quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear:
It’s been a number of years since I owned a car that you could rotate the tires, but I would much rather have control of the wheels that steer the front of the car, as I wouldn’t want to understeer into an oncoming vehicle or off the road and hit an unsuspecting pedestrian.

Totally agree with this, there are always exceptions to the rule. I had years of experience driving rear wheel cars in snow.
I prefer better tread on front.
There is a liability factor for installers though, tire companies say otherwise.
If you can drive into a wet, leaf covered corner at dry road speed, and pull the emergency brake (and keep the rear wheels locked) and not spin out, that would be the exception to the rule.
Most experienced drivers wouldn't run unevenly worn tires though, just not worth it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rizzle,

If you rotate your tire properly, they won't have but a 2/32 difference in tread depth. Most likely less.

Putting the best tires on the front means you'll wind up going backwards when the rear loses traction and the car rotates around the front tires. If you have front wheel drive, all wheel drive, or four wheel drive, then you may be able steer into the skid and pull the front of the car back in front of rear of the car by accelerating. If the front breaks loose though, then you'll wind up doing 360s down the road. My record is a 900 on I-94 in Milwaukee with my 1986 Honda CRX DX.

Another example:
I went to the tire shop my family used in Naples to get tires for my 2001 Dodge Dakota 2wd, 5sp, V8 pickup truck. The guy had bad news and. ore bad news. First, he didn't have the tires in stock and it would take 3 days to get them. Second, the only other vehicle that used that size was a Mercedes SUV and the tires would be $1,200. This was in 2002. My truck had bad ball joints as did most Dodge Durangos and Dakotas did back then, but mine wasn't covered under the recall. Unfortunately, the recall made the ball joints unobtainable for me and my truck ate the tires. I refused to get new tires until I replaced the ball joints, so my tires were bald.

On the way home to Port Charlotte on I-75, it started to rain. I let off the gas to slow down. It started to rain harder, I let off the gas again to slow down some more. It started to monsoon, the kind of rain that sounds like it'll crack the windshield, I let off the gas a third time and that was all she wrote. The rear of the truck came right around the front of the truck and I slid backwards off I-75 into the median right in the middle of the 10 mile stretch between Pine Island Rd and Tucker's Grade. I had to wait a long time for the tow truck.

In this case, had I had tires with good tread on the back of the truck, the front tires could have lost traction and the front of the truck would have just stayed in front of the rear of the truck as I slowed down. I'd still have been on the road and wouldn't have had to wait for the tow truck.

The new tires go on the back. The tires with traction become a pivot point for the tires without traction and the momentum of the part of the vehicle without traction will dictate what direction the vehicle will point. It's physics. Think about driving on an ice sheet. Think about a pair of regular tires and a pair of tires with ice studs. Now think about what happens when each pair is installed on the front or back.

The reality is that unless you are at the extreme limit of traction where one pair has traction and one pair doesn't, it doesn't matter. The point of my two personal examples, I have more because I'm a slow learner, is if you don't drive like an idiot and don't drive on crap tires, then you won't have to find out the hard way that the good tires go on the back.

My mechanic just recently told me I needed two new tires on the front of my work van....(2008 ford econoline 250) when I went to pick the van up the new tires were on the rear and he had moved the still good but used tires to the front.... and he said that was the best way to do it. But I think it partially had to do with the weight on the back. And this is also a rear wheel drive vehicle.

If they mount one new tire at left front and one new tire at the right rear, never mind..

Once upon a time, I purchased all new tires at Sam's Club. Instead of inflating the tires to the psi recommended by Ford, the genius tech inflated them to the maximum psi for the tire.

It was like driving on slick ice even though it was July in Texas. I barely managed to pull over safely.

Either way, aren’t you going to rotate them some time after installation of the new pair and before the old pair needs to be replaced?

I’ve made sure my tires are rotated periodically so they end up needing all to be replaced at the same time.

In the enthusiast community there is a saying; “Oversteer is when the passenger is scared, under steer is when the driver is scared.”

Having owned around a dozen RWD sports cars and having auto crossed and tracked competitively, I much prefer a tire/suspension setup that is on the oversteer side of the spectrum.

quote:

Either way, aren’t you going to rotate them some time after installation of the new pair and before the old pair needs to be replaced?

I’ve made sure my tires are rotated periodically so they end up needing all to be replaced at the same time.

I'd like to do that--but the better tire will always be in the rear, as the front will continue to wear more quickly. Will Costco or another tire place do the rotation?

I guess we'll see.

I don't care about rotation per se--it's only about having the tires wear evenly so you don't void the mileage warranty.

Every tire place I've ever been to says best tread on the front, regardless of the drivetrain. The front tires steer the car.

quote:

Originally posted by David Lee:
If they mount one new tire at left front and one new tire at the right rear, never mind..

I always put both new tires on the passenger side.

I got my last set of tires at Costco. The last time I took my car there to get the tires rotated, the tech said the tires were "cupping" and would need replacing if I didn't address the issue.

So, I took the car to my local guy. He checked the tires, checked the shocks and suspension, then called me up and said the tires were fine and he didn't think the Costco tech knew what he was talking about.

I don't have much faith in the expertise of the techs at Costco. Next time I need tires, I'll be going to Discount Tire.

The tires capable of generating the most friction, in other words the tires with greatest tread depth, go on the rear. FWD, RWD, AWD, 4WD, your car, grandmas car... Doesn't matter.

Yes, the front tires deal with the bulk of braking and cornering forces, but the rear tires control rotation. Steering is inducing yaw and lateral friction force from the rear tires is what controls yaw.

Your tire guy, the neighbor, or the aforementioned grandma might say otherwise. Rear is the answer. Yes, your tire guy is wrong. Yes, your mechanic is wrong.

Once more. The rear is where the new tires should be. Consult with any tire manufacturer or vehicle dynamicist if you must.

Tire rotations are only to maintain even tread wear for maximum life. If the front and rear tires are grossly mismatched in tread depth, don't rotate.

I've understood why the rears make sense in most cases.

However for me one of my biggest concerns is aquaplaning; I hate driving in the rain specifically because I can envision the wedge of water building under fronts. And as we all know once those really get snatched one way or the other in a puddle or depressed area in lanes of traffic you are screwed and fighting not to end up in a ditch. Having as much tread as possible on the ground helps reduce that, especially at the front.

I'm a tire whore, and will generally replace tires on all four matching corners of SUV long before most people would. Other two vehicles aren't square, and the rears wear at about a 2X rate to the fronts, so this is seldom an issue.

I understand the thinking behind rears, but I’m more in CaptainMike’s camp. I’m quite comfortable with oversteer.

Many years ago (back in college) I had an Opel GT for a while (looks kinda like a 50% scale corvette, but isn’t even close). It came with crappy, square sided bias ply tires. The rears were okay (and bigger), but the fronts were shot. I don’t remember what little local tire store it was and they’re probably long gone anyway. As a broke college student, I wanted to just replace the fronts. Since even then they were orders of magnitude better I wanted radials. It took some arguing and they insisted on writing it up as cash and carry even though they did mount, balance, and install the radials on the front. I understand the kids these days like to go drifting in snow country. Heck, I could do that any time I wanted with that GT. Then came winter and it rained a little bit. That was a little sporty. But, at the end of the day you develop a feel for the car, you don’t push it past what it can do, and you automatically steer into any hint of a skid before you even have time to think about it. Just the same as an experienced pilot leaves the ailerons alone and picks up a dropping wing in a stall with rudder. It all comes down to training.

I understand that many folks have no feel for their cars and that putting new tires on the back may make their limitations as a driver less dangerous. I just wish our litigious society didn’t force everybody to be treated like the lowest common denominator.

I'm guessing it has a bit to do with crash protection being better for head on collision than side impact. Thus statistically it may be better to accept a higher probability of the front end not turning than the rear end coming around.

Stan,
At least this isn't an issue with our S2000's as the front and rear tires are different sizes.
That said my fronts wear out half as fast as the rears.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Once upon a time, I purchased all new tires at Sam's Club. Instead of inflating the tires to the psi recommended by Ford, the genius tech inflated them to the maximum psi for the tire.

But just think of the planet-saving fuel mileage improvement you'd have gotten.

If you didn't crash.