Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums
Honda Jazz Forums => Honda Jazz Mk3 2015 - 2020 => Topic started by: andruec on January 26, 2017, 09:51:24 AM
-
So I just had a call from the garage servicing my car and they reckon the front tyre treads are getting a bit low. Down to 4mm. That's after about 8,000 miles :o. The Honda Jazz does have a reputation for wearing the fronts a bit quick but 8k is terrible. And no, I'm no Speedy Gonzales. Quite the opposite really. I normally get over two years out of a set of front tyres.
To be honest I'm a bit remiss in not checking the treads but I just wouldn't expect to get less than a year out of a pair.
Maybe Honda are fitting particularly naff Dunlops these days? Usually it's just the grip that's poor but maybe this year it's grip and longevity. Anyway this is a warning to anyone else with a new Jazz. If like me you've been remiss check your tread depth.
Be careful out there ;)
-
Wow, that's awful :o
Is the wear uniform, or at one edge indicating tracking wrong? More understandable if that is the case.
I have Michelin Energy Savers on my new last June Mk3.
-
Wow, that's awful :o
Is the wear uniform, or at one edge indicating tracking wrong? More understandable if that is the case.
I have Michelin Energy Savers on my new last June Mk3.
Apparently (I've not seen it yet) both tyres are symmetrical and the wear is slightly worse on the outer edges (3.5mm v 4mm down the middle). Of course that's still above legal but it's worse than I would expect. I usually change them at the end of summer when they get to around 3mm so that I go into winter with maximum depth.
If it was mostly the outer edge of the nearside tyre I could blame it on roundabouts and maybe going round bends (I don't speed round them but I know what my car can do and if conditions and visibility allow that's what I drive at).
From looking online the Dunlop SP2030 does broadly get good reviews but some of them do call out poor wear. It sounds like I have a couple of months to decide but I'm not going to get through Summer on them :'(
Looking at general tyre prices they are around £90 a tyre with some at £70 (hmmmm) and others at £120 (hmmm?). What's odd is that there doesn't seem to be much choice. I know my last pre-reg Jazz had silly half profile tyres on it but what's so special about 185/55/R16?
-
Interestingly I've now found several reviews/comments from other Jazz owners saying they had to change theirs around the 8000/9000 mile point. So it seems like another 'feature'. At the moment I'm leaning toward the Michelins as well. I've tried energy savers before but found the grip lacking but the current crop from Michelin are being reviewed as having some of the best grip in wet and dry as well as being efficient and long wearing.
Sounds too good to be true and makes me suspicious :)
-
Don't forget that the front brakes can work individually to assist turn in and feel during cornering, this might be a reason on for the tyre wear.
-
Interestingly I've now found several reviews/comments from other Jazz owners saying they had to change theirs around the 8000/9000 mile point. So it seems like another 'feature'. At the moment I'm leaning toward the Michelins as well. I've tried energy savers before but found the grip lacking but the current crop from Michelin are being reviewed as having some of the best grip in wet and dry as well as being efficient and long wearing.
Sounds too good to be true and makes me suspicious :)
Silica compounds (made from rice husks LOL) have revolutionised tyres, this article is very interesting - what it is saying is that you can have your cake and eat it now with tyres, low rolling resistance, good grip and good mileage.
http://www.tirereview.com/silica-siping/ (http://www.tirereview.com/silica-siping/)
-
At first service my Mk 3 (Michelin ES tyres) had 5461 miles on the clock and the service report said 6.8 & 6.9 mm on the front tyres and 6.8 & 6.7 mm onthe rear tyres. 4mm after 8,000 miles suggests that the tyres are unfit for purpose.
-
I replaced my front Dunlop 2030s on my Mk2 Jazz last November at 15,000 miles - they were down to 3mm so 8,000 does seem excessive. Saying that, I don't know for sure if they were the originals as I bought the car at 12,000 miles.
But they do seem to wear. I had the rears (also Dunlop 2030s) moved to the front and I actually don't think there's that much wear left in them. They are at about 5mm.
I think the Dunlops are a bit soft.
-
My front Michelin ES are at 6.5 mm at 8,500 miles. Looks pretty even inner to outer.
I have always had good experience with Michelins, but two years ago I fancied a change and chose Dunlop Rapid Response for my Mk2. Mainly because they had A rating for noise and wet grip.
I have never actually been able to put my hand on heart and say I have noticed any difference in grip or noise between tyre brands. I don't drive on the limit where grip difference might be noticed, and noise is so subjective.
The one characteristic I definitely do notice is ride and "thumpiness". These Dunlops made my Mk2 noticeably worse. I realised afterwards that the noise rating is about environmental road noise generated by the treads, nothing to do with internal "thumpiness". I also realised too late that "Rapid Response" is achieved by stiffer sidewalls. Lesson learned.
The other time I noticed a big change was when I replaced four assorted budget tyres on my wife's Mk 1 with Continental Premium Contacts. This made a big improvement to the ride and thumpiness.
-
At first service my Mk 3 (Michelin ES tyres) had 5461 miles on the clock and the service report said 6.8 & 6.9 mm on the front tyres and 6.8 & 6.7 mm on the rear tyres. 4mm after 8,000 miles suggests that the tyres are unfit for purpose.
https://tiresize.com/tires/Michelin/Energy-Saver.htm
Depth of tread when new is 9.5/32" = about 7.5mm
1mm = 0.039"
-
Like John Ratsey, my Michelins seem to be performing the same. After two services and about 10000 miles, the Michelins are down to about 6mm all round. I am blessed if I can find the exact figures but I do know it has worked out at approximately 1mm per 5000 miles. This has more than repaid the outlay. As to grip they are quite brilliant The classification is C A 68 That is Fuel efficiency C Wet Grip A and noise class 68 dB. I believe that Michelin have even improved on that in the past 2 yrs.
-
12 months and 10,000 miles on Michelin ES and the tread remaining seems to be about 6 mm. I'm hoping for at least 25,000 on the front, which is what I used to get from Dunlops on the Mk2. The Mk3 SE has slightly wider treads than my MK 2 ES (185 v 175).
-
Okay so it's actually 8,900 miles driven but still very poor. It's possible the dealer is just being cheeky with their measuring as well (wouldn't surprise me) but I'm not checking that out now. I've just driven around Kidlington in rush hour so all I want to do is eat my pizza and watch TV. >:(
-
I am on 6100 miles, 7mm front, 8mm rear.
-
Checked my tyres myself now, dealer wasn't being cheeky. It's 3.5/4 at the front and 5/4.5 at the back.
Looks like in a couple of months I'll need to buy two new shoes and put them on the back. If I do that I ought to be able to replace the whole set by end of Summer. From what I'm reading the fitted tyres are pretty good performers but it seems the good grip is achieved through a softer compound. Higher than normal wear seems to be expected.
-
I live in a light traffic area, maybe urban use causes more wear.
-
It might be worthwhile having the steering geometry checked by a specialist, perhaps when you get the tyres changed. Will you be looking for Michelin ES which others have found to be good in both performance and longevity?
-
It might be worthwhile having the steering geometry checked by a specialist, perhaps when you get the tyres changed. Will you be looking for Michelin ES which others have found to be good in both performance and longevity?
Quite probably. They seem to be around £100 per tyre but then the Dunlops are around £90. Cheapest is £65 but I never buy the cheapest. Tyres are the only thing holding the car to the road so it's worth taking them seriously.
From looking at the tyres there's no scrubbing, the wear is symmetrical and there's no steering drift. I'm also getting pretty good economy. I can't currently see it being a tracking problem. Reading around it doesn't seem all that unusual. The rear wear is higher than I'd expect as well so I think it's just soft compound and somehow the tyres can't take the way I drive.
Much as I'm no speed freak I do take corners faster than a lot of drivers and when I move off I like to do so at a decent rate of acceleration (straight to 3,000 rpm to get out of the Atkinson cycle). Then again they don't experience much braking force as I consider using the brake pedal for anything except stopping to be the sign of a poor driver.
I'd concede that while my tyres don't have a violent life they perhaps don't have an easy life either. But normally I'd expect 15k miles out of a front set based on my previous Jazz. Either the Mk3 suspension is making wear worse or these tyres are soft. My driving is the same.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The EX just eats through those 16 inch tyres on the front, it is important to have the tracking as accurate as possible (they do NOT come from the dealers with ANY checks on this), also keep an eye on the pressures of the tyres. I also got just over 8,000 miles from my first pair!
-
If the tyres for the 16" wheels are the same as for the MK2 Jazz, it's not just that they don't last long. They are an unusual size, often not in stock at tyre fitters, never discounted and very expensive. And you get a harsher ride as they are lower profile than the tyres for 15" wheels. Crazy.
-
If the tyres for the 16" wheels are the same as for the MK2 Jazz, it's not just that they don't last long. They are an unusual size, often not in stock at tyre fitters, never discounted and very expensive. And you get a harsher ride as they are lower profile than the tyres for 15" wheels. Crazy.
I think they might be. My Mk2 had an odd size of tyre but I was told it was an option. I bought that car pre-reg so didn't have much say in the spec.
But now it seems like they are a standard fit on the higher spec Jazz. I wonder why? The usual reason for reducing the profile is to improve handling but it seems an odd decision in this case. If they still sold a 'sport' version as they did with the Mk1 (which I owned) it would make more sense.
-
Many of the manufacturers, not just Honda, subscribe to the philosophy that stepping up the range involves an increase in wheel size (which necessitates lower profile tyres in order to keep the perimeter the same). While bigger wheels may look more impressive, one benefit of this deluded policy is a worsening ride quality as there's less rubber to smooth out the bumps.
-
The lower profile tyres are to give the car a more upmarket sportier image - just like rear discs, just examples of style over substance. Lower profile tyres have stiffer sidewalls which mean suspension geometry has to by absolutely spot on to get even tyre wear, also harsher ride and big bucks when you come to replace tyres.
-
Wot he ^ said + 1.
-
Many of the manufacturers, not just Honda, subscribe to the philosophy that stepping up the range involves an increase in wheel size (which necessitates lower profile tyres in order to keep the perimeter the same). While bigger wheels may look more impressive, one benefit of this deluded policy is a worsening ride quality as there's less rubber to smooth out the bumps.
Yes - and you can see some sense in this if you are selling a high performance version.
But, on the Jazz, it's just plain wrong given the demographic that buys the car and the purposes for which they buy it.
-
I also find the EX wheels difficult to clean.
-
Interesting comments but to put my two penneth in, although mine is a MK2 EX when I had the Michelins fitted, I had ALL FOUR wheels alignment checked. The alignment was well out. My 16 inch Michelins after 10000 miles still had 6mm all round. No I am not a light footed creeper, the car has to move when I want it to.
Yes the 16 inch Michelins were a £100 a corner but given the comments re other makes it seems worth it and lastly when I posted about which wheel cleaner was the best as nothing seems to keep them clean, the advice was to give the wheels a thorough clean and then a good coat of wax. That was sometime back and when I wash the car the filth does come off very easily, leaving the wheels sparkling.
-
Maybe Honda are fitting particularly naff Dunlops these days? Usually it's just the grip that's poor but maybe this year it's grip and longevity.
We had Dunlop SP2030's on both our mk2's. Both driven by women, but I'd say very 'normally' - neither are timid drivers. Fronts lasted 16K miles on wife's car, and got to nearly 20K on daughters (I'd have expected the other way around based on how they drive).
I reckon the tyres are soft though - ours coped with 2009/10 and 10/11 winters with absolutely no issues.
On wife's car I put full winter Michelin Alpin's on (on 15" wheels that I bought) to run year round and it's interesting that they're lasting longer than the summer Dunlop's.
-
So I just had a call from the garage servicing my car and they reckon the front tyre treads are getting a bit low. Down to 4mm. That's after about 8,000 miles :o. The Honda Jazz does have a reputation for wearing the fronts a bit quick but 8k is terrible. And no, I'm no Speedy Gonzales. Quite the opposite really. I normally get over two years out of a set of front tyres.
For comparison I've just had my first service after 12,500 miles. Fronts both 4.9mm, rears 6.4mm and 6.0mm
-
Maybe Honda are fitting particularly naff Dunlops these days? Usually it's just the grip that's poor but maybe this year it's grip and longevity.
We had Dunlop SP2030's on both our mk2's. Both driven by women, but I'd say very 'normally' - neither are timid drivers. Fronts lasted 16K miles on wife's car, and got to nearly 20K on daughters (I'd have expected the other way around based on how they drive).
I reckon the tyres are soft though - ours coped with 2009/10 and 10/11 winters with absolutely no issues.
On wife's car I put full winter Michelin Alpin's on (on 15" wheels that I bought) to run year round and it's interesting that they're lasting longer than the summer Dunlop's.
You're not the first person to mention the abilities of the Dunlop 2030s in winter. I've seen it on other forums as well. We don't get much snow where we live but they do seem pretty capable for summer tyres.
-
So I just had a call from the garage servicing my car and they reckon the front tyre treads are getting a bit low. Down to 4mm. That's after about 8,000 miles :o. The Honda Jazz does have a reputation for wearing the fronts a bit quick but 8k is terrible. And no, I'm no Speedy Gonzales. Quite the opposite really. I normally get over two years out of a set of front tyres.
For comparison I've just had my first service after 12,500 miles. Fronts both 4.9mm, rears 6.4mm and 6.0mm
What kind of driving is that? You've done 50% more miles than me so is it longer distance? Most of my driving has been urban/extra urban. 20% of mine is probably rush hour traffic and multiple roundabouts. Even the country bits have a few tight bends.
-
My driving is in the main carried out in rural Dorset. I have probably done about 1,000 motorway miles in the last year but the majority are journeys of around 15 to 20 miles.
I would like to think there is some kind of correlation between driving style, tyre wear, brake pad wear and MPG. So for interest, over the last year, my MPG (measured from the pump) has averaged 50.25 and cost me £1,225.00 with a cost/mile of 10.09p.
Brake pads at the service were 8mm front and 6mm rear.
As previously posted average tyres were 4.9mm front and 6.2mm rear. Wear is slightly higher on the outside of all, which is to be expected on bendy country roads.
I don’t consider myself to be a sedate driver but neither am I a boy racer.
-
Style must have something to do with it.
I'm not sure what my annual MPG has been but I also measure it at the pump and it's only gone below 51mpg three times this winter. During the summer it was typically around 54mpg. But our brake disc usage is very different. At the service mine are recorded as 10mm all round. That would certainly makes sense as I rarely use my brakes except to stop. It's a matter of pride with me. Even though I now don't have much engine braking to count on I still prefer to control my speed using just the accelerator pedal.
Now I would have thought that braking and consequent acceleration were hard on tyres but it's also true that I like to take bends faster than most vehicles. Maybe my avoidance of braking has left me with a confidence about my car's abilities that means I'm generating more wear through lateral forces? It's true that most vehicles don't keep pace with me around bends and I've got into the habit of dropping back on roads I know to give myself a gap to the vehicle in front when I approach bends.
But how about town driving? Every weekday I have to drive two miles in then two miles out of Banbury. That's six roundabouts.
-
Got all four boots changed this morning. Tracking was apparently a bit out but not hugely so. No sign of excessive scuffing, just well worn. Nothing to do now but see how long these Michelin Energy Savers last.
-
Just had my car serviced. Honda dealer has shown all tyres thread depth 2mm below the actual tread depth (even on a brand new unused spare). The more gullible would have bought four new tyres from them.
And the front brake pads have gone from 15% wear to 70% wear in about 3500 miles. The more gullible would have had them replaced.
That together with a suggested unnecessary air con service and engine oil flush would have netted them more than £500 from a naïve customer by giving bad advice/ miss selling.
To my mind it's dishonest. I more than despair.
-
zzaj
I have had similar experiences - although I don't use dealers much except for odd MOT they have noted that brake pads and tyres have more wear shown that they actually have on their 'visual health check ' sheet. Also ATS when they replace tyres have noted brake pads as 'needing urgent replacement' when they still have at least 5mm of pad thickness, this year Honda dealer MOT visual health check sheet also noted that my Nokian winter tyres were 'budget' tyres, so they do not recognise a good quality winter tyre when they see it .
I think you are correct that they rely on gullible people who either don't have the skills or the inclination to check these things and just tell them to replace stuff - a work creation scheme.
-
To my mind it's dishonest. I more than despair.
My dealer isn't too bad. I confirmed the tread wear using my own gauge. some would consider 4mm not worth warning about but actually I agreed with it. I like to change mine at 3mm (http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/97370/minimum-tyre-tread-depths-tyre-makers-in-safety-row) so their warning was timely as far as I'm concerned.
The disc wear figure I can't check but it was so low that unless they are trying to sell me a new car by getting me involved in a crash I assume it's correct.
They do however suggest at the service that you have the full flush and engine treatment. I decline that. Honda make damn' good engines and if they felt that such a thing was necessary it'd be part of the service procedure.
-
Our last two Exs had Dunlop's fitted and we had to replace around that mileage. It seemed a fault to me, or perhaps even a cheap tyre. Relieved that the current one was fitted with Michelins.
-
My civic had it's mot and service 3 weeks ago.
They did a health check and the dealers informed me that rear brakes pads 90 percent worn disk minimum thickness 8.03 mm front brakes pads 60 percent worn disks below minimum thickness 20mm quoted price £290 each declined and did the job myself total parts £168 that for both rear pads disks and front brake pads and disks.
I am studying motor mechanic course at college part time and have passed the level.one.
Brakes easy to do ..
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
-
My mk2 Jazz has just had its 2 year service with 22000 on the clock. Front tyres are both at 3 mm, rears on 4 mm, all Dunlops. My wife says I think I am Lewis Hamilton (in a Jazz - come on), so I guess 3 mm at 8000 miles is a bit iffy.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
My Mark 2 has 27k miles and fronts are 5mm, rears 4.5mm - after swapping front to rear last year..
-
My Mark 2 has 27k miles and fronts are 5mm, rears 4.5mm - after swapping front to rear last year..
What tyre pressures do you use?
-
Well for what it's worth, five months later my fronts are at 7mm and my rears are at 8mm. So after five months no appreciable wear at the rear and not a great deal at the front. So looking like the fronts will do 18 months to two years which is what I'd expect. Yay for Michelin Energy Saver+ and boo to Dunlop.
-
Well for what it's worth, five months later my fronts are at 7mm and my rears are at 8mm. So after five months no appreciable wear at the rear and not a great deal at the front. So looking like the fronts will do 18 months to two years which is what I'd expect. Yay for Michelin Energy Saver+ and boo to Dunlop.
That's good to hear. On our Mk3 EX the Dunlops are down to 5mm after 11K miles, but unfortunately a pot hole means I need a new tyre. Gone with two Michelin Energy Savers. Hope to keep out the pot holes..
-
Well for what it's worth, five months later my fronts are at 7mm and my rears are at 8mm. So after five months no appreciable wear at the rear and not a great deal at the front. So looking like the fronts will do 18 months to two years which is what I'd expect. Yay for Michelin Energy Saver+ and boo to Dunlop.
32F.30R..
Checked regularly but very low leakage.
-
A further update: 14 months later, all tyres still above 6mm. So yes - boo to Dunlop, yay to Michelin.