting to show it's age since he quit washing it and waxing it regularly years ago.

Anyway, I enjoy a car that is in pristine condition and do that FOR MYSELF. But I am realizing that there is such a thing as over mantaining. I'll probably rotate the tires every 10,000 instead of every 5000. Unfortunately here in Pittsburgh (up and down hills all day long), I'll be lucky to get 30,000 miles under the best of circumstances.

mtsao

Daryll, I know exactly what you mean--that is to say yes, by babying your car, you really only see the return if you own the car for its lifetime...and even then, the 'return' really can't be measured monetarily.

Let's face it, nice as our cars are, we're not driving collectible exotics like Ferraris and Lambos. We can dream though...

Your neighbor is fortunate to have not had to perform any repairs. My experience has been that as a car goes on in years, there are more parts prone to breaking down because they have a finite serviceable lifetime, perhaps not quite in the same sense as tires or timing belts, but nonetheless, all else being equal, you expect to have some problems with starters, alternators, and the like over the life of the car. I suppose what I'm getting at is on a high mileage car, even a premium nameplate like a Lexus, I would not be disappointed to encounter these kinds of 'failures.' If you 'over maintain' perhaps you are changing these before they give out, in that case, it's a matter of paying now or paying later, assuming you own the car for that long.

5k intervals for rotation does seem on the low end...I've always gone by 8K. Incidentally, if you feel comfortable going to a Costco or Sam's, lifetime rotation and balance is included in the cost of tire purchases, and this would eliminate cost as a consideration.

Mike

daryll40

Thanks for the great reply. I think on my new '03 LS430 I'll change the oil AND rotate at 7500 mile intervals. The book only requires 5000 intervals for severe service...and Consumers Reports tested taxi cabs and found that changing mroe often than the book requires is a waste. As to "pay me now or pay me later" for older car parts replacement...I guess the problem is that there are SO MANY parts that CAN go bad that you'd spend a fortune replacing EVERYTING prophylactically. Certain parts make sense but, in general, driving an older car you just have to recognize that stuff can and will go wrong at any place or time.

Anyway, I am committed to good maintenance of my new LS but not OVERmaintenance.

Daryll40