Load rating for tires during lease return

[Anton]

Not sure if this is the right place for this thread but I guess it serves a couple different purposes.

My parents' lease on their CR-V is coming up so they had a lease end inspection done on the vehicle. During the inspection, the inspector told them that everything looked great as they take care of their vehicles. Only thing needed to be fixed was the windshield. The tires are in great shape and are only a few months old. They're all-season Bridgestones.

When the report came back, they were charged $920 to replace all 4 tires. The reason for this was because the required load rating was 102 and the tires are of a 100 rating. My folks bought the tires at Costco and were not aware that the load rating would come in effect during the return. I was speaking with someone at Urban X and they told me that it was completely ridiculous that they would even demand that the tires be replaced because of this. Needless to say, the situation is unpleasant.

I worked for Honda for 4 years and this is the first time that I've heard of this happening. The inspection is done by DataScan, a third party company so I can't really put any blame on Honda.

I guess this thread serves as a warning to people leasing their vehicles to watch for correct load ratings and also to see if anyone has worn down tires size 225/65R17 102T that they would want to swap for some pretty well brand new tires. All I want is the tires to pass inspection and someone could get a brand new set for free as I'd pay for the install. I doubt that the car would even get new tires and they would most likely just pocket the $920 as profit. (I don't know the exact model of the tire, the only thing I know is that they're Bridgestones)

[revelations]

I'd post this on Kijiji and the market place, I'm sure someone would take you up on this.

[Anton]

Originally posted by revelations
I'd post this on Kijiji and the market place, I'm sure someone would take you up on this.

Yup, just posted on Kijiji but would prefer to help out a fellow beyonder.

[jdmXSI]

have you tried to contact Costco? Maybe mention to them that they out "unsafe" tires on and you want something done to correct thier mistake because someone could have been seriously injured if not killed and maybe refer back to the Ford Exploder i mean Explorer days with Birdgestone. IIRC Ford wasusing passenger car tires for SUV's, same thing as this scenario. Wrong load rating...

If they say anything, just plead on ignorance that you are a consumer and they are the professional who deals with tires every day, i dont...

Its worth a shot!

[Anton]

I did think of that but everyone I've talked to thus far has been fairly consistent in that they are not necessarily "unsafe".

To my understanding (and if someone can confirm this, that would be great) is that there is a degree of tolerance for deviating from manufacturer's suggested load rating and tire shops will do this sometimes without 'legal implications'.

Like I said, I worked for Honda for a number of years and have never heard of this happening before. Guess times are tough :dunno:

[jdmXSI]

What if you gave Costco a call and started to ask them about tires for the CR-V, then ask about load ratings on tires and if there would be any saftey concern if it is not what the manufacturer requires. If the say yes there is a concern, nail them to the wall, that you purchased tires from them and they put the wrong tires on the CR-V and you would like it corrected. If they say no, maybe ask to speak with a manager and plead your story that they put non- manufacturer approved tires with an incorrect load rating and ask them what they are willing to do to help you along.

good luck

[Anton]

I'll give it a whirl after I grab the invoice from my folks - Thanks for the suggestion! Hopefully I can figure something out for them. Sucks they just paid 7 bills for tires and have to front 9 more...

Edit: I seem to be getting a lot of interest from Kijiji but people have absolutely no idea what the hell tire size means. Had a couple offering to trade me their 16 inch tires haha. Hopefully someone from Beyond can use this and actually knows where on your sidewall the tire size is!

[FraserB]

Costco will probably do something about this if you raise a big enough stink. They have a pretty firm policy on only placing factory same tires on vehicles.

If they end uphaving to pay for new tires, make sure they give the shop a written statement they want the old tires back, make the person taking the car sign this and get a witness.

[Redlyne_mr2]

The rules with lease returns have really changed. Gone are the days that you can just throw $400 Canadian tire tires on the vehicle and be done with it. I agree with the comments about contact Costco, it's no fun having to spend good money on useless tires.

[heavyD]

People don't pay enough attention to load rating when purchasing tires. The shop that sells them should be responsible enough to ensure that the tires meet the minimum load requirements. Can't blame the lease company for not accepting the liability.

[Anton]

Originally posted by heavyD
People don't pay enough attention to load rating when purchasing tires. The shop that sells them should be responsible enough to ensure that the tires meet the minimum load requirements. Can't blame the lease company for not accepting the liability.

Not trying to blame them really that's why I never addressed it with DataScan and just looking for an alternative to paying $900. The ONLY reason why I'm a bit upset about it is that I know that this would be overlooked a few years back. Having said this, they have full right to demand that the tires should be changed.

You're absolutely right that people should pay attention to the correct specifications when buying tires. Unfortunately, my parents didn't.

I must say that I've never really double checked when purchasing tires (mostly because I always bought them at reputable shops - not costco) so at the very least this thread will show people that they should look out for this.

[heavyD]

If the tires are only a few months old can you take it up with the outfit that sold you the tires? Maybe they would be resonable if you told them your story as it's something they should really pay attention to. In reality the tires should be fine as the load rating is close but it's one of those things that the lease outfit has the last call on.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by heavyD
People don't pay enough attention to load rating when purchasing tires. The shop that sells them should be responsible enough to ensure that the tires meet the minimum load requirements. Can't blame the lease company for not accepting the liability.

The thing is, cars come equipped with tires that usually far surpass maximum load carrying requirements, and the load rating of 100 vs 102 actually still has enough load carrying capacity for that specific vehicles fully loaded weight. The issue isn't that the 100's are not safe for use, but that 100 is not what the car was issued with... Honda wants the car back with the same thing they issued it with.

[SOAB]

i had a customer come in with 1 blown tire and another tire with the belts separating because of the wrong load rating tire installed. they only had them for a couple months as well.

their tires were supposed to be an 91 load rating and the tire store put on an 89.

I also thought that they would do the job as well but apparently not.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by tirebob


The thing is, cars come equipped with tires that usually far surpass maximum load carrying requirements, and the load rating of 100 vs 102 actually still has enough load carrying capacity for that specific vehicles fully loaded weight. The issue isn't that the 100's are not safe for use, but that 100 is not what the car was issued with... Honda wants the car back with the same thing they issued it with.

If that's the case yeah it's a bad deal. Is this something that is stated in a typical lease contract? If it's not they shouldn't be able to get away with it but if it's in the contract the OP is kind of screwed.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by SOAB
i had a customer come in with 1 blown tire and another tire with the belts separating because of the wrong load rating tire installed. they only had them for a couple months as well.

their tires were supposed to be an 91 load rating and the tire store put on an 89.

I also thought that they would do the job as well but apparently not.

Now not to question you here. but how can you be certain that the cause of his tire issues was specifically the difference between 89 and 91 and not from some other issue? The tires could have been shit for a reason completely unrelated to the load carrying capacity. The person could have taken a tire that was not built for a specific use and decided to use them that way (ie a cheap basic all season and drove the shit out of it like a drift car), mechanical issues putting undo stress on the tire edges causing them to overheat in turn causing seperations, etc...

The difference between an 89 and a 91 is 35 kg's per tire. That isn't even my body weight difference. That is not near enough to cause tread seperation in 4 tires if this is what you are talking about...

I am betting there was some other issue that caused your customers issue over and beyond the 35 kg's in load carrying capacity IMHO...

[Anton]

Originally posted by heavyD


If that's the case yeah it's a bad deal. Is this something that is stated in a typical lease contract? If it's not they shouldn't be able to get away with it but if it's in the contract the OP is kind of screwed.

The tire load rating would be a standard car specification and wouldn't fall into the allowable wear and tear. Basically, it's like if I tried to return the car with only 3 wheels instead of 4.

On a positive note, found someone to swap tires with and it's all set to go for them.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by heavyD


If that's the case yeah it's a bad deal. Is this something that is stated in a typical lease contract? If it's not they shouldn't be able to get away with it but if it's in the contract the OP is kind of screwed.

Yeah... A 100 is capable of carrying 800kg's per tire, which is 7040 pounds total load carrying capacity. New, the vehicle is listed with a gross vehicle weight rating (lbs) 4,449, which is a curb weight of (lbs) 3,501, and can tow a gross trailer weight braked (lbs) 1,500 and max payload (lbs) 948

I am also under the impression since this listing, Honda has revised and lowered the max load capacity of the CRV in a service bulliten, but I can't seem to locate the exact amount since...

The vehicle would have to be severely overloaded to surpass the load carrying capacity of 100... Not saying people are not stupid and do dumb shit, but in theory the tires the OP has should be passable for lease return...

[heavyD]

Originally posted by Anton


The tire load rating would be a standard car specification and wouldn't fall into the allowable wear and tear. Basically, it's like if I tried to return the car with only 3 wheels instead of 4.

On a positive note, found someone to swap tires with and it's all set to go for them.

I'm glad things worked out for your parents as that's kind of an unfortunate thing.

[SOAB]

Originally posted by tirebob


Now not to question you here. but how can you be certain that the cause of his tire issues was specifically the difference between 89 and 91 and not from some other issue? The tires could have been shit for a reason completely unrelated to the load carrying capacity. The person could have taken a tire that was not built for a specific use and decided to use them that way (ie a cheap basic all season and drove the shit out of it like a drift car), mechanical issues putting undo stress on the tire edges causing them to overheat in turn causing seperations, etc...

The difference between an 89 and a 91 is 35 kg's per tire. That isn't even my body weight difference. That is not near enough to cause tread seperation in 4 tires if this is what you are talking about...

I am betting there was some other issue that caused your customers issue over and beyond the 35 kg's in load carrying capacity IMHO...

oh it totally could've been anything that caused it.

according to the customer though, they had hit a pot hole and the two tires were on the same side so it almost sounds believable.