2001 Toyota Avalon

ON 4/21/14, I PURCHASED 2 CROSSWIND TIRES(20560R16) THE SELLER GAVE ME, IN WRITING, TREAD WEAR WARRANTY OF 50,000 MILES. HOWEVER, I HAVE ONLY DRIVEN APPROX. 19,000 MILES AND 90% OF TREADS ARE GONE. I HAVE CONTACTED THE SELLER, HE TOLD ME TO CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER. THE MANUFACTURER REFUSED TO HONOR THEIR WARRANTY. I EVEN CONTACTED MY CREDIT CARD CO. TO HELP, BUT THEY REFUSED IT TOO. I PAID $129.00 PLUS $40.00 FOR INSTALLATION. PLEASE HELP ME GET MY MONEY BACK.

FLAT TIRE, JAN 2011, WHILE DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING. TIRE WAS SEPARATED AT TREAD-SIDEWALL ON BRIDESTONE POTENZA, 205/60/16. I ASSUMED MY DAUGHTER DID NOT PULL OVER IMMEDIATELY AND THAT CAUSED THE SEPARATION. DAUGHTER SWEARS OVER THE BIBLE SHE WASN'T FAR FROM DRIVEWAY (STILL IN NEIGHBORHOOD) WHEN SHE REALIZED SHE HAD A FLAT AND PULLED OVER IMMEDIATELY. THE SEPARATION BETWEEN TREAD AND SIDEWALL HAD ME DOUBT MY DAUGHTER, AT LEAST UNTIL JULY 2011. JULY 2011, TOOK SAME VEHICLE TO THE SAME DEALER THAT REPLACED THE FLAT IN JANUARY, (AUTO TIRE OF ST. LOUIS), FOR TIRE ROTATION, BALANCE, AND ALIGNMENT DUE TO EXCESSIVE VIBRATION IN STEERING WHEEL. AUTO TIRE IMMEDIATELY CALLED ME TO STATE THAT THREE OF MY TIRES, (BRIDESTONE POTENZA, 205/60/16) WERE DEFECTIVE AND NEED TO BE REPLACED. I ASKED DEALER TO SHOW ME THE DEFECT AND THE DEFECT WAS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE TIRE THAT WAS REPLACED IN JANUARY, EXCEPT NOT AS SEVERE - MEANING THE SEPARATION WAS ONLY A FEW INCHES IN LENGTH AND SEPARATION WAS MUCH LONGER ON THE TIRE THAT HAD GONE FLAT. IN JANUARY, I ASSUMED THE SEPARATION WAS CAUSED BY DAUGHTER DRIVING AFTER TIRE HAD GONE FLAT. I DID NOT SUSPECT IT TO BE A DEFECTIVE TIRE SINCE BRIDGESTONE IS A REPUTABLE COMPANY. THE DEFECTS ON THE THREE TIRES REPLACED AT NO CHARGE IN JULY 2011 WERE IDENTICAL TO WHAT WAS OBSERVED ON THE TIRE REPLACED IN JANUARY 2011. THE DEALER, AUTO TIRE, DID NOT MAKE A WARRANTY CLAIM TO BRIDGESTONE IN JAN 2011AS THEY SHOULD HAVE, THEY TREATED IT AS A FLAT REPLACEMENT AND NOT A DEFECT AND BRIDGESTONE WOULD NOT COMPENSATE ME FOR THE FLAT TIRE I REPLACED. SO WHY AM I FILING THIS COMPLAINT? TO WARN OTHER CONSUMERS THAT BRIDGESTONE IS AWARE THEY HAVE A DEFECTIVE LOT OF BRIDESTONE POTENZA, 205/60/16 AND AS A CONSUMER YOU MAY HAVE A FLAT AND NOT KNOW THAT IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A WARRANTY DEFECT. *TR

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA AVALON. THE VEHICLE HAS MICHELIN MXV4, SIZE P205/65R15 92VMS TIRES. WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH, THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE TIRE BLEW OUT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE DID NOT DRIVE OVER ANYTHING THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED THE FAILURE. THE TIRES ON THE VEHICLE WERE REPLACEMENTS THAT WERE PURCHASED FROM COSTCO MORE THAN A YEAR AGO. HE STATED THAT ALL FOUR TIRES WERE LEAKING AIR, CAUSING HIM TO PLACE MORE AIR IN THEM EACH WEEK. THE FAILURE CAUSES THE VEHICLE TO WOBBLE WHILE DRIVING. THE DEALER ROTATED AND BALANCED THE TIRES, HOWEVER, THE FAILURE PERSISTS. THE LATEST REPAIR ON THE VEHICLE WAS PERFORMED ON AUGUST 27, 2007. THE DOT NUMBER AND SPEED WERE UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 54,000.

I HAVE HAD 2 OF THE 4 GENERAL TIRES THAT CAME ON MY 2001 TOYOTA AVALON FAIL RECENTLY. FORTUNATELY NEITHER ONE CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. THE FIRST FAILURE WAS DISCOVERED WHEN I TOOK MY CAR TO THE DEALER FOR A WHEEL ALIGNMENT BECAUSE THE CAR WAS PULLING TO THE RIGHT. THE DEALER INFORMED ME THAT THE TIRE HAD SEPARATED AND I HAD THEM REPLACE IT WITH THE SPARE TIRE. I DISCOVERED THE SECOND TIRE HAD FAILED WHEN I TOOK IT TO A TIRE STORE BECAUSE IT WAS LOW AND I SUSPECTED A PUNCTURE IN THE TIRE. I ASKED THEM TO CHECK THE TIRE FOR A PROBLEM BECAUSE I HAD EXPERIENCED A SLIGHT FRONT END SHIMMY BETWEEN 5 AND 10 MPH. WHILE THE TIRE WAS BEING CHECKED THE MECHANIC DISCOVERED THAT THE TIRE HAD A SEPARATION. THESE TIRES HAVE ONLY 26,000 MILES ON THEM AND I HAVE ALWAYS KEPT THEM PROPERLY INFLATED AND I ROTATED AND BALANCED THEM EVERY 6,000 MILES. HAVE NOT CHECKED THE OTHER TWO TIRES THAT CAME WITH MY CAR BUT HAVE NOT NOTICED A PROBLEM.*AK

CONSUMER NOTICED A BUBBLE ON THE SIDEWALL OF HIS MICHELIN TIRE (NO TIRE INFORMATION). CONSUMER WAS ADVISED THAT THE BUBBLE IN THE SIDEWALL WAS ALMOST CERTAINLY CAUSED BY A TRAUMATIC INJURY TO THE TIRE, HOWEVER, WHEN THE TIRE WAS REMOVED, NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND. AS A RESULT TIRE DEALER OFFERED A 25% DISCOUNT ON THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT. *TT