Tires: Whos right?????, 8 lug rims, automotive repair shop

Question
QUESTION: I own a 1992 Gulfstream motor home (class C) built on a Ford E-350 chassis that specifies LT225/75/16R, load range D tires.  To prepare for a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Alaska this year I decided to replace the rear tires, even though they looked fine.  (I've thrown tread four times in the past, always on the rear, and was told by 'experts' that it was because the tires were 'old'.)  I went to a local automotive repair shop that does NOT typically sell tires and told him I wanted four load range E tires for the back of the motor home.  He made some phone calls, then told me he couldn't get 'E's in the size I needed, but that he could get them in 245/75/16, and that they would work OK on my Budd 16X6K, 8 lug rims.  I trusted his expertise and allowed him to order four Uniroyal Loredos for me.  When I went back to have the tires mounted, he recommended that I put two of the new tires on the front, and the remaining ones on the outsides of the rear duallies, because I sure didn't want a front tire to fail on such an adventurous journey.  Mismatching tire sizes on a duallie didn't sound right to me, but again, I trusted his judgement and allowed him to do it.  Four days of driving took me from Pittsburgh, PA to Edmonton, Alberta.  That's when I noticed terrible wear patterns on the rear tires.  I went to a Kal-Tire dealership in Edmonton, where they told me you can't mix tire sizes on the rear.  I asked them to put the new, front tires on the back with the other same sized tires, and to put the two smaller tires on the front.  They did so, but then said that wouldn't work either, because the larger tires were 'kissing', and that they would destroy themselves if I tried driving on them.  To make a long story even longer, I ended up purchasing four new LT225/75/16 Michelins, in load range E, for almost a thousand dollars!  (Things are expensive in Canada!)  Those tires held up fine for the rest of the trip, and when we returned home, I took the oversized tires back to where I purchased them expecting to be reimbursed the full amount because of his poor judgement.  He flat out refused to reimburse me one penny, claiming the people at Kal-Tire lied to me about the 'kissing' issue just so they could sell me new tires.  So I have two different stories from two different businesses in two different countries, and    $500 worth of tires with only four days of use on them that I can't use.  What is your 'experienced' opinion regarding this issue?  Personally, I think my local tire supplier is at fault, and that a call to the Better Business Bureau is in order.  Everything I've just read on the Internet says that the difference in tire height of adjacent duallies should be no greater than 1/4 inch.  The difference in height of my unmounted old/new tires is approximately 1 and 3/8 inches.

         ---------------Paul






ANSWER: Paul,

Kai Tire is correct.  Your local repair shop was wrong.

Here's what to do:

First confront your local guy with the following information:

An LT225/75R16 requires a minimum dual spacing of 10.20"  An LT245/75R16 requires a minimum dual spacing of 11.34 "  Measure the dual spacing. (the distance from the centerline of one tire to the centerline of other dual)
 I'll bet my Aunt Fanny that you'll get a dual spacing of about 10 1/2" to 10 3/4" - and therefore the LT245's should not have been applied

Also, do an internet search for information about mounting duals.  Somewhere someone has published that duals have to be within a certain diameter in order to be matched up.  Clearly tires of different size do not qualify. An LT225/75R16 has an overall diameter of 29.29" and an LT245/75R16 has an overall diameter of 30.47 - over an inch difference.  That means that the LT245's were carrying more of the load than the LT225's - and that is what caused the funny tire wear.

Clearly, your local guy didn't know what he was doing, and while he doesn't normally sell tires, he should have followed established guidelines.  It's going to be an expensive lesson for him!

If confronting him with this does get him to pay for the new tires (100%), then threaten to file suit in small claims court with the basis of the suit being the information I just provided.  If that doesn't work, file suit.  BTW BBB only helps if the guy is being uncooperative.  He isn't - He's denying responsibility!


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hello again Barry,
    When I first read your response to my question, I thought I understood exactly what it said.  But after rereading it, I'm a little confused by your last paragraph.  I assume you accidently left out the word 'not' in the first sentence (If confronting him with this does NOT get him to pay......).  I also assume by 'new' tires you meant the incorrect ones he sold me, and not the ones I had to purchase in Canada.  Please take another thirty seconds to confirm my assumptions.

         Thanks again,
         ------Paul  

Answer
Paul,

You are correct.  My ability to think is a lot faster than my 2 fingers can type - and that sometimes results in my leaving off the word "NOT".  My apologies!

And relative to "new".  I've had a change of heart on that.  I think the only thing he owes you is the cost of the tires he provided for you - or - the cost of the tires you purchased in Canada, whichever is lower.  And there are some permutations that might bring the dollar figure lower.  For example if a pair of the LT245's are still on the front axle.

However, you should also be aware that returning tires is customary even in a dispute such as yours.  Not having those tires is certainly going to impact your local guy's willingness to "pony up", but it is also going to impact how the court views this transaction.  Even considering that you became aware of a potentially dangerous situation that had to be remedied right then and there, and even considering that transporting large objects thousands of miles is not really reasonable, the court is going to be a bit more reluctant to award you the full amount.

Nevertheless, you should argue for the full amount and use your best negotiating skills to maximize the settlement amount.  (BTW, this is a skill I am not particularly good at, but I'm really good at "Monday Morning Quarterbacking".)  

I would appreciate an update as this progresses.

Thanks in advance.