Chevy Spark 2014 Tire Rotation

Chevy Spark EV Forum

Help Support Chevy Spark EV Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

romorris2342

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
16
I learned a couple of things regarding rotation. 1) The front and back stock tires are different widths and 2) the tires are unidirectional. This means you cannot go either front to back because of #1 or left to right because of #2. Each tire is assigned to stay on the car in a specific position only. Chevy and their dealers (once they figure it out themselves) will tell you this is by design. I called my "spark advisor" who works for chevy. The suspicious might say it is by design that they are willing to live with your tires wearing out quickly. They will say these tires are designed to wear evenly without rotation. Well, if that last sentence is true why isn't everybody making tire rotations a thing of the past ?

I see no indication on the tires themselves that they are unidirectional (like "this side out" or an arrow indicating direction of travel) but the spark advisor says they are in fact unidirectional tires. Maybe I'm missing the indication on the tires somehow, I'll look again.
 
romorris2342 said:
I see no indication on the tires themselves that they are unidirectional (like "this side out" or an arrow indicating direction of travel) but the spark advisor says they are in fact unidirectional tires. Maybe I'm missing the indication on the tires somehow, I'll look again.

Many years ago there were concerns about rotating steel belted tires from side to side because after being driven for a while they wore in such a way that swapping sides made the steel belts fail. Perhaps a concern of this sort applies. It has always been my understanding that tires should never be rotated from side to side, only front to rear.

I can't wait until I need new front tires so I can be rid of the OEM low rolling resistance tires, they seriously lack traction, which is a desirable trait in a tire.

I expect to never rotate a tire on my Spark EV.
 
StevesWeb said:
romorris2342 said:
I can't wait until I need new front tires so I can be rid of the OEM low rolling resistance tires, they seriously lack traction, which is a desirable trait in a tire.

I expect to never rotate a tire on my Spark EV.

I think I'm ok with the traction. But we had to replace one at 1K miles as it "popped" when my wife brushed up against the curve. Seems fragile. Either that or my wife is down-peddeling how hard she brushed up against the curve.

I'll like not rotating, but me and chevy or the lease company will have a legal issues on our hands somewhere if the "by design" feature from Chevy means that my tires are defined as worn out at my 30K miles (/36 months) turn in time stipulated by the lease.
 
romorris2342 said:
StevesWeb said:
romorris2342 said:
I can't wait until I need new front tires so I can be rid of the OEM low rolling resistance tires, they seriously lack traction, which is a desirable trait in a tire.

I expect to never rotate a tire on my Spark EV.

I think I'm ok with the traction. But we had to replace one at 1K miles as it "popped" when my wife brushed up against the curve. Seems fragile. Either that or my wife is down-peddeling how hard she brushed up against the curve.

I'll like not rotating, but me and chevy or the lease company will have a legal issues on our hands somewhere if the "by design" feature from Chevy means that my tires are defined as worn out at my 30K miles (/36 months) turn in time stipulated by the lease.


I'm not sure why there would be legal issues involved simply due to the tire choice by the manufacturer.

For decades, cars have come with staggered and/or directional tires that are not able to be rotated. Any informed car buyer should realize this is a possibility.
 
]
StevesWeb said:
romorris2342 said:
I'm not sure why there would be legal issues involved simply due to the tire choice by the manufacturer.

For decades, cars have come with staggered and/or directional tires that are not able to be rotated. Any informed car buyer should realize this is a possibility.
[/quote]

If their design precludes the satisfaction of the lease terms as a possibility, you betcha. First to arbitration, them immediately to court within 90 days if arbitration doesn't pan out.
 
Dumb question..... what about wheel alignment ?

I have trucks so this is a must.

But with this kind of tire, would you need to align it more frequently ?
 
Again, this has been common practice for years. I fail to follow what laws are broken and why legal action would be necessary. It is certainly not a defect.

Was it a poor design? Sure!

Is it unsafe? Nope!

This comes down to a case of buyer be ware, IMO
 
tigger19687 said:
Dumb question..... what about wheel alignment ?

I have trucks so this is a must.

But with this kind of tire, would you need to align it more frequently ?

It's always a good idea to keep the wheel alignment within spec. Opinions vary on how frequently this should be done. In THEORY, unless something bends or comes loose, your wheel alignment should't change much over the course of the lifetime of the vehicle.

That being said, minute changes in the suspension geometry due to wear and tear will cause it to go out sporadically. If you are good about monitoring tire wear, you can usually catch it before any serious premature wear is done to the tires. Alternatively, you can have the alignment checked and adjusted as necessary every few thousand miles.

I have had cars that never needed any alignment adjustments over course of 90,000 miles and others that seemed to need it every 10,000 miles.
 
romorris2342 said:
I'll like not rotating, but me and chevy or the lease company will have a legal issues on our hands somewhere if the "by design" feature from Chevy means that my tires are defined as worn out at my 30K miles (/36 months) turn in time stipulated by the lease.

I fear all you will do is give some lawyer some money.

Historically, American cars have come with the cheapest pieces of rubber the automakers could get away with. I don't think any one of us would consider the Spark's tires to be anything approaching greatness.

Additionally, tires are generally not warrantied by the car maker but by the tire maker. So any possible claim would be against them but I don't believe they came with any sort of tread life guarantee. (I'll have to check this when I'm at home)

You might want to check the fine print in your lease too. It may require the tires to have a certain percentage of the tread, possibly 50%, which would be near impossible to obtain with OEM donuts. And you may have signed away your right to sue and be required to use binding arbitration.

I'd like to see better tires as standard. It's a total waste to put on new tires 30 months into a three year lease, but that's what it is.
 
I was really referring to wearing evenly. If the lease penalizes for uneven wear (and they could) that presumes that even wear over the lease period is possible. If it in fact is not possible by design that would be unfair. Either accidentally or on purpose it is completely beside the point.

No one would ever hire a laser for this (unless class action). This is a small claim suit and it would have to be preceded by arbitration if good cause why arbitration does not apply is not shown. As such they have to show up on the date of the case or forfeit - and lawyers are not permitted. If they did prevail there, it will cost them a couple of thousand dollars (paying someone to attend that day of the case and there can be more than one day depending, possible flights, prep) to save $400. I get to choose the location of the case as the filer (and its down the street).

There's really a whole slew of conditions before this ever happens. Lease has to end, the design must fail to wear evenly, they have to so penalize, I don't buy the car or strike another deal etc etc. I don't plan on being forced to buy them a new set of tires at 30K miles without them pay a price for that. That would be BS. As 10 things have to happen between then and now for it to go south - I won't sweat it at this moment, just type some notes down and move on.
 
As I said here:

http://mychevysparkev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3584&start=20

The tires are not unidirectional. The tires can (and should) be rotated left to right, but not front to rear. Sounds like you got some bad information from the spark advisor.

I don't understand how you'd have a legal standing by having your driven tires wear out faster than your non-driven tires and needing to replace them within your lease period. Sure, it might piss you off because you didn't factor it in to your cost of ownership, but GM never says they'll provide warranty on the tires due to wear (rather than manufacturing defect, which they will cover). If they did, they'd be buying me a LOT of tires, as I only got about 4000 miles on my front tires before they were down to the wear bars! Can you imagine how many tires they'd be buying for Corvettes, Camaros, etc. if they had a mileage guarantee on the OEM tires?

As I said here:

http://www.mychevysparkev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3734&start=10

For those with 3 year leases, I HIGHLY recommend you get better tires on the car right away. Drive the car for the next 30,000 miles or so with much better tires and enjoy it. When you're nearing the end of your lease, put the Ecopias back on it before returning it. I guarantee you won't get 36,000 miles out of your Ecopias on the front...so if you need to buy new tires, you might as well buy them now and enjoy them instead of buying new tires for the next person down the line.

Bryce
 
Any large Company has a lawyer on "Retainer".
So I would think in terms of $$ it will cost them.

But it would be an easy Win if you could prove that there is Early wear on these tires and that THEY Know about it.
 
tigger19687 said:
Any large Company has a lawyer on "Retainer".
So I would think in terms of $$ it will cost them.

But it would be an easy Win if you could prove that there is Early wear on these tires and that THEY Know about it.

Lawyers are not permitted in CA Small Claim Court. They have to send a company representative and that person cannot
be a Lawyer they have hired to represent them. The Small Claim process is specifically setup to avoid the necessity of Legal
Representative for these low-value cases (Under 10K at this time). That person has to prepare for the case as well, or
come in cold (in which case he's in no position to argue anything). Been here, done that. It works well. Went up against
a 10 Billion Financial corporation know as OCWEN financial last year and won that 10K max value plus costs. I know what
I'm doing in that particular venue. For that 400 or 500 $ for tires, even if they did prevail - they would lose big time
and all I'm out is $80 in court costs plus $20 bucks to serve them and maybe 20 hours of my time. It works, but you
have to be really pissed off to go thru it. Two years from now, we'll see. I really don't like getting cheated. (and there
is the arbitration thing to navigate before getting deeper involved).
 
RichV said:
Just increasing the future cost of cars we buy new. Someone has to pay for all this litigation and it will be passed on to the consumer.

Think of it as our way of eliminating the unworthy. That attitude that's its "just business" is short hand for 'being underhanded is ok'.
It's not just business. Serve the customer in a fair manner or perish. Chevy has no business being in business. They will require
another bail out, but mark my words - they won't be seeing one.
 
How has GM been underhanded? Should they replace your wiper blades in 3 years as well? What about washer fluid? Where do you draw the line? Tires are consumable, GM has no tire wear warranty provision. Sounds like you made an assumption about tire life and costs of ownership. Many Leaf owners (using the same tires) have done the same, but that doesn't give any legal right to compensation.

Bryce
 
Nashco said:
How has GM been underhanded? Should they replace your wiper blades in 3 years as well? What about washer fluid? Where do you draw the line? Tires are consumable, GM has no tire wear warranty provision. Sounds like you made an assumption about tire life and costs of ownership. Many Leaf owners (using the same tires) have done the same, but that doesn't give any legal right to compensation.

Bryce

I would disagree with these statements. If the wiper blades and washer fluid have some kind of mile warranty then the manufacturer should replace the item that is warranted. In case of tires, they should carry some kind of mileage warranty and if not holding up to that mileage, should be replaced as well. But they don't, here is our tire warranty:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...ne&tireModel=Ecopia+EP150&partnum=855TR5EP150
No treadware warranty no UTQG listing at all. The problem is, that in fact the manufacturers do have multitude of lawyers on staff and word their warranties they way to prevent people from going after them. Again, it's not just the Bridgestone, GM or Chevy, it's ALL of them. Car manufacturers put crappy tires on the cars they sell because it makes financial sense to them and for as long as not enough people complain and try to sue them, nothing going to change in that respect :(
Warranty booklet simply states; "Ware-out is not considered a defect", this is most likely is a result of some people driving their Camaros and Corvettes to the point where the rubber is just peeling off :(
With today's software, they could look up the tire-burnout events in the ECM, but why would they bother when they can just state the above...
 
nmikmik said:
Nashco said:
How has GM been underhanded? Should they replace your wiper blades in 3 years as well? What about washer fluid? Where do you draw the line? Tires are consumable, GM has no tire wear warranty provision. Sounds like you made an assumption about tire life and costs of ownership. Many Leaf owners (using the same tires) have done the same, but that doesn't give any legal right to compensation.

Bryce

I would disagree with these statements.

Which statement do you disagree with? Statements I made:

1. Tires are consumable.
2. GM has no tire wear warranty provision.
3. Sounds like you made an assumption about tire life and costs of ownership.
4. Many Leaf owners (using the same tires) have done the same.
5. That doesn't give any legal right to compensation.

These all seem like pretty agreeable statements. Also, for the record, "our" tire warranty is NOT something you'll find on tirerack.com...OEM tire warranty is clarified in your OEM documentation, and is not treated the same as aftermarket tire sales.

Bryce
 
Nashco said:
Which statement do you disagree with? Statements I made:

1. Tires are consumable.
2. GM has no tire wear warranty provision.
3. Sounds like you made an assumption about tire life and costs of ownership.
4. Many Leaf owners (using the same tires) have done the same.
5. That doesn't give any legal right to compensation.

These all seem like pretty agreeable statements. Also, for the record, "our" tire warranty is NOT something you'll find on tirerack.com...OEM tire warranty is clarified in your OEM documentation, and is not treated the same as aftermarket tire sales.

Bryce

Let me clarify, :oops:

I do not disagree with your statements because they are not true, I disagree because I don't like them been true, and believe the rest of the consumers should do the same.


1. Tires are consumable. - true and does not mean they should not have a treadware warranty.
2. GM has no tire wear warranty provision. - true but why?
3. Sounds like you made an assumption about tire life and costs of ownership. - sounds like a logical assumption to make.
4. Many Leaf owners (using the same tires) have done the same. - somewhat of a proof to a point #3
5. That doesn't give any legal right to compensation. - true but why?

By accepting the fact that tires are consumables and have no ware-out warranty we perpetuate the problem. So what is next? Manufacturer can put even crappier tires and still get away with it?
In my opinion the problem is that we, as consumers, have absolutely no control over it. Are we going to stop buying cars that have crappy OEM tires, most likely not and manufacturer know it and keeps doing what he does.
I barely have 2000 miles on these tires and hate them with a passion. So, I am forced to spend another $400+ (pardon me, make it $800+ because I got two of them) on a set of new tires for a leased vehicle, why?
 
FYI...I just had my tires rotated as specified..side to side. 7700 miles on the clock...now the car pulls quite heavily to the left.
 
Back
Top