Kia Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello,

There's been two or three posts recently reguarding the suitability of of the factory fitted tyres for the Sedona

Because of the last post on the subject I took my vehicle today to a couple of independant tyre shops/fitters, both said my rear tyres were not reinforced and were surprised at this fact due to the weight of the vehicle, both said ITO the tyres were absolutly unsuitable for towing.
Thought I should mention this.
Seacam
 

·
Registered
2003 Kia Sedona
Joined
·
403 Posts
Exactly what I was saying on my thread! They really should be reinforced. We have Mercedes Vito traveliners on our fleet (Vito vans with 8 seats) they have less gross weight capacity than the Sedona and they all come with reinforced tyres.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Hi Pepper,

I saw your MPG post.

It was your post and another member's recent post, ( can't remember who ), that had me running to the tyre shops yesterday.

I to have the same problem in so much as my rear Kumho's still have decent tread on them and I'm loathed to waste them.

Both tyre shops had nothing to sell me, I told them I wasn't buying.

One of the fitters really thought I was taking a chance as the car stood due to its weight alone

Having said that Pepper there have been several posts about the factory tyres failing but with no serious consequences, ( except to ones pocket ), and nothing involved with towing, thank goodness.
Seacam
 

·
Registered
KIA's 2000 Carnival, 2008 Magentis, 2005 Optima
Joined
·
561 Posts
I am amazed that car owners would place more value in the opinion given by a tyre fitter with probably no formal qualifications over the engineers at KIA and Khumo who make both the car and tyres and all the trained people in various countries where these vehicles are sold who test and asses new cars to ensure they meet their various countries design rules, crash performance etc.
Now I know a manufacturer will put the minimum cost parts on a car usually just sufficient to meet both vehicle reliabilty and minimum standards of the various countries where the vehicle will be sold. But my own experience is that my 2001 model Carnival has done 110000kms changed the original tyres at 75000kms and they gave no problem other than simply wearing out. I almost always run the vehicle with 6 or 7 adults and plenty of load in behind the rear seat and often driving on unsealed roads. I again had fitted the radial ply Khumos and in fact I sourced them again because they were a overall a good tyre. Now I would wager that in Australia where I live our roads are a lot more harsher on cars and tyres than the ones in Europe and North America. I think your concerns about the original equipment rubber is unfounded. **** what are you complaining about they ain't goodyears fitted to Ford SUV's!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Hello Classic boy,

Hm- qualifications ok fair comment but I rather think you miss the points raised in the posts.

It wasn't just about the tyres reliability but suitability and there is a difference.

Pepper's original post was about the suitability of the tyres fitted if used for towing
as it had been brought to his intention they were not reinforced.

I had also read on this forum and others, Sedona/Carnival owners question the quality of the tyres fitted, there have been the odd incident of the tyres shredding.

I don't tow as yet but it is my intention to hook up a trailer loaded with car and drive to Germany and bring a vehicle back.

Because of the questions raised I checked my tyres with two fitters, both concluded with what Pepper found- the tyres were not reinforced.

They both felt the Khumos were not suitable for towing and one of them went further and was surprised there was no reinforcement due to the vehicles weight alone.

As for qualifications over opinion based on experience--- I want my surgeon to be qualified and hopefully with some experience before they get to me but am quite happy to act on advise/ opinion given by a grease monkey/tyre fitter with 20 years behind them, with no qualifications.

The fitter who queried the weight, her name is Nellie and born with a tyre iron in her hand.
Seacam
 

·
Registered
2003 Kia Sedona
Joined
·
403 Posts
It was Firestone tyres fitted to SUV's if I recall but even I may be wrong!

As Seacam says the tyres are rated ok for the maximum axle weight but I want to tow heavy loads over long distances, this is why I was asking other peoples opinions I and nor was Seacam taking what our local tyre fitters were saying as gospel we were trying to form an opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Seacam what are you buying !
I need to know now !!!
The goodyear gt2 's im using seem to be ok and fairly quite too - I wouldn't have kuhmos after the canvas showing through on the inside when I changed them. Strangley the sister kia with consecutive chassis no's my father inlaw bought was fitted with hankooks ?


p.s seacam is a big or a little trailer.............. :bwekk:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Hello Eco,

At the moment I've got Firestones 680s on the front and Kuhmos on the rear.

I found my choice limited in the reinforcement section.

Pirelli P 6000 around £ 70-00 each H rated.

Quickfit do a Pirelli P1215 £113 each H rated.

Maragoni £ 75-00 each H rated.

Continental ECO £ 65-00 each T rated.

Avon Avander, ( I think ), Commercial 8 ply £ 70-00 T rated.

Firestone do an 8 ply as well.

The choice I've settled on is Continental.
Seacam
 

·
Registered
KIA's 2000 Carnival, 2008 Magentis, 2005 Optima
Joined
·
561 Posts
I didn't miss the point you folks were indicating you were considering changing tyres based on the opinion of tyre seller employees who probably have a vested interest in selling tyres and the opinion of strangers on 'other' forums. I just pointed out that many qualified people who had done extensive testing on the design of your car should have ensured that the tyres fitted to your vehicle were up to the task. And I will add some more of my 10cents worth.
My carnival is legally rated to tow a 2500kg trailer/caravan/etc as long as it is braked trailer/caravan/etc. And as it is designed by the manufacturer of the car and I am sure the tyres maker was required to supply tyres that must meet that requirement. To do that otherwise the car would not be given design approval to be sold in my country with that towing rating, if the tyres were consider not up to the task the towing rating would have been reduced. I would imagine that most countries have similar systems in place to certify a vehicle with all its equipment as sold with its ratings can do the task. But I also know that the 2500kg max towing weight is not sitting on my back tyres.
Also just as important most tow hitch systems have a limit on the down force that a correctly loaded trailer can apply to it, and that typically is not exceding 100kg. As you would be aware the towed trailer/caravan/etc tyres' carry the vast majority of that units weight. 100kg downforce is equivalent to a fat passenger, so hardly putting much strain on the cars rear tyres.
Now unless the laws are a lot different in the UK the car maker and the hitch maker do advise the vehicle operator to limit the amount of down force applied to the rear of the tow vehicle to no more that typically 100kg (no big ask for the tyres on a 1800kg empty weight car) to exceed that would void the warranty and insurance.
I have not checked recently but I recall carnivals tyres are rated around 670 kg each, therefore total vehicle to max loading cannot exceed 2680kg (4 X 670kg), GVM that is the sum of the vehicle, a full pax load, fuel, luggage and hitch downforce of 100kg max probably caps out around 2500kg, therefore tyre load limit is not exceeded by design.
Towing should be conducted with a bit of science and not on the gut feeling of a tyre fitter no matter how experienced.
I do have a lot of experience as I do extensively tow, I regularly use a 12X6 dual car trailer hauling full size sedans and I use regular radial ply tyres on both car and trailer without problem, I also until recently used a 1800kg caravan and hauled it to most parts of Australia, sometimes racking up in excess of 10000kms in a year and I have shredded a few tyres over the years but most were on the towed trailer or caravan. But I don't tow with the carnival I use a locally manufactured chrysler V8, I think the carnival is a little underengined to tow well. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
As an uninformed lurker of forums I would rather give my daughters a gun each than stick a set of Kuhmos on ;)
And ive had a blow out on the motorway..........my mate's done better and rolled a caravan :grin:
 

·
Registered
2003 Kia Sedona
Joined
·
403 Posts
GVW of a Diesel Kia Sedona 2700kgs, unladen weight is 2200kg in the frst place.

We Europeans buy a lot of the diesels.

Also about the 100kg noseball limit, a person sitting in the car is generally between the axles but a 100kg on the towbar is a very big lever!
 

·
Registered
KIA's 2000 Carnival, 2008 Magentis, 2005 Optima
Joined
·
561 Posts
Last time I looked towing hitches were mounted 'between the axle' not over one tyre, also the rear seat was behind the rear axle when in the normal seating postion, and it could carry 300kg of humans, albeit a little tight. Also the diesel engine is in the front so I would imagine the extra weight is over the front axle, I could not believe the vehicle was any different behind the engine bay.
Lastly you would rather give a gun to you daughters??? What the [email protected]!!

However if you folks want to ignore the facts, and p!ss your money away on new tyres and justify it to yourselves thats your business, I was only pointing out that the car maker and tyre makers had to consider by law all the possible scenarios of vehicle use and use parts that suited these scenarios. :banana:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Woa Classic boy,

Where are you going with this, let me bring you back to your original post.

In it you wrote, " Now I know a manufacturer will put the minimum cost parts on a car usually just sufficient to meet both vehicle reliability and minimum standards of the various countries where the vehicle will be sold."

You said it yourself mate and in the case of the Kumho brand tyres as fitted to UK Sedona,s that's exactly what they do, they are a poor quality tyre that meets the minimum requirements and it shows, there s**t tyres.

When minimum cost parts come into any equation the bottom line is you usually end up with cr*p.

It's quite simple really, it's the difference between fitting a quality brand oil filter and one that just sufficient to do the job what would you fit?

I've seen to many people in the building industry walk away scot free because they fulfilled their obligations and met minimum requirements on health and safety and people have suffered.

If I have my towing adventure its likely to be with three adults, two kids and a loaded trailer.

There's not a chance in Hel* I would even consider that trip on tyres not reinforced
to hel* with your " just sufficient to meet both vehicle reliability and minimum standards facts.

If you read one of my earlier threads there is a reason for two Firestones on the front of my car and Kumho on the rear, that being within 18,000 miles it had gone through three Kumhos and the vehicle has only done 30,000 total.

Kia replaced those tyres, FOC, I don't believe tyres are covered under the Kia UK warranty.

After the second and last blow out on the rear the original owner had a different brand fitted but the tyre fitter got his lines crossed and swapped the tyres around and by the time the owner had noticed he couldn't be bothered to go back.

Now before you give us another ten cents worth why don't you read the posts on this subject on this forum and other forums.

I guarantee you will find, (not many I grant you but enough), posts of low mileage
Kumho brand tyres failing and only two or three involve towing.

While you sneer and charge us with pis*ing our money away or ignoring facts I would argue that you are one of those scott free people I mentioned earlier.

I know you have a thing about qualifications, I don't know what your qualifications are but you have proved to be expert in taking things out of context.

Now I don't know eco personally, I'm d*mn sure he doesn't need me to fight his corner equally I'm d*mn sure he adores his children the same as any other parent.

For you to take the point he was making out of context was both infantile and petty, you came across as a bit of a tosser mate.
Seacam
 

·
Registered
KIA's 2000 Carnival, 2008 Magentis, 2005 Optima
Joined
·
561 Posts
I am sure that there are cars all over the world with every tyre brand under the sun that have experienced premature blowouts not just Khumos.

As I said earlier and it still holds.

However if you folks want to ignore the facts, and p!ss your money away on new tyres and justify it to yourselves thats your business, I was only pointing out that the car maker and tyre makers had to consider by law all the possible scenarios of vehicle use and use parts that suited these scenarios.

But vehicle design standards are there to protect all road users not just the ones operating by gut feelings.

Get over it and stop acting like a petulant child .
 

·
Registered
Sedona 2.9 crdi LE
Joined
·
245 Posts
I have Kumhos and IMHO they are below average as a suitable tyre for this car. They move to much on the rim, this can be seen by the polished (clean) bit where the tyre meets the rim.

After reading all the above debate I started to do a little research into suitable tyres.

First I looked at Dunlops website and searched by vehicle for a suitable tyre. It returned a no result but did say the tyre should have a load index of 96.

I then looked at Michelins website and searched by vehicle for a suitable tyre. They make one in there primacy range which I know is a bit pricey, also it has a load index of 96.

So I searched Kumhos very extensive and complicated site :unsure: and came up with nothing that relates to the tyres fitted to my van. So I googled 769 powermax and find they have a load index of 94.

So I now need to know what the load index represents so I went here Look for load index

I leave you to do the maths. :) then continue the debate :gunsmilie:

PS the people in the link are very good by the way. Just make sure you know what you want before choosing.
 

·
Registered
Sedona 2.9 crdi LE
Joined
·
245 Posts
Originally posted by 54FLX@Oct 5 2005, 09:19 PM
So I searched Kumhos very extensive and complicated site :unsure: and came up with nothing that relates to the tyres fitted to my van. So I googled 769 powermax and find they have a load index of 94.
Sorry I got it wrong... I actually got off my ar$e and read the trye walls on my van today... The Kumhos in 215 65 R15 size are a 96 load index not 94 as I previously quoted. I still won't be fitting then when I need replacements.
 

·
Registered
KIA's 2000 Carnival, 2008 Magentis, 2005 Optima
Joined
·
561 Posts
While not wishing to prolong this thread any longer as it appears that some folks have already made up their mind.
I too wished to correct a inaccuracy whereas I previously was working from memory on the load rating of my tyres, I since did look at the Khumo's on my classic and they have a 715kg load rating each, not 670kg as I previously stated, therefore the total vehicle mass can be 2860kg (4 X 715kg) without exceeding the tyres max limit. I note from a previous thread that is the GVM is 2700kg for the european diesel sedona therefore the tyres are rated with a comfortable margin on the max weight limit of this vehicle.

;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Just to share my experience with Kumho's in my 2001 Carnival. I was "forced" to replace them after about 15T km due to blowouts and thread separation on 2 tires. Simply didn't want to take any more chances. I'm the Philippines (a tropical country with bad roads as you might know) where consumer protection laws are next to non-existent. Given that my experience was commonplace (including Kumho's on Hyundai's), Kia/Kumho were foisting either substandard or inappropriate tires on units sold here.

To me, the issue is one of integrity. Kia/Kumho isn't below compromising safety to squeeze out every profit if they think they can get away with it. They would probably do the same in North America or Europe if not for the laws and enforcement societies there have in place.

Kia does have a selling point, i.e. price. You just have to factor in the additional costs of owning one, like getting second opinions and replacing standard tires and other parts that matter.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top