I, fairly recently, bought a couple of Kumho ECSTA HP-4 tires (215/55-16) to replace a couple Michelins, very worn due to a rear wheel alignment problem with my '96 E320. After finally (I hope) getting the alignment issue resolved I bought two more to match the two already on the car.

I'm pretty sure the first two Kumho's don't have 20,000 miles on them, but they are worn (evenly) to the point of needing replacement.

I know the vehicle is much heavier than others I've owned; but I'm not, in any way, hard on tires. I've never gotten so few miles out of tires before. This is my first Merc and my first experience with Kumhos. Is this usual with either?

RonC.

What is the Tread Wear Rating on the sidewall?
P.S. I do not see them listed on The TireRack site.

__________________
2007 C 230 Sport.

The most critical adjustment for tire wear is Toe. Incorrect toe will allow the tires to wear evenly but at an accelerated rate with the only sign being the tread will have a saw toothed patern going from side to side. Check for a saw toothed pattern. If you have this saw tooth pattern you have a toe problem and that will wear the tires fast and even.

John Roncallo

They are not listed because they have been replaced by the Solus KH16 model (that's what Kumo cust service told me). The Ecsta HP4's were a 360AB tread rating and I don't remember anyone ever saying they lasted a really long time... but 20k does seem to be pretty short lived.

__________________
(2) 1988 300 SEL W126

For average driving on an E class with evenly worn tires and proper inflation pressure, I would say that 20,000 miles is a little excessive.

__________________
Ali Al-Chalabi

2001 CLK55
1999 Dodge Ram 2500 Cummins Diesel
2002 Harley-Davidson Fatboy
Merlin Extralight w/ Campy Record

Kumho tires and heavy cars do not go together very well

__________________

Please, call me to place orders or for more info
use my name for on-line orders

My experience with Kuhmos documented here: Not so thrilled with Kuhmo

In the future I'll choose Nikes over Kuhmo. Never again.

- JimY

Thanks for the responses (I WISH I'd checked here BEFORE having tried the Kumho's).
I unearthed my sales receipt a couple of days ago before going to chat with the tire dealer and was aghast to find that I've gotten less than 10k miles from these Kumho's (and no there's no squiggly edge wear pattern that would indicated a toe in/out problem...they're just worn down evenly to the wear bars).
The dealer said sorry, but no mileage adjustment.
I won't be investing in any more Kumho's.

I'm curious about Luke's comment that Kumhos are not good for heavy cars, and would like to hear other forum member's views.

Both of my MBZs are heavy. In my size (245/45-17), the Kumho SPT has a load rating equal to high end Michelin and Bridgestone tires, a far better wear rating and overall favorable reviews. The biggest complaint seems to be "softer" sidewalls, although some reviewers mentioned that tire pressure compensates somewhat. The price is certainly attractive, but if the tire can't support the weight (despite the load rating), I suspect it would be the wrong choice.

Another attractive tire (and less expensive than the oft-praised S0-3s) are the RE750s. These have the same load rating as the Kumhos, but with a superior wear rating. Has anyone insight on these tires as well for heavier cars?

Thanks.

Regards,
Bob

__________________
'94 E500 Anthracite
'92 300E 4Matic (donated to charity)
'90 300TE 4Matic

the Kumho tires have no issues with supporting the weight of a heavy car but, I have many members/customers tell me about extremely rapid tire wear on heavier cars that I do not hear about with lighter cars ...

__________________

Please, call me to place orders or for more info
use my name for on-line orders