Tires for 16 year old car

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Northern Flicker
Posts: 15371
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Northern Flicker »

burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:13 pm
Northern Flicker wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:56 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:54 pm You can't compare IIHS tests from a 2009 to a 2022 model - there wasn't a small overlap test in 2009 and they've changes speeds and evaluation criteria for the existing tests over the years.
Then how do you know which are safer?
Easy - when the small overlap test was first run on a Corolla it was in 2014 and it was ranked as "Marginal" with the "Structure and Safety Cage" rated as "Poor". In 2022, it is good across the board. So even in only 8 years, the improvement was dramatic.
The OP does not own a Corolla, but that still does not tell you whether the 2009 Corolla was better or worse than the 2014.
User avatar
InvestorHowie
Posts: 394
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by InvestorHowie »

MortgageOnBlack wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:34 pm My Honda Civic is 31 years old (1991). I have about 3 years on the tires I bought new.
I am trying to justify replacing it, but it just keeps on running and has been a great reliable car. I think my insurance on it is $30 a month and I feel it could take it Cross Country in a moment's notice without having an issues.
InvestorHowie wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:23 pm I'm rolling in a 17-year old Toyota 4Runner and still love it but never skimp on tires or motor oil. No shame in getting the cheapest tire available that has decent ratings though.
My wife and I are trying to justify buying a 4runner new eventually. The sticker price of a new one is hard to bare, but I don't think we will ever need an SUV again.
Wow, 31 years! That is indeed impressive!

I'm dumbfounded by the price of new cars (and especially SUVs) these days. My '05 4Runner only has 178k mi. and my mechanic jokes that it's 'barely broken in'. He also wants to be the first person I talk to if I ever want to sell it. :)
Time is your friend; impulse is your enemy. --John C. Bogle
UALflyer
Posts: 1039
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by UALflyer »

burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:28 pm
Northern Flicker wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:17 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:10 pm Amazing people drive around in 16 year old death traps that probably could otherwise afford a new car (assuming here since this is Bogleheads) and then consider putting used tires on the car no less. New cars are money traps but 16 years is a massive increase crash safety - you could potentially walk away from one crash in a new car that would kill you in the older car. it is kind of like opting out on an MRI when your doctor thinks you need one because you want to save a few bucks.
I believe that virtually all of the safety enhancements to survive a crash in cars today were available and in use by 2006. I think newer cars have some technologies to help avoid a crash, if used properly.
Um, no, technology does not remain static. A new car is vastly more safe than 16 year old car. Even safer than a 5 year old car just from crash structure, air bag, and other improvements.
This is a very complex topic. Even the way that you use the term "safety" isn't even close to being universally accepted, as there are a lot of dimensions to vehicle "safety."

For instance, here's an excerpt that demonstrates some of the issues (https://www.autoblog.com/2022/02/24/hon ... tsa-probe/): "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced this week that it opened an investigation into unexpected emergency braking incidents in two Honda models — the 2017-2019 CR-V and 2018-2019 Accord — based on hundreds of customer complaints, including cases where uncommanded braking led to collisions and injuries."

Here's another example (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-auto ... SKBN2B32NH): "(Reuters) - Adaptive cruise control systems on cars, which control braking and speed, raise the risk of traffic crashes because the technology leads drivers to go faster, a U.S. study found on Thursday.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that drivers using adaptive cruise control (ACC) were more likely to set a target speed that was over the limit because of the perception that the system enhanced their safety.

The research concluded that drivers using the technology were at a 10% higher risk of a fatal crash compared to manual drivers due to the faster cruising speeds selected.
"

Further, how well a vehicle performs in a crash is a different question from that of how likely it is to be involved in one. The proliferation of various technology, for instance, has been blamed on increasing driver distraction, a false sense of safety, etc..., all of which make it more likely that the driver will be involved in a crash. Further, some of the reasons for vehicle accidents have to do with the design of the vehicles, which is not something that can be tested. For instance, a vehicle redesign that has increased the thickness of the b-pillars of a particular model or has otherwise sacrificed driver visibility, which is a very common issue, is something that in practical terms can make a vehicle less "safe" (in the sense that it would make it more likely that you'll be involved in an accident).

There's lots and lots of these types of considerations.
Last edited by UALflyer on Mon May 23, 2022 5:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Watty
Posts: 28860
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:55 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Watty »

MortgageOnBlack wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:34 pm My Honda Civic is 31 years old (1991). I have about 3 years on the tires I bought new.
I am trying to justify replacing it, but it just keeps on running and has been a great reliable car.
I don't know if it is accurate or not but I just did a Google search and it looks like that does not even have airbags.

That alone would justify replacing it if was my car.
backpacker61
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 6:36 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by backpacker61 »

My vehicle is a pretty basic 20 year old domestic passenger car. OD recently turned over 250K.

If it needed a round of new tires tomorrow, I wouldn't hesitate to put new tires on it. I wouldn't go top of the line, but I would try to get decent 48 month tires.
“Now shall I walk or shall I ride? | 'Ride,' Pleasure said; | 'Walk,' Joy replied.” | | ― W.H. Davies
User avatar
mmmodem
Posts: 2628
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 1:22 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by mmmodem »

cabfranc wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 2:38 pm I have been unable to find four new tires for under $600 out the door. And these are brands I have never heard of, like Kelly and Delinte. Used tires can be gotten for like $250-300, but it is probalby not worth it.
I got a quote for $427 out the door including installation and tax for 4 new tires at America's Tires on a 2006 Honda Accord. Those were the lowest cost ones.

I just bought new 18" tires for my SUV for a tad under $600 from the same place. Keep looking, OP.
lws
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:12 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by lws »

Tires are a safety issue.
Buy new tires.
chuckwalla
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:25 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by chuckwalla »

I suppose used tires can be a great deal if you can find 4 matching ones in good shape with decent tread depth. But how likely is that?

Just this weekend, I purchased a set of US made Kumho TA11's. Reasonably priced with high 700 treadwear rating.
afan
Posts: 8195
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by afan »

burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:39 pm
exodusNH wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:32 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:10 pm Amazing people drive around in 16 year old death traps that probably could otherwise afford a new car (assuming here since this is Bogleheads) and then consider putting used tires on the car no less. New cars are money traps but 16 years is a massive increase crash safety - you could potentially walk away from one crash in a new car that would kill you in the older car. it is kind of like opting out on an MRI when your doctor thinks you need one because you want to save a few bucks.
16 years only goes back to 2006. The basic safety features are there. Maybe a few airbags are missing and certainly no automatic breaking. But it's not like its 2000 and they're driving a car from 1984.
That is like saying we had all the same basic medical technologies from 16 years ago so you are no better off today with medical tech as you are then. Every new generation of a car comes with improved crash safety. 3 full redesigns (in this case) represents a quantum leap in safety and crash survivability even though the safety feature list remains relatively the same.
Curious. Do you have data to support this? From IIHS, HLDI, or somewhere else?

Are current antilock brakes better than those of 20 or 15 years ago? Are airbags better? Are there real world results showing lower injury and death rates attributable to improved design of these features?

Those sources should have the answers.
We don't know how to beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis, and we don't know anyone that does know either | --Swedroe | We assume that markets are efficient, that prices are right | --Fama
Topic Author
cabfranc
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:46 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by cabfranc »

This thread has convinced me to buy new tires, but not a new car just yet. I mean, it has front and side airbags and ABS and it is mostly used for local trips to school and the grocery store.
bradinsky
Posts: 2299
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:32 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by bradinsky »

I would try Discount Tire or Costco for new tires. A set of house brand tires or off brand would be much safer than used. Never buy used tires, ever.
Northern Flicker
Posts: 15371
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Northern Flicker »

UALFlyer wrote: This is a very complex topic. Even the way that you use the term "safety" isn't even close to being universally accepted, as there are a lot of dimensions to vehicle "safety."
I agree. I consider having to menu-dive on a tablet embedded in the dash to adjust the heat, AC, audio, etc. to be a ridiculous distraction and abridgment of safety on newer vehicles.
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by burritoLover »

Northern Flicker wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:51 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:13 pm
Northern Flicker wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:56 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:54 pm You can't compare IIHS tests from a 2009 to a 2022 model - there wasn't a small overlap test in 2009 and they've changes speeds and evaluation criteria for the existing tests over the years.
Then how do you know which are safer?
Easy - when the small overlap test was first run on a Corolla it was in 2014 and it was ranked as "Marginal" with the "Structure and Safety Cage" rated as "Poor". In 2022, it is good across the board. So even in only 8 years, the improvement was dramatic.
The OP does not own a Corolla, but that still does not tell you whether the 2009 Corolla was better or worse than the 2014.
lol - OK.
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by burritoLover »

UALflyer wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:55 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:28 pm
Northern Flicker wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:17 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:10 pm Amazing people drive around in 16 year old death traps that probably could otherwise afford a new car (assuming here since this is Bogleheads) and then consider putting used tires on the car no less. New cars are money traps but 16 years is a massive increase crash safety - you could potentially walk away from one crash in a new car that would kill you in the older car. it is kind of like opting out on an MRI when your doctor thinks you need one because you want to save a few bucks.
I believe that virtually all of the safety enhancements to survive a crash in cars today were available and in use by 2006. I think newer cars have some technologies to help avoid a crash, if used properly.
Um, no, technology does not remain static. A new car is vastly more safe than 16 year old car. Even safer than a 5 year old car just from crash structure, air bag, and other improvements.
This is a very complex topic. Even the way that you use the term "safety" isn't even close to being universally accepted, as there are a lot of dimensions to vehicle "safety."

For instance, here's an excerpt that demonstrates some of the issues (https://www.autoblog.com/2022/02/24/hon ... tsa-probe/): "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced this week that it opened an investigation into unexpected emergency braking incidents in two Honda models — the 2017-2019 CR-V and 2018-2019 Accord — based on hundreds of customer complaints, including cases where uncommanded braking led to collisions and injuries."

Here's another example (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-auto ... SKBN2B32NH): "(Reuters) - Adaptive cruise control systems on cars, which control braking and speed, raise the risk of traffic crashes because the technology leads drivers to go faster, a U.S. study found on Thursday.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that drivers using adaptive cruise control (ACC) were more likely to set a target speed that was over the limit because of the perception that the system enhanced their safety.

The research concluded that drivers using the technology were at a 10% higher risk of a fatal crash compared to manual drivers due to the faster cruising speeds selected.
"

Further, how well a vehicle performs in a crash is a different question from that of how likely it is to be involved in one. The proliferation of various technology, for instance, has been blamed on increasing driver distraction, a false sense of safety, etc..., all of which make it more likely that the driver will be involved in a crash. Further, some of the reasons for vehicle accidents have to do with the design of the vehicles, which is not something that can be tested. For instance, a vehicle redesign that has increased the thickness of the b-pillars of a particular model or has otherwise sacrificed driver visibility, which is a very common issue, is something that in practical terms can make a vehicle less "safe" (in the sense that it would make it more likely that you'll be involved in an accident).

There's lots and lots of these types of considerations.
Yes, you can't engineer out dumb drivers behaving dumbly. It is irrelevant to this discussion because every driver is different. And all technology has issues at times - you can't throw out the baby with bath water.
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by burritoLover »

afan wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 5:40 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:39 pm
exodusNH wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:32 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:10 pm Amazing people drive around in 16 year old death traps that probably could otherwise afford a new car (assuming here since this is Bogleheads) and then consider putting used tires on the car no less. New cars are money traps but 16 years is a massive increase crash safety - you could potentially walk away from one crash in a new car that would kill you in the older car. it is kind of like opting out on an MRI when your doctor thinks you need one because you want to save a few bucks.
16 years only goes back to 2006. The basic safety features are there. Maybe a few airbags are missing and certainly no automatic breaking. But it's not like its 2000 and they're driving a car from 1984.
That is like saying we had all the same basic medical technologies from 16 years ago so you are no better off today with medical tech as you are then. Every new generation of a car comes with improved crash safety. 3 full redesigns (in this case) represents a quantum leap in safety and crash survivability even though the safety feature list remains relatively the same.
Curious. Do you have data to support this? From IIHS, HLDI, or somewhere else?

Are current antilock brakes better than those of 20 or 15 years ago? Are airbags better? Are there real world results showing lower injury and death rates attributable to improved design of these features?

Those sources should have the answers.
I just gave an example in response to a 2014 vs 2022 Corolla (based on a poster's claim). I didn't pull that out as a best case scenario either. You can look for yourself at IIHS.org.

Sorry for derailing this thread OP - I will stop.
panhead
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:53 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by panhead »

cabfranc wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:54 pm This thread has convinced me to buy new tires, but not a new car just yet. I mean, it has front and side airbags and ABS and it is mostly used for local trips to school and the grocery store.
I think you have made a good decision.
Even used tires could have been fine, but it would take more work to find them and have them installed which may not be worth your time.

IMO, assuming your car is well maintained, it is plenty safe. I have a few as old and (much) older that I drive. This comes down to each persons own level of "acceptable risk." The doom and gloom about older cars not being safe on this board can be a little frustrating, but we don't know where they are coming from. They may have been involved or know someone who was involved in a serious accident so there is no level of safety that is too high.
UALflyer
Posts: 1039
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by UALflyer »

burritoLover wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 5:43 am Yes, you can't engineer out dumb drivers behaving dumbly. It is irrelevant to this discussion because every driver is different.
It's actually the exact opposite. The "safety" technology that works for those drivers who do things perfectly but comes with a 10% higher risk of a fatal crash for all the other drivers is, to say it diplomatically, very problematic.

If people could all be counted on to be perfect drivers, not to get distracted and not to make any mistakes, even without all the safety technology out there, most of the accidents would disappear. People are imperfect, however, and even the best drivers make mistakes, so safety tech needs to work for these types of situations. With a lot of this technology, however, is works well enough to cause drivers to heavily rely on it, which then causes them to lower their guard. Yet, most of this technology does not work well enough to allow them to do so, which is one of the ways that accidents happen.

There's more to it as well. When seat belts became standard, they all function essentially the same on all vehicles, so there was no learning curve from one vehicle to another. The same is true for most of the safety tech that has been around for 20+ years. That's not even close to being true for some of the latest technology, however, which is yet another way that accidents happen. The way that a lot of the accident avoidance tech is implemented in different vehicles tends to be very different, which can mean a very steep learning curve. So, a driver gets behind the wheel of an unfamiliar vehicle, which, as part of the accident avoidance tech, suddenly starts beeping or even intervening. This tends to startle the driver, cause the driver to take his/her eyes off the road to figure out what's going on, etc... Again, this is how accidents happen.

Even if you're used to your own vehicle, some of the safety tech is implemented in such an annoying and intrusive way that drivers either start to ignore things like audible alerts or, for some of the more intrusive tech, end up turning it off. This is an exceptionally common issue for modern vehicles where well intentioned technology ends up being annoying/distracting, so a ton of people end up ignoring it or turning it off.
And all technology has issues at times - you can't throw out the baby with bath water.
I don't disagree, but you also cannot ignore situations where the technology ends up actually causing accidents, as is the case with phantom braking that so many models with automatic emergency braking suffer from. This is the reason that the NHTSA is investigating.

To be sure, I fully support various safety tech, but your posts along the lines of "a new car is vastly more safe than 16 year old car" bring up a lot of considerations many of which cut against your unequivocal statement.
johnubc
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:54 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by johnubc »

It all depends on how many miles you plan on putting in the car - and in what amount of time.

My every day car - new tires.
My knock around pick up - used tires.

There is NOTHING wrong with using used tires - that are still in good serviceable condition. That new pickup that was totaled - has 4 good tires on it.
exodusNH
Posts: 10352
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 7:21 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by exodusNH »

johnubc wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 9:15 am It all depends on how many miles you plan on putting in the car - and in what amount of time.

My every day car - new tires.
My knock around pick up - used tires.

There is NOTHING wrong with using used tires - that are still in good serviceable condition. That new pickup that was totaled - has 4 good tires on it.
They can be fine, but you need to know how well they were cared for. If they were routinely under inflated, the treat depth may be fine, but the rubber is "older" than it would appear. If you're lucky, you can see the wear pattern on the treads.

For a car that I'm driving at highway speeds, I wouldn't risk it unless I knew where they came from. Blow out + accident will cost far more than new tires.
KneeReplacementTutor
Posts: 674
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:52 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by KneeReplacementTutor »

burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:39 pm
exodusNH wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:32 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:10 pm Amazing people drive around in 16 year old death traps that probably could otherwise afford a new car (assuming here since this is Bogleheads) and then consider putting used tires on the car no less. New cars are money traps but 16 years is a massive increase crash safety - you could potentially walk away from one crash in a new car that would kill you in the older car. it is kind of like opting out on an MRI when your doctor thinks you need one because you want to save a few bucks.
16 years only goes back to 2006. The basic safety features are there. Maybe a few airbags are missing and certainly no automatic breaking. But it's not like its 2000 and they're driving a car from 1984.
That is like saying we had all the same basic medical technologies from 16 years ago so you are no better off today with medical tech as you are then.
I get what you are saying here, although there are lots of medical technologies that haven't actually improved outcomes over the last sixteen years. Many of the ones that haven't, turned out to be more about marketing than substance. I suspect there are instances in automobile development where the same is true.

We agree that new tires are the way to go. Keep them aligned and rotated and they should last a long time.
User avatar
dziuniek
Posts: 1402
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by dziuniek »

I'm seeing 4 cheapest tires at walmart for 2006 honda accord 17in.... -> $310. + install. install si $15/tire... so.... much less than 600.
Get rich or die tryin'
absolutelybillsmood
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:12 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by absolutelybillsmood »

I am a big fan of Kumho, Cooper, and Hankook. I have had good experiences with all of those. In places I have lived, I have found a lot of small low budget tire stores that carry those brands and have great customer service. These types of tire stores are usually in parts of town where real estate is inexpensive.

I bought a brand called Sailun once and did not like those tires.
tortoise84
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by tortoise84 »

I kept 2 of the run-flat tires on my BMW with around 50% tread remaining, after I replaced all 4 tires with non run-flats. Later I bought a wheel to mount one of the run-flat tires to use as a spare, but none of the tire chain stores wanted to mount it because it was a used tire. Eventually I found an independent shop to do it. So you might run into this problem if you buy used tires.
Northern Flicker
Posts: 15371
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Northern Flicker »

burritoLover wrote: Yes, you can't engineer out dumb drivers behaving dumbly.
Yeah, on the loaner car we had when our car was being repaired, the smart thing to do if needing to adjust the heater while driving on the freeway in traffic would be to exit the freeway, pull over to a safe spot, do the menu diving on the tablet in the dash to adjust the heater while the car is not moving, then get back on the freeway. It would only add about 5 minutes to the trip every time you want to adjust the heater.
Swansea
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:16 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Swansea »

Last year, I put a new set of Michelins on my 98 BMW...call me an optimist.
User avatar
Watty
Posts: 28860
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:55 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Watty »

burritoLover wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 5:32 am
Northern Flicker wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:51 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:13 pm
Northern Flicker wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:56 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:54 pm You can't compare IIHS tests from a 2009 to a 2022 model - there wasn't a small overlap test in 2009 and they've changes speeds and evaluation criteria for the existing tests over the years.
Then how do you know which are safer?
Easy - when the small overlap test was first run on a Corolla it was in 2014 and it was ranked as "Marginal" with the "Structure and Safety Cage" rated as "Poor". In 2022, it is good across the board. So even in only 8 years, the improvement was dramatic.
The OP does not own a Corolla, but that still does not tell you whether the 2009 Corolla was better or worse than the 2014.
lol - OK.
According to this web site the driver death rate for a 2008 Corolla was 66(no data for 2009).

For a 2014 it was 43.

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-dea ... -and-model

There is a wide margin of error in those numbers but according to those numbers you would be about 53% more likely to die driving a 2008 Corolla than you would be if you were driving a 2014 Corolla.
UALflyer
Posts: 1039
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by UALflyer »

Watty wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 2:50 pmAccording to this web site the driver death rate for a 2008 Corolla was 66(no data for 2009).

For a 2014 it was 43.

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-dea ... -and-model

There is a wide margin of error in those numbers but according to those numbers you would be about 53% more likely to die driving a 2008 Corolla than you would be if you were driving a 2014 Corolla.
People need to read statistics very carefully and closely, as that's not actually what these numbers are telling you.

The above numbers do not say anything about the likelihood of the same driver being killed in an '14 Corolla during the same time period. These statistics do not control for the miles driven, driver demographics, safety equipment in the vehicles, the number of these models on the road, etc...

Let me give you an easy example showing how dangerous it is to interpret the numbers you way that you have done here. Suppose for a second that a '10 model of a vehicle accounts for 50 deaths during a given time period, while a '15 model of the same vehicle accounts for 75 deaths. Based on this data and nothing else, would you conclude that the '15 model is more dangerous? What if I then told you that there were 250% more '15 models on the road than the '10 models? Would you then reverse your conclusion? What if then you found out that even though there were more of these '15 models on the road, during the specified period the '10 models in the aggregate drove 500% more miles than the '15 models. Would you then reverse your conclusion again?

There's quite a few of these variables that you have to account for to come up with a somewhat meaningful conclusion about the relative safety record of each vehicle.
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by burritoLover »

Watty wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 2:50 pm
burritoLover wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 5:32 am
Northern Flicker wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:51 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:13 pm
Northern Flicker wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:56 pm
Then how do you know which are safer?
Easy - when the small overlap test was first run on a Corolla it was in 2014 and it was ranked as "Marginal" with the "Structure and Safety Cage" rated as "Poor". In 2022, it is good across the board. So even in only 8 years, the improvement was dramatic.
The OP does not own a Corolla, but that still does not tell you whether the 2009 Corolla was better or worse than the 2014.
lol - OK.
According to this web site the driver death rate for a 2008 Corolla was 66(no data for 2009).

For a 2014 it was 43.

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-dea ... -and-model

There is a wide margin of error in those numbers but according to those numbers you would be about 53% more likely to die driving a 2008 Corolla than you would be if you were driving a 2014 Corolla.
There's a margin of error the size of the Mariana Trench in those numbers. They are effectively useless as there's so few deaths when you try to split them across model year and model. Sometimes they have 0 deaths - doesn't mean the car is deathproof.
jmw
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:01 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by jmw »

Cheapest new Chinese tires last time was $50 all-in per tire. No extra for tax, disposal fee, etc. Chinese tires often have American sounding brand names like Cooper. My previous new Cooper tires were utter garbage, but in a pinch I choose them over used tires on a vehicle with very low annual miles like during Covid.

On a daily driver, I buy high rated tires from a reputable place like tirerack, Costco, America's Tire, etc.

I think everybody agree always buy new, even if it is a Chinese tire.

As far as safety, I'm in the camp that safety is a lousy excuse to grossly overpay for a replacement vehicle. The safety difference between model year 2002 and 2022 is very little and nothing is deathproof. So you're not getting any noticeable safety by overpaying with MSRP+.
finite_difference
Posts: 3633
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:00 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by finite_difference »

Always buy the best tires you can afford.

Doesn’t matter if your car is old or new. Only the tires touch the road.

I think it’s also a good idea to replace tires regardless of mileage around the 6 year mark.
The most precious gift we can offer anyone is our attention. - Thich Nhat Hanh
CRJPylote
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:14 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by CRJPylote »

I'd recommend getting good tires, look at tirerack.com for initial research(you don't have to buy from them).

Good snow tires (Blizzack WS-80's) made my 15 year old car with no anti skid/lock much safer than it would have been otherwise. It's almost MORE important in a older car.

They also make tires that handle summer and winter much better these days, so even if you just get one set they can really improve a older car.
Californiastate
Posts: 1516
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:52 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Californiastate »

finite_difference wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 5:26 pm Always buy the best tires you can afford.

Doesn’t matter if your car is old or new. Only the tires touch the road.

I think it’s also a good idea to replace tires regardless of mileage around the 6 year mark.
Why buy 80k tires if you’re selling in 40k?
iamlucky13
Posts: 3528
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:28 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by iamlucky13 »

burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:10 pm Amazing people drive around in 16 year old death traps that probably could otherwise afford a new car (assuming here since this is Bogleheads) and then consider putting used tires on the car no less. New cars are money traps but 16 years is a massive increase crash safety - you could potentially walk away from one crash in a new car that would kill you in the older car. it is kind of like opting out on an MRI when your doctor thinks you need one because you want to save a few bucks.
The truly amazing thing is that every time a thread about an older car comes up, somebody insists on characterizing a significant proportion of the cars on the road (about 1/4, in this case) as death traps, and we keep repeating this same discussion. And in fairness, I will note that every time, others instinctively react by downplaying the improvements made in automobile design, which seldom is a balanced assessment, either.

If they were death traps, no one would have driven them 16 years ago when they were the best available. It's simply the fact that they were pretty good then, and are even better now. Some drivers are comfortable with the same level of safety they were comfortable with 16 years ago. Others are not.

Unfortunately, driver skill seems to be eroding faster than safety features improve, and although I suspect complacency and overconfidence are factors in that, it's probably best left for another discussion:
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Pu ... ion/813283
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:39 pm3 full redesigns (in this case) represents a quantum leap in safety and crash survivability even though the safety feature list remains relatively the same.
The IIHS fatality data by model we all pored over the last 20 times this conversation was repeated don't suggest a quantum leap. They suggest steady, moderate progress.

I think it is worth noting that although unintentional injuries are one of the leading causes of death in the US for those under 65, traffic accidents comprise about 20% of the accidental deaths, which means about 10% of the overall risk of death for working age adults in general. So if you reduce the risk of a traffic fatality by 1/2, for example, the total risk of working age death decreases by around 5%. Traffic deaths account for about 1.5% of all deaths, so reducing the risk of traffic fatality by 1/2 means about 0.75% overall risk reduction.

Since we're talking about death, after all, that sort of reduction is worth being aware of to inform your decision making, but since it's still overwhelming likely that it will ultimately be one of the ailments of old age that is one's end, that doesn't translate automatically to the same decision by everyone about spending priorities, which in turn influences how those years are spent.
Galt guy
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:48 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Galt guy »

Buy quality new tires, not cheap no-name brands. I've bought crap before and regretted it because the ride and handling are far worse than buying good tires. You may not have the car in six years, but having decent tires might be a plus when you sell it.
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by burritoLover »

iamlucky13 wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:27 pm The truly amazing thing is that every time a thread about an older car comes up, somebody insists on characterizing a significant proportion of the cars on the road (about 1/4, in this case) as death traps, and we keep repeating this same discussion. And in fairness, I will note that every time, others instinctively react by downplaying the improvements made in automobile design, which seldom is a balanced assessment, either.

If they were death traps, no one would have driven them 16 years ago when they were the best available. It's simply the fact that they were pretty good then, and are even better now. Some drivers are comfortable with the same level of safety they were comfortable with 16 years ago. Others are not.
That is what is known as false equivalency. Obviously there were no cars available 16 years ago with today's crash structure improvements, etc. That is like saying people still used an Iphone 4 even though it didn't have the speed, screen size, capability and features of an Iphone 13 so obviously the progress made on the Iphone is irrelevant and not useful.

The IIHS fatality data by model we all pored over the last 20 times this conversation was repeated don't suggest a quantum leap. They suggest steady, moderate progress.
That data is useless. The sample sizes are way too small - sometimes single digit or 0 deaths just by coincidence. Way too noisy to draw any conclusions.
I think it is worth noting that although unintentional injuries are one of the leading causes of death in the US for those under 65, traffic accidents comprise about 20% of the accidental deaths, which means about 10% of the overall risk of death for working age adults in general. So if you reduce the risk of a traffic fatality by 1/2, for example, the total risk of working age death decreases by around 5%. Traffic deaths account for about 1.5% of all deaths, so reducing the risk of traffic fatality by 1/2 means about 0.75% overall risk reduction.
"Road crashes are the leading cause of death in the U.S. for people aged 1–54."
"More than 46,000 people die every year in crashes on U.S. roadways. "
"An additional 4.4 million are injured seriously enough to require medical attention."

You know, I'm going to do everything I can to protect my family from dying and permanent injury. If that means I have a $500 less per month in retirement because I bought a new car every generation it had safety improvements, then so be it.

Doh - sorry OP - couldn't help myself.
fyre4ce
Posts: 2544
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:29 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by fyre4ce »

burritoLover wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 7:12 am
iamlucky13 wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:27 pm The truly amazing thing is that every time a thread about an older car comes up, somebody insists on characterizing a significant proportion of the cars on the road (about 1/4, in this case) as death traps, and we keep repeating this same discussion. And in fairness, I will note that every time, others instinctively react by downplaying the improvements made in automobile design, which seldom is a balanced assessment, either.

If they were death traps, no one would have driven them 16 years ago when they were the best available. It's simply the fact that they were pretty good then, and are even better now. Some drivers are comfortable with the same level of safety they were comfortable with 16 years ago. Others are not.
That is what is known as false equivalency. Obviously there were no cars available 16 years ago with today's crash structure improvements, etc. That is like saying people still used an Iphone 4 even though it didn't have the speed, screen size, capability and features of an Iphone 13 so obviously the progress made on the Iphone is irrelevant and not useful.

The IIHS fatality data by model we all pored over the last 20 times this conversation was repeated don't suggest a quantum leap. They suggest steady, moderate progress.
That data is useless. The sample sizes are way too small - sometimes single digit or 0 deaths just by coincidence. Way too noisy to draw any conclusions.
I think it is worth noting that although unintentional injuries are one of the leading causes of death in the US for those under 65, traffic accidents comprise about 20% of the accidental deaths, which means about 10% of the overall risk of death for working age adults in general. So if you reduce the risk of a traffic fatality by 1/2, for example, the total risk of working age death decreases by around 5%. Traffic deaths account for about 1.5% of all deaths, so reducing the risk of traffic fatality by 1/2 means about 0.75% overall risk reduction.
"Road crashes are the leading cause of death in the U.S. for people aged 1–54."
"More than 46,000 people die every year in crashes on U.S. roadways. "
"An additional 4.4 million are injured seriously enough to require medical attention."

You know, I'm going to do everything I can to protect my family from dying and permanent injury. If that means I have a $500 less per month in retirement because I bought a new car every generation it had safety improvements, then so be it.

Doh - sorry OP - couldn't help myself.
First of all - driving is absolutely a dangerous activity (probably the most dangerous thing many of us will do in our lifetimes) and the risks should be managed. And, it's your money and you're free to spend it on whatever you want.

That said, this is a finance forum, and in my experience car costs are a major obstacle to building wealth for many, many people. The median 401k balance for retirement-age Americans is about $80,000, woefully inadequate for a prosperous retirement, and the average car payment is about $500-600. The future value of this payment, invested earning 5% real, from age 21-65 is just about $1,000,000 (FV(5%/12,540,-500)). Dave Ramsey makes this point as well.

Cars are a status symbol, and the car industry spends billions in advertising to convince people that they need the latest and greatest, when in reality cars last a very long time when well-maintained. I see people come up with all sorts of rationalizations on why they need a new car and/or to overspend on a car (I need the image of success for my business, I need a big truck for cargo, I can't afford to break down ever, all-wheel drive, warranty, safety, etc.) and it damages them financially. You mentioned safety so I'll home in on that. There is clearly some value in crash structure improvements and active safety features, depending heavily on which cars and features we're talking about. But there's also very real health impacts to retiring with $80k vs. $1M+ in terms of available medical care, lifestyle, stress. etc. I have no idea what your financial situation is (if you're on BH, probably vastly better than the average American) or your driving habits so I'm not telling you what you should and shouldn't buy. You can probably afford a new car. But the hair stands up on the back of my neck when I hear these oft-repeated rationalizations, because I worry about the financial impact, and secondary impacts of delaying or preventing financial independence.

I'd be happy to see data on the relative risk between older and newer cars, and for specific safety features (automatic braking, blind spot monitor, etc.). My suspicion is that the reduction is "small", maybe 10-20% lower risk (in terms of likelihood of fatality per mile driven) at most. I'm happy to have my mind changed about this. What I also see often get ignored are the other ways one can reduce risk of a vehicle fatality that don't depend on the vehicle, such as:
  • living close to work (I can all but guarantee the risk of a 3-mile commute in a 10 year old car is far less than a 30-mile commute in a brand new car)
  • being really strict about not driving when sleepy or having any alcohol in the system
  • being really strict about no distracted driving (how many of us ever look at our cell phones while driving? Better to lock it in the glove box)
  • getting groceries and other goods delivered to your house rather than driving to go shopping ($500/mo pays for a lot of grocery delivery, not to mention the time saving benefit too)
  • avoiding road trips (flying is far safer per mile than driving) or any other non-critical car trips
  • etc
I'm all for safety, but a rational, balanced approach to vehicle safety would do most or all of these things before buying a new car. If you've done all these things and still want to spend money on a new car, and can afford it without keeping you from meeting your financial goals, absolutely go for it. I don't think most Americans considering a new car purchase are in that category, though, and that's something I worry about.
Last edited by fyre4ce on Thu May 26, 2022 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Parkinglotracer
Posts: 3949
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:49 am
Location: Upstate NY

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Parkinglotracer »

https://www.champtires.com/

I have bought a tire here when I was matching 3 others etc. good business.
3feetpete
Posts: 613
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:30 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by 3feetpete »

I bought used tires several times when I was younger and had less money. I never had a problem. If you get a good brand with plenty of tread left on it why not? Make sure they are not more than a few years old. Dry rot can set in after 6 years.
finite_difference
Posts: 3633
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:00 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by finite_difference »

Californiastate wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:21 pm
finite_difference wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 5:26 pm Always buy the best tires you can afford.

Doesn’t matter if your car is old or new. Only the tires touch the road.

I think it’s also a good idea to replace tires regardless of mileage around the 6 year mark.
Why buy 80k tires if you’re selling in 40k?
It’s not really about the mileage, it’s about traction and control.
The most precious gift we can offer anyone is our attention. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Johny Fever
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2021 11:05 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Johny Fever »

Go into Discount Tire and buy their house brand tire...decent price and you are safe...save money on other things...not tires, brakes or beer. Life will be better that way.
Californiastate
Posts: 1516
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:52 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Californiastate »

finite_difference wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 5:36 pm
Californiastate wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:21 pm
finite_difference wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 5:26 pm Always buy the best tires you can afford.

Doesn’t matter if your car is old or new. Only the tires touch the road.

I think it’s also a good idea to replace tires regardless of mileage around the 6 year mark.
Why buy 80k tires if you’re selling in 40k?
It’s not really about the mileage, it’s about traction and control.
The difference is negligible for the average driver. Very few street drivers will put tires to the test. Their lack of skills or attention won't be displaced by an extra 5 feet of braking distance.
Big Dog
Posts: 4608
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Big Dog »

The amount of rubber on the road is ~100 sq. total inches (4 tires), and that is all that is protecting you in a rainstorm from disaster. Why would you even consider cheaping out?
finite_difference
Posts: 3633
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:00 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by finite_difference »

Californiastate wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 8:11 pm
finite_difference wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 5:36 pm
Californiastate wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:21 pm
finite_difference wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 5:26 pm Always buy the best tires you can afford.

Doesn’t matter if your car is old or new. Only the tires touch the road.

I think it’s also a good idea to replace tires regardless of mileage around the 6 year mark.
Why buy 80k tires if you’re selling in 40k?
It’s not really about the mileage, it’s about traction and control.
The difference is negligible for the average driver. Very few street drivers will put tires to the test. Their lack of skills or attention won't be displaced by an extra 5 feet of braking distance.
Most of the time you may not need it. If you drive defensively, etc. But sometimes you get cut off or there’s a sudden stop and the difference between being in an accident and not being in an accident is 1 foot.

High quality Michelins can give you 10’ compared to other new tires. My recommendation is to buy high quality new tires, replace before 4/32, and by 6 years.

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.js ... ssClimate2
The most precious gift we can offer anyone is our attention. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Northern Flicker
Posts: 15371
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Northern Flicker »

Californiastate wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 8:11 pm
finite_difference wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 5:36 pm
Californiastate wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:21 pm
finite_difference wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 5:26 pm Always buy the best tires you can afford.

Doesn’t matter if your car is old or new. Only the tires touch the road.

I think it’s also a good idea to replace tires regardless of mileage around the 6 year mark.
Why buy 80k tires if you’re selling in 40k?
It’s not really about the mileage, it’s about traction and control.
The difference is negligible for the average driver. Very few street drivers will put tires to the test. Their lack of skills or attention won't be displaced by an extra 5 feet of braking distance.
If you ever avert a crash with only 3 feet to spare, you will appreciate having tires with 5 feet less of braking distance at the speed in question.
sandan
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:48 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by sandan »

I put a set of nokian wrg4 all weather tires on my 13 year old Honda for ~400 after a rebate at discount tire.

Seems like a good deal to me. I barely drive but being able to easily go through snow and salt with my older 2wd car is satisfying.
Californiastate
Posts: 1516
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:52 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by Californiastate »

Northern Flicker wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 10:27 pm
Californiastate wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 8:11 pm
finite_difference wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 5:36 pm
Californiastate wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:21 pm
finite_difference wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 5:26 pm Always buy the best tires you can afford.

Doesn’t matter if your car is old or new. Only the tires touch the road.

I think it’s also a good idea to replace tires regardless of mileage around the 6 year mark.
Why buy 80k tires if you’re selling in 40k?
It’s not really about the mileage, it’s about traction and control.
The difference is negligible for the average driver. Very few street drivers will put tires to the test. Their lack of skills or attention won't be displaced by an extra 5 feet of braking distance.
If you ever avert a crash with only 3 feet to spare, you will appreciate having tires with 5 feet less of braking distance at the speed in question.
This is a tire thread in a financial forum. Risk aversion isn't solely inclusive with financial instruments. Some never leave the safety of treasuries and others invest more boldly. Spend your life and money as you please. If you're not breaking the law, it's really none of my business.
fyre4ce
Posts: 2544
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:29 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by fyre4ce »

finite_difference wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 9:55 pm
Californiastate wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 8:11 pm
finite_difference wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 5:36 pm
Californiastate wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:21 pm
finite_difference wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 5:26 pm Always buy the best tires you can afford.

Doesn’t matter if your car is old or new. Only the tires touch the road.

I think it’s also a good idea to replace tires regardless of mileage around the 6 year mark.
Why buy 80k tires if you’re selling in 40k?
It’s not really about the mileage, it’s about traction and control.
The difference is negligible for the average driver. Very few street drivers will put tires to the test. Their lack of skills or attention won't be displaced by an extra 5 feet of braking distance.
Most of the time you may not need it. If you drive defensively, etc. But sometimes you get cut off or there’s a sudden stop and the difference between being in an accident and not being in an accident is 1 foot.

High quality Michelins can give you 10’ compared to other new tires. My recommendation is to buy high quality new tires, replace before 4/32, and by 6 years.

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.js ... ssClimate2
I'm a proponent of buying more performance-oriented tires with softer rubber, not for performance per se, but because the extra grip adds safety when you have to stop or swerve suddenly. I helped a friend buy tires for her Hyundai a few years ago. Most of the options were hard-rubber economy-oriented tires, but Sumitomo made a mild performance all-season tire in that wheel size. The nominal cost was similar, but the treadwear/mileage rating was lower, so they would need to be replaced sooner and the cost per mile was higher. But, I thought it was a good idea for safety. They came in handy 6 months later when she had to swerve to avoid an accident on the highway.

If your car has a wheel size that fits performance tires all the way up to gumball-soft racing tires, then you have to draw the line somewhere. I don't recommend driving around on Hoosiers. For my 3-series, I bought Michelin Pilot Sport 4S's and have been very happy with them. The extra cost of spending $1,000 every 4 years vs. 6 is not significant for my budget.
blastoff
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:04 am

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by blastoff »

Unless some amazing deal on tires friend who just bought some new rims or something, I wouldn't buy used tires.
But maybe don't buy $$$ Michelins with an 80k tread warranty unless you are driving 20k/yr (in which case they may be a better deal).
Maybe buy a decent brand with a 40-50k warranty for less and see how long the car lasts.
sureshoe
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:26 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by sureshoe »

Northern Flicker wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:56 pm
burritoLover wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:54 pm You can't compare IIHS tests from a 2009 to a 2022 model - there wasn't a small overlap test in 2009 and they've changes speeds and evaluation criteria for the existing tests over the years.
Then how do you know which are safer?
This little argument made me curious, so I looked up auto-fatalities. Fatalities per 100k in 2006 was 14.27. By 2019 it was down to 10.99. Back in 2022, it's back up to 12.89.

So about a 15%-25% improvement depending on how you do the math. Is that because cars are safer or people are smarter or other things? Not sure, but interesting.

Even if you give car manufactures all the credit for a 10% improvement, not sure that qualifies as "vastly". But, we'll let the jury decide.
260chrisb
Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:26 pm

Re: Tires for 16 year old car

Post by 260chrisb »

vineviz wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 2:33 pm I have Honda cars much older than yours and I would never buy a used tire.

New tires for your car should be less than $300, not including mounting and installation, which is a minuscule expense IMHO for a car with a trade-in value that could be $3k or more.
Hmmmm.....16" tires for under $300.00 a set.......I'm sure there are some but pretty sure I'd never buy whatever brand they are. It matters not how old the car is and if you plan to drive it 5-6 years buy a good quality set of tires for it. For me, I'd never buy used tires.
Post Reply