One of the limitations of this type of forum is... (archive)

that unless we want to write a book each posting -- a sin for which I am too often guilty -- our short messages are full of assumptions and shorthand. Many can be taken more than one way, and off we go...!

My assumption is that since the writer (perhaps writing in a second language {?}) made a point of stating both the high mileage and that the tires were stock, that the two comments were somehow related; ie...that that was the mileage on the tires.

If not, then he did NOT indicate how many miles were on the set, and a reasonable reply would be difficult.

The thing that I did NOT catch (never having had a '96 OR a 1.9) was the make of the tires. Elsewhere on this week's board, there is a thread which pretty convincingly -- to me at least -- indicated that first year 1.9s all came with Michelins on them. I don't have a clue on that, but if it IS true, then his Dunlops (which I find slide around way too much even when NEW) would NOT be OEM, and we could not know how old they are or how worn they could/should be.

Most messages are very succinct, which is good, and many also lack sufficient information, which is notso. Had I thought originally about the Dunlop contradiction, then it certainly would NOT have triggered my BS meter...it just would have made me ask for more information about the age of the tires.

Terry

Follow Ups:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Z3 Message Board ] [ Msg. Board FAQ ]

Questions, comments, or problems, please visit the Roadfly help desk.