Buying 2...on the back always....

[ToadU]

Michelin Tire Safety Testing / New tires Front vs Rear
https://youtu.be/oa9hzcjdi5Q


From Popular Mechanics "Tire Myths"

>>MYTH: When replacing only two tires, the new ones go on the front.

The truth: Rear tires provide stability, and without stability, steering or braking on a wet or even damp surface might cause a spin. If you have new tires up front, they will easily disperse water while the half-worn rears will go surfing: The water will literally lift the worn rear tires off the road. If you're in a slight corner or on a crowned road, the car will spin out so fast you won't be able to say, "Oh, fudge!"

There is no "even if" to this one. Whether you own a front-, rear- or all-wheel-drive car, truck, or SUV, the tires with the most tread go on the rear.

I'm right in this and every single tire manufacturer supports this as the ONLY and proper way to mount tires when purchased in pairs. The industry is firm on this and there is NO BUTS.

 

[Kira]

Nothing wrong with beating this dead horse.

I'm a "car jack" like many here. note: Mega thanks to the pros who chime in.
Tire adhesion relevant to understeer and oversteer is good stuff to review.

Me? I "always heard" you put the more worn tires on the front because they are more likely to fail and it's better to have a blown tire on the axle you can control with the steering wheel.

It's obviously more complicated than that.

....of course the All-American Bald Eagle Tires are trouble.

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted by Dave9
I agree it is good practice but don't give us that "my liability" nonsense. Nobody is liable for not following what they think to be "best practices" as long as they do their job competently. ……..


I'm sorry, but I have had several conversations with attorneys who disagree with you. They cited several lawsuits where the courts ruled that if a person or business does not follow best practices, then they are liable for the resulting damages.

But perhaps you misunderstand what the "law" means by "best practices". Let's see if I can explain where I think your misunderstanding is: [[obligatory, I am not a lawyer]]

Originally Posted by Dave9
…….. Where would it end? I think it is best practice to replace all 4 struts at the same time, so should everyone be forced to get all 4 at once? …….


Ya' see, what you think are "best practices" is not what the "law" thinks is "best practices". The "law" would say that it has to be an industry standard - a consensus. And new tires on the rear is one of those. I think 4 shocks is not one of those.

Originally Posted by Dave9
…… No. I think it is best practice to replace both tires on the same axle but should everyone be forced to? No. ……


No one is forcing anyone. A consumer can always do it himself - and he accepts the liability. In other words, he can't sue the tire shop is he does it to himself (I am sure there is a legal phrase used to describe this, but I don't know what it is.)

But if the tire shop performs the task, the tire shop is under the legal obligation to follow best practices - and he is legally liable if he doesn't.

And it is my understanding that a customer signing a waiver doesn't relieve the tire shop of their responsibilities under the law.

Further, if a tire shop refuses to submit to a customer's request for service, so long as the shop gave a warning, the legal liability stays with the customer. It's only when the shop performs a task that his legal liability kicks in.

In other words, the customer can not require a tire shop to perform a task the shop thinks is dangerous, and the tire shop can't force a customer to buy new tires - BUT - the tire shop can require the customer to allow them to perform the task to the best of their ability if asked.

 

[quint]

Toad, you'd think you would have learned by now that nothing, and I mean nothing you post here is going to be accepted as correct, regardless of how correct you are.

People....when replacing two tires, the new ones always, and I mean always go on the rear.

And no one is "telling people what they can or cant do with their cars". He's telling them what HE will do with their car. If they dont like it, they can attempt to go somewhere else that will put new tires on the front and leave worn tires on the rear (if they can find a shop that will do that... good luck), or they can take it home and move the new tires to the front by themselves. Get a grip, people.

 

[ToadU]

Originally Posted by Dave9
Originally Posted by ToadU
The difference is improper installation. Putting new tires on the front and worn on the rear is improper and a huge liability for a shop. Someone running tires past tread depth is their responsibility. Actively configuring their car to be dangerous would be my liability.


Wrong. It is not ideal, but it is not improper.

It is not up to you to pretend that ideals should be imposed upon others. Ideally, we would all drive sports cars with all new tires, right? Ideally, what you feel were dangerous to have on the rear, aren't 100% safe on the front either, right?

No it is not any liability. You are only liable for the tires YOU put on, that they are put on properly which involves mounting, balancing, and lug nut torque. You are not "actively configuring" anything. It is not a reconfiguration of the vehicle to put new tires on. If the owner's manual does not state "do not do this" then in no way are you stating fact instead of fiction as faras what is required or prohibited.

Again I think new tires are better on the rear but that's where the sane logic in this discussion ends. If the original tires were safe enough for the rear when it came in, then they still are. No thought on your part changes that.

If they were not safe enough for the rear and you didn't touch them, you are not liable for any work you did not do, except if you truly feel they need replaced, you should inform the customer. If you are the really paranoid type you can even have them sign a waiver, but then they may ask someone else about it and realize you were just being a control freak.

I can see it now, you would have someone with 60% good rear tires come in, insist that they forever run those on the front, wasting a fair % of the remaining tire life because you won't rotate them front to rear, void their new rear tires warranty too because they weren't rotated either, then they're driving even more bald/unevenly-worn tires than if you weren't involved, or else having to replace them even sooner so it costs them more money.

At no point is there a case where the customer should not be able to have new tires put on whichever axle and have them rotated normally, until they're worn out. If you refuse to rotate them after one pair is worn past the treadwear indicator, that is the right thing to do, don't touch them then.




You are flat out (another tire pun) wrong. There is only one safe and proper way to install tires when purchased as a set of two. You cannot find any legitimate source that says otherwise.

Yes it is up to me and every business to operate safely—to be safe. That's an obligation you have when you are in business for yourself or in any position of authority.

My garage keepers liability insurance requires we follow best practices and new tires in rear is best practices.

In the State of Florida per law a waiver means NOTHING. You can have someone sign a waiver in their own blood and be sued. It has no legal standing in court. This is a hard fact.

A customer doesn't have the right to waiver someone else's safety. Other people are on the road not just them They loose control of their car and kill someone and the investigation shows brand new front tires on the car and installed by me who do you think the lawyers are going to sue? We have a huge liability policy and umbrella Ya me!!!

Finally purposely ignoring best practices creating a hazard causing an accident is gross negligence. I am a corporation and protected by the fact my personal assets cannot be touched in the event my company is sued or goes out of business with one caveat......IF I commit an act of gross negligence the veil of corporate sovereignty can be broken and all of my personal assets are then fair game including my house. Not risking my entire career and life because someone doesn't unstated science, want to be safe and put peoples lives at risk. There is only one right way to mount tires in pairs No ifs. No ands. No buts. Period. The ENTIRE tire and automotive industry is united in this as best practices.

Yes, I turn down business for this and other things too. I'm not desperate and I own the place and and get to make the rules. There are some desperate shops that will put your new tires in the front. Not me. Not any branded tires store. Not a reputable shop.

I had an excellent mechanic I hired, but of an older guy, really excellent mechanic. He as so adamant new tires goes on the front and created problems in my shop arguing about it. Despite efforts to educate him with facts he just wouldn't budge. It caused such a problem I terminated him. Sad because he was a real mechanic and I liked him but he was undermining my operation. He also believed Pennzoil and Quaker State oils would ruin snd engine. He only believed in one brand of oil, I think it was Mobile can remember. He was set in his ways. He was telling customers not get get fluid changes at my shop because of the brand of oil we used would damage their vehicle. (We stock bulk fluids.....for last several years stock Warren Distribution in bulk and Maxlife for ATF). Getting in the weeds here but the point is he lost his job over being so passionate about things totally false.

If someone wants to do something not in their best interests and it's not a danger to themselves, others, my employees or illegal we will advise them what's proper and best for them, note on the invoice we provided the proper information and do whatever they want. At that point I just want their money. Example let's say your car calls for a particular oil 5w-20 Dexos and you want to run 15w40 in the motor. We will tell you that's not advisable for best performance and longevity of thr motor, make notes the invoice we advised you of this and then fill you up w your 15w40. I do t care at that point. Your car. Your problem. Not going to hurt anyone and isn't illegal.

There is a HUGE difference.

We don't do illegal things either. And we get asked all the time to do so.

 

[AZjeff]

Barry thanks for checking in. Of course your expert information will be ignored by some.

 

[OilStasher]

Originally Posted by ToadU
You are flat out (another tire pun) wrong. There is only one safe and proper way to install tires when purchased as a set of two. You cannot find any legitimate source that says otherwise.

Yes it is up to me and every business to operate safely—to be safe. That's an obligation you have when you are in business for yourself or in any position of authority.

My garage keepers liability insurance requires we follow best practices and new tires in rear is best practices.

In the State of Florida per law a waiver means NOTHING. You can have someone sign a waiver in their own blood and be sued. It has no legal standing in court. This is a hard fact.

A customer doesn't have the right to waiver someone else's safety. Other people are on the road not just them They loose control of their car and kill someone and the investigation shows brand new front tires on the car and installed by me who do you think the lawyers are going to sue? We have a huge liability policy and umbrella Ya me!!!

Finally purposely ignoring best practices creating a hazard causing an accident is gross negligence. I am a corporation and protected by the fact my personal assets cannot be touched in the event my company is sued or goes out of business with one caveat......IF I commit an act of gross negligence the veil of corporate sovereignty can be broken and all of my personal assets are then fair game including my house. Not risking my entire career and life because someone doesn't unstated science, want to be safe and put peoples lives at risk. There is only one right way to mount tires in pairs No ifs. No ands. No buts. Period. The ENTIRE tire and automotive industry is united in this as best practices.

Yes, I turn down business for this and other things too. I'm not desperate and I own the place and and get to make the rules. There are some desperate shops that will put your new tires in the front. Not me. Not any branded tires store. Not a reputable shop.

I had an excellent mechanic I hired, but of an older guy, really excellent mechanic. He as so adamant new tires goes on the front and created problems in my shop arguing about it. Despite efforts to educate him with facts he just wouldn't budge. It caused such a problem I terminated him. Sad because he was a real mechanic and I liked him but he was undermining my operation. He also believed Pennzoil and Quaker State oils would ruin snd engine. He only believed in one brand of oil, I think it was Mobile can remember. He was set in his ways. He was telling customers not get get fluid changes at my shop because of the brand of oil we used would damage their vehicle. (We stock bulk fluids.....for last several years stock Warren Distribution in bulk and Maxlife for ATF). Getting in the weeds here but the point is he lost his job over being so passionate about things totally false.

If someone wants to do something not in their best interests and it's not a danger to themselves, others, my employees or illegal we will advise them what's proper and best for them, note on the invoice we provided the proper information and do whatever they want. At that point I just want their money. Example let's say your car calls for a particular oil 5w-20 Dexos and you want to run 15w40 in the motor. We will tell you that's not advisable for best performance and longevity of thr motor, make notes the invoice we advised you of this and then fill you up w your 15w40. I do t care at that point. Your car. Your problem. Not going to hurt anyone and isn't illegal.

There is a HUGE difference.

We don't do illegal things either. And we get asked all the time to do so.



Wait, what?!?

You're willing to fill a car with an obviously incorrect oil ("the entire automotive industry is united in this" by placing the correct viscosity in the owner's manual, on the oil cap, etc.), but you're not willing to put 5/32" on the front and 7/32" on the rear?!? It's quite obvious that "best practice" is to use what viscosity the manufacturer recommends. You really think for two seconds if someone loses an engine for an unrelated reason, they won't sue you for using the incorrect viscosity?

The hypocrisy is off the charts!

 

[ToadU]

People like to do a lot of odd things. It's interesting. A line has to be drawn when that "thing" they want is dangerous and could kill or injure an innocent person versed only harming themselves like with the oil example above.

One thing I've noticed in the last 25-30 years is overall people are more vicious and more assured they are entitled and right even when they are flat wrong. I blame the power of the Internet. There is a difference. People will threaten violence so easily today too.

I seen crazy things people want to do w their car that make no sense to me like flagrantly using the wrong oil. That's coll if you pay me. Your not going to injure or kill someone doing that. Tires on the wrong axle. Ya. People can die over that so not happening in my shop. That plugged cat.....want us to bypass it and do away w the cat. Not at my shop. Illegal and collectively harms everyone. There is a difference.

Finally I have a written contract prohibiting my shop from being grossly negligent and putting new tires on the front axle. My liability insurance policy comes in a book. Not exaggerating. I carry $1m garage keepers liability with a $10m umbrella. There are a lot of things in the policy too. Their policy is an offer of a contract stating terms they abide by and term I abide by. In said contract is wording of following best industry practices. In exchange for this and about $45 grand a year they they offer me coverage. When I sign that contract I have given my word to follow it. I do. I am a man of my word. Some people and maybe even many hate me. Some think my impound towing division (separate biz in all aspects from service center) some think my livelihood is slimy ect. That's ok. However, I always do what I think is right regardless of cost. I make good on my handshakes and when I give my word written or otherwise I follow through.

In fact, my insurance carrier could legally refuse a claim and to defend my business if I put new tires in the front because the industry is totally united as a best practice they go on the rear. There really is no gray Here.

 

[Pew]

Well now I know who never should work on cars.

Originally Posted by OilStasher
^Dave9 and dishdude get it.

Edit: and geeman789. Don't know how I overlooked that goldmine...

The fact that you turn away business over something so minute is shocking. Not to mention the word-of-mouth cost involved.


If you think 3000 pounds of steel moving at 70mph is a issue small enough to not want to be as safe as possible, I'm sure your local police department/fire department would like a word.

Originally Posted by OilStasher
Wait, what?!?

You're willing to fill a car with an obviously incorrect oil ("the entire automotive industry is united in this" by placing the correct viscosity in the owner's manual, on the oil cap, etc.), but you're not willing to put 5/32" on the front and 7/32" on the rear?!? It's quite obvious that "best practice" is to use what viscosity the manufacturer recommends. You really think for two seconds if someone loses an engine for an unrelated reason, they won't sue you for using the incorrect viscosity?

The hypocrisy is off the charts!


A blown engine is not a safety issue. Losing control of your 3000+ pound steel brick is.

Originally Posted by Dave9

No it is not any liability. You are only liable for the tires YOU put on, that they are put on properly which involves mounting, balancing, and lug nut torque. You are not "actively configuring" anything. It is not a reconfiguration of the vehicle to put new tires on. If the owner's manual does not state "do not do this" then in no way are you stating fact instead of fiction as faras what is required or prohibited.


ToadU puts two new tires on the front of a camry. The car owner drives home, spins out, crashes into a minivan, kills the minivan family and camry driver is now disabled. ToadU gets sued and loses because of gross negligence. Who's gonna back up ToadU? Not the tire companies that for sure; considering all tire manufactures state to put the new tires in the rear.

 

[ToadU]

Originally Posted by OilStasher
Originally Posted by ToadU
You are flat out (another tire pun) wrong. There is only one safe and proper way to install tires when purchased as a set of two. You cannot find any legitimate source that says otherwise.

Yes it is up to me and every business to operate safely—to be safe. That's an obligation you have when you are in business for yourself or in any position of authority.

My garage keepers liability insurance requires we follow best practices and new tires in rear is best practices.

In the State of Florida per law a waiver means NOTHING. You can have someone sign a waiver in their own blood and be sued. It has no legal standing in court. This is a hard fact.

A customer doesn't have the right to waiver someone else's safety. Other people are on the road not just them They loose control of their car and kill someone and the investigation shows brand new front tires on the car and installed by me who do you think the lawyers are going to sue? We have a huge liability policy and umbrella Ya me!!!

Finally purposely ignoring best practices creating a hazard causing an accident is gross negligence. I am a corporation and protected by the fact my personal assets cannot be touched in the event my company is sued or goes out of business with one caveat......IF I commit an act of gross negligence the veil of corporate sovereignty can be broken and all of my personal assets are then fair game including my house. Not risking my entire career and life because someone doesn't unstated science, want to be safe and put peoples lives at risk. There is only one right way to mount tires in pairs No ifs. No ands. No buts. Period. The ENTIRE tire and automotive industry is united in this as best practices.

Yes, I turn down business for this and other things too. I'm not desperate and I own the place and and get to make the rules. There are some desperate shops that will put your new tires in the front. Not me. Not any branded tires store. Not a reputable shop.

I had an excellent mechanic I hired, but of an older guy, really excellent mechanic. He as so adamant new tires goes on the front and created problems in my shop arguing about it. Despite efforts to educate him with facts he just wouldn't budge. It caused such a problem I terminated him. Sad because he was a real mechanic and I liked him but he was undermining my operation. He also believed Pennzoil and Quaker State oils would ruin snd engine. He only believed in one brand of oil, I think it was Mobile can remember. He was set in his ways. He was telling customers not get get fluid changes at my shop because of the brand of oil we used would damage their vehicle. (We stock bulk fluids.....for last several years stock Warren Distribution in bulk and Maxlife for ATF). Getting in the weeds here but the point is he lost his job over being so passionate about things totally false.

If someone wants to do something not in their best interests and it's not a danger to themselves, others, my employees or illegal we will advise them what's proper and best for them, note on the invoice we provided the proper information and do whatever they want. At that point I just want their money. Example let's say your car calls for a particular oil 5w-20 Dexos and you want to run 15w40 in the motor. We will tell you that's not advisable for best performance and longevity of thr motor, make notes the invoice we advised you of this and then fill you up w your 15w40. I do t care at that point. Your car. Your problem. Not going to hurt anyone and isn't illegal.

There is a HUGE difference.

We don't do illegal things either. And we get asked all the time to do so.



Wait, what?!?

You're willing to fill a car with an obviously incorrect oil ("the entire automotive industry is united in this" by placing the correct viscosity in the owner's manual, on the oil cap, etc.), but you're not willing to put 5/32" on the front and 7/32" on the rear?!? It's quite obvious that "best practice" is to use what viscosity the manufacturer recommends. You really think for two seconds if someone loses an engine for an unrelated reason, they won't sue you for using the incorrect viscosity?

The hypocrisy is off the charts!


Yes correct. There is a HUGE difference. Tires improperly installed are a life safety issue. You could die. Others on the road could die. Your car is a huge safety hazard with tires improperly and knowingly improperly installed. You want to put the wrong oil in your car be my guest. No one will possibly die as a result.

There is a difference. And no one is going to sue over the oil bc you will never be able to prove anything and the invoice reflects you made the decision despite our recommendation. The difference is black and white.

And I don't care about being sued. I get sued literally ever darn day. Not exaggerating. I currently have multiple suits against me and my companies....two in federal court as well. I don't even know how many times I've been sued. I don't pay attention. My impound towing company is a suit generator. Part of the business. I have plenty of lawyers.

 

[Kira]

May I take a guess at what suits are generated by your impound towing company?

I bet it's 90% "you bent my suspension/wheels" and 10% "you scratched/dented my car".

I took the liberty to ask an off-topic question because the new tire question surely must be resolved.

$45,000 per MONTH. Tell me, how many vehicles go through your shop per month. I'll do the math.

Thanks

 

[The_Nuke]

Originally Posted by Kira
May I take a guess at what suits are generated by your impound towing company?

I bet it's 90% "you bent my suspension/wheels" and 10% "you scratched/dented my car".

I took the liberty to ask an off-topic question because the new tire question surely must be resolved.

$45,000 per MONTH. Tell me, how many vehicles go through your shop per month. I'll do the math.

Thanks


" $45 grand a year "

 

[JLTD]

This is always fun.

I just buy 4 at a time. Sometimes 5.

 

[Duffyjr]

Originally Posted by JLTD
This is always fun.

I wonder if this one will get locked to.


Originally Posted by JLTD
I just buy 4 at a time. Sometimes 5.


And preferably the same brand. It bugs me to not have the same tires all the way around with similar tread depth.

 

[ToadU]

Originally Posted by Kira
May I take a guess at what suits are generated by your impound towing company?

I bet it's 90% "you bent my suspension/wheels" and 10% "you scratched/dented my car".

I took the liberty to ask an off-topic question because the new tire question surely must be resolved.

$45,000 per MONTH. Tell me, how many vehicles go through your shop per month. I'll do the math.

Thanks



That's a year. Not per month. We have 8 bays inside and one heavy lift outside for medium duty trucks. The medium duty was initially primarily for my own tow trucks but I get a lot of commercial biz bc not many shops have a medium duty lift. Since I run an all Ford wrecker fleet and since most commercial service trucks are Fords we have a jig for pulling cabs. We pull cabs everyday as well and as fast as at a Ford dealer.

My service center used to be an old Sears Auto Center. It was an out building on a corner at one of City's old malls. The mall closed up as new malls were opened. Now the old mall has been torn down. Part is a mega church. Part an outdoor mall. Part mixed use w residential. The area redeveloped. I bought the corner and building from the old mall developers when Sears left for the new, bigger and nicer mall. I've had it over 15 years now. A good buy. It's set up like a typical Sears center w 4 bays in front side and 4 bays on back side. I've remodeled it a couple of times. Had to remove the old in-foundation lifts. Oil leakers. Have modern electro hydraulic lifts. Still use the floor pit bay for fluid changes and some work. It's handy.

45k a year is average for an operation our size. Have had a few claims over the years as to be expected. Insurance for my impound company is off the charts. That's an extremely high risk part of the industry. Also had more claims than I want to admit. Morgan and Morgan cleaned me out about 4 years ago. Got an $11m settlement against my insurance and towing company. My original company filed for bankruptcy after and reopened the next day with a slightly different corporate name I spilt my impound into 5 legally separate entities. I hope I out live John Morgan, who's been disbarred from practicing law and permanently lost his drivers license for multiple DUIs btw....I want to outlive him so I can visit his grave and spit on it.

 

[ToadU]

Law suites........Impound towing I've had 2 class action suits by the same law firm in Miami. Probably over 1,000 small claims suits. That's a daily occurrence. Sued by Ford Motor Finance, FCA and Mercedes. A couple smaller finance companies. A couple or three buy here pay here dealer owners. Plenty of damage suits from people we have impounded. Replevin suits. Appeared once on Judge Judy haha. Which is just mediation not a real court. Three different cities and two counties and I have had multiple suites back and forth for years. Some I file too btw. Sued by Muslim Student Association from one major university and the Student Union from another. Sued in a Federal Court three times by former drivers. Over wages. Twice individual drivers and once a class action suite. Won the class action. The two individual suits pending for a couple years now. I've been arrested 152 times in 25 years and never been convicted of anything. Never pled to a lesser offense. I follow the laws always. Had several jury trials found me not guilty. Been before the Grand Jury three times. Twice related to impound / non consent towing and once in a real estate investment / partnership that went bad in Miami / Dade area in the Great Recession. Never indicted. People hate impound towing and non consent towing...unless and until you need us. I have a massive target in my back because I've been successful, probably the largest impound towing company in the country and I invented "Roam Towing". The whole concept didn't exist until I created it. The State of California has banned it by by State Law but you can't even pass gas in California legally. They are regulating cow flatulence. True. It's a rough business but I run it by the book. The State of Florida will never ban it. I spend plenty on lobbying and funding plenty of politicians..local, state and county. Only three minor civil...not criminal..violations have ever been assessed against me over all these years. I paid $150 for each occurrence. I run a legit operation and despite dozens if investigations, undercover stings ect ect ect by state and city law enforcement, multiple attempts, Grand jury's ect.....nothing has ever been found to be out of order.

 

[Traction]

It's all simply common sense, of course not doing things stupid wrong either. Then what about the so many cars, and SUV's with staggered tire setups, and the rear tires are worn more that the front in a 100 miles.

 

[dareo]

ToadU i would totally watch your YouTube channel if it existed!

 

[ToadU]

Originally Posted by dareo
ToadU i would totally watch your YouTube channel if it existed!



Haha. I'm old now. Try to keep a low profile. I was supposed to have a reality TV show but th deal fell through at the last min. Now you have Lizard Lick towing TV show which was originally my idea to feature my company. Oh well. Want to sell the towing operations and service center. Keeping rent-to-own and buy-here-pay-here operations a few more years. I'm very proud of my service center and car sales. I truly believe I do it right. Certainly to the best of my ability. Example my rent to own I am the ONLY dealer that delivers you a vehicle with good tires, all fresh fluids..before it goes on my lot everything is flushed and changed...AND as long as you owe me money and pay me if it breaks I will fix it or replace w a vehicle of equal value off my lot. People think I'm a [censored] but it's good business practice and win win for everyone. Yes I'm charging a premium for the rent to own bc it's high risk. Why do I fix the cars? If you owe me money you likely won't pay if the car breaks. So I'll keep it running. Now the stereo breaks or electric seat or the sunroof.....I don't care. You can fix it but I'm not going too. But I'll make sure you have a good solid car. If I sold it with working AC I'll keep that working too as long as you pay me my weekly payment. I take weekly payments at my impound yard. They are required to bring the car. I have someone pull the dipsticks and check the fluids and tire pressures. Why? Bc I need the car to run as much as they do until you pay me off. I've never seen another company do it the way I do. You get a certain number of miles a week and we charge over that number. Fair is fair. So every week we check the miles and charge for extras. But the tranny goes out I'll send a wrecker in town to get it wherever it is at no fee to you and if we can't fix it or if it's not worth fixing you pick another car off my lot that's the same weekly payment and pay the $75.00 title transfer fee and drive off w a new car. All purchase credit from your rent to own agreement you keep. You want a different car bring it back to my lot paysome fees and get an SUV instead of a car or whatever. It's a cool way to do biz and it works well.

Make a late payment or don't pay....I take back the car your rent to own resets to starting from scratch.

 

[dareo]

ToadU sounds like your doing a great service for the bottom of the car market. How do you get around the sales tax and registration costs? i always thought it would be interesting to run something similar to that here in Utah when my current business becomes obsolete.