Tyres - 10 year old tyres on 987.1 from reputable specialist - Page 4 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

Hi all, I purchased my first Porsche a couple of weekends ago, a 987.1 Cayman S. I’ve had a smile for each of the 800 miles I’ve already put on it in, with the exception of a few metres when the back stepped out going around a dry roundabout in 2nd gear at less than 3,000 rpm! Having checked the tyres I’ve found that the rear left is from 2012 with the rest being 2014 and 2015 (fronts). They’re Bridgestone Potenzas and whilst it wasn’t a warm evening I’d been driving for some time and it was above 5c. Tread levels are 5mm or above on all four corners. I have three questions that I’d really appreciate some thoughts on: 1) is it acceptable that the specialist sold the vehicle with tyres of this age? If not, what’s my best course of action? 2) is the tyre age likely to be the cause of it stepping out at relatively low speed/revs? 3) what is the recommended replacement tyre? The car is used all year round and will be doing about 5k mile a year (that’s if I can stop making up excuses to go for a drive every day!) Thanks very much in advance for any advice, I’m aware the tyres are something I could and should have looked at before buying the car but I overlooked that with all the excitement.

1. They are just on the cusp of the legal limit then. If the tread has fallen below 1.6 mm and the seller knew via an MOT report then consider this case.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-h... but its your property now. 2. You need to get them changed as that effect is what is reported to have happened in that recent death of a driver. 3. https://www.michelin.co.uk/auto/tyres/michelin-pil... https://www.blackcircles.com/tyres/brands/michelin...

Order tyres from a shop. Turn up when they arrive and do massive burnouts on the old rubber before fitting the new tyres. Piece of mind - tick Smile on your dial - tick.

Christ you are lucky to be alive driving around on 10 yr old rubber. Personally I would want to be on tyres over 5 years old. Get them changed ASAP and dont scrimp on the 4 patches of rubber that keep you on the road

If you ask the tyre manufacturer they would almost certainly say they would not recommend use beyond 5 years old. The specialist will know that perfectly well. They will of course also tell you that if they had changed them the car would have been £1k more expensive. But yes, in consideration of the well known drop off in performance of old tyres they were bang out of order to sell a car like that with such old boots on it IMO. Cheapskate b ks "used mota" dealer behaviour.

julian987R said: 1. They are just on the cusp of the legal limit then. If the tread has fallen below 1.6 mm and the seller knew via an MOT report then consider this case.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-h... but its your property now. 2. You need to get them changed as that effect is what is reported to have happened in that recent death of a driver. 3. https://www.michelin.co.uk/auto/tyres/michelin-pil... https://www.blackcircles.com/tyres/brands/michelin... Did you read what he said, all above 5mm.

I actually think the 987 likes to stick its arse out. Ours did it a few times at this time of year and it had new tyres on. No flash from the traction control either and at circa 20 mph on a roundabout

From page 464 of the Cayman R thread: IanB_76 said: julian987R said: ajondyh said: Another one bites the dust https://www.copart.co.uk/lot/67385561/clean-title-... Blimey that is a heck of a smash. Hope those involved were ok. That windscreen looks like a head went through it? It says it is repairable and once done worth £40K, seems optimistic to me considering that panel gap Collecting Cars one. I'm sad to say that is (or was) my car It happened a few weeks back on the way down to the Goodwood Breakfast Club. Enjoying a drive down some nice twisty roads to meet a friend in Midhurst, only to have the back end step out in a big way like never before and despite my best efforts to try and catch it, I ended up in a ditch at 50mph and must have hit all manner of bushes and something hard that did the damage to the pillars and screen. As for the incident itself, I wasn't driving aggressively and was probably in 4th coming out of the bend. The road was damp in places as it was about 7.15am, probably around 10 degrees. My tyres were 5-6 Yr old Pilot Supersports with about 3mm on the rears. In the whole year I've had it I haven't had the back end step out like it did, so maybe a greasy road. Either way, it didn't end well. These mid-engined cars can bite! Needless to say I will be looking to do some more limit driving or a PEC course in the future. Although the damage is bad, I got away with little more than a few cuts and a bruised ego! Obviously completely gutted about the car, but the insurance company were good to deal with and paid out within a month. I only had the car just under a year, but did 9000 smile-filled miles and got a payout that was more than I paid when I bought it. So despite the incident, my Porsche love hasn't ended and I hope to be back in another at some point. Most likely another R, but maybe something else. There were a few things I didn't get round to doing, like a track day or the NC500 so I still need to scratch that itch. And if anyone is considering selling a manual R with buckets, then drop me a message. Stay safe out there! Replace at five years maximum for tyres, irrespective of how good/pristine they look, or indeed how much tread they have left (what planet are you on Julian ? ) As I’ve suggested before, if your car doesn’t do a huge annual mileage, sell the tyres at 3-4 years old when they’ve still got a decent amount of tread left on them, pocket the dish and put it towards a brand new set of grippy tyres. There’s always a polisher out there looking for tyres, which will enable you the driver to drive around on tyres with optimal grip.

supersport said: julian987R said: 1. They are just on the cusp of the legal limit then. If the tread has fallen below 1.6 mm and the seller knew via an MOT report then consider this case.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-h... but its your property now. 2. You need to get them changed as that effect is what is reported to have happened in that recent death of a driver. 3. https://www.michelin.co.uk/auto/tyres/michelin-pil... https://www.blackcircles.com/tyres/brands/michelin... Did you read what he said, all above 5mm. Yes I am just stating the minimum requirements for when a dealer should be disclosing info. Makes no odds anyway, they need changing.

Slippydiff said: From page 464 of the Cayman R thread: IanB_76 said: julian987R said: ajondyh said: Another one bites the dust https://www.copart.co.uk/lot/67385561/clean-title-... Blimey that is a heck of a smash. Hope those involved were ok. That windscreen looks like a head went through it? It says it is repairable and once done worth £40K, seems optimistic to me considering that panel gap Collecting Cars one. I'm sad to say that is (or was) my car It happened a few weeks back on the way down to the Goodwood Breakfast Club. Enjoying a drive down some nice twisty roads to meet a friend in Midhurst, only to have the back end step out in a big way like never before and despite my best efforts to try and catch it, I ended up in a ditch at 50mph and must have hit all manner of bushes and something hard that did the damage to the pillars and screen. As for the incident itself, I wasn't driving aggressively and was probably in 4th coming out of the bend. The road was damp in places as it was about 7.15am, probably around 10 degrees. My tyres were 5-6 Yr old Pilot Supersports with about 3mm on the rears. In the whole year I've had it I haven't had the back end step out like it did, so maybe a greasy road. Either way, it didn't end well. These mid-engined cars can bite! Needless to say I will be looking to do some more limit driving or a PEC course in the future. Although the damage is bad, I got away with little more than a few cuts and a bruised ego! Obviously completely gutted about the car, but the insurance company were good to deal with and paid out within a month. I only had the car just under a year, but did 9000 smile-filled miles and got a payout that was more than I paid when I bought it. So despite the incident, my Porsche love hasn't ended and I hope to be back in another at some point. Most likely another R, but maybe something else. There were a few things I didn't get round to doing, like a track day or the NC500 so I still need to scratch that itch. And if anyone is considering selling a manual R with buckets, then drop me a message. Stay safe out there! Replace at five years maximum for tyres, irrespective of how good/pristine they look, or indeed how much tread they have left (what planet are you on Julian ? ) As I’ve suggested before, if your car doesn’t do a huge annual mileage, sell the tyres at 3-4 years old when they’ve still got a decent amount of tread left on them, pocket the dish and put it towards a brand new set of grippy tyres. There’s always a polisher out there looking for tyres, which will enable you the driver to drive around on tyres with optimal grip. You appear to be quoting me yet your comments seem to relate to Ian_B76. Unsure what you are on about to be honest….but for ease, yep I guess, I’m sold, <insert response that meets your approval>

julian987R said: Yes I am just stating the minimum requirements for when a dealer should be disclosing info. Makes no odds anyway, they need changing. No you said at 5mm they were marginal.

I'd buy new tyres all round. Yes, it's a bit irritating, but not as irritating as if the dealer had spotted them, replaced them all with new (rubbish) tyres, and then been firmer on price "because it's got new tyres".

InitialDave said: I'd buy new tyres all round. Yes, it's a bit irritating, but not as irritating as if the dealer had spotted them, replaced them all with new (rubbish) tyres, and then been firmer on price "because it's got new tyres". I suspect it was probably the dealer who picked up the part worn tyres and fitted them to the car.

julian987R said: You appear to be quoting me yet your comments seem to relate to Ian_B76. Unsure what you are on about to be honest….but for ease, yep I guess, I’m sold, <insert response that meets your approval> I was quoting from another thread in which Ian_B76 stated he thought the aged tyres on his Cayman R may have been responsible for him crashing the car. I quoted your comment so Ian's comments were taken in context, nothing more, nothing less. You however have suggested the OP's tyres are just on the cusp of the legal wear limit of 1.6mm when in fact he clearly stated they are all 5mm, but not content with that you appear to be suggesting reporting the vendor for supplying the purchaser with a car with tyres that were on or close to the limit, and that he'd done so knowing the car had been MOT'd ... I quote you verbatim : julian987R said: 1. They are just on the cusp of the legal limit then. If the tread has fallen below 1.6 mm and the seller knew via an MOT report then consider this case.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-h... but its your property now So all you've actually done is muddied the waters with a less than straightforward response to the OP's question ...

BertBert said: julian987R said: Yes I am just stating the minimum requirements for when a dealer should be disclosing info. Makes no odds anyway, they need changing. No you said at 5mm they were marginal. I didn't say that.

Slippydiff said: julian987R said: You appear to be quoting me yet your comments seem to relate to Ian_B76. Unsure what you are on about to be honest….but for ease, yep I guess, I’m sold, <insert response that meets your approval> I was quoting from another thread in which Ian_B76 stated he thought the aged tyres on his Cayman R may have been responsible for him crashing the car. I quoted your comment so Ian's comments were taken in context, nothing more, nothing less. You however have suggested the OP's tyres are just on the cusp of the legal wear limit of 1.6mm when in fact he clearly stated they are all 5mm, but not content with that you appear to be suggesting reporting the vendor for supplying the purchaser with a car with tyres that were on or close to the limit, and that he'd done so knowing the car had been MOT'd ... I quote you verbatim : julian987R said: 1. They are just on the cusp of the legal limit then. If the tread has fallen below 1.6 mm and the seller knew via an MOT report then consider this case.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-h... but its your property now So all you've actually done is muddied the waters with a less than straightforward response to the OP's question ... Not really, at all. I replied to draw attention to the tyres being way too old, and that some restitution might be possible if the seller knew that their age had been flagged in an MOT and had not actioned upon it. and then gave example of the fishtailing. quite what there is muddying the waters. I feel you are being a bit bent out of shape here over nothing and purposely trying to find fault as opposed to a thanks for even participating and kickstarting the conversation. If you don't agree with my points, fine, and please correct me in a gentlemanly manner. Best regards

Just ordering these for fitting tomorrow afternoon.

Had something similar on a set of Continentals. It was not long after buying my 987S. Tyres weren’t that old (car was only 4 years old at the time) and 4 to 5mm left on the rears - had just picked my son up from school after a spirited drive and was turning right on a roundabout on little throttle. Found a few suggestions on the Internet that the Continentals were generally pretty poor once they were worn - most tyre tests only tell you how good they are when brand new! After that I bought a set of Michelin PS2 that were faultless. Replaced them 18 months ago with a set of PS4 - they weren’t worn out but were almost 9 years old at this point and I thought I was pushing my luck.

julian987R said: Not really, at all. I replied to draw attention to the tyres being way too old, and that some restitution might be possible if the seller knew that their age had been flagged in an MOT and had not actioned upon it. and then gave example of the fishtailing. quite what there is muddying the waters. I feel you are being a bit bent out of shape here over nothing and purposely trying to find fault as opposed to a thanks for even participating and kickstarting the conversation. If you don't agree with my points, fine, and please correct me in a gentlemanly manner. Best regards Which bit of "They are just on the cusp of the legal limit then" have I misconstrued Julian ? There is no mandatory time limit for the replacement of tyres, so your comments can only be construed as relating to their tread depth, which the OP clearly stated they were all at 5mm. Yet again you're accusing me of getting bent out of shape, when the opposite is true, you've made an erroneous comment because you failed to read the OP's post properly, and it not the first time you've posted something inaccurate or nonsensical. No one is, least of all me , is "trying to find fault", you posted a comment erroneously and I and others have corrected you. So stop getting bent out of shape, get over yourself and deal with it. And as for the other guff about being grateful to for you participating and kickstarting the conversation. Seriously ? Get real Julian.

Slippydiff said: julian987R said: Not really, at all. I replied to draw attention to the tyres being way too old, and that some restitution might be possible if the seller knew that their age had been flagged in an MOT and had not actioned upon it. and then gave example of the fishtailing. quite what there is muddying the waters. I feel you are being a bit bent out of shape here over nothing and purposely trying to find fault as opposed to a thanks for even participating and kickstarting the conversation. If you don't agree with my points, fine, and please correct me in a gentlemanly manner. Best regards Which bit of "They are just on the cusp of the legal limit then" have I misconstrued Julian ? There is no mandatory time limit for the replacement of tyres, so your comments can only be construed as relating to their tread depth, which the OP clearly stated they were all at 5mm. Yet again you're accusing me of getting bent out of shape, when the opposite is true, you've made an erroneous comment because you failed to read the OP's post properly, and it not the first time you've posted something inaccurate or nonsensical. No one is, least of all me , is "trying to find fault", you posted a comment erroneously and I and others have corrected you. So stop getting bent out of shape, get over yourself and deal with it. And as for the other guff about being grateful to for you participating and kickstarting the conversation. Seriously ? Get real Julian. As they say, I don't have a dog in this fight, but you definitely said marginal Julian in relation to the tread depth. If that's not what you meant, then I assume you miss-spoke.

I’m sure there are a massive number of cars running on tyres that are 10+ years old - especially low mileage classic, collectibles and prestige cars. The external condition and tread depth can look fine, but the constituents in the rubber and carcass will no doubt be deteriorating. Suggested life expiry seems to vary between 5-10 years.

MitchW12 said: 1) is it acceptable that the specialist sold the vehicle with tyres of this age? If not, what’s my best course of action? 2) is the tyre age likely to be the cause of it stepping out at relatively low speed/revs? 3) what is the recommended replacement tyre? The car is used all year round and will be doing about 5k mile a year (that’s if I can stop making up excuses to go for a drive every day!) 1) Yes. Sucks, but if they'd changed all 4 tyres the sticker price probably would have been £2500 higher anyway. If they weren't flagged as too worn or perishing on a previous MOT then the vendor is golden. If they WERE an MOT advisory I suppose you could go and have an argument if you really want one. The lesson is to check in the future and negotiate at buying time. If I were you I'd now just fit tyres of your choice and move on. 2) It's going to be a contributing factor for sure. New rubber won't prevent it but old tyres are terrible in general - and I gather Boxsters/Caymans are particularly susceptible to suffering from them. My 986 came with 8 year old fronts. Mid-level wear, bit feathered, bit perished. The noise they made was ungodly and the difference in handling between when I collected and when I replaced them (and had an alignment done) was night and day. 3) You've probably had some good recommendations, but for mine, N rated P Zeros were OEM fitment and I'm quite happy with new ones, but people speak really highly of MIchelin Pilot Sport 4 S on 987s.

MitchW12 said: Just ordering these for fitting tomorrow afternoon. Missed this before I posted. Good choice Enjoy!

julian987R said: 1. They are just on the cusp of the legal limit then.

Good choice on the tyres, wouldn't surprise me if you find someone who'd want the old ones off you, too.

MitchW12 said: Just ordering these for fitting tomorrow afternoon. who supplied them note inc fitting are they N rated

Interesting reading ...in my case have a garage queen 987 Spyder with just 13900 miles from new ,the tyres are Michelin PS2 and are 11yrs old and around 4/5 mil all round still have the spikes on the tyres and not a crack in sight on any of them ...so from the posts should be scraped ..but would love to get PS4S but told not available in 19" Porsche N rated so need to go back to PS2 which reading are old tec car not under any warranty so suppose go non N rated any recommends ..recent clean mot no reference to year on tyres .. Edited by woodysnr on Thursday 24th February 15:57

woodysnr said: Interesting reading ...in my case have a garage queen 987 Spyder with just 13900 miles from new ,the tyres are Michelin PS2 and are 11yrs old and around 4/5 mil all round still have the spikes on the tyres and not a crack in sight on any of them ...so from the posts should be scraped ..but would love to get PS4S but told not available in 19" Porsche N rated so need to go back to PS2 which reading are old tec car not under any warranty so suppose go non N rated any recommends ..recent clean mot no reference to year on tyres .. Are you intending keeping a Porsche warranty on the car ? If not, just fit PS4S or Supersports and enjoy what are vastly superior tyres and ignore the N rated gospel. Just ensure you buy the correct speed and load rated tyres. If you’re concerned about your insurance company rejecting a claim in the event of an accident and using the lack of N rating as a get out clause to avoid paying out, just ask your insurer directly and make sure you get email confirmation of their response. Ultimately if they won’t insure the car due to the lack of N rated tyres, find an insurer that will.

BertBert said: As they say, I don't have a dog in this fight, but you definitely said marginal Julian in relation to the tread depth. If that's not what you meant, then I assume you miss-spoke. Linked article also suggests otherwise (also about legal limit )

woodysnr said: who supplied them note inc fitting are they N rated This was Asda Tyres… but like Black Circles by all accounts, they use local fitters. They aren’t N Rated ( I don’t believe PS4S are but would refer to more knowledgeable parties here for that). Asda ended up screwing up the order and I’ve subsequently messaged the specialist I bought the car off… they’re offering to replace all four corners with the PS4S at cost.

I believe they do (or used to) N rated 4S's but not in all sizes. There is a thread here worth a read https://www.porscheclubgb.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=9837... I was looking for n rated ones for my R but gave up the hunt and just got standard PS4S's and find them to be really notably great.

Warranty is not an issue as will not be putting one on it ..the last time it had warranty was in 2015 and has needed nothing except service since then and clean MOT every year ..as to speed rating it can only be driven max 114 with roof on and very unlikely to be going abroad on autobahns ,so non rated N tyres will be fine .My 981 Box has 20" and you can get them in N rated but not 19" as far as I am aware.

Koln-RS said: I’m sure there are a massive number of cars running on tyres that are 10+ years old - especially low mileage classic, collectibles and prestige cars. The external condition and tread depth can look fine, but the constituents in the rubber and carcass will no doubt be deteriorating. Suggested life expiry seems to vary between 5-10 years. People are paying a fortune to get their hands on original F50 tyres - those are about 27 years old now. Of course I doubt they will drive them much as that would “ruin” the tyre .... Iam a fan of replacing tyres early/often - as others have said, it’s your only connection to the road Although cold weather won’t have helped tyre performance regardless of age and rear stepped out I guess means throttle application (edit ie increase as opposed to steady) mid corner

Slippydiff said: ... Ultimately if they won’t insure the car due to the lack of N rated tyres, find an insurer that will. ...or tell your insurer you are driving on 11 year old tyres...

Would be great to know who the specialist that sold you the car is? Sounds like they’ve been fairly decent in sorting the replacements at cost for you but - as someone shopping for my first 987 and considering going down the specialist purchase route - I’m a bit worried that they were deemed okay in their prep. Just be nice to know what to look out for.

Niall0tdi said: Would be great to know who the specialist that sold you the car is? Sounds like they’ve been fairly decent in sorting the replacements at cost for you but - as someone shopping for my first 987 and considering going down the specialist purchase route - I’m a bit worried that they were deemed okay in their prep. Just be nice to know what to look out for. You could just check the tyres yourself, or if not viewing the car in person, ask the dealer to give you pics of the date stamp on the tyres? It’s one of the things I check first.

Slippydiff said: Ultimately if they won’t insure the car due to the lack of N rated tyres, find an insurer that will. That would be quite astonishing though. I doubt most insurers will have even heard of N rated! Correct spec tyres is fine - as in size, load and speed.

BertBert said: That would be quite astonishing though. I doubt most insurers will have even heard of N rated! Correct spec tyres is fine - as in size, load and speed. Agree - the idea of N spec tyres being necessary to have valid insurance is myth and fallacy.

BertBert said: That would be quite astonishing though. I doubt most insurers will have even heard of N rated! Correct spec tyres is fine - as in size, load and speed. I wasn’t suggesting that an insurer would refuse cover due to the lack of N rating, on the contrary, over the years I’ve stated the exactly the opposite on this forum. But for the squeamish on these matters, it would be worthwhile clarifying the situation with their insurers. Personally I’d much rather have the most modern, highly developed tyre on my car than a tyre that was sanctioned by Porsche for a particular (and often now irrelevant) model 20 years ago ... the Michelin PS2 is the prime example of this, and whilst it’s not a bad tyre, it’s inferior to the Supersport, PS4S Cup 2 and even the PS4. And if push case to shove in a worst case scenario, I’d happily argue exactly that point with the insurance ombudsman !!

Slippydiff said: BertBert said: That would be quite astonishing though. I doubt most insurers will have even heard of N rated! Correct spec tyres is fine - as in size, load and speed. I wasn’t suggesting that an insurer would refuse cover due to the lack of N rating, on the contrary, over the years I’ve stated the exactly the opposite on this forum. But for the squeamish on these matters, it would be worthwhile clarifying the situation with their insurers. Personally I’d much rather have the most modern, highly developed tyre on my car than a tyre that was sanctioned by Porsche for a particular (and often now irrelevant) model 20 years ago ... the Michelin PS2 is the prime example of this, and whilst it’s not a bad tyre, it’s inferior to the Supersport, PS4S Cup 2 and even the PS4. And if push case to shove in a worst case scenario, I’d happily argue exactly that point with the insurance ombudsman !! Drivers fit ditchfinder quality tyres to their cars and the insurance company can't hold it against them. No way will an insurance company be allowed to reject a claim on the basis of N rated. Tyres get phased out and new models come out all the time. Lots of drivers don't even having matching brands of tyres on their car. I am surprised that more isn't made of the usage of semi slick tyres like Cup 2s on the roads.

jackwood said: Niall0tdi said: Would be great to know who the specialist that sold you the car is? Sounds like they’ve been fairly decent in sorting the replacements at cost for you but - as someone shopping for my first 987 and considering going down the specialist purchase route - I’m a bit worried that they were deemed okay in their prep. Just be nice to know what to look out for. You could just check the tyres yourself, or if not viewing the car in person, ask the dealer to give you pics of the date stamp on the tyres? It’s one of the things I check first. Sure, and definitely something I’ll be checking. My point is more around knowing who the specialist dealer is; there aren’t a whole load of them selling 987’s so chance is high that I’ll come across the same one in my search. I’d like to prepare myself as much as possible and ideally give a wider berth/be a bit more scrupulous with a specialist who’ll happily sell a car with dangerous tires.

As anyone who has ever ridden a motorcycle will tell you, roundabouts can be treacherous in any weather, regardless of tyres, because of diesel spills. I have no idea whether that has effected any of those reporting snap over-steer on here, but it can be a factor.

https://www.bridgestone.com.sg/en/tyre-clinic/tyre... I know the OP is replacing his tyres, but Bridgestone, along with Michelin and Continental recommend a 10 year replacement age, irrespective of mileage and tread depth.

wyson said: https://www.bridgestone.com.sg/en/tyre-clinic/tyre... I know the OP is replacing his tyres, but Bridgestone, along with Michelin and Continental recommend a 10 year replacement age, irrespective of mileage and tread depth. Not that this may be an issue here for the OP but don't Porsche say 6yrs max on tyres to get the approved warranty?

Our 2019 Mini Cooper S manual says replace tyres at 6 yrs irrespective of wear

I wonder if 6 years is the equivalent in age terms of 3mm tread depth left and 10 years is 1.6mm, in terms of rates of failure and structural integrity? See those two figures (and 5 years as a turning point that requires extra vigilance) a lot.

MitchW12 said: Hi all, I purchased my first Porsche a couple of weekends ago, a 987.1 Cayman S. I’ve had a smile for each of the 800 miles I’ve already put on it in, with the exception of a few metres when the back stepped out going around a dry roundabout in 2nd gear at less than 3,000 rpm! Having checked the tyres I’ve found that the rear left is from 2012 with the rest being 2014 and 2015 (fronts). They’re Bridgestone Potenzas and whilst it wasn’t a warm evening I’d been driving for some time and it was above 5c. Tread levels are 5mm or above on all four corners. I have three questions that I’d really appreciate some thoughts on: 1) is it acceptable that the specialist sold the vehicle with tyres of this age? If not, what’s my best course of action? 2) is the tyre age likely to be the cause of it stepping out at relatively low speed/revs? 3) what is the recommended replacement tyre? The car is used all year round and will be doing about 5k mile a year (that’s if I can stop making up excuses to go for a drive every day!) Thanks very much in advance for any advice, I’m aware the tyres are something I could and should have looked at before buying the car but I overlooked that with all the excitement. All things considered you have been wise to replace your tyres. This thread has stirred up lots of interest and discussion on tyre age , degradation etc. I have 6 year old Dunlops on my 911 and yet the car has only covered 3000 miles since new (2016). 25 years i ago i wouldn't have given a stuff. Yet at nearly 55 years old i'm turning into a risk-averse s tting dog. I suspect in the Spring your car will behave impeccably.

wyson said: I wonder if 6 years is the equivalent in age terms of 3mm tread depth left and 10 years is 1.6mm, in terms of rates of failure and structural integrity? See those two figures (and 5 years as a turning point that requires extra vigilance) a lot. Is the wear recommendation specific to the UK or do other countries use the same wear indicators?

Tyres are not really rubber but a complex mix of oils plastics and rubber on a metal carcass In effect over time the tyres dry out and become less supple, but like leather seats That makes them less grippy esp at lower temperatures OP has done the right thing. Anything more than 5yrs old should be in the bin, sunlight is another factor so maybe if the car has been in a dark garage, on those curved blocks to prevent flat spots, then more than 5 years is fine… then again why drive a Porsche and not invest in its grip, handling, traction and braking performance!

The same tyre ... once removed from the wheel ... with a little sidewall deflection ... comparing the inside tyre wall with the outside wall. The car was an MOT pass before the tyres were changed ! Edited by ChrisW. on Saturday 26th February 19:21

And this is what the tread looked like ...

I had a tyre technical rep visit last year and I asked him why tyres now have a shorter use by date than they used to. Tyres are made up of a cocktail of additives/components and one additives in particular was only in there to slow down the tyres degrading. Unfortunately the EU saw fit to ban the use of it in 2010 to save the planet etc, so since then tyres now have a shorter life. His company, one of the biggest, were officially happy for their tyres to be up to 6 years old, unofficially he said up to 8 years was generally ok. I dare say the manufacturers are not going to be complaining about the extra tyres they sell as a result.

These tyres did not have a date stamp on them ...

ChrisW. said: These tyres did not have a date stamp on them ... Date stamps have been on tyres for decades, not as obvious as they are today but on there somewhere.

edc said: Is the wear recommendation specific to the UK or do other countries use the same wear indicators? I thought it was EU wide? In the USA most states are 2/32 inches which is pretty much 1.6mm for summer tyres.

squirdan said: Tyres are not really rubber but a complex mix of oils plastics and rubber on a metal carcass In effect over time the tyres dry out and become less supple, but like leather seats That makes them less grippy esp at lower temperatures OP has done the right thing. Anything more than 5yrs old should be in the bin, sunlight is another factor so maybe if the car has been in a dark garage, on those curved blocks to prevent flat spots, then more than 5 years is fine… then again why drive a Porsche and not invest in its grip, handling, traction and braking performance! Should be stored in the dark below 25 degrees C and above -5 degrees C too.

MitchW12 said: Asda ended up screwing up the order and I’ve subsequently messaged the specialist I bought the car off… they’re offering to replace all four corners with the PS4S at cost. Well I think that is fair. It could have been missed on the inspection as nobody would expect a seller to replace only one tyre on the same axle. They could conceivably looked at one side and assumed both were bought together. The same tyre ... once removed from the wheel ... with a little sidewall deflection ... comparing the inside tyre wall with the outside wall. The car was an MOT pass before the tyres were changed ! Edited by ChrisW. on Saturday 26th February 19:21 That is an eye opener. Do you know if the car was garaged or kept outside. Pip

Going to be rotating my tyres again this week will look very closely at the side walls back and front to see if any cracking is visible ..if and when will not be going N rated but will fit PS4S instead of PS2 19"with the higher load and speed rating but doubt will ever need it .

981Boxess said: ate stamps have been on tyres for decades, not as obvious as they are today but on there somewhere. These ? The car has been garaged for at least the last 10 years ... and from the tyre wear has done very little mileage ...

Slippydiff said: From page 464 of the Cayman R thread: IanB_76 said: julian987R said: ajondyh said: Another one bites the dust https://www.copart.co.uk/lot/67385561/clean-title-... Blimey that is a heck of a smash. Hope those involved were ok. That windscreen looks like a head went through it? It says it is repairable and once done worth £40K, seems optimistic to me considering that panel gap Collecting Cars one. I'm sad to say that is (or was) my car It happened a few weeks back on the way down to the Goodwood Breakfast Club. Enjoying a drive down some nice twisty roads to meet a friend in Midhurst, only to have the back end step out in a big way like never before and despite my best efforts to try and catch it, I ended up in a ditch at 50mph and must have hit all manner of bushes and something hard that did the damage to the pillars and screen. As for the incident itself, I wasn't driving aggressively and was probably in 4th coming out of the bend. The road was damp in places as it was about 7.15am, probably around 10 degrees. My tyres were 5-6 Yr old Pilot Supersports with about 3mm on the rears. In the whole year I've had it I haven't had the back end step out like it did, so maybe a greasy road. Either way, it didn't end well. These mid-engined cars can bite! Needless to say I will be looking to do some more limit driving or a PEC course in the future. Although the damage is bad, I got away with little more than a few cuts and a bruised ego! Obviously completely gutted about the car, but the insurance company were good to deal with and paid out within a month. I only had the car just under a year, but did 9000 smile-filled miles and got a payout that was more than I paid when I bought it. So despite the incident, my Porsche love hasn't ended and I hope to be back in another at some point. Most likely another R, but maybe something else. There were a few things I didn't get round to doing, like a track day or the NC500 so I still need to scratch that itch. And if anyone is considering selling a manual R with buckets, then drop me a message. Stay safe out there! Replace at five years maximum for tyres, irrespective of how good/pristine they look, or indeed how much tread they have left (what planet are you on Julian ? ) As I’ve suggested before, if your car doesn’t do a huge annual mileage, sell the tyres at 3-4 years old when they’ve still got a decent amount of tread left on them, pocket the dish and put it towards a brand new set of grippy tyres. There’s always a polisher out there looking for tyres, which will enable you the driver to drive around on tyres with optimal grip. I was about to get upset at the guy for driving like a lunatic and getting a full insurance payout that the rest of us subsidise, then I realise he wrote he wasn't driving aggressively, not was driving aggressively, so I retract that and apologise.

ChrisW. said: 981Boxess said: ate stamps have been on tyres for decades, not as obvious as they are today but on there somewhere. These ? The car has been garaged for at least the last 10 years ... and from the tyre wear has done very little mileage ... Those markings don't ring a bell, as far as I know Michelin have had XXXX XXXX XXXX markings for at least 20 years, the last XXXX being the date of manufacture. Put it this way, given that they are probably even older than that they should either be in a bin or museum, not on a car.

They were changed with a new set from Longstone last year ... The point was that we had no idea how bad they really were until they were removed from the car ...

Update: The order I placed with Asda tyres ended up being cancelled due to an error at their end. This turned out to be a blessing in disguise as I subsequently decided to email the specialist I purchased the car from a few weeks ago. They acknowledged that the tyres were old and have agreed to replace them with PS4S at cost price. Realistically I think this is the best outcome, I get the peace of mind of fresh rubber on the car, the tyres that were my preference anyway and I'm sure the cost of the car would have been £1k more if they'd done this when advertising it. Thank you all for your feedback and recommendations. Edited by MitchW12 on Tuesday 1st March 20:44

Sorted, good to read

That's a very good result, OP.

MitchW12 said: Update: They acknowledged that the tyres were old and have agreed to replace them with PS4S at cost price. Does that mean they replaced them but you paid for them then?