Mount New Tires on Rear

[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?

 

[racer12306]

That recommendation assumes your fronts are decent.

Junk tires are junk regardless of what location they are installed.

I think what normally happens is people dont rotate so the fronts wear out. Then they get two new tires, these should be put on the rear and the former rear tires put on the front. I also think this is a little more crucial on FWD cars.

 

[Astro14]

Nope...not blowouts that are the risk, it's safety/stability of the car. Oversteer vs. understeer.

It's been beat to death before...

Starting 10 years ago, for example:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/2-new-tires-mount-on-front-or-rear.55088/

But most people want to ignore the evidence and advice to mount new tires on the rear (for example, here: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=52 ) because they think that they're better drivers and can handle the oversteer...despite all the evidence to the contrary...

 

[Cardenio327]

Originally Posted By: Nick1994
If you have a blowout on the rear, it will much easier to control.


If I'm not mistaken most the deaths by rollover in the Ford Explorer/Firestone fiasco were caused by rear tires blowing out, the driver's side rear to be precise.

Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Driving out on the highway at 75-80 mph with old tires,I don't want to die in a rollover.


If your tires are old enough to scare you maybe you shouldn't drive 75-80 mph until you can get them replaced, regardless of them being on the front or rear.

 

[Nick1994]

I live in Phoenix, AZ. Understeer and oversteer is not a problem because on average it rains maybe at the most once a month, probably more like once every 2 months

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I live in Phoenix, AZ. Understeer and oversteer is not a problem because on average it rains maybe at the most once a month, probably more like once every 2 months


Then why replace tires at all? Using that logic, that you don't have to worry about wet performance, you could run them until they're completely smooth....

 

[edwardh1]

michelin on their web site has a recommendation-
Answer:
Michelin recommends replacing all four tires at the same time, however if replacing only two new tires, be sure that the new tires are the same size & tire type as the current tires and that the dealer always installs the new tires on the rear axle of the vehicle. Click here for more information

Why Put the 2 New Tires on the Rear Axle?
The New tires will provide better wet grip than your half-worn tires.
It will help reduce the potential for the vehicle to fishtail and lose stability in wet conditions

 

[OneEyeJack]

What about a front wheel drive care that wears out the fronts quicker than the rears?

 

[Traction]

I give up. after a thousand miles the front tires are worn more than the rear, so everyone is stuck with only being able to buy 2 tires at a time and put them on the back.

 

[faramir9]

Originally Posted By: Traction
I give up. after a thousand miles the front tires are worn more than the rear, so everyone is stuck with only being able to buy 2 tires at a time and put them on the back.


The rule of thumb for most tire shops is 2/32 difference, I hear. More than that and they won't rotate front-to-back, for the oversteer reasons debated to death here. (and elsewhere)

Friend had a Corolla and did not rotate tires as often as he should have. The difference in tread from front to back was just enough for me to notice. Just to annoy him I measured it: 9 in the rear, 6.5 in the front. I told him he better get them rotated real soon or it might not be possible.

He thinks I am weird about tires. Just wait till he tries to get a shop to rotate....point is that by the time a tire geek like me noticed the issue by eyeballing the tires it was already almost too late. Some of you guys would have seen it sooner, I am sure. But a 2/32" difference in a well-aligned car driven gently, with plenty of tread left on both pairs, is probably hard to tell, especially for normal drivers.

 

[edwardh1]

the michelin site a year or 2 ago used to have videos of cars on wet curves, with the bad tires on front, then on rear.
It convinced you of their recommendation

 

[faramir9]

Originally Posted By: Traction
I give up. after a thousand miles the front tires are worn more than the rear, so everyone is stuck with only being able to buy 2 tires at a time and put them on the back.


My take on this is that the liability issue drives the policy to a perhaps silly extreme, but it makes sense in principle. I would never put winter tires on the front and leave all-seasons in the back, for instance. Nor would I put new H727 or P4 up front with GY Integrity at 4/32 in the rear.

Still, things happen with car tires....and money is money. If things keep going as they are, at some point the suits will frown on doing anything other than replace all four in a set.

Not only do things happen, but braking and turning count for something---sometimes a lot. Problem is, that's not so easy for the suits to explain to the techs, to explain to the customers who care to learn....and so it goes.

Just a matter of time till the gov'ment gets in on this.

 

[Nick1994]

I already said, I don't want a blowout.

 

[Spazdog]

I had worn out fronts and practically new Michelin XGTs on my Integra GS-R

I put two new Kumhos on the front. I mean they are practically new Michelins. Michelin is better than Kumho.

They must have been significantly age hardened. Put it into a corner and the back started sliding. Went through at a near lock slide.

I'm glad that I didn't make this discovery in the rain.

Went back and got two more Kumhos for the back. Someone got some nice 195/55R15 Michelin takeoffs for next to nothing...only slid once.

Rotate regularly (on cars that you can) and buy all 4 at once.

 

[ChrisW]

I only have six months in the industry, but I would make the assumption that a lack of tread depth on the front steering tires is not the primary and most contributing factor to a tire blowout. I would even say that the chances of a new [passenger car] tire on the front at 10/32 blowing out versus a worn tire at 4/32 are practically the same in most real world situations.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
What about a front wheel drive care that wears out the fronts quicker than the rears?

Same goes for most AWD cars, mainly because more weight is over the front wheels and because the fronts are used for steering. My WRX 5-sp has a 50/50 power distribution, and the fronts always wear faster.

I had a blowout and the original tires were all within the 2/32" limit that they agreed was OK for an AWD car. They tried talking me into installing the new one on the rear, but I knew that the fronts would wear down faster and insisted on a new one on the front. There was hardly any wear on the rears anyways, so I'd think the whole idea of newer tires on the rear was sort of senseless given such little wear.

 

[CapriRacer]

No one has mentioned this yet, but isn't part of this equation the rate of tire "blowouts" (I HATE that term!!), vs loss of vehicle control due to the tread depth?

I would think the latter would occur much more frequently than the former.

 

[Traction]

I understand the reasons for putting new tires on the rear for stability in the rain and snow, but since low tread depth tires have more dry grip than full tread you can end up with a car that is unstable on dry pavement. Also on rear drive cars with staggered tires that can't be rotated front to rear I guess you would have to replace the rear tires whenever they wear down 2/32 from the front to be "legal"

 

[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.

 

[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