BRIDGESTONE TIRES Complaints

TIRE TREAD COMING APART ON BRIDGESTONE POTENZA RE92 TIRES. ORINGINAL EQUIPMENT ON 2005 SUBARU BAJA. *NM

3 OF 4 BRIDGESTONE POTENZA RE-950 TIRES, SIZE 235/45/R17 93H TIRES HAVE EXPERIENCED DELAMINATION OF THE TREAD ON THE INSIDE WEAR EDGE; ALIGNMENT ON MY AUDI A4 HAS BEEN VERIFIED TO MEET MANUFACTURER SPEC, YET THE INSIDE EDGES OF THE TIRES HAVE BROKEN OPEN TO EXPOSE LAYERS OF TIRE AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE TIRE HAS BEEN BREACHED. IN ONE CASE, A 8 INCH BY 1/2 INCH BY 1/2 INCH SECTION COMPLETELY GAVE WAY AND FLEW OFF THE TIRE. THESE TIRES WERE DISCONTINUED BY BRIDGESTONE AND I NOW KNOW WHY. I REPLACED ALL 4 TIRES WITH BRIDGESTONE G09'S AND I HAVE NOT HAD THIS PROBLEM REOCCUR. NOTE, SYSTEM WILL NOT ACCEPT AUDI A4 AS VEHICLE TYPE, SO I USED TOYOTA; I DO HAVE A 3.0L A4 QUATTRO. *JB

THIS COMPLAINT REFERS TO THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT TIRES (BRIDGESTONE EL-42, 235/45-17 93W ) SUPPLIED ON THE 2004 ACURA TL WITH 6 SPEED MANUAL TRANSMISSION. AFTER JUST A SHORT TIME I HAVE FOUND THIS TIRE TO BE ENTIRELY UNSAFE AND UNSUITABLE TO THIS VEHICLE. I BELIEVE THAT BOTH ACURA AND BRIDGESTONE SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING THIS TIRE ON ALL EXISTING VEHICLES. THIS TIRE EXHIBITS UNSAFE CHARACTERISTICS IN WET WEATHER, WITH NOTICEABLE DRIFT AND HYDROPLANING IN ANY AMOUNT OF STANDING WATER, EVEN AS LITTLE AS 1/16 INCH. IN HEAVY RAINS, EVEN WITH NO STANDING WATER PRESENT, THE TIRE SEEMS INCAPABLE OF DISPERSING WATER AS QUICKLY AS IT FALLS, AGAIN LEADING TO VEHICLE INSTABILITY. FROM A RIDE QUALITY POINT OF VIEW THE TIRE IS ALSO UNSATISFACTORY IN THAT IT FLAT SPOTS EVERY MORNING, ESPECIALLY IN COOL WEATHER BUT EVEN IN WARMER WEATHER AS WELL, LEADING TO VIBRATIONS IN THE INITIAL MILES OF ANY DRIVE. IT IS ALSO ESPECIALLY HARSH OVER ROADWAY EXPANSION JOINTS, AND IS SO LOUD ON CONCRETE PAVEMENTS THAT IT POSES A SAFETY HAZARD DUE TO DRIVER FATIGUE INDUCED BY THE CONTINUOUS NOISE. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE REGARDING THE RATING AS AN "ALL SEASON TIRE" WITH MANY OWNERS REPORTING THAT THIS TIRE IS VIRTUALLY USELESS IN ANY KIND OF SNOW CONDITIONS. *JB

WE OWN A 2004 TOYOTA SIENNA LE AWD WITH RUN FLAT TIRES. AFTER ONLY 23,000 MILES WE WERE TOLD THAT THE TIRES WERE DANGEROUSLY WORN AND ALL 4 NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE. REPLACEMENT COST WAS APPROX. $300 PER TIRE. *NM

ON 2004 TOYOTA SIENNA XLE AWD, IT USES RUNFLAT TIRES (BRIDGESTONE B380) AS STANDARD EQUIPMENT. I HAVE TO REPLACE 1 AT 5500 MILES UNDER NORMAL ROAD DRIVING. AT 29,000 MILES, I HAVE TO REPLACE ALL 4 TIRE DUE TO EXCESSIVE TREAD WEAR ALSO UNDER NORMAL USE. THESE TIRES COST 300% MORE COMPARE TO TIRES USED ON OTHER SIENNA MODELS. NEITHER TOYOTA NOR THEIR DEALER ADVISED OF THESE ISSUES BUT JUST SAY THOSE TIRES COST $10 OR $20 MORE AND ONLY AVAILABLE THROUGH DEALERS. THESE UNEXPECTED TIRE WEAR AND COST CAUSE ME BEING STRANDED ON I10 AT 11PM WHERE NO HELP CAN BE FOUND AND COST MORE THAN $100 OF TOWING TO A DEALERSHIP. COST IS ONE THING BUT LESS THAN NORMAL TIRE LIFT EXPECTANCY CAUSED SAFETY ISSUE WHEN 1 OR MORE TIRE UNEXPECTEDLY MALFUNCTION OR FLAT. TIRES ARE NOT WARRANTED BY TOYOTA BUT TIRE COMPANY AND BRIDGESTONE DEALER WERE QUICK TO BLAME ALIGNMENT BEING THE ISSUE. MY SIENNA HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF BY TOYOTA DEALER WITH ALL MAINTENANCE RECORD KEPT AND ON SCHEDULE. *JB

THIS COMPLAINT IS IN REFERENCE TO THE BRIDGESTONE TURANZA EL 42 TIRE SUPPLIED AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT ON THE 2004 ACURA TL. THIS TIRE IS TOTALLY UNSUITABLE FOR THE VEHICLE AND IS UNSAFE FOR THE INTENDED CONDITIONS. ALTHOUGH IT IS RATED MS AS AN ALL SEASON TIRE, IT CAN NOT MAINTAIN EVEN MINIMAL TRACTION IN LIGHT SNOW. ALSO, AS THE TREAD WEARS, IT SHOW SIGNIFICANT TENDENCIES TO HYDROPLANE IN ANY AMOUNT OF STANDING WATER. THE FLAT SPOTTING ALSO CREATES DISTRACTING VIBRATIONS DURING COLD WEATHER. THIS VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE WITH THIS TIRE INSTALLED, YET ACURA AND BRIDGESTONE REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR ADDRESS THE PROBLEM UNLESS DIRECTED TO BY NHTSA. *NM

2006 MITSUBISHI ECLIPSE, 2,000 MILES, DRIVER AND 4 PASSENGERS WERE DRIVING 65 MPH ON THE #405 FREEWAY ON DRY CONDITIONS. THE CAR UNEXPECTEDLY GOES INTO A SPIN. THE RIGHT REAR TIRE HAD A 1 INCH WOOD SCREW IN THE TREAD, AND THE TIRE HAD BLOWN OUT. THE WHOLE INSIDE WALL OF THE TIRE WAS GONE. PHOTOS WERE TAKEN. *NM

IN SPRING 2004 I PURCHASED AN ACURA TL WITH BRIDGESTONE TURANZA EL 42 HIGH PERFORMANCE TIRES. AFTER 6,500 MILES ONE OF THE TIRES HAD A FLAT. ALTHOUGH THE GARAGE ATTEMPTED TO REPAIR THE FLAT, IT CONTINUED TO LOSE AIR AND I WAS INFORMED THAT I NEEDED A NEW TIRE. IT SEEMED ODD THAT A TIRE WOULD NOT BE REPARABLE AFTER THAT SHORT A USE, BUT I WAS ADVISED THAT IT HAD TO DO WITH THE LOCATION OF THE PUNCTURE AND WAS NOT A DEFECT. IN NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR, AFTER PUTTING 14,500 MILES ON THE CAR I HAD A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH ANOTHER TIRE. ON THIS OCCASION, WHILE TRAVELING AT 65 MILES PER HOUR ON AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY, MY CAR BEGAN TO SHAKE. I MANAGED TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND STOP. THE TIRE SIDEWALL HAD DISINTEGRATED AND WAS COMPLETELY SEPARATED FROM THE RIM. THE FOLLOWING DAY I TOOK THE TIRE INTO A FIRESTONE SHOP WHERE THE SERVICE MANAGER, TOM CURRY, ADVISED ME THAT THE PROBLEM WAS DUE TO A ROAD HAZARD AND WAS NOT A DEFECT. HE INSPECTED THE TIRE FOR A PUNCTURE, AND AFTER NOT FINDING ONE, ASSURED ME THAT IT MUST HAVE BEEN IN THE DISINTEGRATED SIDEWALL. I THEN ASKED HIM IF HE HAD EVER SEEN A TIRE THAT WAS DAMAGED IN THE ABSENCE OF A ROAD HAZARD, AND HE TOLD ME HE HAD NOT. IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THESE TIRES ARE DEFECTIVE AND THAT BRIDGESTONE REFUSES TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR PRODUCTS. *NM

I OWN A 2004 NISSAN 350Z AND RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR FRONT TIRE ROAR WHICH EVENTUALLY WILL DAMAGE THE TIRES AND MISALIGN THE FRONT END. THE WARRANTY HAD BEEN EXTENDED TO OCT 30 2005 AND I HAD TAKEN IT BACK TO THE DEALER ON OCT 28TH. AFTER THE CAR WAS CHECKED THE TIRES WERE FOUND DEFECTIVE AND THE SERVICE MANAGER SAID HE WOULD ORDER NEW TIRES. AFTER TWO WEEKS HAD PASSED AND I DID NOT HERE FROM THE DEALER, I CALLED TO INQUIRE. IT SEEMED AS THOUGH THE PARTS WERE NEVER ORDERED AND THEY WOULD ORDER THEM AND CALL ME WHEN THEY WERE IN. FINALLY ON NOV 21ST I HAD THE CAR SERVICED. WHEN I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER THEY TOLD ME AT THIS TIME THAT I HAD TO PAY FOR THE TIRES. THIS WAS A SURPRISE TO ME BECAUSE NOTHING WAS SAID TO ME AT THE ORIGINAL DATE OF SERVICE. I AGREED TO HAVE THE TIRES REPLACED BECAUSE OF THE MIS-HANDLING OF THE CAR AND A POTENTIAL SAFETY PROBLEM. AFTER WAITING APPROXIMATELY 3 HOURS FOR MY CAR A FEE OF $449.00 WAS PAID. DO TO THE FACT THAT THIS WAS A RECALL BY THE MANUFACTURER AND THE NOTICE STATED THAT THE TIRES WILL BE REPLACED AT NO CHARGE, I FEEL THAT I AM DO A REFUND BY NISSAN. I HAVE ALL PERTINENT DOCUMENTATION FOR YOUR REVIEW. *JB

CONSUMER BRIDGESTONE TIRES SHOWED WEAR AT 7000 MILES. *TS THE CONSUMER CONTACT THREE BRIDGESTONE DEALER AND THEY INDICATED THAT THE LIABILITY SHOULD BE WITH TOYOTA MOTOR COMPANY. TOYOTA WAS CALLED AND THEY TO THE CONSUMER TO SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OR OTHER REMEDIES FROM BRIDGESTONE (BRIDGESTONE TURANZA EL42. ). *NM