Five months (3000 mi) after I purchased a yokohama envigor tire for my 1999 Acura I had a flat tire. Upon inspection I noticed a 1/4 inch rubber separation on the inside wheel well. It did not go through the tire wall and was not a slash mark as it was irregular and jagged. It also did not pierce the interior mesh lining. The car had not hit anything (I have been driving for over 45 years). The tire went flat (fortunately it did not happen the day before while driving 65mph on a freeway. Despite the obviously faulty tire construction I was told it was caused by a road hazard by a yokohama representative. When I pointed out that there were absolutely no abrasions nearby on the tire and that the opening was irregular unlike any metal road material might cause the representative said only tread bottom irregularities were considered imperfections. The dot should make manufacturers include non repairable sidewall defects as imperfections and have an impartial representative entity able to examine evidence in such cases not just the highly partial manufacturers.

- Guilford, CT, USA

I own a 1999 Acura Integra with Michelin tires (P 195/55 R15 84V xgt V4). In August, 2000, the left front tire developed a quarter-sized blister on the side wall which appeared to be caused by an internal air leak. At the time, the tires had approximately 16,000 miles on them. Upon observing this blister, I first contacted my local Acura dealer. I spoke to a man in the service department who told me, without even looking at the tires, that the damage was a road hazard and therefore not covered by the warranty. Not satisfied, I next contacted Michelin's customer service hotline and was instructed to go to national tire and battery (ntb) in ellisville, Missouri. Upon what I considered very casual observation, an ntb sales representative told me the defect was not covered under warranty and that a new tire would cost $180 because the tires are "high performance". the salesman further stated that the blister presented a major safety issue which I believed at the time and took seriously. The salesman gave me a 20% customer satisfaction credit because I was angry about the high replacement cost for a single tire. I was particularly annoyed because the tires were relatively new and designated as "high performance" which should mean that they are good tires. Long story short, I grudgingly paid $133.70 for a new tire. I accepted this at the time because I had no choice. However, I am not satisfied with this transaction and frankly, I am surprised (suspicious) that these high performance tires can so easily fail to perform safely under normal operating conditions. Please assist log this complaint in the event other consumers are experiencing similar difficulties. As an attorney who formerly prosecuted consumer fraud, I am skeptical about the conduct of Michelin and ntb identified above and respectively suggest that your office consider investigating this matter. Thank you in advance.( dot number: )

- Alexandria, VA, USA