Rear tyres with excessive wear

bobhalliday · Unread post by **bobhalliday** » 18 Dec 2010, 11:33

Hi All.
My other grand daughter has had a Renault Grand Scenic (Oasis) 1.6 56Reg, 2006, for 18 months now and I found that her rear tyres are well worn down all over, usually when buying a car my kids get me to go look the things over for them, but this time I must have been away so can't comment on the state of the tyres at that time, but I wonder if there is anything in the suspension could cause excessive wear?
She doesn't do a big milage and only short runs, at first sight I thought maybe running too soft but with the weather here just now can't get at it to check and as the tyres are totally illegal I've got her not to drive it for now. It'll have better tyres next week but wonder if they'll get worn down too quick too.

Regards.
Bob.

Unread post by **myglaren** » 18 Dec 2010, 13:11

One item that has been mentioned with some other makes and models is passive rear wheel steering components being worn and allowing excessive movement resulting in increased tyre wear.
Also the rubber mounting bushes on some subframes, again allowing increased 'twist' and tyre wear.

I'd put inspection of these components at the top of the list.

Also check the make of the tyres. Some wear out much faster than others. A lot of folks stick cheap rubbish tyres on the rear in the belief that they are unimportant

evilally · Unread post by **evilally** » 18 Dec 2010, 16:02

As far I'm aware, the Scenic doesn't have anything as sophisticated as rear steering. If the tyre is worn evenly accross the it's tread, it's unlikely to be a pressure issue as this would result in uneven wear. It could be its just on the original tyres that came with the car, or that someone has rotated tyres from front to rear at some stage.

bobhalliday · Unread post by **bobhalliday** » 18 Dec 2010, 18:05

Hi.
Thanks for the quick replies, I don't think the Scenic has any rear steering either but could have worn rubber bush's.
Both tyres have two deep grooves of just under 2mm depth and 3mm broad in the centre, and the rest of the tyre is bald. Legally there should be at least 1mm treads all over, and 1.6mm over 3/4 of the tyres width.
My main problem is that I never saw the tyres when it was bought. Maybe they were not too hot then either, my XM just hardly wears out rear tyres. All these things will be checked out as soon as possible when new tyres are fitted, thanks again for the helpfull advice.
Regards.

Bob.

Citroenmad · Unread post by **Citroenmad** » 18 Dec 2010, 21:46

Scenic II (which that 56 plate is) are very well known for wearing out rear tyres very fast. They toe in at the rear and wear off the tyres, from the outside edge first, though you often only notice this if the car is on a wheel free 4 poster, when you can see how wedged the rear tyres are.

If you put your hand across the tread of the tyre and then pull your hand towards you it will feel sharper than when you push your hand, as the tyre is feathered.

Our Sceinc II had new front tyres at 18K miles, replaced with the original spec Michelin Energy tyres. I then drove it to the south of France and back (3000) and by the time i got back the rear tyres were on the wear marks at only 21K miles.

I took it to the Renault dealer who tested the rear tracking, they said its toeing in but its within tolerance. Renault has set a huge tolerance on the rear tracking position, there is no adjustment and cars with tracking out of tolerance were fitted with a replacement rear beam - which wont be parallel either.

The service Manager at this Renault dealer told me that he has known Scenics to get through rear tyres in around 7-10K miles when cheaper brands are used. So ours got another pair of Michelins on the rear.

Also, on large bumps you can feel the back of the car sidestep ever so slightly, as the wheel whcih isnt going over the bump forces the car the way the wheels is pointing.

I cant remember how much our Scenic was toeing in, but it was a lot.

One of the many failings which did put a damper on an otherwise good car.

This problem is not Scenic isolated and i dont know why cars are adopting a rear tow in set up. The Renault dealer told me it was to do with stability, though how it could be when the rear tyres are effectively working agaisnt each other, i dont know.

A lot of modern cars do get complaints about excessive rear tyre wear, its something we are going to have to get used to. Maybe its to combat the problem of old tyres on the rear of cars, im not sure!

I know one of our Xms had its original rear tyres replaced at 76K miles and my 206 still had its original rear tyres at 90K miles. Rarely do rear tyres do that on most cars now. 20-40K for rears seems the norm.

My C5 seems pretty hard on rear tyres, as does our estate car, they also seem to jump slightly sideways on large individual bumps, they obviouslys have a similar set up.

bobhalliday · Unread post by **bobhalliday** » 18 Dec 2010, 22:05

Citroenmad wrote:Scenic II (which that 56 plate is) are very well known !"

Thanks Citroenmad for that well written post on the rear tracking of the Scenic.
I'll tell my grand daughter she will need to use good tyres in future. I have a Mk2 XM 2.1 Estate and it just doesn't wear out tyres on the rear very quickly, thank goodness!

Thanks again everyone.

Bob.

bobhalliday · Unread post by **bobhalliday** » 19 Dec 2010, 21:08

Citroenmad wrote: This problem is not Scenic isolated and i dont know why cars are adopting a rear tow in set up. The Renault dealer told me it was to do with stability, though how it could be when the rear tyres are effectively working agaisnt each other, i dont know.

Hi Citroenmad.
Your post had the above sentance, would you know if this would apply to this vehicle?

2004 (04) Renault Clio 1.1 Authentique 5 Dr.

My grand daughter is thinking of trading in for this car and wondered if it had the same problem, my other grand daughter had a Clio, and she thought it was a great car, I myself have never owned a Renault so don't know much about any of them.
Any help would be appreciated.
Regards.

Bob.

Citroenmad · Unread post by **Citroenmad** » 19 Dec 2010, 21:34

No, im sure they don't Bob, ive seen Clios of that shape with original tyres at 60K miles.

Clios tend to be good cars, less problems than the Scenic II. The 1.2 Clio - I hope its the 16v 80bhp and not the 8v 60bhp version? A 60 will be a bit slow, but it depends what your used to.

If its a 1.2 8v Clio it will have a 1.2 badge on the door, if its a 16v it will be badged 16v on the door trim.

evilally · Unread post by **evilally** » 19 Dec 2010, 22:13

I can confirm, it's not a known issue on the Mk2. As said the 8v 60bhp is a slug, what little puff it has is gone by 4,000rpm. The 16v is a much better buy (actually 75bhp

), much more spritely than the 8v and gives the same economy. Personally I would go for the "Dynamique" over the "Authentique" as you get alloys, better suspension and better seats.

Unread post by **myglaren** » 19 Dec 2010, 22:19

8 valve versus 16 valve could have a big impact on a young driver's insurance quote though. A slug may be a tolerable option for a year or two.

Having said that, my youngest daughter did better with a 2.0 16v Turbo Aero-S SAAB 900 than my (older) son with a 306 D-Turbo and still does now she has a newer 900 2.3 cabriolet.

bobhalliday · Unread post by **bobhalliday** » 19 Dec 2010, 22:20

Thanks for the help, I'll put your comments to my girl and hope she makes the best choice.

Regards.

Bob.