Replacing Front Tires......

[Traction]

I totally agree that 4/32nds tires compared to new would be a issue. But, the OP's tires only have 6ki on them which should still be close to new on tread depth. Plus that is the mileage that even if you had 4 new tires, you would be moving the slightly worn front tires to the rear, and in most cases, less worn to the front. High powered rear drive cars, with staggered tires, will always end up with worn rear tires eventually. Then what? Stability control can catch it to a point. In that case you would need to replace the rear tires every 6000 miles!

 

[Rand]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
Giant book above that we dont need to read again here.



Is that relevant if the "old tires" are worn 1/32 of an inch?

Why put the new tires in the rear in the specific case of the OP.

The "old tires" are less worn than if he had bought all 4 tires and just not rotated for 10000 miles.

 

[bbhero]

I have always had my better tires on the front end of a front wheel drive car. Never had an issue on snow and or snow, sleet and freezing rain mixed on the road surface. Has never been an issue. If your weight is in the front end and its a front wheel drive car then it works fine. Truly "icy" like pure freezing rain and only freezing rain on a road.... Only studded tires can even go out on that. I've driven on dust dry snow that was smashed down and melted by exhaust and refroze like freezing rain and even then I was able to drive in it. Slowly though not much more than 20 mph. I've only seen freezing rain on bare pavement and bare dirt but twice in 35 plus years. This last winter we had that in my area. Couldn't even walk on the concrete walk way and asphalt parking lot. No way to drive in that without studded tires. That was truly icy roads.

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: Nick1994
CapriRacer: One of my biggest questions with the whole new tires front or rear is, what would be the outcome of a car driving on that track with all 4 tires at 4/32" of tread? Would it slide off the track or would it go through it fine?


The 4/32nds tires CAN hydroplane. So what would happen is that the WHOLE vehicle would skid through the water and it would continue spinning even when it exited the water. The amount of spinning would be less than the front new/rear worn situation, but there would be a slight spin starting to take place. So if your point is that the worn tires are the problem - point taken!

Originally Posted By: Rand
Is that relevant if the "old tires" are worn 1/32 of an inch?

Why put the new tires in the rear in the specific case of the OP.

The "old tires" are less worn than if he had bought all 4 tires and just not rotated for 10000 miles.


Opps, I forgot to add something.

Michelin did a whole serious of tests that they didn't publish, but reported on at some RMA (Rubber Manufacturers Association) meetings I attended. Their testing said that tires within 1/32nd were not significantly different in traction levels, while 2/32nds was measurable.

So in the OP's case, 6K is not likely to have worn 2/32nds, so for practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the tires go on the front or the rear.

The point in my lengthy post was to refute those with "opinions" by using my "experiences".

 

[Traction]

I always keep 4 matching, even worn tires on my car, but even though that is important for wet roads, I always wondered if you could have the opposite effect on dry pavement. If you had worn, not old tires on the front at 4/43nds or less, and brand new tires in the rear, I would think that also would make the back of the car to tend to over steer in an evasive move, or going too fast, since the front tires would have more dry grip than the rears.