9 year old tires - your thoughts?

My front Michilens Pilots were manufactured in 2001. They have plenty of tread left, but do they have the needed strength for DE use? I have had them at Mid Ohio two times this year, but now knowing they were made in 2001, I am a bit reluctant to go back, however I'm not a tire expert. Is this cause for concern at the track?

I doubt it's a safety issue if they're not visibly (and deeply) cracking as much as reduced traction levels. You'd be amazed at the difference between fresh and dried rubber. If you were OK with how they felt, I'd probably just keep driving on them.

I think I'd be reluctant to expose them to the heat/abuse/stress of the track. Last thing I would want is a failure under braking at the end of the back straight.. hello trouble! Low stress street driving, they would be ok.. maybe. But really.. 9 year old tires? I think you might want to invest in some new ones.

Have to agree with racer. The cost of new rubber is far less than putting the car out of commission.

Quotes source post: 7820884

Before I bought my 03 Turbo (used) last year, dealer replaced all 4 tires. Tires were original, but too old, even at 6+ years old. Replace the tires. Whether you track the car or just drive it around town. If you don't drive the car leave them on, but just don't drive the car. Sincerely, Macster.

Discard them. Porsche says: "Considering the performance capabilities of a Porsche, under no circumstances should tires older than 6 years be used."

There was a very disturbing news item about a year ago of a family who bought 'new' tires from a dealer--and they were already about 6 years old, sitting all that time on the shelf. Within a week or two there was a terrible crash, directly linked to the aged tires. Tires are relatively inexpensive items on a car that make a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE in how it performs, not to mention safety. We often take tires for granted because the technology has been so successful--when is the last time you had a blowout? Probably can't even remember. So we become complacent and don't do anything about it--until something dreadful happens.

I would also suggest new tires. While they may seem visibly okay, you have no idea of potential defects that are not visible... And drive the car more.... I am told that you should not get more than 2 years out of a set of rear tires

I bought a much older Turbo from it's original owner 4 years ago (19k miles on the car if I remember correctly). It had tires that were close to 18 years old. I drove across the country on them, and replaced soon after I got home. Michelin Pilot Sports (or any other tire that Porsche would fit on a car) aren't cheap tires made to a low price point. I sincerely doubt there's a safety issue with them, assuming you don't see any de-lamination/signs of a broken belt, etc. I would change them for the improvement in traction, but don't think you're taking much of a risk.

9 years = I wont drive on them ESPECIALY AT A DE!!!

Quotes source post: 7821024

I think this is the news story you're thinking of. The tread separated on a 9 year old tire which had been sitting on the retailer's shelf for 4 years before it was purchased. Driver and passenger were killed. http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4826897 I think the general rule of thumb is a 6-10 year expiration date for tires. This is from Tirerack http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete...sp?techid=138&

We've heard the arguments. We've heard the opinions. We've heard Porsche's official position. Now that there have been several postings, how do you all vote: If you believe that 6 years should be the maximum life span of tires on a car, please vote yes or no. Thanks.

Yes.

James, is your life worth more than saving $500 - $600 on new front tires? Replace them!

yes

this is like Fear Factor

Replace them....especially if you want to go "flat out". In all seriousness, if they were used enough to keep the oils in the rubber viable...then they would be bald. To me, 9 year old tires with tread on them mean dry rubber...which is very unsafe...even for the highway - and especially on the track.

Thanks guys. Didn't even realize the age until the porsche tech at the dealer pointed it out to me recently. Does a CPO car have to have tires of a certain age? I bought it in Nov of last year.

I would think so. They are picky about the porsche rated tires so being picky about having a safe tire should be even more important. Might bring it up to them and just say you think they missed something on certifying the car. Mostly don't throw them into defensive and see if they will correct it by changing the tires.

Ugh. I wouldn't use 9 or 10 year old tires on my honda sedan on the street, let alone in a performance application. Replace them for sure.

When I purchased my 996 in October of 2009 it had tires from 2001. I drove the car a couple hourdred miles all winter, in the spring new tires and service. The car rides so much better on new tires. When I was part of the SCCA back in the mid 90's a tire tech guy from Yokohoma said tires have a 7years shelf life used or not and tires over 7 years should be replaced. There are no cheep tires for a 996 i admit but I'd reather have cheeper new tires than expenseive old tires.

YES!

Quotes source post: 7821608

I just read the CPO checklist from the previous owner and when I bought it. The tire section changed slightly. The one "Revised 8/2006" states that "All four tires must be of the same brand, speed rating, specification code, and age." However the latest CPO checklist that was used in November for my car sates the same, except age is not part of the statement.

Last weekend while attending a DE at LCMT, Sunday we had major rain, and put on my street tires (Michelin Pilot Sport 2's). The front tires are 6 years old and the rears are new, although both front and rear tires have deep treads, the front tires did not provide nearly the same level of grip as the rear. P-car owners should pay more attention to the front tires as they tend to wear very slowly, and should be replaced at the six year, like the best before date on food.. Why take the risk of eating something that may make you sick.... Having expereinced reduced front grip under less stress in the rain than you would normally put on in the dry further illustrates the risk and reduced driving pleasure you will experience with fresh tires. I would strongly recommend replacing the front tires with a matiching pair before attending another DE event. The cost versus benefit is unquestionable...

Quotes source post: 7821834

Interesting because the front tires did seem to give up much quicker than the rear. Maybe that's why I had so much understeer. Agreed on new tires before next DE. I'm thinking of the Conti's vs. the PS2s. I know many have used the Sumi's, but as a third tier tire, I'm hesitant to use them.

James, If the price is not THAT much of a deal for you, I opt against the Sumi's... great tire for the price, but not what I would buy if I had the $ for something better...

If you want or expect the tires to perform like new, replace them. Car and tire manufacturers, and those in the business of selling them cannot control how they are stored, used or cared for so it's their recommendation to insure safety that you replace them after a few years. If it was an undisputed safety issue, safety inspection stations would not pass a car with tires made before a certain date. It's basicly about wanting other people to insure your safety and not wanting to be the one to take responsability for you own actions. Finally, I sell tires and will recommend replacement if I see any reason at all to. If someone has any issue at all with anything that could be possibly even in the most remote circumstances be even slightly related to tire performance, I don't want to get involved. I want to keep my house, it's paid for. Think about replacing that motorcycle or other helmet as well if it's over 5 years old, and that dynamic climbing rope and the static rappeling rope as the manufacturer recommends. I personality feel, I can better judge what is safe or good for myself better than anyone else. I know my vehicles, I know my capabilities and limitations. I also know I'm in the minority. On an aside, being at Speed Week on the Bonneville Salt, I spoke to a friend that restored his fathers 'liner that crashed in the '50s. He told me he sold a dozen old tires for $500 each which will be resued. I saw many old cars run and have in the past, some with tires that I suspect are at least 30 years old and possibly 50. 200mph+ on 50 year old rubber? The tech inspection these vehicles go through is a very long and arduous process, btw.

@Dan I actually blew a rear tire the other day (didn't chunk, just pop and hiss, I think was due to alignment getting out of whack)

Quotes source post: 7821806

Someone was asleep at the wheel if your car was CPO'd with what are most likely the orginal tires. It is amzing that they don't show any signs of rot. It's the dealer being cheap. Just another example of the importance of buying an older car with some miles on it. Contis are decent. That's what I have on my car. They were installes when my car was CPO'd.

Replace the tires! Note to self: Check the manufacture date of my DE student's tires before getting into the car with them.

If in doubt,pitch it out

Quotes source post: 7822025

I don't think there is doubt in my mind what I would choose between a fresh set of sumi vs an old PS2. I just ran with fresh sumis at Watkins Glen DE and had absolutely no problems at all. It is going back this weekend as well. I felt my brakes go slightly mushy before the tires and my brake fluid was flushed with Motul RBF 600 in June. In short, Sumis held up better than the brake fluid.