• Thread starter Frans
  • Start date
  • Replies 4
  • Views 1K


I just watched this segment on the tv about tires.

Their is a date of manufacture on each tire. It is located on the inside, and states the week and year.
For example:

05/08. The fifth week of the year 2008.

Tires which are over 6 years old are failing. Even if said tire HAS NEVER BEEN USED.
So if a tire sits on the dealer's shelves/rack for over 6 years, it has a high probability of failing on the road. Some people have lost their lives due to the tread separating and blowouts.

Apparently the rubber compounds, glue, whatever, become brittle over time.

If you buy tires make sure you read the date, and refuse any that are old.

The show went on to say the tire industry is denying any of this is true. But the show had done studies based on Ca. highway patrol recorded accidents.
There is also a date code on the outside of the tire. A good retailer around here will not sell you tires more than sx years old just because of that!
A buddy of mine used to work at a tire shop, they had some take-offs that were four years old they wouldn't sell, he brought them home and we put them on my dads truck. Probably not even 200 miles on them, but they would not sell them!!
Ha! It's odd that the tire industry would deny this when they make special tire covers for RV's that will protect your tires from harmful uv radiation and extend their lifespan. I'm guessing these companies care more about their bottom line than about providing good products (anybody remember the Ford Explorer tire fiasco?). At least dealers are taking it upon themselves to not sell dangerous products.
There is a compound in the tire that heats up with use that counteracts the UV from the sun .It is suggested that tires that don't get regular use be covered if in direct sunlight,such as a motor home etc .

The Ford /Firestone fiasco was blown out of proportion .They claimed it cost Ford a small fortune to replace those tires but they failed to say it actually was about 70 bucks per auto . I think it was just Kenneth Lae [Enron ]type accounting .In other words they likely charged at full retail price but the actual outlay of cash was not nearly that much .

Had those a-holes been honest about it from the onset not nearly as much bad press would be thought of the situation .