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 TO THE TIRES, AS WELL AS THEIR IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS.

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

ON FRIDAY 9/05/08 I GOT A FLAT TIRE WHILE DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY. I HAD THE TIRE FIXED AND TWO DAYS LATER THE SAME TIRE WENT FLAT ON THE FREEWAY. I HAD TO PURCHASE A NEW TIRE. THEN THE VERY NEXT DAY WHILE DRIVING TO WORK ANOTHER TIRE ON MY VEHICLE WENT FLAT WHILE ON THE FREEWAY CAUSING ME TO SWERVE INTO THE OTHER LANE AND ALMOST LOSE COMPLETE CONTROL. I RETURNED TO THE TIRE REPAIR SHOP WHERE THEY INSPECTED MY TIRE VALVES AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY WERE LEAKING AND REPLACED ALL 4 OF THEM. I DID NOT HEAR OF THE RECALL UNTIL AFTER I GOT 3 FLAT TIRES IN 4 DAYS. I WAS NOT HARMED JUST INCONVENIENCED. *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

TL*- THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING THE 2002 HONDA ACCORD WITH 130000 FAILURE MILEAGE AT 60 MPH THE TREAD SEPARATED FROM THE GOODYEAR VIVA TIRE, P155/80R13, WITHOUT ANY WARNING. THE FOUR TIRES WERE PURCHASED AND PUT ON AT WALMART ON AUGUST 21, 2005, THE TIRES HAD 35000 MILES ON THEM, AND THEY WERE 80000 MILE TIRES. WALMART REPLACED THE ONE TIRE AFFECTED. *AK

REINSTALLING TIRES ON TO RIMS AFTER WINTER TIRE STOARGE, THE TIRE BEAD CAME APART ON INFLATION OF TIRE. *AK

I PURCHASED A HONDA ACCORD NEW IN 2002 RECENTLY I NOTICED THAT THE TWO FRONT TIRES HAD DEVELOPED BULGES (BUBBLES), ON THE SURFACE OF THE SIDEWALL MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 2 INCHES ON THE DRIVERS SIDE AND 1 INCH ON THE PASSENGER'S SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE TIRES HAVE 17,000 MILES OF USE. OUT OF CONCERN FOR MY SAFETY, AS WELL AS THAT OF MY FELLOW MOTORISTS, I DID SOME RESEARCH ONLINE AT HTTP://WWW. CONSUMERAFFAIRS.COM/TIRES/MICHELIN.HTML AND FOUND THAT AN ALARMING NUMBER OF MOTORISTS USING THIS BRAND OF TIRE WERE EXPERIENCING THE SAME TYPE OF SIDEWALL PROBLEM SOME ATTRIBUTING THE SIDEWALL BULGING AS CAUSING CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF THEIR TIRES. IN EACH CASE (AS IN MY OWN) THE OWNER OF THE TIRE IS LEFT WITH NO RECOURSE AS TO REPLACEMENT OR AT MINIMUM SAFETY BULLETIN WARNING OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SIDEWALL FAILURES OCCURING WITH THIS BRAND OF TIRE. THE MODEL AND SIZE INFORMATION OF THE TIRE ON MY CAR IS MICHELIN MXV4 PLUS XSE 205/60R16. *AK

THE CONSUMER PURCHASED GOODYEAR TIRES EAGLE BRAND WITH 40,000 MILES, TREAD WARRANTY, HOWEVER THE TREAD BEGAN TO SEPARATE AT APPROXIMATELY 36,000. THE RUBBER BEGAN TO SEPARATE FROM THE INSIDE. THE VEHICLE WAS CHECKED FOR PROPER WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND BALANCE. IT CHECKED OUT OKAY.*AK *CB *JB

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 A MAJOR HIGHWAY. LUCKILY, ALL 3 INCIDENTS OCCURED ON LOCAL ROADS & I WAS ABLE TO PULL OFF THE ROAD SAFELY AND CALL EMERGENCY ROAD SERVICE FOR HELP. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT MICHELIN SHOULD BE WILLING TO REIMBURSE ME FOR THE COST OF REPLACING THE TIRES, HAVING THEM BALANCED AND FOR THE DISTRESS AND ANXIETY I HAD TO INDURE DURING THESE INCIDENTS. *LA

THE RIGHT REAR TIRE EXPERIENCED TREAD SEPARATION, WHICH CAUSED THE TIRE TO BLOW OUT. *JB

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.

ORIGINAL BRIDGESTONE TIRES. CONSUMER WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE DOT, AND TIRE SIZE. TS

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 BE RESPONSIBLE? IT'S A QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY WHICH APPARENTLY MICHELIN TIRES IS NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT THEY ARE IN FACT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEFECTS IN THEIR TIRES. DT

3 INCH SIDEWALL SEPARATION AT TREAD LINE(CORD VISIBLE) AND 12 INCH INDICATION OF FUTURE SEPARATION 180 DEGREES FROM 3 INCH SEPARATION. REPLACED ALL 4 TIRES TODAY AT LOCAL SERVICE STATION (CIRCLE SERVICE 9 N. ROYAL POINCIANA BLVD. MIAMI SPRINGS, FL 33166 PH: 1-305-887-0365 ATTN: MANNY).*AK

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)