J.D. Power: EV Owners Not As Satisfied as Gas Owners On Tire Wear

by Chris Teague

Published: March 27th, 2024

j d power ev owners not as satisfied as gas owners on tire wear

While it’s true that electric vehicles don’t require the same level of routine maintenance that gas vehicles do, EVs have some downsides. A main point of complaint for owners has been tires, as a new J.D. Power study showed that many are surprised that their heavy, torque-rich EV burns through rubber faster than when they had a gas vehicle.

The study showed that EV owners are less satisfied with their tires’ durability, as they expect them to last as long as their gas vehicle’s tires did. J.D. Power’s senior director of benchmarking and alternative mobility, Ashley Edgar, said, “Because of the inherent conflict of maximizing vehicle range and optimizing tire wear for EVs, tire manufacturers and automakers need to work together to overcome the challenge without completely sacrificing tire performance in other areas, especially as the EV market continues to increase.”

The shift in tire performance will mean that dealer service departments need to be prepared to jump into the tire business, if they’re not already. Electric vehicles don’t need oil changes and other regular maintenance, so tire rotations and related fixes will become the most common customer needs.

Outside of EV tires, J.D. Power also found that customers were most satisfied with Michelin tires across several segments, including luxury vehicles, passenger cars, and performance tires. Falken was the top tire in the truck and utility segment.

J.D. Power surveyed 31,414 owners of 2022 and 2023 model-year vehicles for the study. Owners were asked about their satisfaction in four areas: tire ride, tire wear, tire traction and handling, and tire appearance.

[Image: Kalimedia via Shutterstock]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

#JDPower #evtires #michelintires

Chris Teague

Chris grew up in, under, and around cars, but took the long way around to becoming an automotive writer. After a career in technology consulting and a trip through business school, Chris began writing about the automotive industry as a way to reconnect with his passion and get behind the wheel of a new car every week. He focuses on taking complex industry stories and making them digestible by any reader. Just don’t expect him to stay away from high-mileage Porsches.

More by Chris Teague

Comments

Join the conversation

4 of 41 comments

Mikey on Mar 28, 2024

2019 Chevy Impala Premier FWD with 20 inch factory Bridgestones. I'm looking at replacing tires at the 65,000 KLM's (40,000 miles ) mark ....It doesn't thrill me .. I'm pricing Michelin Cross Climate 2 tires ouch !! ..Up here in Canuckastan ....Big $$$$$

Like Reply
Lorenzo on Mar 28, 2024

Since EVs don't come in for oil changes, their owners don't have their tires rotated regularly, something the dealers would have done. That's the biggest reason they need to buy a new set of tires sooner, not that EVs wear out tires appreciably faster.

Like Reply
- See 1 previous
- Jeff on Mar 28, 2024
  
  Also no spark plugs no tune ups.
  
  Like
- Jaj65771248 on Mar 29, 2024
  
  Really? It is the very significant extra weight that EVs carry that causes EV tires to wear much more quickly.
  
  Like
- FreedMike on Mar 29, 2024
  
  Same is true of trucks, crossovers and SUVs, Jaj. What's your point?
  
  Like

Recent Comments

Arthur Dailey Agree with @Jeff, if you needed a cheap vehicle that was relatively robust and last a long time and you did not care about driving dynamics you could do worse than a J-Car. They as the saying go, drove badly, for a long time. They were less rust prone than many Japanese imports, and either more reliable or more robust than many (most) European or Korean autos. And parts were cheap and repairs relatively simple. As he writes, we complain about the lack of inexpensive, basic autos but then criticize autos that were inexpensive and basic. As the saying goes 'you can get cheap, fast or good, but you cannot get all 3 in the same product'.
Bd2 Overpriced food, awful home furnishings, endless assortments of sugary candy and drinks which are mostly garbage and childish gimmicks galore. Indeed, the most "American" of traditions.
SCE to AUX Some pretty big strikes:[list][*]Drivetrain - how can a straight-6 be thrashy? Shame on you, Mazda.[/*][*]Poor fuel economy.[/*][*]Tire noise.[/*][*]Poor user interface.[/*][*]That colored dash is a bit garish for me.[/*][*]High price.[/*][*]Indistinct look in the Mazda lineup. Their SUVs are Russian nesting dolls.[/*][*]Nothing compelling to lure a buyer away from the bigger brands.[/*][/list]I don't see this moving the needle for Mazda in the US market.
Ash78 Dear unions, thank you for your service and for expressing interest in our automotive factories. Due to your many decades of pressuring employers to do better, the more adept companies have gotten your message and have implemented most of your demands preemptively in order to maintain a better employer-employee relationship than the manufacturing industry as a whole.We truly appreciate your feedback and interest, and all it has done to improve employer relations since the industrial revolution. We take your concerns seriously and will be glad to reach back out if our situation changes.We will keep your resume on file for three years, per company policy.Sincerely,Everyone
Theflyersfan I'm having a tough time figuring out Mazda's recent lineup decisions. I've mentioned before how having the CX-5 and CX-50 makes no sense as it seems like they would steal each other's sales instead of conquest sales from other brands. And now here comes the CX-70 vs 90 decision. If Mazda wanted to position the 70 above the 90 with pricing, I think they should have gone the Audi Q7 vs Q8 route. The Q8 costs more, has one fewer row, and is smaller on the inside, but has the more aggressive styling and tries to position itself as the sportier alternative large CUV in their lineup. With Mazda, the 70 and 90 seem to be in the position, like the 5 vs 50, to steal each other's sales. There isn't anything compelling me to get a 70 if I get more for my money with a 90, except 100,000 miles down the road, I won't have a folded up third row seat rattling around loosely. Mazda should have brought over the CX-60 and position that where they wanted the 70. I understand it's a touch larger than the X3, Q5, and GLC CUVs, which is a sweet spot in that market. Make the CX-70 a sportier alternative 2-row instead of such a blatant cynical move of just ripping a seat out of the 90, calling it an all new model and price it in the same ballpark. I want Mazda to succeed and continue to be independent, but decisions like these make me wonder what their future plans are.