2 new tires. Put on front or rear?

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: Kawiguy454
With all of the responses none ever explain the physics of why to put them on the back? ...just because some source says so.


It's well explained by tire rack and most people aren't up on the physics, been a while since I've been to a class. But basically the advice is sound, the new pair is always supposed to go on the rear regardless of FWD or RWD. For FWD, the real problem is that the rears will swing out unexpectedly when they lose traction and you end up fish tailing. If the bad tires are on the front, the front starts to slide out first and you can correct for it. Although with stability and traction control, it might be a moot point if the OP has those options.

 

[rslifkin]

Outside of snow, assuming the new tires are similar to the old ones and not something dramatically grippier, I can't see it being a big enough difference to worry about snap oversteer. If the worn set is bad enough to be a significant hydroplaning concern, then they should also be replaced.

And personally, outside of severe snap oversteer, I'd rather have the tail step out a bit than end up understeering. At least the driver still has some directional control when oversteering while understeer is a lot more helpless.

 

[EdwardC]

I believe BRZED explained why, you want the front to break loose before the rear end because it is much easier to recover from that kind of traction loss.

I suppose you could try the reverse and try to find some sources other than anecdotal individual comments with an explanation why the better tires always go up front. I don't think there are many.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: EdwardC
I believe BRZED explained why, you want the front to break loose before the rear end because it is much easier to recover from that kind of traction loss.

That is the key. In the wet or snow/ice, you want the new tires on the rear. In the dry, you want the new tires on the front because worn tires grip better in the dry.

We end up with contradicting requirements wet/ice/snow vs. dry. The wet/ice/snow conditions are typically the ones most of us think about though. I agree with the above who think if they live in Phoenix or L.A. or anywhere it doesn't rain much, go ahead and put new ones on front.

 

[southernjeeper]

I have been told to always put newer tires on the front.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: southernjeeper
I have been told to always put newer tires on the front.

That's only in places where it doesn't rain/snow much. And when it does rain/snow in those dry climate areas, slow down in wet conditions. Remember, worn tires do grip better in the dry, but they hydroplane in wet.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: southernjeeper
I have been told to always put newer tires on the front.


You were told wrong. This comes up many times, this isn't the first this has come up here. There are many old threads about this and it usually ends with the conclusion that they should go on the rear.

Check the tirerack article and the wiki on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_rotation

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: southernjeeper
I have been told to always put newer tires on the front.

If you paid for this advice, ask for a refund.

 

[bbhero]

I put new tires on the front with FWD especially in the winter with snow and ice. Where's the drive axle?? Where's the vehicles weight placed the most on the tires?? The front with a FWD vehicle... You actually get more grip with a FWD vehicle because the weight of the motor and transmission help apply more pressure those tires. . Before that with the lesser tread depth tires on the front it got a bit difficult with hydroplanning. I actually got FAR better traction against hyroplanning with my better tires that I just had rotated to the front 2 months ago. I have always had FWD cars. I notice that in dry conditions that my cars always have an tight condition versus a loose back end condition. If and when I rarely over drive a corner I slide the front tires more than feel the back end start to kick out.

 

[Nate1979]

Those who are recommending putting new tires on the front should be held responsible for their bad advice if an accident happens. I guess that's why advice on forums is free, you get what you pay for.

 

[bbhero]

Well those saying that worn tires on the front with winter coming can explain why someone cant get up a moderate incline because their good back tires do them no good in that... Why do RWD vehicles hardly get around in the snow and ice?? Because the drive axle without the most of the weight is in the back... Going no where.
If one overdrives a corner by 20 mph and turns the wheel dead left or right of course the back end steps out.

 

[Tdbo]

Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: Tdbo
If you have a shop install them, you will get them on the rear whether you want them there or not.
I got into it with Sams Club once. Had front tires with 7.5K on them and the backs were toast. Wanted the fronts rotated to the back (obviously for wear purposes) and the new on the front.
They initially refused to do it. However, after a discussion with the manager and the signing of a waiver, they did it.
Under general circumstances, I agree. Better traction with the new in the rear.


The standard answer is the rear, always. However I just had a new pair put on and the local Goodyear store didn't say anything when I had them put on the front. To be fair though, the rears had about 9/32's and new the fronts were 11/32 so I think with that much tread, it doesn't really matter that much. With a set of half worn tires, I'd put the new ones on the rear.



As I said in my last sentence, I agree with the rear and if that jibed with my rotation cycle on that car at the time, the two new would have gone on the rear. However, sometimes common sense has to come in to play.
In my case, I was not about to trash a basically new (12 weeks on the road) pair of tires with only 7,500 miles on them by not rotating them.
With that mileage, there was ample tread on them and the tires were certainly better than the ones that came off that had 80K on them and less than 2/32" TD on them.
The tires that were rotated were basically new, perfectly fine, and totally safe.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
Well those saying that worn tires on the front

Nobody is advising to run on worn tires here, regardless of which axle. We are talking about new tires vs. slightly worn. When it comes to winter, personally I consider the tires spent when they get down to about 50% of tread.


Quote:

Why do RWD vehicles hardly get around in the snow and ice?? Because the drive axle without the most of the weight is in the back... Going no where.

Hardly get around? I think you hardly get around. My 530i is very capable in the snow when equipped with 4 winter tires. I have yet to get stuck or spin out. It's got close to 50/50 weight distribution and I don't drive around with any sandbags in the trunk.

 

[bbhero]

Well my mom could not go out or up a mild incline with her 90 Lincoln with RWD... Anywhere. GO try taking RWD car out and up a driveway that has a mild hill. Good luck. I have driven over a half million miles and driven in the snow as much as I can because I love the snow. I have my better tires up front in the winter at least. Weight upon front tires = more grip on them.

Ohh and you were talking about winter tires.. Not regular all season tires. Not the same game. And you know that. We dont have many people in Va that go with winter tires. Go and try it with even good all season tires, or rain tires and not your winter tires.... Going gets tough. Plus many people dont drive what you drive.... A high end, nice, well balanced weight distributed car. That is awesome for you.

 

[bbhero]

I will say that it does make sense to me that having the higher grip tires on the rear makes sense in that if one does break lose that having better tread on the back end easier to bring back under control. That makes sense in that regard. It also makes sense that in most cars the front end weight in the front can cause the nose to get pinned down and cause the back end to get loose. Whcih would be good to have the better tread back there in that event. But not everyone has a weight balanced car like you and others on here Quattro

That makes it much safer across the board.
I will tell you the gospel truth... just this last summer I had the worst hydroplanning incident ever in my car. I started doing it going down a hill covered with deep rain runoff. My car lost all traction. Wiggled to the left to about 2 feet within the edge of the pavement. Saved it there. But then it started tracking loose to the right and I had to correct it from there. I knew IF I made any sudden over correction I was done for. I did not have traction for about 3 seconds. I had the "better" grip tires in the back. But I dont know if that helped. Only because I had seemingly no traction on any of my tires during that event.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
I had the "better" grip tires in the back.

Better grip tires? What does that mean?

To avoid hydroplaning, the most important aspect is sufficient tread depth. It sounds like your tires may not have had enough, regardless which axle they were on.

 

[bbhero]

The tires with the deepest tread in the back.. They had probaly 3/16 or 5/32 I am thinking is about the rough estimate. Tell ya the truth.. that water was rather deep so I dont believe it would have made much difference unless they were brand spanking new. The car behind me about lost it as well. He or she was skating all over the place like I had been doing just prior. I dont consider 5/32 to be really that low on tread depth. It was just deep water running down that hill. Honestly, I was driving a bit too fast as well at 68 mph probaly didnt help either.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
I will say that it does make sense to me that having the higher grip tires on the rear makes sense in that if one does break lose that having better tread on the back end easier to bring back under control. That makes sense in that regard. It also makes sense that in most cars the front end weight in the front can cause the nose to get pinned down and cause the back end to get loose. Whcih would be good to have the better tread back there in that event. But not everyone has a weight balanced car like you and others on here Quattro

Static weight balance doesn't matter much. When you hit the brakes, weight shifts to the front regardless of static weight balance. For majority of drivers, it is safer to have the better tires in the rear because rear end slides are much harder to control. When you put the better tires on the front, especially in a FWD setup, it'll help you get going, but it also builds up a false sense of security (just like AWD does). You're thinking "oh, this isn't so bad. After all, I was able to get going no problem. Let's go faster." And then you get a big surprise when go through a turn and the rear slides around.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
The tires with the deepest tread in the back.. They had probaly 3/16 or 5/32

If the better tires had 5/32 tread depth, then what did the worse tires have?

For good wet traction, you want your tread depth to be at least 4/32. For snow, you want 5/32 or more.

 

[ledslinger]

Under 20 laps to go, under caution, new on right side.