MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums - View Single Post

jimberg · 01-05-2001, 03:27 PM

I personally believe that four is the way to go. I've purchased 3 sets of Blizzaks already.

My problem is that they must either insist on ALWAYS selling in sets of four or just sell people what they want. Saying that they would sell two based on purchase history opens them up to liability more so than if they just let people buy what they want. By acknowledging that they may be liable for selling only two, they are taking on the responsibility of making safety decisions for the customer. If they overlook the case where a customer is mixing new Blizzaks with old Blizzaks and then that customer crashes because of the mixed set of tires, they are more liable since in the initial purchase they gave the customer the false impression that they wouldn't sell them the two tires if it was unsafe.

Their tests of stability are based on a RWD BMW not a FWD mini-van. Unit 5302's comment about a false sense of security is absolutely correct when it comes to putting Blizzak's on a RWD car. As an aside, people who drive 4wd vehicles usually have this same false sense of security. Anyway, since the braking (for all practical purposes), steering, and acceleration are all done with the front wheels of a FWD car, it isn't that big of a difference. Now add anti-lock brakes and it is even less of a problem. I have a set of four Blizzaks for our 91 Probe (no anti-locks) and drove the first couple winters on them. Now I only have two on the front and I haven't noticed much difference. They still get going and brake just fine.

Don't get me wrong, I intend to keep buying tires from them because I am quite satisfied with the quality and value of my past purchases with them. I'm just curious if people buy into the idea that they're looking out for the customer or they are just using a superficial reason to force people into buying four tires and not two. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that they may be opening themselves up to greater liability if they take it upon themselves to make our purchasing decisions for us.

01-05-2001, 03:27 PM	#5
jimberg Registered Member Join Date: Oct 1998 Location: Rogers, MN Posts: 2,089	I personally believe that four is the way to go. I've purchased 3 sets of Blizzaks already. My problem is that they must either insist on ALWAYS selling in sets of four or just sell people what they want. Saying that they would sell two based on purchase history opens them up to liability more so than if they just let people buy what they want. By acknowledging that they may be liable for selling only two, they are taking on the responsibility of making safety decisions for the customer. If they overlook the case where a customer is mixing new Blizzaks with old Blizzaks and then that customer crashes because of the mixed set of tires, they are more liable since in the initial purchase they gave the customer the false impression that they wouldn't sell them the two tires if it was unsafe. Their tests of stability are based on a RWD BMW not a FWD mini-van. Unit 5302's comment about a false sense of security is absolutely correct when it comes to putting Blizzak's on a RWD car. As an aside, people who drive 4wd vehicles usually have this same false sense of security. Anyway, since the braking (for all practical purposes), steering, and acceleration are all done with the front wheels of a FWD car, it isn't that big of a difference. Now add anti-lock brakes and it is even less of a problem. I have a set of four Blizzaks for our 91 Probe (no anti-locks) and drove the first couple winters on them. Now I only have two on the front and I haven't noticed much difference. They still get going and brake just fine. Don't get me wrong, I intend to keep buying tires from them because I am quite satisfied with the quality and value of my past purchases with them. I'm just curious if people buy into the idea that they're looking out for the customer or they are just using a superficial reason to force people into buying four tires and not two. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that they may be opening themselves up to greater liability if they take it upon themselves to make our purchasing decisions for us.