Michelin Primacy 18" tires shot @ less than 10K miles.

[SammichLover]

Mine lasted 18000. So did my neighbor’s
He got his 12/17 and mine is 1/18. Bought replacement oem at discount tire, matched Costco price and will honor 45,000 mile warentee. Want me to rebalance and rotate every 3000, don’t care what Tesla says( it’s free service). When I was getting my replacements, 4 other model 3s getting tires too.

I stretched my original MXM4 on the AWD to 19,000 by careful rotation and taking the front down to 2/32" and the rears right down to a shadow of tread left.

Then I replaced with 18" PS4S and I'm at 26,000 miles on those, with perhaps a little bit of life left but getting very near replacement time (not taken as far down as those MXM4). The fronts definitely show the inability to adjust camber, though. Around 1/32" less loss on the inside of the front right now than the outside. It isn't feathering, either. I haven't done precise enough measurements and the math to estimate how much more negative camber would be about right but I'm guessing taking it up to -2.5 would be a good start. Still, for what I do with the car, I've been pretty happy. I view 3 cents/mile as acceptable tire cost.

The MXM4 just aren't up to, uh, active drivers. If you regularly use your car's traction and acceleration abilities the factory 18" are going to get eaten up fairly quickly. They just can't hold the road well enough to keep from getting ground down.

 

[patrick40363]

Not quite...they stopped offering that after 2017 model years

Tire Warranty | Michelin





FWIW I've got over 13k on my MXM4s at about half their life based on tread depth- but mines an AWD so much more even tire wear

Actually it is also:

All MICHELIN® tires4 (both replacement and original equipment) come with a limited warranty for treadwear, as well as a limited warranty which covers defects in workmanship and materials for the life of the original usable tread, or for 6 years from date of purchase, whichever occurs first.

 

[Taliesin]

Also down to 1/32 on my rear tires on my AWD after 12k miles in 1 year. Ouch.

 

[SammichLover]

Also down to 1/32 on my rear tires on my AWD after 12k miles in 1 year. Ouch.

Rotate. Rotate. Rotate. Especially for RWD, but even with AWD.

 

[Knightshade]

Rotate. Rotate. Rotate. Especially for RWD, but even with AWD.

BMW disagrees with you on rotating AWD...


Mine are basically identical front/rear with no rotations north of 13k miles now (AWD) and half their life left roughly- but I also check depth across the tires and adjust inflation accordingly to even out wear

 

[SammichLover]

BMW disagrees with you on rotating AWD...

BWM doesn't have a Model 3 (or any electric vehicle that's not a solid support for the belief that "BEVs are glorified golf carts" ).

 

[Knightshade]

BWM doesn't have a Model 3 (or any electric vehicle that's not a solid support for the belief that "BEVs are glorified golf carts" ).

No, but they have plenty of AWD cars, and specifically suggest rotating tires is a waste of time and money if you keep em inflated evenly...(and actually hurts handling very very slightly)

Here's the guys from Car Talk agreeing with BMW, but adding if you get em rotated free it might be worth it-otherwise not so much

BMW says to not rotate my tires, but the tire manufacturere says different. Who should I believe?

 

[SammichLover]

No, but they have plenty of AWD cars....

Which means somewhere between jack and squat when it comes to the Model 3. The physical difference in the forces on the tires are huge. Torque and weight (the Model 3's stock tires are arguably undersized for the 2 ton vehicle weight). Unless you toodle around in the AWD vehicle (for some definition of toodle that many won't even realize they've surpassed). If you have the RWD or drive the AWD anywhere near its capability you need to be rotating, and the rears wearing out well ahead of the fronts are a a pretty good sign you should have been rotating.

You're just flat out wrong on this, and plenty of empirical evidence from the field to back that up.

End of story.

 

[Knightshade]

Which means somewhere between jack and squat when it comes to the Model 3. The physical difference in the forces on the tires are huge. Torque and weight (the Model 3's stock tires are arguably undersized for the 2 ton vehicle weight).

You're just flat out wrong on this, and plenty of empirical evidence from the field to back that up.

End of story.

The end of the story would be if you actually provided some of this "plenty" of empirical evidence.

Especially since my own empirical evidence, already stated, directly contradicts you- 13k+ miles, AWD, no rotation, perfectly even wear front to back and side to side.

BTW, BMW makes much heavier AWD vehicles than model 3- quicker ones than the AWD Model 3 too- and still doesn't think rotating is worth doing.




Again, if it's free, and you trust whoever is jacking up the car- go for it- you'll likely never notice the tiny tiny handling loss and maybe it'll help certain driving styles last a bit longer.

But if it's the $140 I've seen at least one Tesla SC quote it's gonna be money down the hole for folks whose tires are wearing evenly otherwise.

A mechanical depth gauge is just a few bucks. Measure all 4 tires, and measure them in several places across the tire, every few thousand miles and see how you're doing.

As I say I'm pretty much dead even on all 4 north of 13k miles with no rotation, so rotating would be nothing but a waste of $ for me.


If you don't wanna take my word for it, how about his?


Elon Musk on Twitter

Annual tire rotation is actually optional. Only worthwhile if you see significant differential wear on inside vs outside of tire

 

[ecarfan]

Moderator note: some posts moved to Snippiness. Be nice. Carry on...

 

[TomB985]

That seems like excessive wear to me. Mine were at 7/32 all around at 10,000 miles when I last rotated them, but I also run them at 35 PSI.

 

[voip-ninja]

Which means somewhere between jack and squat when it comes to the Model 3. The physical difference in the forces on the tires are huge. Torque and weight (the Model 3's stock tires are arguably undersized for the 2 ton vehicle weight). Unless you toodle around in the AWD vehicle (for some definition of toodle that many won't even realize they've surpassed). If you have the RWD or drive the AWD anywhere near its capability you need to be rotating, and the rears wearing out well ahead of the fronts are a a pretty good sign you should have been rotating.

You're just flat out wrong on this, and plenty of empirical evidence from the field to back that up.

End of story.

well, maybe.
I had perhaps 3,000 miles at most when my winter tires went on last winter and maybe another 4,000 miles on them this year at most.
I have a hard time believing that I could have rotated my way out of this based on those facts.

 

[boriszima]

The end of the story would be if you actually provided some of this "plenty" of empirical evidence.

Especially since my own empirical evidence, already stated, directly contradicts you- 13k+ miles, AWD, no rotation, perfectly even wear front to back and side to side.

BTW, BMW makes much heavier AWD vehicles than model 3- quicker ones than the AWD Model 3 too- and still doesn't think rotating is worth doing.




Again, if it's free, and you trust whoever is jacking up the car- go for it- you'll likely never notice the tiny tiny handling loss and maybe it'll help certain driving styles last a bit longer.

But if it's the $140 I've seen at least one Tesla SC quote it's gonna be money down the hole for folks whose tires are wearing evenly otherwise.

A mechanical depth gauge is just a few bucks. Measure all 4 tires, and measure them in several places across the tire, every few thousand miles and see how you're doing.

As I say I'm pretty much dead even on all 4 north of 13k miles with no rotation, so rotating would be nothing but a waste of $ for me.


If you don't wanna take my word for it, how about his?


Elon Musk on Twitter

Clearly others here get different results. There are many factors that one solution for all does not work. I bought a mechanical gauge to check my tires and they were indeed pretty good around 12-13k miles so i did not rotate on my AWD. A week ago took the car to Discount tires to get free rotation and my fronts were 6/7 and rears were 4s. In my case, i should have rotated. Now ill be bring it in after some 6-8k miles to do another likely final rotation. Then will look for tires that will last longer and yet have a good rolling resistance.

 

[MarcG]

I had 19” MXM4 tires on my S for several years and loved them. Each set lasted over 20k miles and I wasn’t driving like a grandma, either (lifetime consumption was over 360Wh/mi). The P85D is much heavier and has much more power & torque than the 3, so it’s not like it was gentle on the tires.

Now that I finally received 18” aero wheels from Fast Wheels, I am considering buying the MXM4 again and ditching the 20” combo that came with my car.

Any reasons why I should not go with the MXM4s?

 

[Knightshade]

I had 19” MXM4 tires on my S for several years and loved them. Each set lasted over 20k miles and I wasn’t driving like a grandma, either (lifetime consumption was over 360Wh/mi). The P85D is much heavier and has much more power & torque than the 3, so it’s not like it was gentle on the tires.

Now that I finally received 18” aero wheels from Fast Wheels, I am considering buying the MXM4 again and ditching the 20” combo that came with my car.

Any reasons why I should not go with the MXM4s?

Putting better performing tires on the car will stop you ~20% shorter in an emergency stop. That's a pretty good reason.

You will lose ~10% efficency with the stickier tires though.

 

[voip-ninja]

I had 19” MXM4 tires on my S for several years and loved them. Each set lasted over 20k miles and I wasn’t driving like a grandma, either (lifetime consumption was over 360Wh/mi). The P85D is much heavier and has much more power & torque than the 3, so it’s not like it was gentle on the tires.

Now that I finally received 18” aero wheels from Fast Wheels, I am considering buying the MXM4 again and ditching the 20” combo that came with my car.

Any reasons why I should not go with the MXM4s?

Because mine wore out in less than 7K miles, that's why.

 

[MarcG]

Because mine wore out in less than 7K miles, that's why.

Very strange. Could it be that the 18" versions of these tires wear out much faster than the 19" versions?

Separately, is there another option you would recommend that exhibits less wear, while retaining the same or better levels of grip, efficiency and low noise levels?

 

[Need]

I am at 24K miles and never rotated. Yesterday I checked, my rear is at the wear bar (so 2/32 I think?). The front has at least double that.. maybe 4/32 or 5/32. I am going to take it to the tire shop tomorrow to change out the rear 2 tires... maybe to Bridgestone just to try it out.

 

[Knightshade]

Very strange. Could it be that the 18" versions of these tires wear out much faster than the 19" versions?

Not really.

As noted some folks get 2-4x the miles that person did.

Tire wear is HIGHLY variable based on a slew of factors including but not limited to:

The roads/places driven

The way they are driven (hard acceleration, taking tight turns at high speed, etc)

Alignment

Tire inflation (and not just "does it match the door sticker" but ongoing adjustment based on observed wear- for example if you measure more wear on the center you can 'fix' that by adjusting inflation- same for wear on the edges adjusting the other direction- most folks never bother to do this though and can barely be bothered to do enough to keep the TPMS light off)

Separately, is there another option you would recommend that exhibits less wear, while retaining the same or better levels of grip, efficiency and low noise levels?

grip and efficiency are somewhat at odds with each other since one requires the tire to roll more freely and the other requires it to be able to apply more friction against the road surface.

As I say I'd rather a tire that uses 10% more energy but stops 20% shorter, others want the most efficient tire no matter how poorly it stops in an emergency, others want the one that goes the most miles with the least maintenance regardless of efficiency or stopping.

 

[GregD60]

Very strange. Could it be that the 18" versions of these tires wear out much faster than the 19" versions?

Separately, is there another option you would recommend that exhibits less wear, while retaining the same or better levels of grip, efficiency and low noise levels?

The Tesla specific 235/45-18 tires have the least amount of tread to start with, at 8/32", of any of the Primacy MXM4 tires according to the specs on Tirerack. There's two other MXMs that have 8.5/32", and a few other sizes at 9/32", but most sizes are either 9.5/32" or 10/32". So, the Tesla specific 18" tires are starting off with less tread.

Personally, I'm not impressed with the MXM4s. Their handling in the dry and wet is okay, but nothing special, on ice or snow they're very poor, and I don't think they're particularly quiet. I know SammichLover has been pretty happy with the Michelin PS4S tires on his car, with it sounds like about 50% better tread life. The PS4S tires do handle much, much better than the MXM4s. Maybe Sammich can chime in on the efficiency and sound PS4S vs. MXM4.