Chuck,

I would not accept anything more than 12 mos. old. I am guessing you're not putting a ton of miles on your 993, so the chance of the fronts wearing out before you're out of date is your call. Assuming 5k/yr, you've got 4yrs.

I am a loyal TireRack customer (at least 10 sets of tires) and would be VERY SURPRISED if they did not rectify this situation.

 

Thanks for all the responses. The tires are going on the Boxster S that we bought new in 2001. It is one of five cars my wife and I share and has only had 18,062 miles put on it in the last 9 years. These tires will, in all likelihood, not wear out prior to them being replaced due to age.

I'll push forward with the customer service representative. She defended the 2 year old tires when I talked to her yesterday and didn't call back. We'll see.

 

IMHO, how/where the tires were stored over the past 2 years is everything.

I was racing with my son a couple of years back in FL. He was way off his pace, lap times were all over the place (odd, since he can turn laps within a tenth all day) and nohting we did to the chassis seemed to matter.
The tires were a spec controlled tire, marked and distributed to teams.

As it turns out, some competitors were given tires that were stored in a warehouse attic (re: baked) for almost 2 years, even though they were boxed and plastic wrapped; some competitors were given tires that were only a few months old.
Same manufacturer, same compound, just different date codes.

On a street car, I would be less concerned.

 

If Chuck drives 15,000 miles a year, the older tires won't matter, but if he puts on 5,000 miles per year, that's a user life of 6 years, so I think that two year old tires make a difference in terms of "aging" the tires by another two years. It gets worse the less miles he puts on the car per year. Tires definitely have a shelf life unlike, say, an exhaust system, suspension arm or brake rotor.

 

Isn't it TR that says tires shouldn't be installed if they are older than 3 years and they should be retired at 6 years? If you won't mile them out in 4 years I would exchange them.

 

I purchased a set for my mercedes from them and 8k (6months) miles later, they developed visual cracks between the thread blocks. Making them appear they were over 10 years old. After many fustrating calls to customer service, they send me a new set that they eventually charged on my credit card becasue the cracks on the rubber were "normal". By the way they did offer a 50 dollar credit on my next purchase to keep me as a future customer.
I now purchase all my tires at Discount tires.

 

I honestly believe that it have no major significance if the tires are two years old if they were stored properly.

I've read reviews comparing the 10 year old "brand new" tires that have been stored properly with brand new which has not found any significant measurable difference in performance.

The key word is how they were stored.

Then I can understand that people want new tires. It is after all what you paid for. Otherwise you might as well buy a pair of light used for the pittance of the new price. That in itself is not a bad idea.

 

I called customer service this morning to check the status of my call last night. A different representative told me that the warehouse hadn't gotten back to them yet. She also told me that Tire Rack took possession of the tires in March of this year. That leaves a year and four month gap from when the tires were manufactured and Tire Rack got them.

 

I worked in a grocery store in high school and rotation is the key for not having old product on the shelf. Three year old tires tells me that something fell through the cracks because having 3 year old inventory is about 2 years and 6 months too long in the world of tires.

Why would Tire Rack even accept 2+ year old tires from a manufacture or disti channel? Most tires I have bought are about 6 months old, or newer.

I'd have them replaced based on only driving that car 2000 miles per year.

 

I gotta believe that there is clause in their distribution agreement with the manufacture that they do not have accept tires past a certain date. Just good business.

 

about 5 years ago mercedes and I think ford began putting an age limit of 6 years for tires no matter what the use. seems to be a rule of thumb now, even from tirerack on their website-

Previously unused, never-mounted tires should not be put into service if they are more than six (6) years old even if they were properly stored.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete...jsp?techid=184

so one of the above posts about paying 50% seems about right.

 

Because 99.97% of the public doesn't even know that tires have manufacturing dates molded into the sidewall. Seriously.

So it's us, the .03%, that look out for things like this and make noise if it fails to meet out established parameters.


Andreas

 

I would run them without question. Heck, I have new tires and I admit I don't even know the manufacture date. (or care)

I am amused by guys running 10-20 year old cars demanding "sparkly fresh" brand new tires. They are not vegetables. Take a step back.

So are the fresh tire guys also demanding freshly manufactured bearings, hoses, oil, grease, tie rod ends, etc., etc., too? Is NOS a bad thing now?

 

I would run them without a question, based on the amount of miles I drive and the frequency I go through tires. If shelf life is 6 years and they are 3 years old, I would most likely be replacing the tires within that 3 year period. I get on average of 7-8k on rears, and replace all 4 at 14-16k. Thats 8 years of clock work science with tires on my 95 C4. Brands make no difference.

At 2k driven per year, the Boxster is not getting milege out the pocket book. Thats a matter of replacing the tires 3 years early, if the shelf life is 6 years.

Easy solution to the issue: Drive that Boxster some more!

 

Didn't you tell me my tires were 2 years old?