Hankook USA Corp

Review: I purchased through 4 “Ventus S1 noble^2” Hankook tires through [redacted] on July 01st 2014. The purchase ID for each tire location (Left Front, Right Front, Left Rear, Right Rear) is [redacted] showing on the Consumer Registration with a confirmation number [redacted] dated on July 09th 2014. The tires placed on my 2012 Chrysler 200 by [redacted] on July 14 2014 with my odometer reading 33877.

These are prematurely worn out the tread below the minimum 2/32. I had submitted phone call to the Warranty division on September 24 2015 regarding warranty and replacement. I was told by the representative (Judi H., Technical Services Administrator) to provide information including photos during phone communications and reaffirmed with an office email ([redacted]. I did so on October 2nd 2015 with an odometer reading 54493. The Representative stated that she did not receive the information. So, I resent the information with links to photo graphs and some supporting documents on the October 8th 2015. The representative (Judi H. ,Technical Services Administrator) then stated she could not print them out. She was going to have a technician look at them. I have not heard from Hankook Tire since. Though, I have made several attempts to communicate with them through a couple of phone calls and an email.Desired Settlement: I would like to get warrantied replacements. However, when I bought the tires the rubber looked dry. Now, I can see actually see cracks in between the treading and submitted it in a photo. These tires are well inside a 50,000 mile coverage zone. The rubber on these tires was bad from the beginning and should never been sold to a consumer

Business

Response:

We have responded to the customer via email. He has been directed to his local Hankook dealer to have the tires adjusted under the mileage warranty. These tires are worn evenly enough to adjust.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this is satisfactory to me, If and if warranty is completely fulfilled to maximum value of obligations.

Regards,

Review: I submitted two rebate claims to this company. The first claim was denied because I attached the wrong invoice. I re-submitted the claim with the appropriate information and then it was approved about 4 weeks ago. Today, I was notified it was denied due to multiple claims - even though my first claim was denied weeks ago.

I did everything I should as a consumer and should receive the $100 rebate. This is deceptive marketing in my opinion.Desired Settlement: I would like a check for $100 sent to me.

Business

Response:

Good afternoon This customer already had his rebate reward card approved & sent to his home address ($100) – please close this complaint case.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Review: Recall on tires from Hankook was sent via certified mail to me received on (01-23-16). I purchased (4) tires brand new from [redacted] on (10-21-14) for $684.14 total. All (4) tires are affected by this recall. Hankook states in their letter that they will refund the full purchase amount. I have tried several times to let customer service try and help me with this issue. They refuse to help in any way. [redacted] has also tried to contact them. These are 50,000 mile warranty tires. They have barely lasted 19,000 miles.Desired Settlement: I would like to be refunded the entire purchase price of $684.14.

Business

Response:

[redacted] tires are not part of the recall. We notified [redacted] and his dealer, [redacted] never contacted Hankook, they contacted their distributor whom never responded to them.

Review: On Nov 3, 2012 I bought a set of hankook dynapro atm rf10 285/75/16 load range "e" 10 ply anlong with a set of eagle 1402 style wheels size 16x8 8 on 170mm for my 2001 4wd . tiresand wheels where installed at 85699. truck now has 126,000 . Tire are 1/2 tread of better now. I purchased these thru [redacted]. I also purchased road hazzard warranty. The last 2+ years these tires have been balanced 6+ times to try and resolve balance issues. Last 2 weeks tires have been balanced 2x, tires have been dismounted, indexed, turned white letter from inside to outside, wheels have been spun for trueness. I have talked with hankook and also owner of [redacted] to try and get this set of tires replaced because there is something wrong with them. And its only getting worse. The tires in the last few months to last 2 weeks are getting a odd wear pattern. truck is within specs of allighment " done at [redacted] . 2 tires are now out of round" seen on balancer machine" I have taken pics the last 2 weeks of tires being balanced and showing weights. balancers show zero..drive for 7 days. shaking bad..bring back and put tires on machine and hows need more weight? shore reps cant explain this. I have asked for 2+ years to get them replaced, turn them in under the road hazzard warranty and shore tire will not help. They told me to make a claim with hankook, hankook has been contacted 3 times and they will NOT help at all with there product! I have replaced shocks, sway bar bushings and linlks, ball joints, wheel bearing assembalys . steering stabilizer. Thinking this was affecting the tires. Done this from what shore tire reps told me could be causing the tire issues. I am tired of spending money on other parts when its faulty tires from hankook.Desired Settlement: Asking that hankook replace these tires at NO COST TO ME thru [redacted] where they where purchased or send me to any other certified hankook dealer with in 50 miles of [redacted] zipcode. I should not have to buy new tires when these are 1/2 + tread and they have 2+ years or more of service left for faulty tires that will not balance, out of round all the sudden, odd wear patterns only getting worse week to week.

Business

Response:

Hello Revdex.com, [redacted] has irregular mechanical wear. This is what is causing his vibration. As you can see from his letter, he has had several parts replaced on his vehicle. He can send me pictures to my email at [redacted] or he can call me at [redacted] for an extensive explanation. Juan B[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

...I replaced parts trying to show [redacted] it is the tires..2 are out of round now..all 4 are continually to show.signs of failing thru.out.of roundness....not being able to be balanced...odd tire wear....im am sick and tired of replacing parts on my vechicle.for faulty tires ..been fighting these issues for 2 plus years.

Regards,

Business

Response:

We have addressed this with [redacted] His tires are not out of round. They are irregularly worn on the inside of the tire. Irregular wear is not covered by any warranty.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: 2 tires are out of round according to lead shop foreman at [redacted]. The cupping has just started, truck is with in spec on alighment. Balancing issues are still there.If I was not properly taking care of the tires there would be documatation on [redacted] paperwork leaving a paper trail of not taking care or properly maintaing my tires, there is not.. There has been excuse after excuse that I am to blame for the wrong tire on wrong vechicle,wrong wheel, etc etc..from Jaun and [redacted] The tires are 10 pyl load range "e" for 3/4 ton and 1 ton trucks, suv's. I just want what is fair and right, I;m not trying to get free tires or pull a fast one on anybody. These tires have over 40,000 miles and are at 1/2 tread( according to [redacted]. I should be able to get another 2-3 years of service out of them. When I have the funds avail I will cut out "dot" numbers and mail them to jaun a b[redacted] to prove to him that the tires are no longer for road use. I will then return tires to [redacted] for disposal and to make sure they do not resale them. Pictures are from today. I thank the Revdex.com for there help. When I send dot numbers to hankook and return tires to [redacted] I will send letters with case #s to NJ Revdex.com and the [redacted] Revdex.com. thanks [redacted]

Regards,

Review: I purchased four (80,000 mile rated) Hankook Tires on 10/31/2012 for $811.96 for the set from [redacted] On 12/31/2014 I returned to the dealer when I noticed the wear bar indicators were warn on three of the tires and the fourth was almost bald. Assuming Hankook tire would stand behind their product I put four new Hankook tires on the vehicle. The starting odometer reading was 43,713 miles and the ending reading was 81,827 miles. I got 38,114 miles from an 80,000 mile rated tire. That is 47.6% of the tire's rated mileage. I was told the [redacted] had to send them to Hankook for inspection and any rebate for the poor mileage. When I returned to [redacted] in February I was told Hankook Tire allowed me $239.24 total which I received from [redacted] took it upon themselves to give me an in store credit for $160.00 to help make it right. I now have four new Hankook tires on my car that I doubt will give me the mileage the company advertises. On 2/11/2015 I e-mailed my concerns to Hankook Tire on their website. I still have not gotten a return e-mail from them. Today is February 28th.Desired Settlement: I think Hankook should reimburse [redacted] for the instore credit and take back the Hankook tires I have on the car so I can get them replaced with a tire company that stands behind their product.

Business

Response:

Hankook tire has a mileage warranty and credit process that is agreed upon by Hankook and its dealers. This seems to be an issue between the dealer and the consumer. If the customer has a ride complaint, he or she can take the tires back to the dealer to see if they have any issues.

Consumer

Response:

Complaint[redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: I have new Hankook tires on my car. I got no where near the 80,000 miles indicated as mileage for the tires on the first set. Am I going to have to go through this process again if I get similar wear on this set? I am very unhappy with the advertised mileage and the actual mileage I received. The compensation I received from Hankook did not come close to making up the difference.

Regards,

Review: I bought a new Hyundai Elantra last year. It came with Hankook Optimo tires already installed. I was extremely happy about this because my last car had these tires for years and they were great and lasted a long time. Unfortunately that is not the case with these tires. I am very disappointed with these tires. I had to replace one of these about a month ago because of a bubble on the sidewall and the others are just about worn out. This car only has 28,700 miles on it and I had different snow tires on it for all of last winter. So these tires probably only have about 20,000-25000 miles on them and they are shot. They were supposed to be warrantied for 50000 miles. I have always kept them at the proper pressure and had them regularly rotated. They did not wear unevenly just wore out. After this I don't know if I will ever purchase Hankook tires again. I contacted customer service and was told that tires that come on new cars aren't covered for mileage only defects.Desired Settlement: I would like the pro-rated mileage warranty honored so I can replace the tires without having to pay full price.

Business

Response:

Original Equipment tires do not have a mileage warranty. [redacted] can contact Hankook's technical team at [redacted]) to see what can be done. We will need more information from [redacted].

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: I already went through your company with this complaint. I was in contact with [redacted]. Technical Services Administrator of your Quality and Service Team in the beginning of November. I sent pictures, receipts, and mileage with dates when I bought the car, had the tires rotated, and had my winter tires put on and taken off. I was told the same thing-Warranty does not cover new tires on new cars. That is why I contacted the Revdex.com.

Regards,

Business

Response:

The complainant can contact me directly to see what we can do. Again, original equipment tires do not have a mileage warranty. There is no guarantee on how many miles can be obtained or expected from these tires. That said I will see what we can do.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: I have tried to contact Hankook directly again but have received no response. I have no specific person or extension number to contact when I try to call. Left a message last week but got no response. Hankook does not want to do anything about this matter and just wants to get this resolved and taken off of the Revdex.com complaint forum.

Regards,

Business

Response:

We have been in contact with Barry to resolve his specific issue.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Review: I currently have Hankook Ventus AS tires on my 2012 [redacted]. I have put appx 16,700 miles on said tires. I have rotated the tires at every required interval IAW Manufacturer requirements. My servicing dealer is [redacted] and they have conducted all my maintenance. The tires from the beginning were very loud and rough. Over the course of the past 9 months I have had the vehicle serviced 3 times. Every single time [redacted] checks alignment and inspects the tires. Rotates them at the required intervals. The tire pressure is monitored by the vehicle. [redacted] has inspected the entire suspension and drive train to try and identify a problem with the car to which nothing could be identified. We have made multiple attempts to work with Hankook and today they stated, "Unfortunately with the current condition of your tires we cannot warranty them for irregular mechanical wear." They made NO attempt to inspect the tires or call the dealer to confirm inspection results that they conducted. The tires are so loud and rough I took a decibel meter and registered the interior noise level at over 70 decibels on both concrete and asphalt surfaces. The NHTSA has documented failures with this style tire to which the symptoms of mine are very similar. Their handling of my claim demonstrates gross negligent's. They have failed to make any attempt to identify the tire deficiencies to insure they are safe for my vehicle. The truth is there is no deficiency with the car and they just refuse to recognize that they have a defective product.Desired Settlement: Hankook can supply a new set of [redacted] HP2 sized for my 2012 [redacted] I would be satisfied with that outcome.

Business

Response:

Hankook has been in contact with [redacted] sent pictures that clearly show irregular wear. The wear patterns are indicative of a mechanical issue. Unfortunately with the condition of the tires they would not be covered by the warranty. [redacted] can contact me at any time to discuss his tires. My name is Juan B[redacted] at [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:Hankook Tire made the determination that it was "mechanical failure" by looking at the pictures attached in this correspondence. I can provide evidence of the email I sent to verify it was in fact the same pictures. Hankook Tire made NO effort to have someone other than [redacted] (servicing dealership) to inspect the "mechanical condition" of the car to eliminate it as a possible contributor to the defect and problems with the tires. Service records maintained on file at [redacted] will verify that on three separate service visits that NO "mechanical failure" was found that required repair. The alignment is verified at every visit and the tires are rotated at required intervals. Hankook has simply failed at acting appropriately to insure the tires were not defective. Based on the servicing dealer inspections, the car mechanical equipment is working as designed by [redacted] Considering the loudness of the tires and the undesirable ride, our main concern is potential tire separation. In [redacted] et al. v. Hankook Tire Corporation et al., this was determined to be the cause of tire failure which resulted in an undisclosed settlement. Under the provisions of 49 CFR, Hankook Tire is obligated to make every effort to address consumer safety concerns. I expect nothing less. I will accept a replacement set of Hankook Tires. Thank you all for your time.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Tire wear patterns can be used to determine how the tire was used. From the pictures the tires will remain rejected. If [redacted] would like me to physically look at his tires we can setup a pickup. He can contact me at [redacted] Juan B[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

We need to reach a resolution via this medium. I attempted to work through email/phone and I got nothing but the same generic responses you are giving now. I know and have expressed everything that I have done during this process. I am the one who has made an investment into figuring this out. All I have received is typical corporate responses and some decision based on pictures.Juan, there are numerous reputable automotive shops local. [redacted], and even one on the Marine Corps Base on Cherry Point I have access to. If you would like to choose one and make arrangements, I will make the time to accommodate so they can verify that the mechanical equipment is operating normally and not the source of the tire problems. We can use [redacted] again but I would recommend lets using someone else to make sure the evaluation is fair for everyone. Please respond with your intentions. I think that with a little effort on your part we can come to a conclusion.~[redacted]

Regards,

Review: I had all FOUR Hankook Dynapro ATM tires from this batch replaced for tread separation. I originally purchased these tires in March of 2010. I Had two of them replaced in April of 2013 (the separation on the two tires were so bad that they would not let me leave the shop with them.), then the blowout in September of 2014 then the final replacement in February of this year. ALL of these tires were replaced due to these defective tires.

I replaced these tires with the same product thinking I Just got a bad batch of tires. but when showing the guys at the Discount Tire what happened to the tire and car when the tread blew off the tire and the 2500 damage that was caused to the SUV, they felt that that was a defective product and that I needed to file a claim with Hankook. They helped me get the claim started. I was contacted by Juan B[redacted] who asked me to send in an estimate from a repair company which I did. a few days later I received a Letter stating that the claim was denied due to “Prolonged operation of the tire In an under-inflated state” This claim is simply untrue.

I commute quite a few miles a week. I am VERY conscious of the pressure of my tires. I do this for economic reasons I know keeping properly inflated tires improves MPG. This is why I keep a tire pressure gage in the door of my car and check it regularly. I also keep an air compressor in my car to Inflate any underinflated tires, this is also an automatic shut off compressor that shuts off at the set PSI. I keep my tires at a range of 35-40 PSI. I also have a TPMS system in my vehicle that would warn me of any low pressure Issues.Desired Settlement: I replaced ALL of the tires with their product to give them a second chance. I now am regretting my decision as they refuse to stand behind their product. As I have given them a second chance to try their product, I am giving them a second chance at making this situation right by paying for these damages and refunding the cost of the tires.

Business

Response:

This has been handled directly with [redacted]. We have processed his claim and responded to him already. [redacted] has all Hankook contact information if he would like to have any other questions answered.

Review: I purchased a 2015 [redacted] I purchased the vehicle from a dealer in Erie, PA. just under 6000 miles one tire blew out. It separated from the wall and was unrepairable. I contacted Hankook and sent pictures as requested. They requested mote pictures taken . I took more pictures following their instruction. Have only got the "run around" from them. I didn't expect Hankook to replace the tire, I thought they should pro-rate the tire and sell me a new tire at a discounted price. This occurred on October 25, 2015 at approximately 7:30 pm. While on the interstate. Hankook basically told me it was my fault for riding on the rim after it blew. I tried to explain that a vehicle driving at approximately 65-70 mph does not stop on a dime. The tire went flat first and there are not any obvious puncher marks anywhere on the damaged tire. Thank you for your time.Desired Settlement: Partial reimbursement for a new tire.

Business

Response:

From the customers explanation, this seems to be a tire that was run flat. When a tire is run on low air it can cause the tire to fail because it is not being used properly. This is considered damage caused out of the control of the manufacturer, thus it is not covered.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: the flat tire occurred just as soon as the pressure lowered in the tire. There was not proper time to add air.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Unfortunately tires that are destroyed beyond identification cannot be covered. Hankook would need proof that the reason for air loss would have been under the control of the tire manufacturer. When a tire looses air it is expected that air is added, or the spare is used to transport the tire to a local tire dealer.

Review: I puchased tires (Hankook Optimo 727) from [redacted] for my 2011 [redacted] on October 22, 2013. The very next day I took them to get aligned at [redacted]. Since then my tires have been wearing in the center of all four tires. All mileage is highway miles with an exception of a 1/4 mile every two weeks down rock roads. I was told by three different places that the tires were defective. The tires have only 36, 543 miles on them. I went back to the service center that the tires were originally purchased from and they got in contact with Hankook. Since then [redacted] submitted receipts from tire purchase, alignment receipt, tire tread measurements, and pictures. Hankook then asked for a statement from the dealership ([redacted] stating that the tires had been rotated on a routine basis, the tires had not been overinflated, tire tread measurements, and that there was nothing mechanically wrong with the car. I was then told the first pictures submitted were taken to close and a second set of pictures needed to be text messaged to Judy at Hankook. After a few days of not hearing anything I called Judy at Hankook and she requested a third set of tire tread measurements which I obtained from [redacted] When I called Judy to discuss she told me that they would warranty one tire but wouldn't do anything with the other three tires even though they are all wearing in the centers which [redacted], and [redacted] verified. Even though Hankook stated that they would warranty one of the tires what about the other three tires? I have done everything I can do from a customer stand point in means of maintenance on the vehicle and care for the tires and still yet the tires have not held up and I am being told that I need 4 new tires on the car.Desired Settlement: I am requesting warranty compensation for all 4 tires due to the wear of the tires after having them less than 2 years and only 36,543 miles on them. I have done everything I can do from a customer stand point in means of maintenance on the vehicle and care for the tires and still yet the tires have not held up and I am being told that I need 4 new tires on the car.

Business

Response:

Hankook has been in communication with [redacted] and from the pictures she provided we determined 3 of tires had irregular mechanical wear. That does void the mileage warranty on the tires. If she'd like to speak with me she can contact me at any time to explain how tire wear is affected by different factors.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: Three dealers have looked at the tires, provided tread depth measurements, and inspected car and all three places agree that the tires are defective. Car is maintenanced on a routine basis and nothing has been found to be mechanically wrong with the car. Tires with regular maintenance should last longer than what they have. I am requesting warranty compensation for all four tires.Attached is a photo of one of the dealerships response. I would more than happy to send pictures of the tires if desired.

Regards,

Business

Response:

[redacted] tire wear clearly shows the condition of the tires. Unfortunately the tires have irregular wear. This irregular wear voids the warranty on her tires. She can contact me with any additional questions at [redacted]

Review: I bought a 2012 Ford Flex new from dealership in WV. The vehicle had Hankook Tires Optimo H725 tires. The tires wore excessively and were shot within 15 thousand miles. If you bought the set of tire news, they have a 80000 mile treadwear warranty. I talked to ** at Hankook and he said that they were not going to cover the warranty on the tires as they were either roadside hazard or normal wear and tear. I had the dealership send Hankook the service records and tire rotations to show that these tires were services in timely manner. How can they that 15 thousand miles and the tires are shot and worn thin is due to normal wear and tear.Desired Settlement: Would like to have the tires replaced on the vehicle as they were defective tires.

Review: On May 26, 2015 I was enticed to purchase Hankook tires because of the $60 rebate being offered (2015 Great Catch Rebate). I immediately submitted the rebate form online and mailed the original invoice to the address provided on the rebate form. On May 27, 2015 I received an email from Hankook with the subject "Submission Received". On June 1, 2015 after they received my original invoice for the tires I was sent an email with the subject "Submission Approved". 10 weeks later I realized my rebate was not sent so I contacted Hankook for an update. I was told my submission was denied because the dealer did not put all the required tire detail on the invoice. I personally drove to the dealer to obtain the required tire detail and emailed this information along with the another invoice and a copy of the email that said Submission Approved. I have lost countless hours of my time on this now by calling everyday for the past 10 days, sitting on hold and re-telling the story. Each person I speak to is clueless. I am promised a manager will call me but they have not. I feel that Hankook has committed fraud by sending me 2 emails leading me to believe my rebate would be forthcoming when in fact they secretly denied the claim hoping me (or another customer) might forget about it. I use the word secretly because despite the fact that they sent me 2 positive emails, they never sent me any communication advising there was problem; they suddenly went quiet which I find very suspicious.Desired Settlement: I not only want my $60 [redacted] rebate card, I want Hankook to review the unscrupulous practices of the department handling their rebates at Dept.# [redacted]. My fear is that Hankook Corporate will deny culpability and point the finger at the rebate department when the people I spoke to at the rebate department are pointing the finger at Hankook Corporate and I, once again, will continue to be stuck in the middle.

Business

Response:

This customer’s submission was reapproved for ($60) – please close this complaint case.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Review: In November of 2011, I purchased a brand new 2012 Hyundai Sonata that came equipped with Hankook Optimo (H431) tires. I found out last year that these tires are absoluetly horrible in snow. This year I decided to purchase a set of snow tires to ensure the safety of my family while traveling through [redacted] winter season. On November 28, 2014 I went into the dealer and had my original tires swapped out with the snow tires. At that time I had them test my tread depth which was 5/32 and was told that a brand new Hankook Optimo starts with 10/32 tread depth so according to the dealer I shouldn't be having problems with traction on the road. Anyhow, once I got the original tires home and began unloading them, I saw what appeared to be surgical type slits in the tire on the side that would have been facing the car. I immediately called the dealer back to find out if someone had accidentally cut the tire during the removal process. The service manager instructed me to bring the tires back and upon inspection, explained to me that the tires were dry-rotted. That news made me sick to my stomach because had I not had the foresight to swap those tires out due to the impending winter season, I could have easily had a blow-out on the expressway with my family in the car with me. I tried 25 times to contact Hankook and the one time I did get someone on the phone, I was told that the dealer should have warrantied the tire and given me a new one at a reduced cost. The dealer is willing to work with me but the fact that the tire is defective has nothing to do with me and everything to do with Hankook and I feel that they should replace the tires at no cost to me. I didn't manufacture them and I didn't choose them as a tire supplier; they just happened to come along with the vehicle I purchased. The tire specifications are as follows: 225 45 R18 95V. Manufactor stamp reads [redacted]. I have been unable to speak to anyone from Hankook since I left the dealership.Desired Settlement: I personally feel that Hankook should back its product and replace my tires. I have small children and a blow-out on the highway is a worry I don't want. I just shelled out $700.00 on winter tires and now I'm faced with the need to purchase all-season tires because I can't run the risk of transporting my family around on faulty "may-pop" tires. My tire tread is still good and I've had my vehicle for almost 4 years. I only have 22,000 miles on my vehicle so as you can see I drive out of necessity and I take my vehicle in for all scheduled and routine maintenance. This is not a case of me abusing my vehicle or the tires and I believe Hankook should put its reputation where its mouth is.

Business

Response:

Tires have a warranty that will prorate credit in the event that a tire fails due to the manufacturing process. Unfortunately they are not given 100% credit once they have been worn past 75% of the original tread depth.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:It still does not tell me what the company is prepared to do to rectify my specific problem. I'm not comfortable putting that set of tires on my family vehicle.

Regards,

Business

Response:

The complaining person can call [redacted] at any time for clarification. These tires will not be replaced at free of cost but she can contact the company at the above number to revisit her situation. He must still have the tires to review her situation.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because the company is reluctant to give me a straight answer in regards to their supposed warranty of their product. The tires are worthless and shouldn't be listed as an all-season tire because they're not. Also, tires should not dry - rot unless they're either old, defective, or have been sitting around idle. Since I know the tires weren't just sitting idle on my vehicle, the alternative is that they were a bad batch of tires. Either way, Hankook isn't willing to accept responsibility for the garbage, they've put their name on. I will just purchase new tires that are safe and dependable. Please just file my formal complaint against Hankook Tires. Thank you.

Regards,

Review: The 2012 Hyundai Elantra Sedan came equipped with Hankook P214/45R17, 87 H, Optimo H426 Tires. These tires were rotated at each service as required by Hyundai and Hankook. At 19,642 miles the Hyundai Mechanic pointed out that the tires were worn out. He was correct as they tread depth was at or very close to the tread wear indicators. The Hankook website states that these tires have a tread ear life of 60,000 miles. I contacted Hankook and was told they do not warranty original equipment tires. I contacted Hydundai and they said that the tires are warrantied by Hankook. 20,000 mile life is much too short for a tire that's supposed to last 60,000 miles.Desired Settlement: What I would like is that the car receive a new set of 4 tires at 1/3 the cost of new which seems to be about $130 each as only 1/3 of the life of these original equipment tires was used and that Hankook absorb the mounting and balancing of these tires before mounting.

Business

Response:

Original equipment tires, tires that come on the vehicle from the factory, do not have a mileage warranty. Mileage warranties are placed on replacement tires. [redacted] tires are original thus they do not have a mileage warranty.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: The original equipment tires have a tread wear number of 440 which is the same as tires that can be purchased from any dealer including the Hyundai dealer where the car was purchased and that means they should last as long as tires bought from any dealer. Hankook's response implies to me that they are supplying sub standard tires to Hyundai at manufacturing and they know it. Since these tires do have a tread wear number and the tire life is no wear near that number they appear in my estimation to be in violation of the Federal standard that the 440 represents. I note that they are not trying to deny responsibility because the tires were in some way mis-maintained or mistreated. Regards,[redacted]