Im in need of 2 new tyres. I was just wondering what experiences people are having of different brands they are using.
I am replacing a very cheap pair of LingLongs. Whilst they did last the best part of 30000 miles, (inflated to 36PSI) I have to say the grip with them if terrible.

I have 2 avons on the back which seam to be ok. I might get another pair of them for the front, otherwise I have see there is a new Conti Sport Contact 5 out which is getting good revews...


David

 

Thanks Rhodri,

I'll have a look at these struts. Strange that your document indicates that your camber was adjusted. Also that your camber is +ve, while mine is -ve. I would have thought that there is nothing more likely to cause the inner tyre wear than +ve camber.

David,

Good question on the tyres, I wonder if we can get a definitive list of which are better and which are worse for inside wear.

I can confirm that I've got the inside edges of dunlops and falkens bald at 10k, so will be trying a different one next time.

 

Hi again Iainso,
My front camber settings are negative - the figure of 0.23' which appears positive is simply the differential between them. The actual readings were

LH -0.49'
RH -0.26'


These figures are shown as after adjustment but in reality the only adjustment made was to the toe in settings. There is only a difference of 0.01' between the camber readings in the diagnosis (i.e. as found) and the (after) adjustment columns which I imagine is simply within the tolerance of the machine.

It can be quite confusing but I hope this clears things up. If not let me know and I'll arrange to send you a copy of the original.

In my earlier post I referred to 3 elongated grooves with a blue painted dimple on top of the macpherson strut - I checked today and there is only one groove but 3 nuts.

 

Hi Sog1969

I have used Kumho Ecsta KU31. To be honest I hadn't heard of this make before but they get excellent reviews. See Kumho Ecsta KU31 - tyre reviews, the online tyre guide for example. I have them fitted to the rear of my Mazda 5 Sport 2.0 Petrol 08 plate and they have done around 10,000 miles and still look pretty much like new and are not suffering from the unusual inside wear I had on the orginals. I am just about to get them fitted to the front and have been quoted Ł92 each all in.

 

An update on my 2 front tyres.

I replaced them with the Conti Sportcontact 5 about a month ago. What a fantastic tyre ! Great handling in both dry and wet more importantly.! Would highly recommend them.

Will keep an eye on wear and let you know. Current PSI, 35 all round.

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Tyre/Co...ontact-5-P.htm

 

Hello, i spent several hours last night trying to determine a consensus opinion between all those smart enough to have a good hard look at this problem. I did this because my 5 (having been pretty good) has shown signs of inner edge front tyre wear, but a recent service has shown front bushes worn, so perhaps these suspension components do affect toe, and therefore do affect wear.

Anyway, perhaps a forum moderator wants to sticky the following onto page 1 of this thread to help those new to the problem?

Problem vehicles:
Typically any Mazda 5, but in particular 2006-2008 Sport (diesel/petrol) and Furano models with 17” 6.5J alloys. You cannot fit 15/16” alloys to car due to big brakes.
Mazda will admit a problem up to chassis number 195708 for rear toe-in, and 199062 for tyre selection, the OEM Dunlops. Since 9th Jan 07 there has been a chassis modification, however this has not cured the problem.

Bushes, Arms, Suspension Talk:
Front lower suspension arms and anti-roll bar bushes needed replacing on Minty’s 11 month old car. My bushes have gone at 48k miles, and garage tell me that the bushes cannot be replaced on their own, whole arm instead. Worn bushes in suspension links cause excess toe-in. Excess steering wheel vibration is a good sign, get this checked quickly.
The front suspension camber cast is fixed, but the upper strut mount (seen under bonnet) is adjustable, unsure as to how much effect this has.
Mazda recognise a problem with rear shocks, and produced an uprated one. Keep an eye on rear shocks for oil leaks, tyre wear can occur very rapidly (within 1000 miles) as a result.
Apparently there are modified rear camber arms and rear adjustable upper chamber control arms, however these modifications are not proven to help uneven tyre wear at this stage, posts on this thread are very new.
Metal blocks in centre of rear axle are “Dynamic Dampers” to help prevent bounce.

Geometry checks or adjustments:
Do not go to Mazda for wheel alignment or geometry check. Use an independent specialist with 4 wheel camera controlled alignment apparatus
Mazda issued a TSB on 27th March 2007 for rear toe setup, from max tolerance across to min 2 degrees. A third party will say that the original setting is within tolerance. Mazda do not recognise any fault with front geometry
Geometry figures posted on #41 (Mazda), #200 (Mazda), #455 (Mazda), #511 (independent, perhaps the most valuable? But see #770 too), #660 (independent), #770 (#511 front settings corrected)

Tyre Talk:
Consensus is that tyre pressures of 36-38PSI (40psi for heavy load) help prevent uneven tyre wear, use a digital pressure gauge. Check sidewall of tyre for max PSI loading though!
Flip tyres on the alloys to share wear with other shoulder.
Dunlop Sport Maxx and Continential Contisport 3 have all rated highly as durable tyres. Some (including me) rate Avon tyres too.

Take it further?
If you want to call Mazda UK (MMUK) 0845 601 3147

 

The only issue I have with the above comments has to do with the wheel size. Unless the Mazda5 sold in the UK is substantially different than the one sold in North America, you absolutely can fit 15" and 16" wheels with no brake clearance issues.

 

thank you Shipo, if anyone else can add proof to this, then for one i'd like to know, as i currently have one 17" flaking front alloy, and three with bubbling centres, and shoddy tyres, so would consider downgrading alloy size.

 

In the US the 5 is only sold with the larger engine (2.3L, now 2.5L for 2012,) and 17" wheels, meaning they all have larger brakes the upper trim level 3's have as well.
You may have the 2.0L, but given the additional size and weight of the vehicle, it may still have the larger 300mm front rotors vs. the 278mm rotors that come with our base model (2.0L) cars.
In either case a 16" wheel should fit over the caliper but I wouldn't go down to a 15" in either case. Maintaining overall tire diameter w/a 15" wheel (Minus 2 sizes) means the ride would improve (taller sidewalls,) but the handling might become dangerous. It would certainly suffer.
Just my .02, but if you could measure a front rotor, you would know just what size wheel would fit.

 

Richard, you're probably correct regarding the 15" wheel not being able to clear the brakes, however, there is absolutely no reason why running a 15" wheel with a tire diameter of a hair over 25" would be even remotely dangerous. As a point of reference, I drove a loaner 1999 BMW 323i with 195/65 R15 tires, and while it was no canyon carver, it was more than composed in all "normal" driving situations.

In the sublime to rediculous department; shortly after we bought our fairly well tarted up 1998 Dodge Grand Caravan I had the pleasure (uhhh, not exactly) of driving a 1998 short wheelbase Caravan loaner for a couple of days (the rear bumper skin was damaged by some kind soul in a parking lot; no note was left). Unlike the 16" wheel setup our DGC was sporting, the SWB Caravan in question was running on (gasp!) 205/75 R14 tires, in spite of the fact that the Caravan was both taller and heavier than a Mazda5. While I wouldn't exactly characterize the SWB Caravan as dangerous, it was not exactly confidence inspiring either.