2002 HONDA ACCORD Tires Problems

VERY UNUSUAL PATTERN OF TREAD BREAKDOWN ON FEDERAL FORMOZA FD1 PASSENGER CAR TIRES NOTED. NOTE THIS IS NOT THE "SUPER STEEL" MODEL INDICATED IN THE DATABASE ENTRY. THE DIALOGUE DID NOT PROVIDE "FORMOZA" MODELS FOR SELECTION. TREAD WEAR INDICATED OVER 3/4 OF TREAD LIFE REMAINING (CAR WAS RARELY USED), BUT CAR WAS PARKED OUTDOORS IN TEXAS, AND TIRES WERE 9 YEARS OLD. BREAKDOWN OF TREAD NOT LIKELY CAUSED BY WEAR, BUT RATHER MORE LIKELY RUBBER COMPOUND DETERIORATION OR MANUFACTURING PROBLEM. THE TREAD DEVELOPED FISSURES LATERALLY ACROSS THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE TREAD (NOT EXTENDING INTO THE TREAD SHOULDER), EVENLY SPACED WITH A FISSURE EVERY 3/8THS OF AN INCH AROUND THE ENTIRE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE TIRES. DEPTH OF FISSURES UNKNOWN. NO EVENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE TIRES OR CAR CAN ACCOUNT FOR THIS BIZARRE PATTERN. THE TIRES WERE JUDGED UNSAFE AND REPLACED. PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN OF THE PATTERN OF DAMAGE...

YOKOHAMA AVID TRZ 205/65R15 TIRES FOR MY 2002 HONDA ACCORD: I PURCHASED A SET OF THESE TIRES 3 YEARS AGO AS THEY WERE 80,000 MILE TIRES (AS IN LONG-LASTING). AT 32,000 MILES, THEY WERE ALMOST COMPLETELY BALD. THE MECHANIC CALLED AND GOT A $30 DISCOUNT ON THE TIRES FOR REPLACEMENT, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE INITIAL COST THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. YOKOHAMA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO LIST TIRES AS 80,000 MILES OF WEAR WHEN, IN FACT, THEY ARE BALD AT 32,000 MILES (AND I AM AN OLDER EXPERIENCED DRIVER, NOT A HOT-RODDER OR EXCESSIVE SPEEDER.) *TR

TIRE 100% DAMAGED IN ONE BREAK. *TR

I HAVE HAD 2 OF THE 4 TIRES I BOUGHT, NEW GOODYEAR ASSURANCE SEPARATE. ONE BLEW LEAVING ME STRANDED ON TURNPIKE 2 HRS. THE TREAD WAS HALF GONE WITH THE FIRST AND 4/32 ON THE SECOND. ONE WAS IN JULY AND THE TIRE THAT BLEW WAS IN AUG. *TR

ON APRIL 6 AND JULY 1 OF THIS YEAR I WAS TRAVELING AT 70 MPH ON THE INTERSTATE WHEN A LOUD EXPLOSION OCCURRED. THE FIRST TIME I THOUGHT I MUST HAVE HIT SOMETHING OR BEEN NEAR A GUNSHOT. WHEN THE SAME THING HAPPENED MONTHS LATER THE NOISE SOUNDED AS THOUGH IT WAS IN THE CABIN WITH ME. NO WARNING LIGHTS, DIFFICULTY IN HANDLING, OR VISIBLE DAMAGE HAS APPEARED. THE NOISE IS SUDDEN, WITHOUT WARNING, AND IMMENSE--RINGING IN EARS AN HOUR LATER--NOT TO MENTION FRIGHTENING. WE REPLACED TIRES IN JUNE, AND ALL REGULAR MAINTENANCE HAS BEEN DONE ON SCHEDULE. THERE WAS A TRANSMISSION PROBLEM WHEN THE CAR WAS BRAND NEW-A CLUNKING NOISE-WHICH WAS DIFFICULT TO DIAGNOSE, AND REQUIRED EXTENDED DAYS IN THE SHOP (NEARLY FOUR OF THE FIRST SIX WEEKS OWNED). IT WAS FINALLY ELIMINATED WHEN THE SHOP "DISMANTLED" THE CAR, DRAINED TRANSMISSION FLUID (TWICE) AND DID ASSORTED OTHER "FIXES". I...

I HAVE EXPERIENCED 3 TIRE BLOWOUTS WITHIN 1 YEAR WITH MY MICHELIN TIRES. I OWN A 2002 HONDA ACCORD WITH ONLY 19,000 MILES & CANNOT BELIEVE THAT I HAVE HAD TO INCUR THE COST OF REPLACING 3 OUT OF 4 BRAND NEW TIRES WITHIN A 1-YEAR PERIOD. THE FIRST INCIDENT WAS NOV. 2002, THE 2ND ON OCT. 2, 2003 & THE 3RD ON OCT. 9, 2003. IT APPEARS THAT THESE TIRES ARE NOT MANUFACTURED UP TO NORMAL SAFETY STANDARDS SINCE THEY HAVE CAUSED 3 BLOWOUTS FROM USUAL ROAD HAZARD CONDITIONS. MICHELIN CLAIMS THE BLOWOUTS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE WARRANTY SINCE THE DAMAGE WAS DUE TO A ROAD HAZARD. WHY ARE THESE HIGH-PROFILE & VERY EXPENSIVE TIRES NOT MANUFACTURED TO PERFORM UNDER NORMAL ROAD HAZARD CONDITIONS? THESE BLOWOUTS COULD HAVE CAUSED SERIOUS INJURY TO MY AND/OR OTHERS IF I HAD BEEN TRAVELING AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED AND/OR ON...

INTERSTATE HIGHWAY CLEAR,DRY ROAD CONDITIONS IN LIGHT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. VEHICLE BECOMES UNSTABLE, BEGINS TO SWERVE. ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL & CORRECT HAVE NO EFFECT. VEHICLE'S FRONT LEFT IMPACTS CENTER "JERSEY BARRIER" SENDING THE CAR INTO A COUNTER-CLOCKWISE SPIN AGAINST THE "JERSEY BARRIER". NY WIFE SUFFERED SPINAL FRACTURES, BROKEN NOSE, BRUISED RIBS.......1 WEEK HOSPITALIZATION AND 3 WEEKS REHABILITATVE THERAPY. INJURY TO HER SPINE IS PERMANENT. STATE POLICE INDICATED AT LEAST ONE FRONT TIRE BLEW-OUT CAUSING THE ACCIDENT. NONE OF THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. VEHICLE PURCHASED NEW IN OCTOBER 2001.

CAR (2002 HONDA 2 DOOR COUPE) IS LESS THAN 1 YEAR, 10 MONTHS TO BE EXACT. WHILE DRIVING LESS THAN 30 MPH, EXPERIENCED A BUBBLE. DEALER SAID TO CALL MICHELIN, WHICH WAS DONE. TIRES ARE LESS THAN A YEAR OLD YET EVEN WITH A "WARRANTY" ARE NOT COVERED. I QUESTION WHAT EXACTLY IS A WARRANTY, IF TIRES LESS THAN A YEAR OLD BUBBLEAND ARE NOT COVERED? I WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT I CAUSED THE BUBBLE BY DRIVING TOO FAST OR HITTING A POT HOLE OR ROCK. I HAVE A CLEAR LICENSE, NEVER BEEN PULLED OVER FOR SPEEDING, AND NEVER HAVE HAD AN ACCIDENT. I FEEL THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED NOW OR EVEN 2 YEARS FROM NOW. THESE TIRES ONLY HAVE 16,500 MILES. MICHELIN REFUSES TO COVER COSTS OF REPLACEMENT, WHICH IS NOT THE REAL ISSUE. GOD FORBID I WAS IN AN ACCIDENT DUE TO THE TIRE FAILURE, WHO WOULD...

WHILE DRIVING, REAR PASSENGER BRIDGESTONE TURANZA TIRE WENT FLAT, CONSUMER FEELS THIS OCCURRED DUE TO A TIRE DEFECT, DEALER DISAGREED AND STATED THAT THE CONSUMER HAD RIDDEN ON THE FLAT TIRE AND RUINED THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE TIRE, CONSUMER IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT, TIRE SIZE IS P195/65R15. *SLC

WHILE DRIVING, REAR PASSENGER BRIDGESTONE TURANZA TIRE WENT FLAT, CONSUMER FEELS THIS OCCURRED DUE TO A TIRE DEFECT, DEALER DISAGREED AND STATED THAT THE CONSUMER HAD RIDDEN ON THE FLAT TIRE AND RUINED THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE TIRE, CONSUMER IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT, TIRE SIZE IS P195/65R15. *SLC

TIRE BLEW OUT AND I PULLED OVER RIGHT AWAY TO CHANGE FLAT. DEALER REFUSED TO CONTACT MANUFACTURER TO INSPECT TIRE FOR DEFECTS. CAR WAS LITERALLY 4 DAYS OLD.*AK (TIRESIZE: 195/65R15)