RANT: Discount Tire 2 new tire mounting policy.

[oil_noob]

I am NOT questioning whether newer tires (tires with deeper tread) should be mounted in the rear. I am questioning if this policy should have some flexibility. Some responses in other related threads make it sound like vehicles will be flying off the roads if the new tires are not mounted on the rear axle, regardless of the difference in tread depth.

I am with DemoFly on this one. I would also have preferred to have Discount Tire (DT) mount the new tires up front.

Per CapriRacer, if the tires are within 95%, it is not going to have much of an effect. Why can't DT mount the tires on the front axle if there is not much of an effect? If there was a significant difference in tread depth, I would understand mounting new tires in the rear. However, I probably would have still moved the new tires to the front when I arrived home.

Every front wheel drive car I've owned wore the front tires noticeably faster. After purchasing four new tires for my FWD car, should I NOT bother rotating them since the rear tires will always have a deeper tread? If DemoFly brought his mother's car back for a tire rotation in the future (next week even), would DT (or any shop for that matter) NOT rotate them because the newer tires are on the rear?

Since mounting new tires on the rear axle is to reduce fishtailing, shouldn't auto manufacturers be required to provide a full size spare? Mounting a doughnut spare on the rear axle is more dangerous than a full size spare with a different tread depth, is it not? I know it's only supposed to be temporary and driving with caution is warranted, but lawyers will cover their butts by trying to idiot proof everything. They might say it's too dangerous to provide a spare that might go on the rear axle and force vehicles to be towed instead. Sorry for the tangent. And apologies if auto manufacturers use this as an excuse to completely eliminate spares from all vehicles.

One other anecdote to share from some years back. My son's car was due for new tires (they were down to 3/32nds). I was literally days away from making an appointment for new tires when he was involved in an accident that destroyed the passenger side front end, along with one rim and one tire. Insurance company repaired the front end, replaced the rim and the single damaged tire only. They did not replace the other undamaged front tire. I guess they felt the difference in tread depth wasn't dangerous. I’m fairly certain that if I brought my son’s car (pre-accident) to a tire shop with a non-repairable flat, they would have tried to force me to buy at least two tires. I always wondered what the insurance company would have done if it was a rear tire that needed to be replaced. I considered questioning the insurance company on the policy of replacing one tire only, but the car was ready for a full set of tires, so I moved on.

Anyway, sorry for the long-winded post and any typos/grammatical errors. Just some food for thought and wanted to let DemoFly know, he is not alone.

 

[TiGeo]

I realize not everyone can do this but for issues like this I always remove the wheel at home and take it in that way there isn't any drama. I've replaced single tires at DT many times without hassle even on awd vehicles where they would have said I needed 2-4.

 

[4WD]

If it matters enough for me to start a thread - I’m buying 2 more and done thinking about it …

 

[Sayjac]

I am NOT questioning whether newer tires (tires with deeper tread) should be mounted in the rear. I am questioning if this policy should have some flexibility....

While I understand the thought, having flexibility in what DT/AT very likely considers a potential liability issue, not a great practice imo. By instructing to put two new on the rear as tire industry recommended, it eliminates arbitrary decision making by store employee(s). And in this case, as the OP says all the tires within 95% anyway, shorten up the next DT rotation/balance interval a tad. Then if OP wishes, lengthen following one a bit. Beyond that, if still unsatisfied, OP should recommend to mom not to do any further business with DT. Lots of other tire stores, though I expect most of the 'reputable' ones would have done similar here.

 

[CKN]

If it matters enough for me to start a thread - I’m buying 2 more and done thinking about it …

Lets' be clear the other two tires are at 95%. And she hardly drives.

It seems the only problem here is an arbitrary one-imagined by you-respectfully.

 

[LDB]

So for a few weeks of barely driving we go along with 95% front and 100% rears that are all well within age/mileage/etc. limitations and add a few dozen miles to the lot.

Then in a month or two a trip back to DT for the anniversary of the annual tire rotation which I think they do for free. Thank you very much, see you in a year.

Mountain eliminated and molehill restored.

 

[dnewton3]

If it matters enough for me to start a thread - I’m buying 2 more and done thinking about it …

But, the purchaser in this thread isn't the OP; it's his mom. And maybe she's on a tight budget (as many folks can be at some time in their life).

I do understand for some fortunate folks that the problem is easily disposed of by just waiving a credit card at the problem, but others endure the stress by having to pinch pennies, and being coerced into buying two tires isn't a good option for them.

As for where to mount them, well, that's a matter of preference for the purchaser. But if the existing set was at "95%", I hardly think it really matters.

 

[M56959]

Bickering lock.