I've never had p zeros and remember my father complaining about them on his Carreras. I recently purchased my 3rd 911 (a 2010) and, for the first time, I have Pirellis and hate them. They have 75% tread left and they are noisier than contis and michelins that I've had. I don't like the feel of the Pirellis either. I agree with other posts that suggest changing to another brand.

 

Actually doing that right now. Switching to Michelin's. The alignment was fine. Just the tires.

 

I have the same car, same tires, same story. '10 C4S, P zero's, the rears were very loud and had to be replaced at 10K miles. Fronts were fine.

 

Thanks. Did just that. I usually get about 10-12k out of my previous cars. Thought 7,200 was really early. Replaced Tuesday. All is well again. For another 7,200 miles

 

Unless you are a very aggressive driver 7200 miles is not normal tire life. I experienced around 8K mile rear tire life with my Turbo and this was less than half the usual mileage. Of course, when these worn out tires were new and being fitted I had the alignment done and was assured afterwards the alignment was fine. (I never received a printout and that is always cause to doubt the alignment.)

Anyhow, I had new rear tires installed and the alignment done again -- at a different dealer -- and sure enough the alignment was found to be out.

So, I have to seriously doubt that the alignment is fine. I would have to see the actual alignment numbers (graphic) printout. Without this there is no real proof what the alignment is.

(In one case, on another board, an owner had a problem with his car's road feel and more than one responder diagnosed the cause as a bad alignment. The owner took the car back several times to the same place, each time the alignment was fine. But the behavior persisted and the owner finally went to another shop where the car was aligned and the alignment was found to be not fine. The first shop was just telling the owner the alignment was fine to get him to go away.)

 

I agree with Macster on this one. Upon internet reading, it sounds like excessive toe is what wears out tires prematurely, as this would make sense. Porsche gives a range for rear toe in and maybe the original poster is on the high side of acceptable.
Does anybody know what rear toe in is supposed to accomplish? I aligned my 2010 C2 myself and adjusted for 0 toe in, the car handles just fine. We used to drive our old solid rear axle cars without toe in and we all survived.

 

To point out the obvious the cars are aligned stationary with settings that then one has to believe allow the wheels/tires to assume optimum alignment with car underway.

These cars have independent rear suspension that consist of various links/arms which have rubber (or some kind of somewhat pliant material) bushings and as a result the bushings have some give.

Thus underway the forces produced can cause these bushings to compress or give and allow the links and arms to change their position not directly associated with the suspension moving up and down.

IOWs, the cars are "misaligned" on the alignment rack so they will be aligned when on the road.

As for the solid rear axles of course since the axles were well solid there was no appreciable change in wheel/tire position from on the alignment rack vs. on the road and underway.

Rear toe in to me suggests that the car's rear wheels/tires can move backtward a bit while underway. There is the question too of what happens in a turn. Now I'm not thinking of say that favorite cloverleaf turn one takes at something above the recommended speed but the uncountable turns that is the the slight changes in direction that one makes constantly as the car goes down the road. The car is to some degree or another turning almost constantly. The toe in present with the car on the rack turns into something else -- less or possibly no toe in -- when underway.

I have had my cars aligned numerous times. There are it appears two basic lines of thought regarding alignment. There is the -- my words -- dial in a lot (relatively speaking) of rear toe in or take it easy on the rear toe in. In the case of the former I do not know the reasoning behind this more toe in other than it might play a role in high speed/high cornering speed driving, at the expense of rear tire life.

In the case of the latter, I can say that on the street the alignment with less rear toe in, minimal toe in (I've never had the cars come out with zero rear toe in) the cars feel stable and handle just fine under every driving scenario I throw at them from the mundane grocery store run to the mountain backroad blast. And the icing on the cake is the rear tires do not wear out in 8K miles. In some cases I've managed 20K miles or better out of the rear tires. In one case a rear tire picked up a nail and road hazard coverage paid for a new rear tire because tire still had 3mm of tread depth left and it had almost 23K miles on the rear tires.