Some of the great load-range (LR) D enthusiast tires are going to be improved to load-range E designs. This is only an improvement if one needs the higher load rating, and can be a negative if you don’t (see Wheels, Tires, and Sidewalls from Jan. 2012). I understand manufacturers’ position, if they make all or most of their heavy-duty light-truck (LT) tires load-range E, the tire can be used for stoutest pickups down to the smaller, lighter rigs. I argue that these stiffer, less flexible tires are not ideal for many lighter 4WDs which are typically daily-drivers that rarely haul or tow maximum loads, and would benefit from the better ride and off-pavement traction that more flexible tires offer. There are many applications where a load-range D or C (remember those) are the best choice. I view the reduction and possible elimination of the LR D tire choices similarly to the needless super-sizing of everything in the USA.
Bed full of load-range D, 255/85R16 tires.
I also see similarities to the slow death of the LT255/85R16 size. There is still a small market for this fantastic 33×10-inch tire, and many 255/85 tires that were all LR D five years ago, have become LR E designs. In support of this 255/85R16 change, I do think most trucks running this size are heavy-duty, full-sized pickups that are used as such, and the added capacity and reduced flex is a positive. Unfortunately narrower tires don’t appeal to the masses (strike 1), few new trucks are made with 16-inch wheels (strike 2), and the perfect 17-inch 255/85 replacement, the 255/80R17, is available in one tire (strike three), the BFGoodrich KM2 mud-terrain.
Dick Cepek Mud Country LT285/75R16D, with 3-ply sidewalls.
The Sea Change In Load-Range Continues
Recently I noticed that two of my current favorite mud tires, the Dick Cepek Mud Country and the Mickey Thompson Baja MTZ, are losing their load-range D rating in favor of the LR E in a couple popular sizes.
The Mud Country in 285/75R16 and the MTZ in 285/70R17 are switching to a load-range E rating. Both of these tires/sizes were load-range D, with 3-ply sidewalls, a perfect combination for many enthusiast applications. I currently own a set of each of these treads and love the 3-ply sidewalls combined with a load-range D casing. The new LR E offerings will surely offer less sidewall and/or tread flex (bad off-highway, good for tonnage) and be firmer riding during lightly loaded daily use. How stiff is the question, as not all LR E tires are created equal. Some are pretty flexible like the BFG KM2, while others like the new Cooper S/T MAXX and Toyo M/T are quite stiff.
The LT285/70R17 Mickey Thompson MTZ: Stout 3-ply sidewalls, serious sidebiter lugs, and load-range D construction all in one package. I’ll miss this combination when my current set needs replacing.
If you think I’m some kind of tire nut who likes fetish tires (well…) there has been and likely still is plenty of market and demand for good, load-range D tires. The currently popular, practical, and useful 285/70R17 size has several load-range D offerings. A search on www.trierack.com recently listed twenty-eight 285/70R17 tires; 14 of which were LR D treads, 7 were LR E, and 7 were P-rated tires. These LR D designs were not duds, and included some of the best or most popular off-highway enthusiast tires currently offered, including: Dick Cepek F-C II, BFGoodrich KM2 and All-Terrain, Goodyear MT/R with Kevlar, and Goodyear DuraTrac. For years BFG has offered their ever-popular All-Terrain in both load-range D and E flavors in both the 16-inch and 17-inch 285 mm sizes. I respect BFG for seeing and filling this need, and not forcing everyone who wants a 285 to run a load-range E tire. There is a difference.
Does this mean that I will no longer buy certain niche tires once they’re not available in LR D? Probably not. While I prefer a LR D tire for most of my uses, my primary criteria for light-truck tires is that I like the tread and overall characteristics, they balance well, and the chassis I put them on likes the tire. All of these are equally important, any missing ingredient can make a tire undesirable for the specific application—a deal breaker. After these metrics I prefer and will take a load-range D if I can get it, but will accept a load-range E if it’s not overly stiff.
RoadTraveler, enjoying the tire wear to get there.
Not a typical RoadTraveler post, but it’s all about location, location, location. This is one exception to my distain for low-profile tires, and this is not a truck.
There is a nexus as there’s some off (above) road travel. I particularly like the sideways jump and turn. Turn up the speakers.
Ford Motor Company has a resounding success in their 3.5L EcoBoost V6 engine. In February 2011 the power plant was made available in the F150 pickup, and by April Ford sold 35% of their F150s with the little engine that could. By September Ford had sold 75,000 EcoBoost F150s and forecasted the take-rate would reach 45 percent. In December 2011 Ford was reporting they’d sold 100,000 EcoBoost F150s…fast-forward to July 2012 and Ford has now exceeded their sales predictions by 100,000 engines!
There were skeptics of this engine and technology, though I was not one of them, being a fan of both turbocharged forced-induction and Ford. The on-paper ratings of 420 lb-ft and 365 hp were, and still are impressive for a little V6; about the same torque one could wring from a similarly sized 4-cylinder diesel yet with more horsepower. The engine is capable of good V6 fuel-economy too. At inception I figured the only thing that could hurt this engine’s success would have been poor engineering or assembly, but it appears The Motor Company knows what they’re doing and I’ve yet to hear any bad press. Real-world high-mileage longevity is another question, and we will have this answer in a couple years after a few early-production trucks surpass the 200k mark with their original turbochargers intact; or not.
Turbocharged engines don’t complain in the mountains.
I’m not typically an early adopter of new technology or products, wanting things to prove themselves and have a thorough sorting before I spend my money, but I would have made an exception for the 3.5L EcoBoost. When I was shopping for a new half-ton pickup in April 2011, the field was quickly narrowed to the then new EcoBoost F150 and the 5.7L Toyota Tundra. I don’t regret my Tundra purchase (more on that later), but forced-induction would have been a daily pleasure at 5,000-ft.
Good on you Ford!
Now if you guys would just make an attractive mid-sized wagon, with a powerful EcoBoost and fuel-economy close to our VW TDI, maybe you can sell us a new car soon? Oh yeah, and I’d really like a manual transmission…remember those?
1) 1996 F350 7.3L Power Stroke, 4.10 differential gears, 5-speed manual transmission. This truck was conservatively modified with thirty-three inch tires, heavy bumpers, and mild engine performance modifications.
It should be noted that the older (pre-Super Duty) Ford pickups had relatively poor brakes compared to the later 1999-up trucks with four-wheel disc brakes, though they’ve never been a problem for my use and driving style.
127,000 miles and counting…still running the original brakes.
This rig was a daily-driver commuter, long-distance road traveler, tow/hauling workhorse, off-highway toy, and magazine project for the first several years of its life. Additions to our fleet put the brakes on the rapid accumulation of miles, and is the reason this old truck has very low miles for its age.
During its 127,000 miles, Pull Dog has yet to need brake pads or shoes. Never. I used to clean and lube the caliper slide rails regularly to prevent sticking and improper wear (this maintenance is actually mentioned in the owner’s manual), adjust the rear brake shoes to keep the pedal up and the parking brake working properly, and the brake system was bleed a couple times…that’s it. When this old F350 needs brakes, you’ll likely read it here first, though I need to start driving it again before it’s going to need new friction material.
Dirt road lunch stop in the low-rider Golf TDI. Nevada. 150k on the front pads with tons of material remaining.
This little car has been my wife’s daily-driver for over ten years, and we take it on long car trips when a truck or 4WD isn’t required. She prefers to drive the suburban surface streets to work instead of the freeway most of the time.
It’s worth noting that while these little VW TDIs can make more power, and for some this is an enthusiast car, for us it’s just comfortable, economical transportation and it’s the one vehicle in my fleet that is bone stock. The car gets it’s recommended oil changes with premium 5W-40 synthetic oil every 10,000 miles, a new air filter every 10k because I’m a stickler for clean air, I’ve changed the transaxle lube every 50k as a precaution, and I’ve done the other minimum maintenance or repairs. Very little extra care, we just drive it.
2000 VW Golf TDI front brake pads during the 150,000 mile tire rotation.
The car’s odometer has reached 152,000, and we’ve logged all but the first 18,000. It needed rear brakes at 82k, but the fronts have yet to be touched. It’s not uncommon for moderately driven (and braked) vehicles to need rears before fronts. Based on the pictures I took when Les Schwab rotated and balanced the tires recently, I think the front pad might go another 100k; there’s plenty of meat on the pads! Maybe it will be two sets of rear pads to one set of fronts?
The RoadTraveler V8 4Runner with its Rocket 88 gears (4.88:1) has hauled a few loads in its 60,000 miles.
3) 2006 Toyota 4Runner 4.7L V8, 5-speed auto tranny, 3.73:1 gears when new and stock, before 4.88 ring & pinions were added. This car is heavily modified and very heavy, 5,500 pounds wet but unloaded, and has seen extensive off-highway use, including many technical trails, and plenty of towing miles.
With only 60,000 miles this wagon has some years ahead before I’ll be able to report if it attained the RoadTraveler.net 100k challenge. But at a little more than half way there, the brake pads are looking very thick. The odds are good.
With just a bit over 60,000 miles on the 4Runner, there is plenty of friction material remaining.
I’m not talking about an engine or chassis making it to 100,000 miles. The days when it was a major accomplishment for vehicles reach 100k without an engine overhaul or major repairs are in the history books. For decades now vehicles have been built to higher standards, are more reliable, and it’s no great achievement nor are bragging rights attached to driving to six digits.
Tune Ups and Maintenance
Most modern gasoline-powered engines no longer need tune-ups, largely because tune-ups had much to do with the ignition system, and the ignition system as we knew it has been consolidated. The distributor cap, rotor, plug wires, and the ignition coil are mostly missing on modern systems. In their place are coil-on-plug, electronically-controlled systems that work amazingly well and need very little, if any, attention. Some cars and trucks have spark plugs that last more than 100,000 miles!
Engine and ignition system on a 1974 Ford Bronco
Fuel and air filters were part of our old tune-ups, but with gas-powered, fuel-injected vehicles the filter is in the tank and not easily changed. Air filters are still accessible, and should be serviced regularly, but are sometimes forgotten and neglected. Air filter maintenance is more important for off-pavement travelers or those that live in particulate environs. Few vehicles, even 4WDs that might benefit, have serviceable wheel bearings, U-joints, or driveline zerks. Still, these parts also routinely last for 100,000 miles and beyond.
It’s easy to understand why routine maintenance is oft forgotten, there’s so little of it required that non-enthusiasts drivers forget about caring for their mechanical investment. Their cars still run well for years on little more than fuel and periodic oil changes. (Of course, RoadTraveler.net readers and most gear-heads don’t ignore the mechanical stuff on their rides.) So if new vehicles are so reliable, where’s the 100k challenge? Let’s look a little deeper…
First generation Toyota 4Runner getting a lift out of a ‘tub’ on Moab’s Hell’s Revenge trail.
Drive It Like You Paid For It. You did or possibly still are.
My nickname, Redline, can be interpreted a few ways, however my normal method of driving does not include the top of the rpm range. Occasionally I open the throttle and bounce the tachometer needle against governor without fear. These rare visits to the stratosphere are within the design parameters of modern engines, and have yet to prove detrimental to their longevity.
Care and maintenance do matter, but so does driving style. The British have a term, Vehicle Sympathy or Mechanical Sympathy, which accurately explains a key ingredient. Driving proficiently, with an eye on vehicle care, maybe even taking pride in doing it well while not being needlessly rough on the mechanicals.
A 2005 Rubicon Unlimited with Dean SXT Mud Terrain 255/85R16D tires. This is use, not abuse.
Make Your Brakes Last 100k
RoadTraveler’s 100,000 Mile Longevity Challenge is to make your brake pads and/or shoes last for 100,000 miles,or more. It’s not as difficult as you might think, but it may require an attitude adjustment when you’re behind the wheel. To succeed you don’t have to drive slow, I typically drive at or slightly above the speed limit, like most people. You will have to release the accelerator earlier, coast a little (which helps MPG) and use the linear momentum of your vehicle when you need to reduce your speed. This is in contrast to the folks who move almost immediately from the go-pedal to the slow-pedal, converting the fuel they just burned for forward progress into heat wasted heat energy through the braking system.
It doesn’t take only long-distance highway driving to meet this 100k challenge, though I will concede that folks who routinely drive in very heavy city traffic—the kind they have in San Francisco and New York, and many other places—may have a difficult time reaching 100,000 miles. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try, maybe reaching 50,000 or 75,000 miles before new brake pads are needed. But for many who travel in moderate city, suburban, or mixed conditions, 100,000 miles on OE brakes is very attainable, even easy.
Driving conditions do matter, and those at both poles may have vastly different results, but most of us are in the middle, and the driver matters much more than the conditions. My real-world examples have been driven in heavy city and freeway traffic, off-highway, and on long-distance road trips. I do a fair amount of towing too.
Off-highway towing can be hard on your brakes, particularly when traveling downhill. Use your gears, including low-range, to preserve your brakes.
How Can We Get There?
While offering many secondary safety benefits, some techniques that will help us accomplish this 100,000 mile brake longevity is to practice some fundamental driving safe techniques. A few of them are:
Look several seconds ahead for changes in traffic conditions, road hazards, traffic signals, and signs, and absorb and evaluate the data from the constantly changing conditions.
Focus on, and consciously think about how you are operating your machine. It’s fun to do something supremely well, even something we often take for granted, like driving. Focusing will allow for smoother, safer lane changes and turns, better transmission shifts, less fuel consumption, and less brake use.
Don’t follow closely. There are many reasons to avoid following-too-closely (FTC), but needing to use brakes early, often, and firmly is toward the top and directly related to all the safety reasons one should not FTC. Following no closer than a few seconds—longer is better—will offer better sightlines, and the ability to slow down by simply releasing the accelerator instead of immediately going for the brakes.
Release the accelerator earlier when needing to slow or stop. This is the premier principle for reducing brake wear and is connected to looking several seconds ahead and not following-too-closely. Once conditions dictate we need to cease accelerating or cruising at a steady speed, the sooner we reduce pressure or completely release the skinny pedal, the further we can travel on the fuel already consumed and the less brake wear we’ll incur while slowing or stopping. Unless you are on a very steep hill, once the accelerator is released you will start to loose momentum, reducing speed without the brakes. So simple, but I don’t see much of this from the automotive masses. In fact, the opposite is true, there’s a bunch of needless pedal bashing.
I like to think of slow declaration while coasting as free travel, or as my Tundra’s dash computer readout sometimes says, 99 miles-per-gallon, the opposite of idling. When we start coasting to slow down, even short distances, we are traveling with the throttle closed and consuming very little fuel. Every mile-per-hour we are able to slow without using our brakes is friction material we have conserved.
In addition to saving brake system wear you are also keeping your brakes cool by not using them early, often, or hard. Modern braking systems are generally very good, and can convert large amounts of energy to heat, but eventually all brakes will fade if used aggressively. The less you use them the more they will be there for you when you need them. Low gears and/or manual transmissions can help, but are not required to meet the 100k brake challenge.
NOTHING WRITTEN HERE INSINUATES YOU SHOULDN’T USE YOUR BRAKES TO SLOW OR STOP YOUR VEHICLE AS MAY BE NECESSARY, NOR OPERATE YOUR VEHICLE IN A SAFE AND PRUDENT MANNER. YOU DO! You are the one in control and all the responsibility is yours.
Recently I received an email from Cliff with a few tire questions for the RoadTraveler (RT) blog. Below are his questions and my answers and comments, it’s a long one…Tires, they’re what’s on the menu today 😉
Background provided by Cliff: I have a few questions I hope you wouldn’t mind answering. First some background; I daily drive a 2010 Tacoma TRD Off Road with a FlipPac camper and OME suspension. Living in the Eastern Sierra I spend a lot of time on 395 between Reno and Los Angeles but, also drive many miles of desert washboard roads including the Death Valley area. I currently have stock tires, which are due for replacement. I have decided to invest in two sets of wheels, highway and off road.
RT. Two sets of wheels (or more) are very nice, and can save thousands of miles of needless pavement wear on your off-highway tires. However, there have been times when I didn’t have the correct wheels/tires on my truck when I ventured off-pavement because either the trip wasn’t planned or I made the wrong choice. Still, I like having a set of both more and less aggressive tires to choose from, but my all-around Dick Cepek F-C II get most of the miles.
One thing to be aware of is that two different treads might need different alignment settings to track straight and true on the same vehicle…I have lots of experience with this in recent years on my Toyotas and this is a solid argument against running two sets of wheels/tires.
Unmounted Toyo M/T tires in 265/75R16E, 255/85R16E, and 285/75R16E sizes.
Q. The highway set will likely be Michelin LTX M/S2 in a P-rated stock size. The off road tires I have yet to decide but, the short list includes, BFG KM2’s, Goodyear DuraTrac’s, or one of the Cooper off road tires. I have 7” wide wheels and would like to get into a taller narrower tire than stock.
RT. Are the stock tires on your Tacoma 265/70R16? You might consider running 265/75R16 for your replacements, though I don’t know if those Michelins are available P-rated? I assume your truck is relatively light with the FlipPac and doesn’t need more than the original P-rated tires. Though I’m not a big fan of what I consider the excessively stiff and/or short tire sidewall world we now live in (see Wheels, Tires, and Sidewalls) with your truck and intended use I would probably lean toward a load-range (LR) C tire if I could find the tread I wanted. If not, P-rated will work just as they have been.
Another question when discussing tire load ranges and ruggedness is have your OE tires been found severely lacking during the off-pavement travel you’ve already done? And even if the answer is yes, is a jump all the way to a load range E warranted, or would something more moderate like a load range C or D be more appropriate?
Reports on the Goodyear DuraTrac wear vary from excellent to very poor, and it seems the weight and/or driver of the truck has much to do with their longevity. Few complain about a lack of traction with the DuraTrac and a major positive is that Goodyear offers the LT265/75R16 size in both LR C and E, and I would suggested the LR C since you are concerned about of the ride quality penalties of an E-rated tire.
Q. My question is this. On rough washboard roads does the difference in tire volume between the following sizes 255/85-16, 235/85-16, and 265/75-16 make any noticeable difference in ride quality? Will one size tire provide a smoother ride over the others?
RT. The short answer is yes. Everyone’s butt dyno is calibrated differently, and truck loading, suspension, and tire PSI all make a difference. As I mentioned in the post linked above, I could clearly feel the difference between two sets of Toyo M/T ties on my 2005 Jeep Rubicon, both using the stock 16×8″ wheels, one 265/75R16E the other 285/75R16E. Both tires have 3-ply sidewalls and 7-ply treads. The only difference was the sidewall height and volume of air in the tires. I was aware of the slight but noticeable ride difference on relatively smooth local streets, and these differences were magnified once the impacts were deeper or sharper off-highway, even when aired-down.
So if you are merely analyzing the ride difference in sidewall height and/or volume, again the short answer is yes, one will provide a smoother ride than the other. But it is more complicated than that once you start changing load-ranges. All of the LT235/85R16 tires currently offered are E load range. My old favorite LT255/85R16 used to always be LR D, but now many have changed to load-range E. The LT265/75R16 size offers the most choice, with many load-range E treads, but a few LR D and C as well, just depends on the specific tire and manufacturer.
With the above in mind, it’s very difficult to say what size will offer a smoother ride based solely on the size or volume of air in the tire. Generally speaking, when running the same PSI, a LR D 255/85 will ride softer than a 235/85 or 265/75 LR E, a LR D 265/75 would ride better than a LR E 255/85, and a LR C 265/75 will beat them all. It should be noted that a LR C, 6-ply rated tire was considered a fairly heavy-duty light-truck tire a decade or two ago, and they can still be plenty depending on the rig, loading, and use. But those were the days before our super-sized world, which now includes; diesel pickups that have more torque and horsepower than commercial medium-duty trucks did, half-ton trucks with a payloads up to one ton, and 1-ton pickups that are rated for two tons or more in the single rear wheel (SRW) applications. Still, when one confirms the loads that modern light-truck (LT) tires are rated to carry, there is plenty of room to choose something less than a LR E for many applications.
Goodyear DuraTrac 265/70R17E and Dick Cepek F-C II 265/75R16E
Q. Most if not all narrow off road tires seem to be load range “E”. Is an “E” tire too stiff for a lightweight truck like the Tacoma?
RT. That’s your call, many people think they are fine. Load Range E tires have become the norm these days, though they are not needed or necessarily desirable for every light-truck or Tacoma, and while some think they are overkill and sometimes too stiff, they are certainly popular. The stiffer the truck’s suspension the more bothersome I find stiff tires. For example, I really prefer a load range D tire on my old F350 as without a ton or more on the rear springs the ride can be very firm on-road and jarring off-highway, but the added give in a tall LR D tire when aired down makes it much more pleasant. Of course if my truck was used at its maximum gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) most of the time, a stiffer tire would be better. But I’ve found a LR D works well both empty and loaded with appropriate air pressure, the duty-cycle matters.
Compared to your stock P-rated tires I have little doubt you will be able to feel the difference—on and off-highway—if you slap on a set of LR E treads and run the same PSI. I would suggest a LR C or D, if they’re available in the tread you want.
Q. Would a “C” load range tire provide a smoother off road ride?
RT. Yes.
Maxxis Bravo 761 & BFG KM, both 255/85, LR D with 3-ply sidewalls, a rare combination.
Q. I’m looking for a tuff, 3-ply sidewall, off road tire that will still provide a smooth ride in the rough stuff.
RT. Well that’s a tall order. The tougher the tire the rougher it will ride. The Toyo M/T I mentioned above is a very rugged tire, also a very stiff tire, particularly on a light truck. They are also expensive and typically balance very well. The new Cooper S/T MAXX is similar, very rugged but also stiff and firm riding…there is no free lunch. Remember that most LT tires still do not have 3-ply sidewalls, they have 2-ply sidewalls. Take two tires of essentially the same construction, one with the 3-ply sidewall and the other a 2-ply, the 3-ply sidewall tire will ride firmer. Preferring a more compliant ride, but sometimes needing a stout tire for heavy-hauling or puncture resistance in the rocks, I prefer a LR D with a 3-ply sidewall when I can get them, like the Dick Cepek Mud Countrys currently on my 4Runner, but that’s an uncommon configuration. Typically I just live with a regular 2-ply sidewall tire, like my current favorite, the Dick Cepek F-C II in a load-range D 285, which are currently on both my F350 and Tundra.
You should probably try to decide on the size and/or tread pattern you want first, then make the necessary concessions on load range and ply ratings, or visa-versa. You are not going to be able to have the most rugged tire, that is also very compliant on the washboard, just like the more aggressive treads generally don’t offer the wear of milder tread.
There are some other things to consider if you go taller than the 265/75R16 or 235/85R16 sizes (31.7–32″) on your Tacoma: Will your spare tire still fit in the OE location, is that important to you, and is the loss of torque and possibly fuel economy worth the switch to LT255/85R16 tires with stock gearing? Though I purchased a 4th Gen. 4Runner, I’ve often considered the 2005-up Tacoma platform, and thought that a 32-ish tall tire was very good compromise while begin able to run the correct, matching size spare without a tire swing-away.
Though in your case, the 255s would likely only be for occasionally use, and maybe the loss in acceleration and having a smaller spare would not be a deal-breaker? Since the Taco is a traditional, part-time 4WD system, there is not much concern when running a slightly smaller, 265/75 spare for short distances as long as the VSC and ATRAC don’t mind; they didn’t on my 4Runner when I ran that combination for a brief test.
As part of my goal to put together a complete, high-quality tool kit for my Tundra, I purchased a set of SK 3/8-inch sockets (SK 3/8″ tool set). As handy as sockets can be, combination wrenches are often more practical and it’s easy to have a need for both when away from home. I considered reallocating a big set of Craftsman wrenches from my shop, not finding any made-in-USA wrenches I could afford, when a friend on the Expedition Portal Forum shared a link to a set of surplus combination wrenches from Uncle Sam’s Retail Outlet.
I rarely buy anything surplus, a couple small shovels are the only items in recent memory, but these were new, made-in-USA Armstrong brand ratcheting combination wrenches, both SAE and metric. The surplus USMC Tray (NSN # 5180-01-553-6556) also included a few screwdrivers and a rack of 1/2-inch drive SAE deep sockets, but it was the the reversible combination wrenches I wanted. The kit was only $135, although with tax and shipping from the east to the west, the price jumped $176. When compared to the retail prices for the wrenches alone, $176 was still a very good value.
A week passed, the tools arrived, and I opened the box to inspect them. They were scattered, but everything appeared to be in the box. Looking closer it was appearant there was something missing. The 15 mm combination wrench was there, but was missing all of the guts that make it a box-end wrench. A round hole was not going to turn 15 mm fasteners.
Armstrong 54-815 missing something.
Uncle Sam’s is a surplus retailer, the kit I purchased is not a normal Armstrong kit sold to the general public, and Uncle Sam’s was now “sold out”, so I went straight to Armstrong/Apex Tool Group for warranty service.
I called the customer service number on Armstrong’s site, and explained what I had purchased and from where. The lady’s initial instructions were to return the set to the retailer and have it replaced. I explained how that was not an option, the product was new, but was a special military set from a surplus vendor. We went back-and-forth a few times, the conversation was polite and professional, but it wasn’t looking good…
The customer service representative asked me for a part number on the kit, I gave her something off the Uncle Sam’s invoice that didn’t help, later giving her the NSN number (National/NATO Stock Number) on the box which she could cross reference. I restated that I didn’t need a complete replacement kit, just the 15 mm wrench was missing its ratcheting parts. Then she asked for the part number off the wrench. Easy.
“One of these things is not like the other.”
Of course she had that part number in her computer system and said she was going to ask her supervisor’s permission to send out a single 15 mm wrench, she didn’t think it would be a problem. I thanked her!
Although I had to argue a little to get the lady off her regular routine of “return to the retailer”, she was eventually quite helpful. I was very polite (“yes ma’am”) the whole time, but for Armstrong to send me a knew wrench without the old one first was huge. Thanks Armstrong Tools.
