# 66k miles on my goodyear fuel max tires



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

Thanks! That is good to know. I am very happy with my ECO with regard to fuel mileage and performance and knowing I won't need tires for quite sometime is even more good news.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Welcome back. How do you like your ECO after so many miles?


----------



## CruzeEcoBlueTopaz (Jan 5, 2012)

Yeah with 66k miles on my 12' eco and not a single problem its still is driving like a smooth efficient cadillac. Seriously I love this car and everything about it. My goal is to return to these forums with 500k miles and brag about not having any issues except for regular maintenance and I think I can do it with my driving environment.

Im looking forward to some wicked mountain weather this season its going to be a wet one this year.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

???

You'll have to take a picture. These tires start at 7/32" from the factory. At the rate you're claiming, you'd be driving with this same set of tires for nearly 200k miles before the tread would wear out. I hit 6/32" at 14k miles...

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

At 15,000 miles I still had tires at 7/32".


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

obermd said:


> At 15,000 miles I still had tires at 7/32".


At what increments did your depth gauge measure? I wonder if this might not be just a difference in the accuracy of the gauge. Mine is a digital gauge accurate to 1/64", so it our results might vary.


----------



## ronbo10 (Sep 19, 2011)

Howdy- it's been a while since I last posted here, and still don't have a Cruze (one of these days!). Thought I'd chime in here though- have a 2002 Honda CR-V. It came with (as I recall) Michelin MXV's - not great in the dry and really greasy in the wet. Replaced them with some Bridgestones taht weren't too bad. Onto the third set of tires- talked to Tire Rack about eco tires and they recommended to me a new Michelin (very little data available from users at the time- a couple of months ago this was). Tire's called the "Defender". And I have to say they are truly impressive tires- they have a tread life guarantee of 100K miles (haven't read the fine print here though), while providing for excellent fuel economy. 

I drove my trip to JFK airport and back like a granny just to see what she'd do, and managed 31.4 mpg (calculated- no trip computer on this thing). I've never come even close to that figure in the past, though I don't think I've ever driven as slow as I did that one trip. But even driving more normally (65-70 on the interstates and around the speed limit plus 5 elsewhere), I've still managed to get around 28.5 mpg, a good bit better than the EPA stat of 26 (and that was back when their figures were more inflated than they are today). This, with a 4 speed auto tranny (a 5-speed manual was available that year as well). 

The kicker is that in the wet these Defenders are surprisingly sticky- a very pleasant surprise indeed. A bud told me that these tires just recently got a Consumer reports 'best tire rating' or some such thing. I can see why- so far it's been all good, and I'd have to give these tires a solid thumbs-up. Set me back $500 including shipping for a set of four (205/15 R70's, I believe- stock size in any case). 

So all you Eco (and non-Eco) Cruze drivers- these are definitely worth putting on your list for consideration come time to replace your current set of tires.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> At what increments did your depth gauge measure? I wonder if this might not be just a difference in the accuracy of the gauge. Mine is a digital gauge accurate to 1/64", so it our results might vary.


Mechanical measuring in 1/32" increments. My first measurement was at the dealership at 1500 miles. My second and subsequent were at the same Discount Tire at 5, 10, and 15 thouseand miles. The measurement at 10,000 showed two tires at 8/32" but all the other measurements have read 7/32".


----------



## CruzeEcoBlueTopaz (Jan 5, 2012)

Well here is a picture of the tire. I have been calling around to find a company with a digital tire tread depth guage and when I do I will definetly take a more accurate reading and post the results. The guage I read was showing 6/32 on the line but im having a hard time believeing it as well this tire should be at least 5/32 if not 4/32. 

As you can see there still is quite a bit of tread remaining even at 67,500 miles. The grooves are quite deep with a decent amount of tire above that wear bar. I know the picture quality is poor but its the best I can do for now. Hopefully I will be able to return to the forums at 100k with these tires
Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

I measured 6/32 with my digital gauge and I have a lot more tread left than you do. 

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## Vetterin (Mar 27, 2011)

6/32" at 29,300 miles and counting.


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

Factory tires are never made to go as many miles as the standard off the shelf tires. The off the shelf fuelmax tires are 11/32nds


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

CruzeTech said:


> Factory tires are never made to go as many miles as the standard off the shelf tires. The off the shelf fuelmax tires are 11/32nds


I thought they were 10/32". At least, that's what is saw on tire rack. Their specs might not be accurate.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## Chris2298 (Aug 1, 2012)

I rolled 50K today on my 2012 Eco MT and still have good tread... I have noticed she gets a little slippery when the road is wet, but it is well worth being a little more careful if I can get 80K out of the tires....


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Chris2298 said:


> I rolled 50K today on my 2012 Eco MT and still have good tread... I have noticed she gets a little slippery when the road is wet, but it is well worth being a little more careful if I can get 80K out of the tires....


Are you planning on throwing winter tires on there soon? If not, I'd be very careful. I was not at all impressed with how these tires did at full tread in slush and packed snow earlier this year.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Chris2298 said:


> I rolled 50K today on my 2012 Eco MT and still have good tread... I have noticed she gets a little slippery when the road is wet, but it is well worth being a little more careful if I can get 80K out of the tires....


Don't go into winter with anything less than 4/32" tread. If you drop down to 4/32" during the winter, replace your tires as well. Slush takes twice as much tread depth to avoid hydroplaning.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

I'd guess I have 6/32" left with 25k miles on the tires. Glad I have snow tires, else these would be getting replaced since they are poor in the wet snow we usually get.


----------



## UpstateNYBill (Jan 14, 2012)

I just replaced the oem Firestone FR710's last weekend since "Sandy" was on the way, as they were officially done at 2/32" and 34k miles.

I bought the Bridgestone Ecopia's. I'm not sure if they were the right choice. I'll give it at least another tankful before I officially post my findings.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

CruzeEcoBlueTopaz said:


> Well here is a picture of the tire. I have been calling around to find a company with a digital tire tread depth guage and when I do I will definetly take a more accurate reading and post the results. The guage I read was showing 6/32 on the line but im having a hard time believeing it as well this tire should be at least 5/32 if not 4/32.
> 
> As you can see there still is quite a bit of tread remaining even at 67,500 miles. The grooves are quite deep with a decent amount of tire above that wear bar. I know the picture quality is poor but its the best I can do for now. Hopefully I will be able to return to the forums at 100k with these tires
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> ...


For comparison purposes, here's what my tires looked like with 3,500 miles on them. 










I measured between the tread blocks, not inside the water valleys. Where did you guys measure?


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Places around here measure in the grooves, so that's where I measured.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I have always measured in the grooves.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

obermd said:


> I have always measured in the grooves.


Well then...

I never bothered to check how they _should _be measured, I just started measuring between each puck as I showed in that image. Turns out, the Eco tires may have come with 10/32" of tread from the factory after all. I'm almost certain that the circumferential grooves are deeper than the slits in the tread.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Anyone for a snipe hunt? :signs015:


----------



## Chris2298 (Aug 1, 2012)

Sorry for being late.... I want to (in the future) get a different set of wheels with snow tires. Last winter was pretty mild, but I'm sure anything more frost isn't ging to be fun...


----------



## silverls (Nov 12, 2011)

This really surprises me. My uncle just retired from Firestone And when he saw my eco and its factory tires he told me to start saving my money. When i asked why he told me that most people in and out of the Firestones are only seeing 20-30k miles out of the assurance and other tires like it. 

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I have been very pleasantly surprised at the quality of the OEM tires on the ECO. My last set of Goodyears were OEM Eagle GTs in 1985 and they were completely worthless on anything except dry pavement.

The Firestones on Penguin LS, on the other hand, will probably need to be replaced before 15,000 miles.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

70AARCUDA said:


> • *slits*:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well then, I've been measuring in the slits, as shown in the first image...

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using AutoGuide.Com Free App


----------



## Quazar (Apr 28, 2011)

I replaced my tires at 62k miles this January right before I decided to trade in my Eco. Tires couldn't handle the winter we had in Michigan. On January 1st I drove straight to tire shop after going slightly sideways in slush. 

Had it not been for that, 70k miles was my target. The tires were never great in snow/rain, but they did well, but not worth it to run them down much past 6/32 if you live where it rains or snows a lot.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

So happy to hear the OEM goodyear assurance tires last a long time. Everyone I know with new cars, their tires barely last 30k km


----------



## CruzeEcoBlueTopaz (Jan 5, 2012)

Old thread but I will update. I have 3 sets of the oem goodyear fuel max tires and I think they are superior tires. My current set has 25k miles on them and my other 2 sets each have 85k on them with 3/32 remaining. This spring I will be reusing those 2 sets with 85k on them and putting another 15-25k miles on them or as much as possible to get the most out of the tires. I would like to get at least 110k out of the tires and I think its very possible. 

I cant say enough good things about these tires. Excellent efficiency in the summer and they kept me on the road without any sliding on my route on the dangerous winter mountain highways of Idaho. Goodyear fuel max get my vote as a quality product I think GM made a great decision for an oem product.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

While the mileage is impressive, it is very important to remind people that your driving is 100% highway in light conditions, not the general mix of city and highway most people drive. 

Be sure to also check for dry rot. Mine have 2 years on them and barely 30k miles and are already showing signs of dry rot on the sidewalls.

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I had to get rid of my Goodyear FuelMax Assurance while they still had 5/32" on them due to dry rot.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> While the mileage is impressive, it is very important to remind people that your driving is 100% highway in light conditions, not the general mix of city and highway most people drive.
> 
> Be sure to also check for dry rot. Mine have 2 years on them and barely 30k miles and are already showing signs of dry rot on the sidewalls.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com App


I wonder if that's due to the rubber compound they're made from...or if they're just from a really old stockpile that were sold to GM at a cheap price to use on the cars.


----------



## Vetterin (Mar 27, 2011)

51,000 and just about 5/32" remaining. Hope to get through one more summer with them. I have to agree that while they are not the BEST tire on the road, they are really not that bad (at least for my driving style).


----------



## Quazar (Apr 28, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> While the mileage is impressive, it is very important to remind people that your driving is 100% highway in light conditions, not the general mix of city and highway most people drive.
> 
> Be sure to also check for dry rot. Mine have 2 years on them and barely 30k miles and are already showing signs of dry rot on the sidewalls.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com App


Its also important to note that his stopping distance is increased in rain/snow conditions. So while squeezing out every penny seams like a great idea, increased stopping distance in certain weather conditions may not be.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> I wonder if that's due to the rubber compound they're made from...or if they're just from a really old stockpile that were sold to GM at a cheap price to use on the cars.


Production date stamp shows 2011. I forget the exact month, but it was either October of November.


----------

