How many treadwear miles do we REALLY get for every 100 UTQG points?

How many miles will a typical car actually get on a tire rated 500?

I googled for the Uniform Tire Quality Grade (UTQG) Standards and found articles which describe how the government runs the Texas test to determine the tire treadwear rating based on the first 7200 miles

formatting link
Basically, 100 = 30,000 miles so 500 = 150,000 miles of tread life based on extrapolation of the first 7,200 miles of wear in San Angelo, Texas.

What I don't get is why I don't get anywhere near 150,000 miles out of a single set of properly inflated, balanced, and rotated tires in a car properly aligned, accelerated, and braked.

So, my question is how many miles do we/you REALLY get for every 100 points in a UTQG rating? In real life. Really.

Reply to
_Pnina Gersten_
Loading thread data ...

It's on the page you quoted. "The grading fixes 30,000 miles (48,279kms) as 100% Index, and the grading shall be in multiplies of 20." "A tire graded 200 would wear twice as well on the government course as a tire graded 100."

At 30,000 miles you've had 100% wear, the tyre is worn out.

If you want 150,000 miles, buy a tyre that is GRADED 500, but be warned, it will be expensive. Don't have a severe cut after 100 miles or you lose the money. In real life. Really.

Reply to
Androcles

I'd put more stock in the treadwear warranty of the tire than in the UTQG rating. It's likely that you will get slightly more mileage than the warranty if you drive a light car and take care of your tires (regular rotations and pressure checks) however probably not much. The UTQG rating is simply designed to provide a method for you to *compare* tread life across different brands, etc. by providing a consistent tread life testing methodology, e.g. a 200 UTQG tread life rated tire may not reach 60K miles in real world conditions, but a 300 UTQG tire WILL last probably pretty close to 1.5x as long under the same conditions.

Keep in mind that a) if you're using all-season tires and live in an area with snow, you will end up replacing the tires before they are completely worn out because you don't want to be driving in snow on almost-worn-out all seasons (which reminds me, I predict a fight between Yours Truly and the fleet people in a couple months) and b) tires with high tread life often have low traction due to the hard rubber compound. There are some high end tires that are the exception to this rule (e.g. Michelin) but they are pricey.

I remember years ago, high performance tires used to have underrated UTQG tread life ratings because buyers had a hard association in their minds between long tread life and poor traction. You don't see that so much anymore, but ISTR seeing ratings as low as 50 on DOT legal race tires.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Hi Nate Nagel,

Being scientifically inclined, I prefer measurements to marketing.

IMHO, the tire manufacturer's "warranty" is a blatant marketing gimmick. I'm always amazed at some of my friends who would rather quote a warranty rather than a test result. IMHO, the "warranty" gibberish has absolutely no bearing on anything other than pure marketing needs. Sure, you'll say they don't warrant what they can't justify and I'll respond with sure, they need to make money, but, how many times have YOU actually redeemed a battery/brakepad/tire warranty in real life? I never do because a) The warranty is prorated b) You have to buy THEIR tire again from THEIR distributor and stock c) You have to pay THEIR (inflated) price at that time d) The warranty is prorated but you often end up paying MORE for the second tire (due to conditions above) than the first tire! Ha. Warranty.

It's not you per se that makes me write this as I've taught many a friend about testing standards - but anyone who quotes a marketing tool as science has to get this lecture from me.

Having said that, does anyone of the millions of drivers out there actually compare their mileage received with the government UTQG test results?

Reply to
_Pnina Gersten_

Where in heck do they get 'those' numbers?

They 'sure' aren't on the NHTSA page you linked to.

To Quote:

A grade of 100 would indicate that the tire tread would last as long as the test tire, 200 would indicate the tread would last twice as long,

300 would indicate three times as long, etc.

End Quote

It says absolutely zip about how many 'miles' the tire can last.

Your second link is a web page that appears to be totally wrong. Their 'example' is worded correct, but their 'test' procedure is bullshit.

Here is the 'real' NHSTA site:

formatting link
resolves to:

formatting link
It also states the same as I quoted with 'no' mention of 'miles' in relation to that test, 'only' that the number 100 is assigned to the tread wear on the control tire.

Reality and the tire makers state that the lower rubber is even harder than the stuff on the outside so they wear slower as they age.

Mike

86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06
formatting link
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

Reality and the tire makers state that the lower rubber is even harder than the stuff on the outside so they wear slower as they age.

Reply to
Mike Romain

Hi Mike Romain, Thanks for checking on my figures. I appreciate that as that's what science is all about. In double-checking, both web pages showed the test procedure but only the second web page showed the 30,000 miles treadwear for every

100 in the UTQG index.

formatting link
"The treadwear grade is a comparative rating based on the wear rate of the tire when tested under controlled conditions on a specified government test course *. The grading fixes 30,000 miles (48,279kms) as 100% Index, and the grading shall be in multiplies of 20.

*The test course consists of three loops of a total of 400 miles (644kms) in the geographical vicinity of Goodfellow Air Force Base (AFB), San Angelo, Texas, U.S.A.

(TEST PROCEDURE)

  • Run a car with test tires mounted till 6,400 miles (10,300kms) pass. (The tire is tested in convoy with a "base" tire so as to eliminate the variable of temperature and road surface.
  • Measure the tread depth after each 800 miles (1287kms) run.
  • Then the projected worn out tire life is calculated. Fixing that 30,000 miles (48,279kms) as 100% Index."
Reply to
_Pnina Gersten_

Anyone can write any bullshit on any webpage, that still makes it bullshit. They show 'A' bullshit test, totally fictional, not 'the test procedure'.

The 'real' test procedure done for the NHTSA makes 'no' mileage claims, only 'comparison' claims.

The webpage is totally 'wrong'.

Therefore your surmise is wrong.

Mike

_Pn>> Where in heck do they get 'those' numbers?

Reply to
Mike Romain

Hi Jim Yanik, Yes. That is the whole point. There is a scientific method (which is the

100 = 30,000 miles extrapolated from 7,200 miles of test driving) ... and there is the practical method.

I'm beginning to understand that this isn't the newsgroup for anyone who actually understands tires based on the responses I received so far. That's ok. It's my bad for going to the wrong group to ask a basic question regarding how long tires last and what their treadwear numbers were.

But, if this is the wrong group for automotive tire questions, ... may I ask ...

Which newsgroup best understands automobile tires in ordinary use?

Reply to
_Pnina Gersten_

It is a very rare occasion when someone can get a valid answer to any question in a usenet newsgroup.

On the other hand, I doubt that even the tire industry actually "understands" tires in ordinary use. For example, why does Goodyear guarantee their tires (for an extra fee) only for the first 25% of tread wear?

The implications are astounding.

Reply to
nonsense

Hi Mike Romain, I've known about the 30,000 miles ever since they put the treadwear numbers in use. I just pointed to a web page for others to reference. I can point to HUNDREDS of web pages which have that 30,000 base number and to none that have any other number other than 30,000 miles.

Witness ...

formatting link
says "The UTQG is very useful, don't listen to those who say 'it means nothing' they are, in almost every way, incorrect. The first number relates to how hard wearing the Tyre is, 100 means 30,000 miles of normal use by a 100 HP,

22 Cwt motorcar".

Or witness ...

formatting link
says "The treadlife index measures the relative treadlife of the tire compared to a "government reference". An index of 100 is equivalent to an estimated treadlife of 30,000 miles of highway driving."

Or witness ...

formatting link
says "The base treadwear rating for passenger tires is 100, which translates into an expected tread life of 30,000 miles."

Or witness ...

formatting link
says "The treadwear grade is expressed by a number in multiples of 10-a higher number indicating a comparatively longer tread life. The number 100 is assigned as the standard of 30,000 mile"

Or witness ...

formatting link
says "A rating of 100 is roughly defined as a tire lasting 30,000 miles on the designated test course"

Or witness ...

formatting link
says "Relative tread wear is indicated by a number. The control number is 100, indicating approximately 30,000 miles under normal test driving conditions."

(I could go on). If you think this number is wrong, can you find a SINGLE reference that shows a DIFFERENT base number of miles for the 100 index of the UTQG standard?

Or is your surmiser wrong?

Reply to
_Pnina Gersten_

Hi nonsense,

I normally get absolutely WONDERFUL GPS answers on the sci.geo.satellite-nav newsgroup so I expected more of this newsgroup. But again, it's not anyone's fault if I asked a question beyond the newsgroup; it's my fault.

I'm still trying to find a newsgroup that knows both the mileage they get on their automotive tires in actual use and what the treadwear number is stamped on the tire itself. I searched and searched but this was the best I could find. Sorry.

I do not know but I strongly suspect it's all in their marketing. I am a scientist in a highly marketed organization and I'm constantly astounded at the wierd stuff the marketeers come up with and that the public buys.

For example, we make a set of software and then they asked us to make a low-cost set so we added loops galore to the original software and just bypassed them in the higher-end software. These marketeers guarantee a 20% speedup if the customer uses the high-end software or their money back! Ha!

That's why I don't trust any of the marketing and stick to tested standards.

Is there ANYONE who knows both the treadwear number stamped on your tire and how long it actually lasted?

Reply to
_Pnina Gersten_

Glad to hear that's working for you.

Hardly a matter for sci.physics though.

Best of luck. Did you try corresponding with the manufacturer(s)?

I guess you've missed the operative word in my question, that word was "only". And you also missed the "extra fee" so it isn't a marketing issue at all.

So the actual "we can make a handsome profit" price for your product is the lower price. On my worse day I would never continue working for a firm that does stuff like that.

I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to this question. I took the second set of tires off my car not that long ago. They were supposed to have a

50K life (per sales blurbs) and they had lots of mileage remaining in the tread. But I got real unhappy with the noise they were making that came about because of apparent hardening of the rubber.

I gave them away to some really poor folks who were thrilled to have tires with good tread regardless of the noise. Their free tires improved their quality of ride, as did my new replacements using a better grade of tire.

Those 50K tires with 30 K on them that I gave away were approaching 5 years in service.

So the reason to replace tires isn't always a tread wear issue.

Reply to
nonsense

Did you ever think that perhaps there's simply no good answer to your question?

For instance, letting us know what kind of car you drive and where you live might help. Both have a significant impact on tread life.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel
[...]

It seems that the 30k number does not necessarily correspond to actual miles for tire lifetime. It's only the figure used in this test to set a standard for comparison. One reference even states "control number." For example, a tire in that test rig that has an expected lifetime of

30k gets, say, 25k actual use miles in real world conditions on a car. But put that same tire on a heavier car, or a car with front wheel drive instead of rear wheel drive, or the other way around, and the lifetime changes. So while on one vehicle we could come up with 30k UTQG == 25k actual, on another vehicle it may work out to 20k actual, or 28k actual, or 32k actual. Then there are the other variables of driving style, climate, load, if the tire is used in a tandem arrangement, city driving vs highway driving, towing, potholes, etc. Too many variables for a simple ratio to take into account. UTQG seems to be a comparative measurement than an actual lifetime estimate. Where it would be useful is you have a set of 100-rated tires that you got 20k out of and want to get a ballpark estimate of how long comparable 200-rated tires will last. But you'd have to find your own baseline on your own vehicle first.
Reply to
B.B.

I live near Pleasanton California where it almost never rains nor snows. Well, it rains a bit in the winter but never in the fall, summer, or spring. It's pretty flat so there are no hills, nor do I drive on dirt roads. My car is a Toyota Camry, year 2000 and I've the stock size tires and wheels. I drive like a little old lady mostly around town and not much on the highway. When I drive on the highway, I stay below about 85 as my limit. Around town I try to avoid sudden starts and stops and I never spin my wheels nor do I leave skid marks on the road. Still, I don't get anywhere near the 30,000 miles per index 100 for my tires, having been through two full sets of tires in the 85,0000 miles I've driven since I bought the car new. I buy my tires where I get free balancing and rotations and about twice a year I take them in for the tests. I had the car aligned twice since I bought it and the shocks/struts have been replaced about a year ago. I keep a tire gage in my glove box so when I fill the tires about every few months, I check to keep them at the right specification that I read off the door panel. I get about a flat a year (on average it seems) and they have to repair the tire from the inside (sometimes it's too close to the edge and they have to throw the tire away).

I'm not sure what else matters. What else would you need to know?

Reply to
_Pnina Gersten_

"_Pnina Gersten_" wrote in message news:BF2Ai.4512$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...

_Prina, I find this quite interesting, and I've been lazily waiting for a valid answer to your question--it's been on my mind, on a back burner I must admit, but has nonetheless bothered me over the years. The most explanations I've received from tire dealers is the 'relativity excuse'--i.e., a 200 theoretically goes 2 times the miles as a 100-rated tire. My dad sold tires and I sold cars. At one time I would install the el cheapo tires, like those with a 220 twr(treadwear rating), on cars I was sending to auction. After all, if they weren't Michelins, new tires were just that--new tires (We only knew of 1 'quality' tire in my area.). But after I saw 2 customers wearing those same tires(not sold by me): (1) have a blowout while sitting at a red light in hot weather; and (2) another have a blowout riding in town at about 35 mph; both these tires blew out on the sidewall, of all places. I quit even using them on the auction-units! My customers and my family and I never have gotten the mileage wear advertised by that belief in 30k per 100 rating. One actually did get 60k on a set of 60-k Michelins on a '95 Riviera, but I refused to ride with him for the last 10-15k miles. Like you, I feel there must be some percentage we can use to help determine the actual miles to "really" expect. Even twr's will differ among mfgs--I don't wish to beat them down, but "Energy Men" stores will put a 500 twr on a tire that won't give but about 60-70% the miles that a 500 Michelin will give. My guestimate therefore would have to be for a given mfg. Michelins, for instance, I'd guess like you: using 500 to indicate 5 times the 30k, or

150,000 miles, I'd estimate about 1/2 the theoretical 150k, or 75k at best--in our state, the last 2/32 inch of tread legally must be replaced! My friend who got 60k from his Mich's was using Summits, and the 60k he quoted me was what the selling dealer had told him--but the twr was way higher than 200--which would've been twice the 30k from the 100 twr. IIRC, his twr was about 400. Using the relativity model, that would suggest 4 times 30k, or 120 k. And 1/2 of this 120k would be the 60k he actually got--some miles from quality and some miles from prayers! I used to buy a metric-design tread from Western Auto--made pretty tires for Taurus's etc.--and IIRC their twr was about 320. We ran a set on an ~'87 model Taurus. With about 20k on the tires, we sold it to a local company. Seems like they asked me to get them a new set of tires when they had put about another 10k on them, for a total of 30k miles. This rates about 96k based on the 100 giving 30k, and works out to be a factor of about 1/3 actual miles as based on the 96k theoretical miles. These were cheap tires, and may have had a much-inflated rating like the "Energy Men" ratings I mentioned earlier. Then one exception I must toss in: a friend who bought a new Explorer and drove it on many daily 200-mile round trips, got an unbelieveable 130k on a set of Firestones. He then traded it to the local Toyota store, which cleaned it up and put it on their budget lot--with the same tires, just polished to give them a glossy appearance. My final analysis from all this bs is that one would at least have to use a different set of parameters, and percentages, as he moves from one mfg. to another. But we can be assured of one thing: that model of 30k per 100 rating can NOT be relied upon. Even if we stick to one brand, the %'s are going to vary as we go from one temp. rating to another and from one traction rating to another. Now to introduce another problem that prevents our getting as many miles...those damnable flat spots that occur and create such roar and bumping, even with 2/3 the original tread depth still remaining. Can we legally claim 2x their original cost?...or 3x the orig. cost?...as a charitable income tax deduction? I cried every time I had to "donate" so many over the years that I'd think it reasonable to claim some % of their original cost to pain and suffering!!! This whole theme seems to just defy all scientific criteria. Unless we defer it to "social science"!!! All my 2 cents' worth, and often worth every dime. sam
Reply to
sdlomi2

There is only 'one' site that has the correct information and that site is the NHTSA or National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

This is the Administration that 'designed' the UTQG test and they make no mileage claims, quite the opposite.

formatting link
If you look at the tire sellers, none of them claim miles related to the UTQG either.

Here is a link to the NHTSA tire testing Laboratory procedure PDF file:

formatting link
'ALL' the rest are repeating erroneous information or guesses.

As to how many miles are tested for....

To quote the Laboratory procedure PDF file document on page 43 for the tire endurance test:

The tire shall be run without interruptions at these intervals: 4-hour test: 85% as a percentage of tire maximum load rating 6-hour test: 90% as a percentage of tire maximum load rating 24-hour test: 100% as a percentage of tire maximum load rating

? Tire speed o PC and LT Tire without a snowflake symbol on the sidewall, speed in kilometers per hour: 120 kph+0 to ?3.2 kph (75 miles/hour

+0 to ? 2 mph) o For PC and LT tires with the snowflake symbol on the sidewall, speed in kilometers per hour: 110 kph+0 to ?3.2 kph (68 miles/hour +0 to ?2 mph)

End Quote

Or stage 1 is 480 km or 300 miles

Stage 2 is 720 km or 450 miles

Stage 3 is 2880 km or 1800 miles

For a Total of 4080 km or 2550 miles

They do a 90 minute at 120 kph or 75 mph low pressure run.

One for high speed,

30 minutes at 140 kph, 30 minutes at 150 kph, and, 30 minutes at 160 kph.

And a 3 hour warm up at 80 kph in there somewhere...

That's a far cry from 30,000 miles....

Mike

86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06
formatting link
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
Reply to
Mike Romain

The test tire rated 100 is or was a bias ply, and my Goodyear Polyglas bias ply tires lasted almost 20,000 miles.

Michelin 140: < 40,000 miles Goodyear 140: < 40,000 miles Dunlop 220: > 50,000 miles (tires replace due to age, not defects or tread) Cooper 560: 35,000 miles Discount Tire 300: 45,000 miles Michelin 740: 88,000 miles (still in use, 3/32" tread remaining)

Reply to
rantonrave

Just a data point.

1999 4dr Olds Alero 3400 V6, purchased new. Factory original BF Goodrich Touring T/As.

P215/60 R15 TPC Spec 1139 M/S Treadware 380 Traction A Temperature B

This car has 107,500 miles on it and while obviously worn, none of the tires are down to the tread wear indicators in any groove. Tires are wearing extremely evenly, have been rotated maybe 3 times in the life of the car, although the fronts of course wear quicker than the rears on this front wheel drive car. Rain and dry traction still excellent, even in resistance to hydroplaning in standing rain water. Wheels seem to be exceptionally well aligned, although it has never had a wheel alignment and was in one moderate collision to the right front corner. This car rolls very easily, when you lift at 45 mph it slows -very- gradually.

Location is Evansville, Indiana, miles have been about 75% city, 25% highway. About 99 percent paved roads, but roughness, pot holes, rough train tracks, etc. are not unusual.

Lee Richardson Mech-Tech

Reply to
Lee Richardson

formatting link
which says

formatting link
which says

If you are truly an admirer of scientific method, how do you expect to get a definitive answer with as many variables as there are among a small group of newsgroup posters? There are so many variables in the operation of any given motor vehicle that it would seem impossible. The treadware ratings are an attempt to standardize usage, and thus eliminate variables, as much as possible. The ratings scale was developed so that one tire could be compared to another, not to give an absolute mileage figure.

There is no meaningful answer to your question. That's why you can't get one. If you find answers in the GPS group, it's because (presumably) GPS information is a bit more specific than tire wear.

There's a reason why so many NG posts include the phrase "Your mileage may vary (YMMV)." In this case, it couldn't be more appropriate.

mg

Reply to
MG

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.