When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
My apologies if it has been asked 101 times but what is the tread depth of the C6 Z51 tires when new and at what depth should one start thinking about replacing them? I know they "should" show the tread wear indicator but I am trying to plan out when based on my current wear rate I will need to replace them and I cant figure out the wear rate as I dont have the initial depth value
Of course the tread is only significant on a wet road. You might be able to run them down to 2/32" if it's the dry season in LA. Just be REALLY careful if you get on wet pavement.
I know, that is the reason I measured mine with 45 miles on the odometer. I want to be able to keep an eye on Caster/camber and toe on this one.
It got away from me on the C5 and wasn't bad enough at the time to get GM to replace the tires. Close but NO cigar.
At the time it also looked like I wore 25% of the tread off all four tires at 4200 miles. But the fact was I started with 2/32" less then th specs were quoting. I'd only wore off 1/32".
Because I had to have a RF tire replaced recently, I bought a tread-measuring tool. I used it to measure the amount of tread on the tires on a new 2006 Monterey Red non-Z51 coupe sitting on my local dealer's showroom floor. The front tires had 10/32 of an inch of tread. The back tires had 11/32 of an inch of tread.
The new tire (700 miles) on my car measured 10/32 in the 2 middle grooves and about 9.8 in the 2 outermost grooves.
Would there be any reason for the OEM non-Z51 tires on a new 2005 coupe to have a different amount of tread than a new 2006 coupe?
OEM tires frequently have less tread than replacement tires. Saves a few bucks per car for the car manufacturer.
I understand a little less rubber multiplied by a lot of tires would add up, but it would seem to me that making additional molds would cost more than could be saved that way, at least for fairly low-production tires.
But it's funny that we have two direct measurements here, and they differ. It does suggest that there are two different tires, and maybe they ran low on the OEM version and threw in some of the aftermarket ones on the car with 10/32 and 11/32 tread.
Or maybe they changed them in mid-production.
I didn't measure my Z51 "supercar" tires when brand new, but working backward from the data I have it looks like the fronts were about 8.5 x 1/32" and the back about 8.9 x 1/32", which is a few percent under the 9/32" spec.
Because I had to have a RF tire replaced recently, I bought a tread-measuring tool. I used it to measure the amount of tread on the tires on a new 2006 Monterey Red non-Z51 coupe sitting on my local dealer's showroom floor. The front tires had 10/32 of an inch of tread. The back tires had 11/32 of an inch of tread.
The new tire (700 miles) on my car measured 10/32 in the 2 middle grooves and about 9.8 in the 2 outermost grooves.
Would there be any reason for the OEM non-Z51 tires on a new 2005 coupe to have a different amount of tread than a new 2006 coupe?
What ever it is, it ain't enough when you consider replacement cost!
With this much conflicting data from actual measurements, it makes one wonder if Goodyear is shaving tread after molding to correct for minor out-of-roundness. Tread measurements at several locations around the tire would need to be compared.
I have heard of this procedure being done, but I think it was like a last resort to save a tire. Discount Tire doesn't do it...if the tire can't be balanced within their maximum allowable weight, they reject the tire.
With this much conflicting data from actual measurements, it makes one wonder if Goodyear is shaving tread after molding to correct for minor out-of-roundness. Tread measurements at several locations around the tire would need to be compared.
I have heard of this procedure being done, but I think it was like a last resort to save a tire. Discount Tire doesn't do it...if the tire can't be balanced within their maximum allowable weight, they reject the tire.
You raise an interesting possibility.
I don't know about others, but I measure at three points around the circumference (as well as three points across). My tires vary between 0.004" and 0.016" around, or about 6% maximum. I'm willing to accept that as measurement error given that it's hard to get a really solid reading on the rubber. Which is why I take three readings and average them.