Do you buy Road Hazard Warranty?

[OWC Jamie]

6 dollars per tire I might do, more than that, probaby not.

I've lived on two roads that were major routes to town or regional landfill/ transfer station for construction and houshold debris. Nails. Potholes and a driver who has a propensity for nailing curbs might be cost effective, too.

Right now I wouldn't bother. I haven't had tire troubles for years.


Road hazard from Sears or Costco / BJ's so if you are on vacation or otherwise away from home (and where you bought the tires) you can get it honoured. Otherwise it's worthless.

[M A V I C]

Depends on three things:
1. The conditions in which you drive
2. The exact policy of the program as it relates to prorating and all that
3. The policy as it relates to your vehicle

I used to buy RH, but I rarely used it. I have a tire in my garage I keep meaning to take in on that, but I keep forgetting. I had to replace it in another state at the time.

Anyway, if you're a construction worker, work on a farm... anywhere that you're apt to trash tires, it may be a good idea. For me, I don't so I figure I save more by not getting it than what a new tire is going to cost me.

The way the policy is written is even more important. I second that Sears is pretty good, but others have policies that essentially make the plan worthless. This is also especially important for AWD vehicles. Often in order to use the RH insurance, you have to buy an entire new set of tires even if the three remaining tires are within tolerance. If you refuse to do that, they refuse to cover it. Having an AWD car myself, I don't want to have to buy three new tires plus insurance just to replace one tire.

Personally now I just go for the best price on tires and consider what I saved an insurance policy against repairs. TireRack.com and DiscountTireDirect.com are both pretty good.

[freeradical]

Buying insurance for a rapidly depreciating asset is a bad idea.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

No RH warranty - another Costco/Michelin fan here.

[M A V I C]

freeradical wrote:
Buying insurance for a rapidly depreciating asset is a bad idea.

That's too broad to be accurate. Health insurance and car insurance are two examples to the contrary.

[OWC Jamie]

freeradical wrote:
Buying insurance for a rapidly depreciating asset is a bad idea.

over 8 years it could pay for a lot of nail removal
(that's how long my last tires lasted)

[M A V I C]

billb wrote:
[quote=freeradical]
Buying insurance for a rapidly depreciating asset is a bad idea.

over 8 years it could pay for a lot of nail removal
(that's how long my last tires lasted)\

Some places include flat repair at no additional charge.

[C(-)ris]

SteveO wrote:
My Michelins wore out prematurely (yeah I rotated and aligned), and I'm gonna call Mich cs and see if they're willing to give me anything toward a new set that may make a new set less. But I may just skip it. I'd rate the Michelin Pilots as an average tire overall.

Tires are rated for how many miles you are supposed to get out of them. If you didn't get the rated amount then you should get a prorated refund. If you got the rated amount of miles then they didn't wear out prematurely.

[wurm]

One problem with getting a replacement tire via RH warranty is that they prorate the tire based on the retail price of the tire. When you realize that pretty much no one ever pays retail for a tire anyway, you're probably better off just buying the tire outright rather than making a claim throught the RH warranty. Hence, the warranty is probably not worth it. Also, as was mentioned above, often times flat repair is included free anyway.

[Speedy]

No. Just replaced the last two original Michelins on my Jetta at 97K. The other two were lost to road hazards.