general problems of the 2007 Toyota Prius

My bridgestone ecopia ep 422 tires wore out after only 32,000 miles even though they are advertised as warrantied for 65,000 miles. The bridgestone dealer gave me a reference # 112-95-47 and sent me to a dealer. The dealer measured the tires at 4-4-0 and stated that the warranty would not cover because the inside edges of all four tires were bald. He stated that, "it looks like an alignment problem to me. " during the life of the tires I returned to the Toyota dealer for 5,000 mile service intervals. Each time they checked the alignment and inflation. It was always "within spec" for my 2007 Toyota Prius. I told this to the dealer and the bridgestone representative. They stated that they are sorry but they cannot honor the warranty. What good is a 65,000 mile warranty for tires that wear out in 32,000 miles if the fact that they wore out voids the warranty? I purchased these tires because they got high ratings for low rolling resistance and the bridgestone brochure recommended them for my 07 Prius. While the gas savings were good, the loss of half the life of the tire more than outweighs the gas savings. I believe that bridgestone has had a wear problem with these tires because after only 3 years they have withdrawn the tires and replaced them with the new ecopia 422 plus. It has a 70,000 mile warranty. But the new tire has a tread compound rated at 680 while the old tire has a tread compound rated at 400. Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that the much harder 680 rating would produce much more than only 5,000 mile more warranty? I think that they withdrew the softer tire because it wore out too quickly and changed to the harder tread compound to get it close to the original warranty. But, they are not supporting the old tire warranty. I presented this logic to the bridgestone representatives on the phone and in person. They stated that they have not had complaints. I doubt this. That is why I am sending this complaint. This is false advertising.

2007 Toyota Prius with tire failure and brakes grabbing. The battery and headlights failed. The consumer stated Toyota has since removed this particular type of bulb and assembly from production. When the vehicle was 1 year old the consumer was stopped by the police and given a warning for the headlight being out. However, when the consumer and her husband exited the vehicle, they along with the police officer found both headlights were working and he let them go without a citation. The consumer has since discovered that one headlight or the other will just go out on occasion during every drive. The brightness of the headlights began to dim when the vehicle was only a year old. Toyota recommended using the headlights less and they further recommended not using the highly touted feature that allows the lights to automatically turn off after the vehicle has been turned off. Last month, the consumer received a letter from Toyota regarding information about a problem with the hid headlights. The letter stated the customer support program would reimburse for some cost relative to the defective headlights. However the local dealer did not agree and the cost far exceeded anything mentioned in the letter. The dealer informed the consumer the cost of installation for new bulbs would be $245 in labor for each headlight replacement, that was in addition to the exorbitant cost of the bulbs themselves.

The new tires we got on a new vehicle purchase lasted only about 10,000 miles, which was much lower than expected and lower than what the dealership said we should have gotten.