Canvassing opinions on a recent issue that has cropped up after I sold a set of tyres to another enthusiast. They were bought unseen (via a third party) and were described correctly as 6mm tread depth with no damage, cracks, cuts or nicks.
When the guy went to a tyre fitter they refused to fit them because they were too old ( one pair were 02 and the others 99)
As the sidewalls were perfect and there were no internal or internal faults visible, what does the forum think?
They came off a low mile 993TT so they've obviously had a bit of exercise, but most of the time the car was a garage queen.
TIA for your views

 

Porsche states, in their TSBs: "Tires should not be older than six years from date of manufacture."

That's all the input I can give...

 

I think 8 years is truly pushing it. Given how rubber dries out, cracks, and/or generally degrades, I think the tire installer probably did his customer a favor. That said, he did buy a tire with 40% of the tread depth already used up; if he didn't think to ask the age of the tire, I think fairness would dictate that he's out of luck. Buying a half used-up tire indicates to me a willingness to buy "as-is".

I was asking a similar question here. How long is too long for a new tire?

 

I think a refund would be in order.....

 

Tell him to throw them away and give his money back. How much could it be?

 

Having just gotten back from the tire shop just a minute ago. I replaced rears only that were about 60% gone and only 1 year old.. Old tires can make a great car feel less than stellar. I am always amazed at how good any car feels riding on brand new rubber. I have never understood why anyone would buy used tires for a performance car? Just makes no sense to me.

 

hmmmmmmmmmm
you've hit subject that has a lot of conentional wisdo advice, but little empirical evidence to support a position.
one data point,
i recently bought a 96 Carrera with 18K miles that still had original front tires.
lottsa tread left, no sidewall cracking, no apparent visual issues,
BUT
they had obviously noticeably reduced grip as compared with new tires.
I don't think the old tires will fail catastrophically, just because of their age, but their performance would kinda suck.

I know i'd be unhappy to buy tires and find out they were "old".
in fact i did buy tires and found out they were old.................................
the car also had "new" rear tires installed 1 year before i bought it, too bad the DOT code shows that they were maufactured in 2000.
That means the tire shop sold and installed tires that were 6 years old.

give the guy his money back.

be safe

craig

 

If I was the buyer, I would chalk it down to experience, I certainly wouldn't ask for my money back if I bought something that was as described.

A magazine in the UK (think it was "Which?") compared the braking performance of a car with brand new and year-old tyres. The new tyres performed noticeably better in the braking test.

 

The current EVO has a performance tire test and they said the same thing.

 

Thanks for the feedback, guys.
I have discovered that the German Federation of Tyre Manufacturers have recommended a 10 year limit on the age of tyres and that Bridgestone recommend that tyres from stock should not be fitted to cars (ie for the first time) if they are more than 5 years old.
What galls me is that I threw the tyres in with the alloys (a brand new set of Turbo 1 used for a few months) and there was no consideration paid for the tyres on their own!
Refund for what? Strikes me my buyer is a bit greedy