I purchased a new 2012 Kia Forte on March 27. As of May 15, the car had just under 1800 miles on it. On May 10th, I noticed missing tread on both front tires. Hankook Optimo H426 tires. While the vehicle is front wheel drive, the missing tread was not in the same place on both tires. The following events took place on May 15.
After contacting Hankook's customer line, I was told to go to one of their dealers to have the tires checked. I went to a Sears Automotive location in NE Tampa. Sears examined my tires. They told me the damage was caused by a road hazard. They also told me that the car was not safe to drive as is.in 30 years of driving, I have never seen new or recently new tires sustain anything similar in terms of damage.
Sears called Hankook, who told them that the road hazard warranty did not apply. I also called Hankook. It was explained to me that since I did not purchase the tires, the road hazard warranty was not valid. Sears suggested I go to my Kia dealer. My Kia dealer confirmed that the tires were not covered by Hankook. At this point, I paid over $260 to replace the two front tires. This was at the dealership.
Hankook has tires on new Kia and Hyundai vehicles. When virtually anyone buys a new car, he or she does not normally immediately buy a new set of tires. Thus, I feel ripped off. The tires were new. I paid to replace them. Did I not buy the tires as part of the car purchase? It seems to me that Hankook's policy of not supporting road hazard warranties on OEM tires is neither reasonable nor customer oriented.
My belief is that these tires were defective. On May 18th, I spoke to the individual who is in charge of OEM tire warranties for Hankook. This person told me that "no road hazard coverage" was company policy, and that he was in charge of implementation. If one buys a new car, one gets a warranty. Why new vehicle tires, after less than 2,000 miles of use, cannot be covered by warranty is a mystery to me.
Hankook must make a bundle by having their tires on new Kia and Hyundai vehicles. They should be fully supporting said product, rather than hiding in what I see as semantics. It cost me $260 that I really couldn't afford to spend, nor do I believe I should have been required to do so.
0 comments