My wife is PISSED! We have to buy tires. The outside 2-3 inches are bald. The center and inside tread is great.
Who wants to buy tires twice a year? Not us!
Fisker says they are building cars that are "environmentally responsible". Since when is producing a car that eats up tires environmentally responsible? Where do used tires go? Land fills? New tires contain several gallons of OIL. So how does contributing to filling land fills with tires twice a year and using several gallons of oil to make tires make environmental sense?
Tires on a luxury car should last at LEAST 18,000 miles. Really, 30,000-40,000 is what most Mercedes and BMW owners can expect.
We've owned some pretty exotic cars and besides the NSX's when they first came out, NO CAR we've owned has chewed tires up like the Karma. We have 6,400 miles and the tires need to be replaced. My wife drives this car to and from the kids school and uses it to go shopping. She's not aggressive in any way, shape or form.
She asked the dealer about it and they didn't know what to say.
She took it to a very reputable tire shop and they said the car is just too heavy for Goodyear F1 Supercar tires.
She called Fisker customer service and the CSR acknowledge the problem and said he's had other customers complaining. He also said that the car is too heavy for the tires and that Fisker is working on a solution.
Back when the Acura NSX first came out they had the alignment so aggressive so they could beat anything Ferrari, Porsche, Lambo had to offer in 1991 that the rear tires would last 2,500 to 6,000 miles. Customers complained, lawsuits were filed, and eventually Honda changed the alignment specs and sent owners coupons for free Yokohama tires. I think each customer got 3 sets of coupon if I recall correctly.
Here's some back-in-time history:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/22/business/acura-tire-wear-comes-under-fire.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Between my wife and I, we've owned 5 Acura NSX's and with the right alignment, we always got 20,000+ miles from the fronts and 12,000+ out of rears. That's acceptable for a sports car. I have an F430 with 12,900 miles on the original tires and they look like they could go another 5,000 miles. We have a Ford GT with Goodyear F1 Supercar tires and 21,000 miles and the fronts are original, but need to be replaced soon. The rears lasted 15,000 miles. Oh, and the FGT has seen track time on the OEMs. We had a Z06 with the same tires and got many, many miles from the F1's.
The tire is rated for the weight. So I don't buy the "too heavy" theory, but I could be wrong. I think something else is going on. Alignment specs? Ours was in for service and everything checked out. Not sure if they checked alignment, but the car drives straight.
So what do we do?
There is no reason to buy tires twice a year if you drive 12,000-15,000 miles. It's ludicrous.
We tried to get Fisker to help, but the CSR said, "They're working on a solution, but nothing has been handed down to me yet."
We're considering reporting this to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If you would like to make a complaint, here is the link: https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/VehicleComplaint/index.xhtml
It's very important that owners report issues such as this so that the NHTSA can investigate if Fisker won't.
I'm concerned that some owners aren't aware of the safety issues that develop when tires wear out on the edges. They may see tread on the center and inside and say, "They're fine".
I'm sure some of you will say, "You bought an expensive car, so what if you have to spend $2k a year on tires?" or, "Get over it". But it's not that simple. Any bad PR, like premature tire wear, affects our resale value, therefore Fiskers reputation.
Next week we'll be buying tires. I could have just paid the money and not worried about it. But I really think that a solution is needed and I really don't like the idea of tossing out tires twice a year to fill our landfills.
I'm looking for comments from owners who are getting more or less that we got from tires. What are you seeing?
Thanks!
Bill
Who wants to buy tires twice a year? Not us!
Fisker says they are building cars that are "environmentally responsible". Since when is producing a car that eats up tires environmentally responsible? Where do used tires go? Land fills? New tires contain several gallons of OIL. So how does contributing to filling land fills with tires twice a year and using several gallons of oil to make tires make environmental sense?
Tires on a luxury car should last at LEAST 18,000 miles. Really, 30,000-40,000 is what most Mercedes and BMW owners can expect.
We've owned some pretty exotic cars and besides the NSX's when they first came out, NO CAR we've owned has chewed tires up like the Karma. We have 6,400 miles and the tires need to be replaced. My wife drives this car to and from the kids school and uses it to go shopping. She's not aggressive in any way, shape or form.
She asked the dealer about it and they didn't know what to say.
She took it to a very reputable tire shop and they said the car is just too heavy for Goodyear F1 Supercar tires.
She called Fisker customer service and the CSR acknowledge the problem and said he's had other customers complaining. He also said that the car is too heavy for the tires and that Fisker is working on a solution.
Back when the Acura NSX first came out they had the alignment so aggressive so they could beat anything Ferrari, Porsche, Lambo had to offer in 1991 that the rear tires would last 2,500 to 6,000 miles. Customers complained, lawsuits were filed, and eventually Honda changed the alignment specs and sent owners coupons for free Yokohama tires. I think each customer got 3 sets of coupon if I recall correctly.
Here's some back-in-time history:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/22/business/acura-tire-wear-comes-under-fire.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Between my wife and I, we've owned 5 Acura NSX's and with the right alignment, we always got 20,000+ miles from the fronts and 12,000+ out of rears. That's acceptable for a sports car. I have an F430 with 12,900 miles on the original tires and they look like they could go another 5,000 miles. We have a Ford GT with Goodyear F1 Supercar tires and 21,000 miles and the fronts are original, but need to be replaced soon. The rears lasted 15,000 miles. Oh, and the FGT has seen track time on the OEMs. We had a Z06 with the same tires and got many, many miles from the F1's.
The tire is rated for the weight. So I don't buy the "too heavy" theory, but I could be wrong. I think something else is going on. Alignment specs? Ours was in for service and everything checked out. Not sure if they checked alignment, but the car drives straight.
So what do we do?
There is no reason to buy tires twice a year if you drive 12,000-15,000 miles. It's ludicrous.
We tried to get Fisker to help, but the CSR said, "They're working on a solution, but nothing has been handed down to me yet."
We're considering reporting this to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If you would like to make a complaint, here is the link: https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/VehicleComplaint/index.xhtml
It's very important that owners report issues such as this so that the NHTSA can investigate if Fisker won't.
I'm concerned that some owners aren't aware of the safety issues that develop when tires wear out on the edges. They may see tread on the center and inside and say, "They're fine".
I'm sure some of you will say, "You bought an expensive car, so what if you have to spend $2k a year on tires?" or, "Get over it". But it's not that simple. Any bad PR, like premature tire wear, affects our resale value, therefore Fiskers reputation.
Next week we'll be buying tires. I could have just paid the money and not worried about it. But I really think that a solution is needed and I really don't like the idea of tossing out tires twice a year to fill our landfills.
I'm looking for comments from owners who are getting more or less that we got from tires. What are you seeing?
Thanks!
Bill
