Co worker has a three year old Suburban with 29,000 miles...

[JC-DAWG83]

Tires are completely worn out, cord is showing on front tires.  Tire store told him 30,000 miles is all anyone can expect to get out of a set of new SUV tires.

Co worker's wife drives the vehicle and they use it for family trips so it isn't getting any hard use.

[Toasty B]

Tires are completely worn out, cord is showing on front tires.  Tire store told him 30,000 miles is all anyone can expect to get out of a set of new SUV tires.

Co worker's wife drives the vehicle and they use it for family trips so it isn't getting any hard use.

ISH? on a trip to the beach without her W2 husband?

[JC-DAWG83]

Tires are completely worn out, cord is showing on front tires.  Tire store told him 30,000 miles is all anyone can expect to get out of a set of new SUV tires.

Co worker's wife drives the vehicle and they use it for family trips so it isn't getting any hard use.

ISH? on a trip to the beach without her W2 husband?

Yes, she is hot but dumb as a box of rocks.  Not at the beach right now.  You are thinking of Mrs. Smokin who is also pretty hot.

[JimDandyDawg]

I'd find a new tire shop.

[McDonoughDawg]

Sounds like a lack of rotating them and possibly alignment problem

Who runs tires down to the cords?

[DawgNatty]

I'd get some Nittos. I've ran those to 65K on an SUV and probably could have gotten 75K.

[JC-DAWG83]

Sounds like a lack of rotating them and possibly alignment problem

Who runs tires down to the cords?

Those were the first things I asked him about.  All tires are evenly worn so alignment should be good and they have been rotated every 5000 miles.  He didn't see the extent of the wear until last Friday since he rarely drives the vehicle.

New vehicles come with super soft tires so they drive and ride great for test drives and as new vehicles to the owner.  Sadly, those soft rubber compounds don't last very long.  I'm guessing this new set will get him at least 50,000 miles.

[McDonoughDawg]

Sounds like a lack of rotating them and possibly alignment problem

Who runs tires down to the cords?

Those were the first things I asked him about.  All tires are evenly worn so alignment should be good and they have been rotated every 5000 miles.  He didn't see the extent of the wear until last Friday since he rarely drives the vehicle.

New vehicles come with super soft tires so they drive and ride great for test drives and as new vehicles to the owner.  Sadly, those soft rubber compounds don't last very long.  I'm guessing this new set will get him at least 50,000 miles.

All true..

[Milldawg]

Tires are completely worn out, cord is showing on front tires.  Tire store told him 30,000 miles is all anyone can expect to get out of a set of new SUV tires.

Co worker's wife drives the vehicle and they use it for family trips so it isn't getting any hard use.

hearing EVs are also chewing up tires pretty quickly, 30K is not much though....

[Toasty B]

Tires are completely worn out, cord is showing on front tires.  Tire store told him 30,000 miles is all anyone can expect to get out of a set of new SUV tires.

Co worker's wife drives the vehicle and they use it for family trips so it isn't getting any hard use.

hearing EVs are also chewing up tires pretty quickly, 30K is not much though....

sounds bad for the environment

[Milldawg]

Sounds like a lack of rotating them and possibly alignment problem

Who runs tires down to the cords?

his co-worker

[RockmartDawg]

The only SUV I've ever owned had a bigger problem, and that was the fuel requirements. Not only did the thing only get MAYBE 14 mpg on its best day, straight road/interstate, but it required 91 octane or better. I tried cheating it as best as I could, periodically putting 89 or maybe try 87 octane if I had a decent amount of gas in the tank already. If you did that enough it would show, badly, especially if/when you had to cause it to downshift and increase the RPMs for like going up decent inclines, such as that. You'd think the valves and lifters were going to disintegrate, the way they would clatter. That was the most stupid piece of garbage vehicle I've ever had in my entire life.

[JC-DAWG83]

The only SUV I've ever owned had a bigger problem, and that was the fuel requirements. Not only did the thing only get MAYBE 14 mpg on its best day, straight road/interstate, but it required 91 octane or better. I tried cheating it as best as I could, periodically putting 89 or maybe try 87 octane if I had a decent amount of gas in the tank already. If you did that enough it would show, badly, especially if/when you had to cause it to downshift and increase the RPMs for like going up decent inclines, such as that. You'd think the valves and lifters were going to disintegrate, the way they would clatter. That was the most stupid piece of garbage vehicle I've ever had in my entire life.

Range Rover?

[RockmartDawg]

The only SUV I've ever owned had a bigger problem, and that was the fuel requirements. Not only did the thing only get MAYBE 14 mpg on its best day, straight road/interstate, but it required 91 octane or better. I tried cheating it as best as I could, periodically putting 89 or maybe try 87 octane if I had a decent amount of gas in the tank already. If you did that enough it would show, badly, especially if/when you had to cause it to downshift and increase the RPMs for like going up decent inclines, such as that. You'd think the valves and lifters were going to disintegrate, the way they would clatter. That was the most stupid piece of garbage vehicle I've ever had in my entire life.

Range Rover?

Actually, a Lincoln Navigator. It was "supposed" to be the luxury version of the Ford line. But... man... other than the leather seats, it offered nothing "luxury" in my opinion. Even the stereo system was absolutely horrible. The stereo in my old Honda Accord blows it away, and I mean really badly.

I'll borrow a line from an old buddy from Oklahoma that I used to work with. "That Navigator never looked more beautiful than that day when it was in my rear-view mirror".

[JC-DAWG83]

The only SUV I've ever owned had a bigger problem, and that was the fuel requirements. Not only did the thing only get MAYBE 14 mpg on its best day, straight road/interstate, but it required 91 octane or better. I tried cheating it as best as I could, periodically putting 89 or maybe try 87 octane if I had a decent amount of gas in the tank already. If you did that enough it would show, badly, especially if/when you had to cause it to downshift and increase the RPMs for like going up decent inclines, such as that. You'd think the valves and lifters were going to disintegrate, the way they would clatter. That was the most stupid piece of garbage vehicle I've ever had in my entire life.

Range Rover?

Actually, a Lincoln Navigator. It was "supposed" to be the luxury version of the Ford line. But... man... other than the leather seats, it offered nothing "luxury" in my opinion. Even the stereo system was absolutely horrible. The stereo in my old Honda Accord blows it away, and I mean really badly.

I'll borrow a line from an old buddy from Oklahoma that I used to work with. "That Navigator never looked more beautiful than that day when it was in my rear-view mirror".

Wow.  I have an Expedition which is the vehicle the Navigator is based on and while mine doesn't exactly sip fuel, it is bearable.  I get around 17 on the hwy and 13 around town and I can use regular fuel.  Mine is the Eddie Bauer version and the interior is leather and pretty nice and the stereo is one of the best things about it, it sounds great.  It is old but everything works and it runs great.  I wouldn't hesitate to take off on a cross country trip in it.

I've figured out that fuel is probably the least important thing to consider when calculating the cost of owning a vehicle.  If I doubled my fuel mileage I would save around $1500 a year, maybe one and a half to two monthly payments on a new vehicle.

[RockmartDawg]

The only SUV I've ever owned had a bigger problem, and that was the fuel requirements. Not only did the thing only get MAYBE 14 mpg on its best day, straight road/interstate, but it required 91 octane or better. I tried cheating it as best as I could, periodically putting 89 or maybe try 87 octane if I had a decent amount of gas in the tank already. If you did that enough it would show, badly, especially if/when you had to cause it to downshift and increase the RPMs for like going up decent inclines, such as that. You'd think the valves and lifters were going to disintegrate, the way they would clatter. That was the most stupid piece of garbage vehicle I've ever had in my entire life.

Range Rover?

Actually, a Lincoln Navigator. It was "supposed" to be the luxury version of the Ford line. But... man... other than the leather seats, it offered nothing "luxury" in my opinion. Even the stereo system was absolutely horrible. The stereo in my old Honda Accord blows it away, and I mean really badly.

I'll borrow a line from an old buddy from Oklahoma that I used to work with. "That Navigator never looked more beautiful than that day when it was in my rear-view mirror".

Wow.  I have an Expedition which is the vehicle the Navigator is based on and while mine doesn't exactly sip fuel, it is bearable.  I get around 17 on the hwy and 13 around town and I can use regular fuel.  Mine is the Eddie Bauer version and the interior is leather and pretty nice and the stereo is one of the best things about it, it sounds great.  It is old but everything works and it runs great.  I wouldn't hesitate to take off on a cross country trip in it.

I've figured out that fuel is probably the least important thing to consider when calculating the cost of owning a vehicle.  If I doubled my fuel mileage I would save around $1500 a year, maybe one and a half to two monthly payments on a new vehicle.

I will say that I have towed a 12' UHaul trailer back and forth across the whole of America at least twice using it, and it handled it without any added effort. I could never have done that without a vehicle of that caliber. The one I had was a 2001 model. I bought it in 2004. I mention that in the event that particular year model (or near it) had the 91 octane requirement. I did try using 87 octane a few times. If I had a tank of just 87 octane, or almost only just 87 octane, the valves would clatter so bad when going up inclines (I lived out west during that time) that you'd get seriously concerned that you were going to create a mechanical failure. I eventually resorted to mixing 89 octane and 91 octane, when and where possible. But, the requirement for the 91 octane was even written in the user's manual. And it was a valid requirement because that engine told on you, really bad, if/when you didn't use it. You could mix fuels, though, and you'd be completely fine. You just had to watch that you don't get too much of a majority of the lower-octane fuel in the tank.

And, yes, the stereo was pathetic... I mean really bad, especially considering that it was supposed to be the luxury line of that particular vehicle, and by the fact that I had previously owned an Accord and already knew how great their stereo system sounded. I compared the two and the Lincoln was nowhere remotely close.

I also saw not too large of a difference in mileage when driving in town versus the highway. I used the best synthetic motor oil you can buy (Amsoil) to try to help as much as possible. I still only got 14... maybe 15 mpg... out on the highway. I guess it must have been just under 10 mpg when driving in town.

One thing I remember about it was that it didn't have spark plugs but something they called "igniters" (I think that is the correct term). They were to last to about 120,000 miles. But you would have eventually had to replace them, and they were said to be very expensive. I got rid of it before the time of coming to that bridge.