Suncor Energy cancels Voyageur oil sands upgrader project; acquires Total’s stake
Dodge equips 2014 Durango full-size SUV with 8-speed for 9% boost in fuel economy

J.D. Power survey finds declining customer satisfaction with run-flat or low-rolling-resistance tires

Satisfaction is declining among US customers whose vehicles are equipped with run-flat or low-rolling-resistance tires as part of automakers’ efforts to improve fuel efficiency, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2013 US Original Equipment Tire Customer Satisfaction Study.

As automakers explore all options to meet the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, they are increasingly looking at the effect of tires on fuel consumption. Two key tire-related actions automakers are taking to improve fuel efficiency are equipping vehicles with run-flat tires in lieu of a spare tire and using low-rolling resistance tires. While potentially improving fuel efficiency, both products are falling short of customer expectations in terms of satisfaction with their tires, according to the survey’s findings

Run-flat tires are primarily being used on luxury and performance sports vehicles. In both instances, overall satisfaction with tires is lower when vehicles are equipped with run-flat tires, compared with when they are equipped with standard tires.

Overall satisfaction among owners of luxury vehicles with run-flat tires is 728 (on a 1,000-point scale), compared with 739 among those who own luxury vehicles with standard tires. The gap is even more pronounced among owners of performance sports vehicles, among whom overall satisfaction is 665 with run-flat tires vs. 732 with standard tires.

Part of the gap in satisfaction is due to the necessity of having to replace run-flat tires more frequently, compared with standard tires. Nearly one-third (31%) of customers whose vehicle is equipped with run-flat tires have had to replace at least one tire, compared with just 19% of those whose vehicle is equipped with standard tires. In addition, customers with vehicles equipped with standard tires replace their tires after an average of 22,559 miles, more than 6,000 miles beyond the average life of run-flat tires.

Customers with vehicles equipped with run-flat tires are nearly twice as likely as those with vehicles equipped with standard tires to have to replace a tire due to a flat or blowout. Run-flat tires cannot be repaired and often need to be replaced in pairs rather than as a single tire.

Automakers are trying to reach the next level of fuel economy, and are looking to their suppliers—in this case, tire manufacturers—to help them get there. The challenge is doing this while finding tires that meet customers’ expectations. Run-flat tires are not currently meeting those expectations.

Owners of performance sports cars with run-flat tires say they “definitely will” recommend their tire brand to friends and family only half as often as those whose car is equipped with standard tires (14% vs. 28%, respectively). That has a potentially tremendous financial impact on tire manufacturers.

—Brent Gruber, director, global automotive division at J.D. Power and Associates

The study also finds that customers often express apprehension regarding low-rolling resistance tires. Research conducted by J.D. Power’s Consumer Insights and Strategy Group to track social media activity surrounding these tires finds that many consumers are concerned that equipping low-rolling resistance tires on their vehicle means compromising traction and durability in exchange for better gas mileage.

Additionally, these consumers perceive that automakers select the best type of tires for their vehicle and, thus, they are apprehensive about straying too far from the original selection. While consumers ultimately conclude that low-rolling resistance tires may improve fuel efficiency, they are confused and concerned regarding the associated sacrifices.

Overall satisfaction and quality. The study measures tire owner satisfaction in four vehicle segments: luxury, passenger car, performance sport and truck/utility. Satisfaction is examined in four factors: tire wearability; tire appearance; tire traction/handling; and tire ride. Rankings are based on owner experiences with their tires after 2 years of vehicle ownership.

Overall satisfaction with original equipment tires is 686, unchanged from 2012. Satisfaction increases in three of the factors, while tire ride satisfaction decreases by six index points year over year. Overall satisfaction is highest in the luxury segment, with an average score of 738, followed by the performance sports segment at 728 and the passenger car and truck/utility segments tied at 676.

For a fourth consecutive year, customers are experiencing fewer problems with their tires. On average, customers report 74 problems per 100 (PP100) vehicles, an improvement from 76 PP100 in 2012 and 84 PP100 in 2011. The most frequently reported problems are road hazard/punctures, slow leaks, excessive road noise and fast tread wear. Overall satisfaction is 135 points lower among customers who experience a specific tire problem than among those who do not experience any problems (748 vs. 613, respectively).

Michelin ranks highest in three of the four segments: luxury (775); passenger car (729); and performance sport (751). Pirelli ranks highest in the truck/utility segment (737).

The 2013 US Original Equipment Tire Customer Satisfaction Study is based on responses from more than 30,835 new-vehicle owners who purchased a 2011 or 2012 model-year vehicle. The study was fielded between October and December 2012.

Comments

Arne

The headline of this article is wrong. JD Edwards only finds lower satisfaction for run-flat tires. Not low rolling resistance tires, since they didn't research that. They only talk about consumers being 'concerned'. Yeah, they are concerned about so many things...

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)