New OEM tire tread depth
07-19-2014, 10:33 AM
#1
Super Member
Thread Starter
New OEM tire tread depth
I had one told to me while getting a free tire rotation on one of my cars at America's Tire.
When I got the A service on the X204 a month ago I was told the tire tread depth was 7/32", which is 3 or 4/32" less than new and which is considerable wear for less than 9K miles. I was inquiring about brands available, which is how the young man got into his observations. His claim was that many OEM tires are put on cars with much less than the replacement 10 or 11/32" new tread depth and that my wear might not necessarily mean 50% gone. While part of that news is good, I have serious doubts as to the accuracy of his claim.
I Googled for any information and found none except for some similar indications in some discussion forums on a couple of tire sites. I still seriously doubt this as I can't believe there would be sufficient savings and advantage for a tire manufacturer providing a much lesser tire to a factory. The gearing up to do so wouldn't pay for any savings in materials and could harm the manufacturer sales in the perceived rapid wear. That would insure the buyer not replacing with the same tire at replacement time. I have Continentals on that car right now. I've had them on other Benz' through the years and those tires have performed and worn extremely well in the past so the current wear is somewhat surprising.
I think I'll take my tread depth gauge down to my dealer and measure some tires on the lot just to satisfy myself. Does anyone have any knowledge this saleman's observation is accurate? Have you measured tread depth on any new cars or on your X204?
When I got the A service on the X204 a month ago I was told the tire tread depth was 7/32", which is 3 or 4/32" less than new and which is considerable wear for less than 9K miles. I was inquiring about brands available, which is how the young man got into his observations. His claim was that many OEM tires are put on cars with much less than the replacement 10 or 11/32" new tread depth and that my wear might not necessarily mean 50% gone. While part of that news is good, I have serious doubts as to the accuracy of his claim.
I Googled for any information and found none except for some similar indications in some discussion forums on a couple of tire sites. I still seriously doubt this as I can't believe there would be sufficient savings and advantage for a tire manufacturer providing a much lesser tire to a factory. The gearing up to do so wouldn't pay for any savings in materials and could harm the manufacturer sales in the perceived rapid wear. That would insure the buyer not replacing with the same tire at replacement time. I have Continentals on that car right now. I've had them on other Benz' through the years and those tires have performed and worn extremely well in the past so the current wear is somewhat surprising.
I think I'll take my tread depth gauge down to my dealer and measure some tires on the lot just to satisfy myself. Does anyone have any knowledge this saleman's observation is accurate? Have you measured tread depth on any new cars or on your X204?
07-19-2014, 12:30 PM
#3
Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 GLK 250 BT
A lot of the doubt can easily be removed by using YOUR ($ or two) tire depth gauge, (got mine @ the local WalMart) to $20 (or more) engineering calipers.
While I can guess @ your practical questions, I can tell you for sure with 16 miles on the clock (I put 12 miles on in a test drive, after a much longer test drive on another) my (by then) GLK 250 B/T, when I got home and used the tire depth gauge, had EXACTLY 10/32 nds in PER the tire's specification sheet.
OEM recommendations called for 5,000 miles rotation, that I had done (@ 6,107 miles). Again measurement showed VERY little wear (app 9.75+/32nd in) or app 24,428 miles. per 1/32nd in. (projected) If it is of interest, OEM provided tires were the 19 in Dunlop GranTrek RunFlats. Legally bald is defined as 2/32 nds in.
Incidently, break in trips through your "location" are part of the cars' (tires to SLT, CA.) miles. As you can attest, altitude goes from ZERO to 7,380 ft and return.
While I can guess @ your practical questions, I can tell you for sure with 16 miles on the clock (I put 12 miles on in a test drive, after a much longer test drive on another) my (by then) GLK 250 B/T, when I got home and used the tire depth gauge, had EXACTLY 10/32 nds in PER the tire's specification sheet.
OEM recommendations called for 5,000 miles rotation, that I had done (@ 6,107 miles). Again measurement showed VERY little wear (app 9.75+/32nd in) or app 24,428 miles. per 1/32nd in. (projected) If it is of interest, OEM provided tires were the 19 in Dunlop GranTrek RunFlats. Legally bald is defined as 2/32 nds in.
Incidently, break in trips through your "location" are part of the cars' (tires to SLT, CA.) miles. As you can attest, altitude goes from ZERO to 7,380 ft and return.
Last edited by Rdub; 07-20-2014 at 01:09 AM.
07-19-2014, 08:55 PM
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
Interesting comment - on the "tread life" estimate - with a US GLK250BT no one I know has estimated tread life for the new gen Extended Mobility tires that I know of yet..
If you want to increase estimated total tread life from where you are at now - whether extended mobility or not - best course is to start increasing tire pressure 2 lbs from where it is at now - make a "feel" judgement after driving on that increased pressure for 1-2 weeks - then go up another step from there if you are still comfortable - until you reach a level where drive/feel is unacceptable.
The 2nd set of replacement tires - same brand/same tire - in the real world will generally get about 20%-25% longer tread life - I personally belive the tires supplied to car manuf are somewhat "softer" compound than replacement/consumer spec - and when you get hit with that 1st riee set - it's almost automatic for you and the tire installer to come to aggreement to run the new/2nd set at 2-4lbs "higher"...
If you want to increase estimated total tread life from where you are at now - whether extended mobility or not - best course is to start increasing tire pressure 2 lbs from where it is at now - make a "feel" judgement after driving on that increased pressure for 1-2 weeks - then go up another step from there if you are still comfortable - until you reach a level where drive/feel is unacceptable.
The 2nd set of replacement tires - same brand/same tire - in the real world will generally get about 20%-25% longer tread life - I personally belive the tires supplied to car manuf are somewhat "softer" compound than replacement/consumer spec - and when you get hit with that 1st riee set - it's almost automatic for you and the tire installer to come to aggreement to run the new/2nd set at 2-4lbs "higher"...
07-19-2014, 11:12 PM
#5
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GLK
I have 55K on my 2010 GLK.
The OEM tires were the Dunlop Grandtrek. I know everybody hates these tires because from customer experiences, they (1) wear very fast (bald at 20K) and (2) have poor traction in the wet / snow conditions. Customers poorly reviewed this tire on Tire Rack. I actually had the opposite experience. My tires still had a good amount of tread left at 34K. They were crap in the winter snow, but they were also crap when I bought the car brand new. The Dunlop tires did fine in the rain for me. I changed them out at 34K because I thought the Pirellis would have much better grip in the snow here in the Northeast.
I bought the Pirelli Scopions all season tires at 34K. At 55K now, they definitely have worn much quicker than the Dunlops. They grip fine in the wet, but I could tell they are not as confident as the Dunlops in the rain. They are as crappy as the Dunlops in the snow with essentially no grip when turning corners. I now have a separate set of tires for the winters.
In my opinion, which is the minority, the dunlops are better than the pirellis. the pirellis are also pretty loud.
The OEM tires were the Dunlop Grandtrek. I know everybody hates these tires because from customer experiences, they (1) wear very fast (bald at 20K) and (2) have poor traction in the wet / snow conditions. Customers poorly reviewed this tire on Tire Rack. I actually had the opposite experience. My tires still had a good amount of tread left at 34K. They were crap in the winter snow, but they were also crap when I bought the car brand new. The Dunlop tires did fine in the rain for me. I changed them out at 34K because I thought the Pirellis would have much better grip in the snow here in the Northeast.
I bought the Pirelli Scopions all season tires at 34K. At 55K now, they definitely have worn much quicker than the Dunlops. They grip fine in the wet, but I could tell they are not as confident as the Dunlops in the rain. They are as crappy as the Dunlops in the snow with essentially no grip when turning corners. I now have a separate set of tires for the winters.
In my opinion, which is the minority, the dunlops are better than the pirellis. the pirellis are also pretty loud.
07-20-2014, 05:30 PM
#6
Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2015 SL400
I had one told to me while getting a free tire rotation on one of my cars at America's Tire.
When I got the A service on the X204 a month ago I was told the tire tread depth was 7/32", which is 3 or 4/32" less than new and which is considerable wear for less than 9K miles. I was inquiring about brands available, which is how the young man got into his observations. His claim was that many OEM tires are put on cars with much less than the replacement 10 or 11/32" new tread depth and that my wear might not necessarily mean 50% gone. While part of that news is good, I have serious doubts as to the accuracy of his claim.
I Googled for any information and found none except for some similar indications in some discussion forums on a couple of tire sites. I still seriously doubt this as I can't believe there would be sufficient savings and advantage for a tire manufacturer providing a much lesser tire to a factory. The gearing up to do so wouldn't pay for any savings in materials and could harm the manufacturer sales in the perceived rapid wear. That would insure the buyer not replacing with the same tire at replacement time. I have Continentals on that car right now. I've had them on other Benz' through the years and those tires have performed and worn extremely well in the past so the current wear is somewhat surprising.
I think I'll take my tread depth gauge down to my dealer and measure some tires on the lot just to satisfy myself. Does anyone have any knowledge this saleman's observation is accurate? Have you measured tread depth on any new cars or on your X204?
When I got the A service on the X204 a month ago I was told the tire tread depth was 7/32", which is 3 or 4/32" less than new and which is considerable wear for less than 9K miles. I was inquiring about brands available, which is how the young man got into his observations. His claim was that many OEM tires are put on cars with much less than the replacement 10 or 11/32" new tread depth and that my wear might not necessarily mean 50% gone. While part of that news is good, I have serious doubts as to the accuracy of his claim.
I Googled for any information and found none except for some similar indications in some discussion forums on a couple of tire sites. I still seriously doubt this as I can't believe there would be sufficient savings and advantage for a tire manufacturer providing a much lesser tire to a factory. The gearing up to do so wouldn't pay for any savings in materials and could harm the manufacturer sales in the perceived rapid wear. That would insure the buyer not replacing with the same tire at replacement time. I have Continentals on that car right now. I've had them on other Benz' through the years and those tires have performed and worn extremely well in the past so the current wear is somewhat surprising.
I think I'll take my tread depth gauge down to my dealer and measure some tires on the lot just to satisfy myself. Does anyone have any knowledge this saleman's observation is accurate? Have you measured tread depth on any new cars or on your X204?
My 2012 C350's OEM Conti ProContacts measured 7.7mm, at 132 miles, which is even closer to the theoretical 7.9mm. My 2014 Mazda 3's Yokohamas measured 7.7mm at 363 miles, against the 7.9mm theoretical for them.
Based on my limited sampling, I don't feel the three manufacturers involved (Pirelli, Continental, and Yokohama) were pulling a fast one, and I feel that my tires were within a normal manufacturing spec. Will continue to measure.
07-20-2014, 07:20 PM
#7
Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 GLK 250 BT
The other thing is that I think the tires specs are free of installation on any specific vehicle, aka NOT mounted balanced installed. SO in effect, slight differences could easily be due to any number of factors: mounting, balancing, specific TP, installation on a specific vehicle.
