UTQC Question

[supton]

If I wave my hands a UTQC of about 400-500 seems "average". Did tires really truly last a quarter of the miles they do today? I understand, we drive more than we used to, and the price of everything increases; but when the system went into place was a score of 100 really average? and we are now averaging that much better?

Or am I being too selective here, since I'm pretty much sticking with just the major tire brands (Firestone, BFG, Michelin, etc).

 

[Quattro Pete]

I don't think the 100 was an average. It was some reference value that most likely represented the worst/quickest wearing tire. Every other tire was supposed to be better than that, even "back in the day." If 100 was an average, that means there must have been tires out there with tread wear rating of below 100. I have never seen one, but maybe there have been? I'm guessing track/race tires would fall below 100, but most of them aren't treadwear rated at all.


Also, it's UTQG.

 

[supton]

I got close... darn it!

Just miffed at how poor the OEM tires on my truck are--or perhaps more shocked than anything. They are sized seemingly as if Toyota didn't plan on me leaving them on the truck for very long, yet they couldn't sell it with bare rims. I mean, the Bridgestone Dueler H/T D864II are 360BB rated. I have not gone looking for a lower rated tire, but I have to wonder if I could.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: supton
Just miffed at how poor the OEM tires on my truck are--or perhaps more shocked than anything.

It's very typical of OEM tires. Most are designed with low rolling resistance as the primary requirement to help achieve CAFE MPG figures. Other aspects such as traction or treadwear get compromised as a result since you can't have it all, and they're all built to a price point.

CapriRacer summarized it well on his page:
http://www.barrystiretech.com/oetires.html

 

[2oldtommy]

Bias ply tires which were used until ca.1970 were worn out at 12-15k miles. These were followed by bias/belted tires that were OE until '74-'75.These increased the mileage expectation to 20-25k miles. These bias/ belted were a stop gap measure until radials started to be optional in 1974. The change to radials was a major investment by the tire industry as the equipment to build radials was totaly new. Now, tires can go for 40-80k miles depending on design and driver style. European change to radials was much earlier and started after WW2. Bias tires were hand built ( mostly in Akron). Today's automation is the rule. Many tires are untouched by human hands until a final visual is done. FWIW

Oldtommy

 

[SteveSRT8]

Not much has changed since I bought my first new car in 1970.

The FIRST thing I did was run to the tire store to fit upgraded rubber. Mfgrs always cheap out, even the name brands they provide have little in common with what we can buy over the counter in the aftermarket.

 

[Rolla07]

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=48

Good link to read!!

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
I don't think the 100 was an average.

I take that back. I found this article that mentions that a treadwear rating of 100 may have in fact been average or even above average back in the 70s...

http://www.tirereview.com/Article/60302/...one_wanted.aspx

 

[440Magnum]

I'm old enough to remember that BFGoodrich made a big deal of it in their advertizing when they created a Radial T/A (then one of the more performance-oriented tires) with a 400 treadwear rating. And then only in the lower profile sizes.

Compared to my first experiences with bias-ply tires and early radials (Goodyear Arriva anyone? Yuck!), I would say we really have come that far. 20k miles out of a set of tires used to be remarkable. And that was for non-performance passenger car tires! Today that's typical of what can be done with very high-performance tires.

 

[bullwinkle]

I can remember when bias ply tires were lucky to go 10K (Atlas Cushionaire & similar), we've come a long way since then.

 

[supton]

Very interesting! Thanks for the links, good reading.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
I can remember when bias ply tires were lucky to go 10K (Atlas Cushionaire & similar), we've come a long way since then.


I ran Atlas tires before switching to radials. Short life, but then tires only cost $15-$25 apiece back then, too.

 

[IndyIan]

One of the used R-compounds I bought for racing had a mileage rating of 80, and I recall 140 on a set of Toyo's.
I got about 20-30 miles out of them before cording them out, but that's doing autocross runs.

 

[CapriRacer]

I've actually seen tires with a "Zero" for the treadwear rating. That means it doesn't even need to be tested.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: supton
I got close... darn it!

Just miffed at how poor the OEM tires on my truck are--or perhaps more shocked than anything. They are sized seemingly as if Toyota didn't plan on me leaving them on the truck for very long, yet they couldn't sell it with bare rims. I mean, the Bridgestone Dueler H/T D864II are 360BB rated. I have not gone looking for a lower rated tire, but I have to wonder if I could.


Since I got my LTX's yesterday I was able to measure these Dueler's today. 360BB treadwear, and Tirerack says they come initially with 11/32's. I had some feathering on the fronts, but even wear otherwise, front and rear, no tire rotations in the 6,000miles I ran them for.

They were down to 8/32's on all four.