QuestionQUESTION: hello mr smith - thanks for your attention to my dilemma. i recently
purchased used a 2008 toyota highlander limited, with 133,500 miles. was
shortly thereafter told tires needed to be replaced. went to tire discounters -
was told the wrong size tires were running. vehicle calls for 225/70/16 (s).(t
was installed, and i was informed that "s" would probably be discontinued
soon. another tire quote also only listed a "t" option.) the previous tire
dealership had installed 215/65/16 at 44,643 miles and again at 103,918
miles. when i called this dealership from the office of tire discounters, they
pulled up the correct size tires for the highlander in their database. i then
brought to their attention that on two occasions they had installed the wrong
size tire. the manager had access to these records, but could not explain why
the wrong size was installed. also, the tires purchased at 103,918 miles were
80,000 mile tires, leaving them well short of life span. i was told by this
dealership that i had to bring in the old tires to her, so they were loaded up in
back. i do know the spare, in the oe size, was used at least once, not at long
distance. having learned on the web of the horrors that running a smaller than
specified tire can cause - engine wear that is not reflected in the odometer
reading, brake wear and other things i don't understand (or even remember
how to spell), not to mention driving w/different size tires at the same time, i
have scheduled an inspection at a toyota dealership. is there any way to
quantify the effect to the engine of running these smaller tires? the toyota
people are being very helpful and said they would document on my inspection
the problems with running the wrong size tire, and other information that
may help me deal with the original installer, but that they could not get
specific as to quantifiable engine effect. the toyota man did express his relief
that there had been no injury or worse based on this mistake, and i have seen
you refer to this in your posts. this is the most expensive vehicle i have ever
purchased (private seller) and to think that i may get less use from it than i
imagined is very worrisome. just so you know, i want the "other" tire dealer to
reimburse me for my new tires, to cover the cost of my official inspection,
and to somehow compensate me for the additional engine wear based on
them installing the wrong sized tires, twice. (i recall reading the engine has to
work at higher rpms w/smaller tire (?), thereby straining engine. as i told the
manager of the other store i don't want this to escalate or turn ugly (ugh -
small claims court?) but i do feel that i should be compensated for their
mistake. i have read that it is the tire installer's responsibility to assure they
are complying with the tire standards for a particular vehicle. and the fact that
they knowingly installed the wrong size tires twice is perplexing, especially
with the correct sized spare in the car. i go to toyota next week, and over the
phone the guy said that regardless of engine strain (or whatever) issues i
should not worry, that this highlander will last me a good long time. however,
i am very worried.
thank you so much for your time and patience with this missive (i've read on
your site that some folks don't provide enough information - sorry if i've
gone too far in the other direction!)
all the best to you!
annebelle
ANSWER: Annebelle,
First, when you buy a used vehicle, you are buying it as is. If there is a warranty that comes with your used vehicle, it is issued by the seller, not by the vehicle manufacturer. Another fine point would be that the warranty for any parts installed on the vehicle by the previous owner stayed with the previous owner - and once he sold the vehicle, the warranty disappeared. Specifically, there was no warranty on the tires when you purchased the vehicle.
A couple of other things of interest:
The difference in diameter between the 2 tires is less than 5%. That means only a slight difference in engine rpm and therefore wear and tear. This difference is small enough that the way in which the previous owner treated the vehicle could have more effect than the difference in tire size.
Further, nothing bad has happened.
If put before a judge, the judge would look for a "problem" and there isn't one - only a potential one - and judges do not act on potential problems. Even if the judge were to perceive a problem, then the tire dealer needs to be given a chance to correct it - that is, replace the tires with the correct size.
It would be reasonable for you to pay for the use of the tires prior to your taking possession of the vehicle - and typically this is based on how much wear there was remaining on the tires. Clearly you felt you needed to replace the tires before you became aware of the size problem, and since this took place shortly after you purchased the vehicle, the wear situation was part of the condition of the vehicle when you purchased it.
Overall a judge would not find in your favor: 1) There isn't a problem and 2) even if there were a problem, the tire dealer was not given the opportunity to fix it. 3) You were sold the vehicle by a private party and he can not be held responsible unless he mis-represented the condition of the vehicle - which you had the opportunity to inspect before the sale.
I think it is gracious that the tire dealer is even willing to talk to you considering the situation. If anything, the seller of the vehicle is the to whom you should address these issues. He sold you a vehicle that had a potential problem. But since it was a private seller, he would be within his rights to refuse to negotiate any sort of settlement since he sold you the vehicle as is - and whatever potential problem there might have been was "fixed" when the tires were changed back to the proper size.
So unless you changed the tires for some reason that can be linked to the improper size - and wear would not count since it was visible at the time of purchase - you would be wasting your time pursuing this further.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: first of all - thank you so much! for the speedy reply, for reminding me that
nothing bad has happened . . . . i regret that i seem to have placed so much
emphasis on litigation -- not my thing, but i believe(d) there was a wrong
that required righting. i was in touch with the tire dealer prior to purchase
after someone commented about the tires, but the seller could never manage
to deal with the tire issue (small business owner with no time, yadda yadda.)
and i didn't realize just how bad the tires were until i was the owner, and was
shown the little tags that stick up on worn tire tread. (i had never heard of the
penny test - they just looked like tires to me and were not that far into
warranty deadline.) and then when i read that the tire folks were responsible
for installing the right size, i thought they finally should be responsible for
just that, regardless of ownership. well, i'll take the tires to the company per
their request. perhaps they will make some amends to me for them not lasting
as long as they should, (and being aware of this before i purchased) and being
the wrong size, though as you pointed out i am not the warranty holder. i
believe they are concerned about doing the right thing and maintaining a
relationship with seller. but what do i know?
that's not the question though - this is . . . . . do you think i should still get
an inspection? the owner had the car to a different toyota dealership a few
months before the sale. at 126,409 miles, had "major maintenance pkg 90k
svc" (a little late - those busy small business owners!) and the report lists
inspections done (drive shaft boots, suspension parts, brakes, fuel delivery
system, exhaust system etc. - i'm just jotting down some things they wrote
up.) what i find funny is that this toyota dealership rotated the tires, with no
note of them being the wrong size! because i had this recent report on the car
i did not have another inspection pre-purchase. oh well, that's why i was
going to another toyota franchise for an inspection, but if you suggest it is
unnecessary i will appreciate your advice and save $100. i'd take you and your
wife, if i may be so presumptuous, out for dinner instead! also, what is this
you mention about less than 5% diameter difference between the two tires? i
find so many things like this intriguing, but lack the brainpower to get the
whole picture. but no concern of yours. only know that i really appreciate your
time and effort.
so, inspect or save dough?
thanks again,
annebelle
AnswerAnnebelle,
I do not think you should get the vehicle inspected. Save your money. If there is any problem as a result of the tire size issue, it is within the engine itself and undetectable - but I honestly don't think there is a problem.
Even though the vehicle is only 3 years old, it does have a ton of miles on it. The previous owner drove a LOT and that probably will have more affect on the overall vehicle life than anything else.
Also "doing the right thing" is sometimes pretty elusive. In the case of the tire dealership, in a legal sense they really don't owe you anything. You did not buy the tires, the previous owner did. If anything the tire dealership owes the previous owner - but he relinquished his claim when he collected money from you.
You, on the other hand, bought the car in an as is condition, and the tires were part of that condition.
But all of this is moot. Everything has been fixed of its own accord. There is no residual problem to solve. And by replacing the tires, you have taken away the ability of the tire dealer to negotiate using goods and services - which are things that are relatively inexpensive for him, but have greater value to you.
Frankly, I would stop worrying about this, discontinue any effort with the tire dealer, and go on as though nothing happened - which is what did happen.
