tyres and insurance

[johnedwards]

I am in the difficult position of having bought a 1997 Carrera S from a North London dealer where he fitted new tyres which are not to Porsche approval.
My local OPC has just done a 46 point control on the car free of charge as part of a promotion and made a big point of saying the tyres were effectively illegal and if I had an accident and somebody was injured the assurers would not pay up.
The tyres have been on the car for over three years and covered 9,000 kilometres during that time. They are in fact wearing well and seem to hold the road well.
I am thinking if he, the dealer or his tyre supplier fitted them, they must be legal.
The fronts are Ceat Tornado 225/40 ZR18 88W.
The rears Sport N made in Korea 285/30 ZR18 93W.
The fronts are probably made in Korea as well I just couldn't see it.
With the way things are in the World now I would imagine that quite a lot of the better known tyres are made in the Far East.
Has anybody any knowledge as to the legality or otherwise. I do of course fully accept that when I change the tyres I will fit Porsche recommended replacements.
Look forward to hearing.
John.

 

[craig2105]

Hi John - not a great introduction to your car, but I'm sure it will get better soon!

Firstly, tyres on a Porsche of that age should definitely be "N" rated - that is specially approved by Porsche. I don't know about the legality question but I would agree that your insurance company is likely to take a dim view of your car wearing tyres not on Porsche's approved list. I would certainly take the matter up with the dealer, and if he deals in Porsche models at all, he damn well ought to know better, not only that the N rating compliance is essential, but also that you simply do not mix tyres on these cars. They are sensitive to the different handling properties of different tyres and to have an unmatched set is a big no-no and pretty basic stuff. Also, the brands you have fitted on your car are far more suited to throw-away Corsa's and Saxo's and have no place on a thoroughbred high performance car.

Others on here are far more knowledgeable than I, but it's clear things are not right with your rubber. But otherwise, you've chosen a great car and I hope you enjoy it!

 

[turboww]

Without being aware of what the correct sizes are for the wheels concerned I wouild say that the OPC was referring to 'approved' rather than 'illegal'

More informed opinion to follow no doubt...

 

[turboww]

Or even beat me to it...

 

[clyde]

I would suspect that the OPC meant that if the insurance company used the non-spec tyres as a reason for weaseling out of paying up in the event of an accident John would effectively have no insurance?

The N-rating means that Porsche have tested and approved them for use on their (specified) vehicles. This testing covers many aspects, including wear rate, grip (dry and wet) loading abilities, etc There may be other tyres out there that are suitable but have not been tested. It's certainly not a legal requirement to fit N rated tyres and my winter tyres are not N-rated. I work on the principle that I don't drive fast enough or hard enough when they're on to make any difference. However I would not think about putting summer tyres on that were not N-rated. The rear tyres on a 911 take a lot more load (from the engine/gearbox as well as the torque) than an "ordinary" car's rear tyres and for this reason alone I would be concerned about driving a 911 without N-rated tyres.

There's nothing wrong with tyres made in the far east, most, if not all Continetal tyres are only "engineered in Germany" but made goodness only knows where. But if you've never heard of the make chances are they're cheap tat put on to make the car look good before a sale. I would advise binning them and putting a set of N-rated ones John.

 

[cristel993]

Is the dealer a recognised Porsche specialist?

 

[John Maddox]

I agree with the others in that they should be changed to N rated all round.

However I think I would go back to the selling dealer and say how disappointed you are with the OPC's comments and ask if there is anything they can do. Don't mention the legalities or otherwise as this will get any dealers hackles up.

Be prepared to cover the cost of the original tyres in an effort to get what you want. I did this once and the dealer obliged. It's always worth a go.

Just seen the tyres have been on car for three years !! Disregard all above in this instance apart from changing to N rated.

 

[Pickled Piper]

Total tosh from the OPC exacerbated by internet myths.

Providing the tyres are the correct size, undamaged, have a legal tread depth and have the appropriate speed rating, then your insurance Co have no interest whatsoever. In short if it passes an MOT then you are fine.

The N rating just denotes that the particular tyre is formally approved by Porsche through their scheme. If it does not have the N rating it does not mean that the tyre is disapproved by Porsche or in any way a bad tyre.

As you were and enjoy your vehicle.

Personally, I don't like to mix tyre makes on a car so you may want to remedy this when yours wear out. Also, on the basis of the advice you have been given I would steer clear of the OPC as evidently it is staffed by numpties.

pp

 

[PH]

Am I correct in thinking that you have had the car for over three years, with these far eastern tyres, but now are concerned about their suitability?

If I were you I would put a set of 'decent' Porsche specific N rated tyres on it.
I would not be happy having economy tyres on my 993. When I got mine it had Falkens on the rear which although had lots of tread left on them I replaced with Bridgestone SO2-A N rated.

You have a very desirable / valuable car, you have had the Kamikazee ditch finder tyres on it for three years, buy some decent ones and sell the ones you take off on E bay for someone to put on their Corsa.

 

[MrHappy]

There's an article in this months Total 911 (other magazines are available...) that discusses tyres in some depth. Their summary says, from an insurance angle, the tyres do not have to be N rated as long as they are road legal etc. Worth a read.

 

[pse_SC]

for someone to put on their Corsa

My god, I hope someone doesn't try to fit 285/30 ZR18s on a Corsa[:-][][]

 

[clyde]

ORIGINAL: Pickled Piper

Providing the tyres are the correct size, undamaged, have a legal tread depth and have the appropriate speed rating, then your insurance Co have no interest whatsoever. In short if it passes an MOT then you are fine.

pp

Can't totally agree with you there I'm afraid PP. Depending on the size of the claim insurers frequently look for "get out jail free cards". After-market wheels is frequently a good one for them. If they argue that they are not paying out because of a different spec, what they are saying is that your insurance is void as you did not disclose a relevant point to them. QED void insurance = no insurance, therefore you were driving with no insurance at the time of the incident. Hence the "illegal" comment (maybe).

Whether they would take this view in the event of a claim would possibly come down to whether or not they considered the tyres played any part in the cause of the claim, e.g. theft - no; loosing control at a roundabout - yes.

I think all that is a bit of a red herring anyway. Whilst I would agree that just because a tyre isn't N-rated doesn't mean that it's not suitable, however, I know that N-rated tyres specified by Porsche for use on a 993 are suitable for my car. As I said before, it's not just the speed rating, it's also the load index as well as the various circuit testing they do to determine whether the dynamics of the tyres work with the car. It's all about much better drivers than me testing these tyres on the same model of car that I own and saying "yes, these tyres work well with that car". I don't know about anyone else on this forum but I certainly don't have the knowledge or experience to argue with that.

 

[jboult]

Can't totally agree with you there I'm afraid PP. Depending on the size of the claim insurers frequently look for "get out jail free cards". After-market wheels is frequently a good one for them. If they argue that they are not paying out because of a different spec, what they are saying is that your insurance is void as you did not disclose a relevant point to them. QED void insurance = no insurance, therefore you were driving with no insurance at the time of the incident. Hence the "illegal" comment (maybe).

I see this point being made quite regularly (usually along with "no tax, no insurance") and I'm curious to know whether anyone has a real example of an insurance company refusing to pay out in such a case, or whether it has achieved something of the status of urban legend? I can understand the argument that by visually upgrading a car you made it more desirable to steal, which may affect the premiums, but anything else must be difficult to use as an excuse.

So - anyone with personal experience? I guess one of the Pistonheads forums might be able to put me straight.

Certainly in my experience insurance assessments can be pretty cursory affairs - I had a total write off 944 Turbo ('hydrauliced' engine) that was up on a lift assessed in 5 seconds by an agent who walked under it and said "yes it's a write off". Interestingly, he never even noticed it was a left hooker, and the original offer came through based on a right hand drive car (yes, I 'fessed up).

By the way - this is curiosity only and no way an advocacy of unrated tyres. They're your only contact with the road, so make your choice accordingly.

Cheers/John

 

[Porker993]

I agree - why buy a 993 and put cheapo tyres on it ?

Not sure about the insurance argument - if the tyres were "legal" how could an insurance company invalidate a claim ?

If the tyres were the wrong sizes, damaged, or worn, or not fitted correctly, that makes them illegal, and an MOT failure. But not being N rated ? That's not an MOT failure, as far as I know.

I suppose if we were that interested, we could all ask our insurance companies to see what their approach is ?

I only ever use N rated Continentals, because of grip and wear characteristics, also because I like to keep the car as the maker intended.

 

[clyde]

Perhaps we should do what they do in Germany where specific "approved" tyres are specified on their equivalent of the V5. On the original German vehicle registration document for my car all approved tyres listed are N-rated and I believe it is a fail point on their equivelent of the mot if approved tyres are not fitted. But they're much more stringent on the whole approval basis with anything that's going to fitted to a car there having to be TUV approved.

The insurance thing may just be an urban myth John and I would agree it would be good to get confirmation one way or the other but it does seem reasonable to me. Phoning your insurer will not necessarily help though as they seem to change their mind every time you speak to them from my experience. Anyway, the ones that you speak to in the call centre aren't the ones who will approve or reject your claim [8|]

 

[Porker993]

Probably best not to phone the call centre, as the verbal opinion of a woman in Mumbai is of no real value, however polite they are. Any ruling would have to be expressed in writing from someone in authority at the company to be of any value.

 

[Johnny C]

I put some non-N-spec tyres on my old 3.2 because I needed the local car quicker than the tyre place could get N-spec. I rang up my insurance company and asked them about it beforehand and they said no problem. It's worth letting them know. Chances are it'll just be a call-centre person who won't know what you're going on about, but as long as it's documented that you have non-'approved' tyres you're safe from that point of view.

The non-N-spec tyres I put on were Pirelli zero-neroes. They were fine from a handling point of view, I didn't have any complaints with that, better than the N-spec conti's I initially put on. The only problem with them was that they flat-spotted (went oval). Going oval is something that happens eventually when you drive soft-compound tyres at high speed for a long distance regularly (especially if they are not always at the right pressure), when the car comes to rest the rubber slightly compresses permanently as the compound cools down and over time one spot will get worse than the rest. I have assumed that N-spec compounds are adjusted to compensate for this as I've never had problems with oval tyres with N-spec.

As far as illegal goes, tosh. it's like putting non-Approved oil in. Not ideal, but it's not illegal. If it was then no tyre place would put them on as they would be vicariously liable; if you had a smash and the insurance company wouldn't pay then you would be able to sue the tyre place, they couldn't claim that they didn't know as being in the business classes them as having 'expert knowledge' in the eyes of the law (i.e. having sufficient knowledge) and they would have been in the wrong to knowingly put the wrong tyres on even if you had asked for them.

Having said this, if they're over 3 years old then start saving up for some good N-specs. You'll appreciate the difference, especially in the wet.

 

[carrerasport]

This is a lively debate!!!
Now i keep hearing time and time again how these n approved tyres are specifically tailored to the requirements of the 993 or even just a nine eleven,and how this is due to the torque / rear engined weight/vehicle dynamics etc.What a load of boll%ks. Lets take for example the contisport contact 255/40/17 N- there is only one type of approved continental tyre in this size so this would be fitted potentially to the rear of a 928gts/968 all models,964 type 911 and 993 type 911 and 996 type 911 and even the boxster .All of these models are approved for 17inch wheels and this would be the correct size in all these cases for the rear.Now if anybody on here wants to explain to me how these vehicles have the same load/rear engined weight /vehicle dynamics, come on down.This particular tyre has many possible fitments and it cannot be tailored to all these different models and it can't suit them all perfectly,but it is good enough for porsche to give it their seal of approval for fitting on any porsche which takes the size.
.I would not advocate different brands on front/rear axle and i wouldn't deviate from the premium brands, but honestly N rated tyres on a 3.2, the term N rated didnt even exist when the 3.2 was released,now they may have gone back and tried some modern n rated tyres on their classic ranges, but if it wasn't sold with them on when new then absolutely no way will it be an insurance issue now.I am not aware of any changes they made to the 3.2 to make it suitable for n rated tyres when they first came about?Im not sure if porsche are as fussy on their tyres as we all think or its driven by country of origin of the tyres ,price and how much porsche make out of it and commitment to their racing programs from that particular tyre manufacturer,I think cost to porsche is in the top three every time,when it comes to deciding a supplier of a component. Lets start a monroe shock debate for a quality component supplier on the 993!!!!
Now if were going to talk about a proper bespoke porsche tyre how about the bridgstone re71 designed and developed specifically for the 959?with the dunlop denlok run flat system and then refined and broadened to a mass market for use on all other cars with the sizes to suit without the runflat system,what a cracking tyre that was!!

Preparing for some flak!

 

[johnedwards]

Well, I certainly seem to have stirred up a hornets nest.
Firstly apologies for not responding sooner I have been partaking of some sun in the UK. Just lucky!
Of course I do feel a bit of a pr.. having lived with the tyres for over three years. This was not my original intention but time has slipped by and the car has seen little use.

I am not of course going to name the dealer only to say that you pays your money and usually you get what you pay for, or a little less. I had the car inspected by Peter Morgan and apart from logging the size and make he made no comment. It is LHD which was right for where it was going and bought for, shall we say a very reasonable price. In fact the dealer tried hard to up the price after he had quoted my brother who found it, saying it was the only car he had any calls on that week. Dealer speak of course! But considering it is a 1997 Carrera S in a special run out colour scheme, mechanically and bodily in good condition, I feel I had a reasonable deal.

The tyres made their way on to the car when the dealer changed the wheels because one of the rear's was a different offset to the other. It was all done in rather a hurry as I was booked to take the car back to France, where I live two days later.
So my thoughts for the tyres were-I will finish them off tout de suite and replace them. In fact, as said I have hardly driven the car and the tyres are still on it and looking hardly worn. I am quite a light driver and more interested in driving a beautifully engineered car and feeling good in it, than giving it a good thrashing every time I take it out. I am no longer at the age where I would wish to take it on a track day.

I would imagine the dealer was in the habit of sending sets of wheels to his tyre supplier with the instructions "˜fit a new set, best price as usual' and they would often come back with non Porsche approved tyres on. This cannot have been an isolated incident as they were ready and waiting to be fitted.

I am in fact now considering selling because circumstances have changed. Part of the sale offer will be a new set of covers to the buyers choice.

I would like to thank everybody for their contributions and their views but as said by some, if the tyres are the right spec and loading, and they are according to the figures moulded on the sides, then it is doubtful they are illegal. The amazing thing to me is how well they have worn. I fully expected them to break up very quickly and that just hasn't happened.
John.