Originally Posted By: Oldmoparguy1
supton said:
Mount New Tires on Rear
- Thread starter Nick1994
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Cardenio327
Originally Posted By: Oldmoparguy1
Originally Posted By: Oldmoparguy1
supton said:
I would not be surprised to find tires with less remaining tread had a higher incidence of "blowouts" or other less sudden air loss events.
The tire is older. It's has been subject to usage.
It has faced more risks than the new tire, which may cause it to lose air, it may be plugged/patched, etc.
I doubt it's high. But I do believe there is probably a bit higher incidence of such tires losing air either suddenly or gradually compared to their newer peers.
Given that the general public is typically a passenger behind the wheel, it probably is in our best interests to mount new tires on the rear when only two are replaced.
Originally Posted By: supton
I do not believe tread depth is correlated to blowout. Blowouts come from tire damage, or running a tire with too little air or too much load, causing it to heat up excessively (which is really another form of damaging the tire). Handling issues from lack of tread is something else entirely.
The tire is older. It's has been subject to usage.
It has faced more risks than the new tire, which may cause it to lose air, it may be plugged/patched, etc.
I doubt it's high. But I do believe there is probably a bit higher incidence of such tires losing air either suddenly or gradually compared to their newer peers.
Given that the general public is typically a passenger behind the wheel, it probably is in our best interests to mount new tires on the rear when only two are replaced.
Originally Posted By: supton
I do not believe tread depth is correlated to blowout. Blowouts come from tire damage, or running a tire with too little air or too much load, causing it to heat up excessively (which is really another form of damaging the tire). Handling issues from lack of tread is something else entirely.
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Both my dad and I have had 2 new tires put on at a time, then 6 months later had 2 more put on. I have a 1996 Chevy truck, he has a 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser. The old tires are at about half tread and Discount Tire will argue til the end of the world that new tires are better on the rear to help with traction in wet conditions so you don't spin out. I understand what they're getting at BUT my grandfather a couple years ago had a front blowout on his Jeep and almost rolled the Jeep over and couldn't keep control of it. If you have a blowout on the rear, it will much easier to control. Driving out on the highway at 75-80 mph with old tires,I don't want to die in a rollover. S why do they continue to argue with putting the tires on the rear?
As a few as said just take it home and rotate them as you want.. crock of *insert any word you deem appropriate*. That's what I'm going to do if I don't just buy all four for the Focus. Is your tail is coming around it's coming around.. doesn't matter what tires you have where.
Both my dad and I have had 2 new tires put on at a time, then 6 months later had 2 more put on. I have a 1996 Chevy truck, he has a 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser. The old tires are at about half tread and Discount Tire will argue til the end of the world that new tires are better on the rear to help with traction in wet conditions so you don't spin out. I understand what they're getting at BUT my grandfather a couple years ago had a front blowout on his Jeep and almost rolled the Jeep over and couldn't keep control of it. If you have a blowout on the rear, it will much easier to control. Driving out on the highway at 75-80 mph with old tires,I don't want to die in a rollover. S why do they continue to argue with putting the tires on the rear?
As a few as said just take it home and rotate them as you want.. crock of *insert any word you deem appropriate*. That's what I'm going to do if I don't just buy all four for the Focus. Is your tail is coming around it's coming around.. doesn't matter what tires you have where.
Originally Posted By: Cardenio327
Propaganda? I see as it as spending money on their part to ensure their customers remain safe. If it were propaganda they would make videos insisting on purchasing four tires no matter what.
That day is coming, I suspect. And ya know what? They are right, in a way. Unless you have a one-tire failure/replacement very soon after installing a new set, anything other than buying a set of four new tires is a compromise.
The codger in me wants to say "It's been that way for 100 years and all was well till the lawyers got involved." The practical part of me says "Yes, but money is money."
So, what to do when you are a working-class grunt, buy a new set of P4s on sale, pick up a nail in one, don't find it for awhile cause the leak is slow, finally patch it and find it's worn faster than the other three? It's at 5/32 with a patch, while the other three tires are at 7-8/32, in great shape.
That's where I was when I traded in my Chevy Classic last year. Had I kept that car till the winter, the "patch" tire would have been on the cusp of needing to be replaced for snow traction, while the others would have been fine. No good answer.
Buy a set of four new tires, rotate religiously, magically avoid all road hazards and replace with a new set of four at 4/32. Great recipe for a perfect world.
In the real world of flats, punctures, uneven wear, uneven quality from tire model to model, depending on application, dealing with tires that come on used cars, the need for wet/winter traction but lack of funds to afford dedicated winter tires, (segue to) financial reality and the Quest for quality tires at a bargain price....it's a compromise.
At some point a reasonable driver/consumer might wind up with a front tire that has 2- or 3/32 more tread than a rear tire. That's not a big deal, assuming he does not decide to test the car's limits roaring through curves in a downpour---and if he does do that, he's likely to wreck at some point anyway.
Classic case of a good idea taken to extremes, based on fear of liability and how easy it is to set One Clear Standard, rather than suggest ways for a consumer/layman to think clearly and "get educated" about what is best for their own situation.
Propaganda? I see as it as spending money on their part to ensure their customers remain safe. If it were propaganda they would make videos insisting on purchasing four tires no matter what.
That day is coming, I suspect. And ya know what? They are right, in a way. Unless you have a one-tire failure/replacement very soon after installing a new set, anything other than buying a set of four new tires is a compromise.
The codger in me wants to say "It's been that way for 100 years and all was well till the lawyers got involved." The practical part of me says "Yes, but money is money."
So, what to do when you are a working-class grunt, buy a new set of P4s on sale, pick up a nail in one, don't find it for awhile cause the leak is slow, finally patch it and find it's worn faster than the other three? It's at 5/32 with a patch, while the other three tires are at 7-8/32, in great shape.
That's where I was when I traded in my Chevy Classic last year. Had I kept that car till the winter, the "patch" tire would have been on the cusp of needing to be replaced for snow traction, while the others would have been fine. No good answer.
Buy a set of four new tires, rotate religiously, magically avoid all road hazards and replace with a new set of four at 4/32. Great recipe for a perfect world.
In the real world of flats, punctures, uneven wear, uneven quality from tire model to model, depending on application, dealing with tires that come on used cars, the need for wet/winter traction but lack of funds to afford dedicated winter tires, (segue to) financial reality and the Quest for quality tires at a bargain price....it's a compromise.
At some point a reasonable driver/consumer might wind up with a front tire that has 2- or 3/32 more tread than a rear tire. That's not a big deal, assuming he does not decide to test the car's limits roaring through curves in a downpour---and if he does do that, he's likely to wreck at some point anyway.
Classic case of a good idea taken to extremes, based on fear of liability and how easy it is to set One Clear Standard, rather than suggest ways for a consumer/layman to think clearly and "get educated" about what is best for their own situation.
Explain how to handle this.
You have a front wheel drive car with 4 brand new tires. After x000 miles you decide to rotate tires. The best tires however are on the rear since they wear much slower. Rule says best tires go on rear. You will never be able to rotate tires then.
You have a front wheel drive car with 4 brand new tires. After x000 miles you decide to rotate tires. The best tires however are on the rear since they wear much slower. Rule says best tires go on rear. You will never be able to rotate tires then.
Originally Posted By: Bamaro
Explain how to handle this.
You have a front wheel drive car with 4 brand new tires. After x000 miles you decide to rotate tires. The best tires however are on the rear since they wear much slower. Rule says best tires go on rear. You will never be able to rotate tires then.
Yep. That is where the 2/32" rule comes in. Anything more than a 2/32 disparity and some shops will shrug, refuse to rotate and tell you to just wait for the fronts to wear down. (So I have read here and elsewhere. Have not had that happen personally.)
Also there are places overseas where rotation is 'not' recommended, for just the reason you cite. The idea is to deliberately run down the fronts, then buy two new tires to put on the back and move the half-worn tires from the back to the front. Anyone from the UK know more about this?
Interesting idea, but among other things it kills the great rebate deals you can get online on sets of four tires....
Explain how to handle this.
You have a front wheel drive car with 4 brand new tires. After x000 miles you decide to rotate tires. The best tires however are on the rear since they wear much slower. Rule says best tires go on rear. You will never be able to rotate tires then.
Yep. That is where the 2/32" rule comes in. Anything more than a 2/32 disparity and some shops will shrug, refuse to rotate and tell you to just wait for the fronts to wear down. (So I have read here and elsewhere. Have not had that happen personally.)
Also there are places overseas where rotation is 'not' recommended, for just the reason you cite. The idea is to deliberately run down the fronts, then buy two new tires to put on the back and move the half-worn tires from the back to the front. Anyone from the UK know more about this?
Interesting idea, but among other things it kills the great rebate deals you can get online on sets of four tires....
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I already said, I don't want a blowout.
Then don't under-inflate, don't over-inflate, and don't hit stuff in the road. That's what causes blowouts, not a few fractions of an inch difference in tread depth.
I already said, I don't want a blowout.
Then don't under-inflate, don't over-inflate, and don't hit stuff in the road. That's what causes blowouts, not a few fractions of an inch difference in tread depth.
Pickup trucks have horrible weight distribution, so you want your rear drive tires to be the best.
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I already said, I don't want a blowout.
Than you better make sure your truck tires are properly aired up, not overloaded and don't hit stuff.
I already said, I don't want a blowout.
Than you better make sure your truck tires are properly aired up, not overloaded and don't hit stuff.
Don't you just love tire threads?
Originally Posted By: Bamaro
Explain how to handle this.
You have a front wheel drive car with 4 brand new tires. After x000 miles you decide to rotate tires. The best tires however are on the rear since they wear much slower. Rule says best tires go on rear. You will never be able to rotate tires then.
No. We're talking about a significant difference in tread depth. The main example used is when you get a new pair of tires and have two partially worn tires already on the vehicle. That is what is being talked about in this thread, since the title of the thread is "mount new tires on rear."
If you are terrible about rotations and wait many thousands of miles, or drive really aggressively and wear down two tires much faster, then you may have a big enough difference in tread depth to matter. Stay on top of it and you should be fine.
Explain how to handle this.
You have a front wheel drive car with 4 brand new tires. After x000 miles you decide to rotate tires. The best tires however are on the rear since they wear much slower. Rule says best tires go on rear. You will never be able to rotate tires then.
No. We're talking about a significant difference in tread depth. The main example used is when you get a new pair of tires and have two partially worn tires already on the vehicle. That is what is being talked about in this thread, since the title of the thread is "mount new tires on rear."
If you are terrible about rotations and wait many thousands of miles, or drive really aggressively and wear down two tires much faster, then you may have a big enough difference in tread depth to matter. Stay on top of it and you should be fine.
Originally Posted By: Oldmoparguy1
Originally Posted By: supton
I do not believe tread depth is correlated to blowout. Blowouts come from tire damage, or running a tire with too little air or too much load, causing it to heat up excessively (which is really another form of damaging the tire). Handling issues from lack of tread is something else entirely.
Totally agree with this.
I just can't understand how this issue keeps coming up. The whole idea of putting new tires on the rear of the car is based on faulty reasoning. If you haven't tested your theory on the road, then you don't know what you are talking about.
I Just read the Tire-rack article referenced in the link above. Backward logic, take a circumstance, create a theory of what happened, and work backward until you find a good sounding explanation, then claim it as a proof.
Some years ago Michelin Tire company created a video about the issue. They used 2 bald tires, first on the front, then on the back. They then drove around a test track that had been wet down and preceded to "prove" the theory. They drove "too fast for conditions" and of course the car spun out. See? Theory proved! The whole thing was bogus. Total propaganda.
They could have put 1, 2, 3, or 4 bald tires on that car and lapped that track all day long and not spun out, "if they had driven according to conditions."
The issue here is the condition of the tires, not the circumstances of the road/traffic/weather/competence of the driver/or anything else.
I have been driving for over 60 years, I have driven in 38 states, 3 Canadian Providences and northern Mexico. I have driven in deserts, mountains, race tracks, both dirt and asphalt, extreme heat and cold.
I actually have did my own tire testing while teaching my sons how to drive.
I have always put new tires on the front and I always make sure that all my tires are safe to drive with.
Back in the day, there were no laws governing the condition of tires. Now there are and for the most part they are reasonable. If your tires are legal, it may not matter which end you put new tires on. In general, when replacing just 2 tires, they should be put where the wear is greatest.
This usually will be the front. There may be reasons for doing otherwise, but in general........ Ideally tires will be rotated at regular intervals so that wear will be even and all 4 tires will be replaced at the same time. Life is seldom ideal and stuff happens. We've all been there one time or another. YMMV
Wayne
There are a lot of people that do not drive according to conditions. I rode with someone that was going 75 (in a 65) in heavy rain because that's how fast traffic was going. Their car had bald tires ... literally BALD to the point they wore the wear bars off!
I ended up telling to slow down the *expletive* *expletive* car before we both end up dead.
It's pretty common. The only time people attempt to slow down is in the snow. Even then, the first snow storm always gets a few people that do not remember to slow down.
I always put the more worn tire on the rear of my front driver, same on my Cherokee. My tires are all pretty close and a matching set. Keeps treadwear pretty even.
I do run my summer tires pretty close to the 2/32'' limit. They don't have to perform in the snow and I always drive easy in the rain.
Originally Posted By: supton
I do not believe tread depth is correlated to blowout. Blowouts come from tire damage, or running a tire with too little air or too much load, causing it to heat up excessively (which is really another form of damaging the tire). Handling issues from lack of tread is something else entirely.
Totally agree with this.
I just can't understand how this issue keeps coming up. The whole idea of putting new tires on the rear of the car is based on faulty reasoning. If you haven't tested your theory on the road, then you don't know what you are talking about.
I Just read the Tire-rack article referenced in the link above. Backward logic, take a circumstance, create a theory of what happened, and work backward until you find a good sounding explanation, then claim it as a proof.
Some years ago Michelin Tire company created a video about the issue. They used 2 bald tires, first on the front, then on the back. They then drove around a test track that had been wet down and preceded to "prove" the theory. They drove "too fast for conditions" and of course the car spun out. See? Theory proved! The whole thing was bogus. Total propaganda.
They could have put 1, 2, 3, or 4 bald tires on that car and lapped that track all day long and not spun out, "if they had driven according to conditions."
The issue here is the condition of the tires, not the circumstances of the road/traffic/weather/competence of the driver/or anything else.
I have been driving for over 60 years, I have driven in 38 states, 3 Canadian Providences and northern Mexico. I have driven in deserts, mountains, race tracks, both dirt and asphalt, extreme heat and cold.
I actually have did my own tire testing while teaching my sons how to drive.
I have always put new tires on the front and I always make sure that all my tires are safe to drive with.
Back in the day, there were no laws governing the condition of tires. Now there are and for the most part they are reasonable. If your tires are legal, it may not matter which end you put new tires on. In general, when replacing just 2 tires, they should be put where the wear is greatest.
This usually will be the front. There may be reasons for doing otherwise, but in general........ Ideally tires will be rotated at regular intervals so that wear will be even and all 4 tires will be replaced at the same time. Life is seldom ideal and stuff happens. We've all been there one time or another. YMMV
Wayne
There are a lot of people that do not drive according to conditions. I rode with someone that was going 75 (in a 65) in heavy rain because that's how fast traffic was going. Their car had bald tires ... literally BALD to the point they wore the wear bars off!
I ended up telling to slow down the *expletive* *expletive* car before we both end up dead.
It's pretty common. The only time people attempt to slow down is in the snow. Even then, the first snow storm always gets a few people that do not remember to slow down.
I always put the more worn tire on the rear of my front driver, same on my Cherokee. My tires are all pretty close and a matching set. Keeps treadwear pretty even.
I do run my summer tires pretty close to the 2/32'' limit. They don't have to perform in the snow and I always drive easy in the rain.
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
Don't you just love tire threads?
Love them!
Don't you just love tire threads?
Love them!
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I already said, I don't want a blowout.
Then don't under-inflate, don't over-inflate, and don't hit stuff in the road. That's what causes blowouts, not a few fractions of an inch difference in tread depth.
I think the one thing I was going to mention in my original post but decided not to is that of course a tire that is more worn is likely to be an older tire than any new tire put on. Tire age can contribute to the overall integrity and 'blowout' factor on a tire however I don't think it contributes as much as proper loading, proper pressure and object-impact damage. I may be oversimplifying it here.
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I already said, I don't want a blowout.
Then don't under-inflate, don't over-inflate, and don't hit stuff in the road. That's what causes blowouts, not a few fractions of an inch difference in tread depth.
I think the one thing I was going to mention in my original post but decided not to is that of course a tire that is more worn is likely to be an older tire than any new tire put on. Tire age can contribute to the overall integrity and 'blowout' factor on a tire however I don't think it contributes as much as proper loading, proper pressure and object-impact damage. I may be oversimplifying it here.
- Status
