Some cars just happen to eat tires. If we take high torque and lead foot out of the equation is it a weight of the vehicle vs tire size issue?
Why do some cars just "eat" tires?
- Thread starter Rust_Belt_Pete
- Start date
I had a Taurus that just destroyed tires. I drove it like a grandma, too. It was so bad I'd just run junkyard wheels and tires on it.
They never wore funny. I had it aligned 4 or 5 times, nothing in the steering or suspension was worn out - Except the coil springs breaking all the time but I always aligned it after replacing them.
They never wore funny. I had it aligned 4 or 5 times, nothing in the steering or suspension was worn out - Except the coil springs breaking all the time but I always aligned it after replacing them.
Weight torque and especially alignment all have their effect. And tire type. Sticky summer tires wear faster than all season or general purpose tires.
Patman
Staff member
Sometimes the alignment settings specified by the manufacturer are not conducive to long tread life. Owners of the GR Corolla are finding that out. Many can barely get 20,000 miles out of their tires even when they don’t drive that hard.
My focus had a very aggressive rear alignment in it and that was the spec. To get it to stop eating tires, I put a bunch of weight in the trunk to cause it to toe out more, then got it aligned like that. Took the weight out and the toe was perfect after that. Never had issues with rear tires after that.
Imho, several factors play role, suspension geometry, vehicle weight. Others will be tire air pressure, rubber composition, road surface. I think roads make significant difference, it's like comparing same paper in 400 grit to 800, there is difference.
All of the above, plus the abrasiveness and temperature of the road surface. The vehicles suspension damping and alignment are also factors, along with tire inflation. Also the tires themselves. Some are designed to be longer lasting, through casing construction, tread design, and rubber compound.
Weight and the factory alignment which delivers the required driving characteristics. Ex. Early 2000's BMW 5-series allegedly had substantial negative camber at the rears and would devour the tires. Obviously HP (aka summer) tires will wear faster than Touring tires.
My wife's SLK230 from the late 1990's would eat rears as well.
Rear wheel negative camber is a pretty common problem on cars with independent rear suspension. I put in adjustable upper arms in my Volvo to get the camber right. I think the factory arm was modified to be slightly longer at some point to address the problem.
A lot of cars have negative camber to make them more stable. That causes inside tire wear. Very common on euro cars.
concrete vs asphalt does make a difference.
This thread is perfect timing for something I'm dealing with.
Current gen Mustang Mach 1 went through Michelin Pilot Sports in 8,000 miles. 8,000 miles. No burnouts or anything crazy. Front and rears. The front tires had considerable wear on the inside while the outside of the tire seemed ok.
Got it aligned just to verify, and everything was in manufacture spec. Shop said it's just adjusted aggressively from the factory. So, I guess I need to budget new tires every 8,000 miles.
Last edited:
Because some cars will not hold an alignment, even with brand new suspension parts. A 1974 Plymouth duster is one of them. 
Sounds like bad or poor quality shocks/struts or it's just a typical ford car.
Because my brother drives it like a rented mule?
