Tire place refused to sell just 2 snow tires

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
Playing devil's advocate:

How many lawsuits do you think it would take to convince a tire retailer that installing only 2 winter tires is not economically viable?

I think the answer is one. They would have to sell an awful lot of tires to make up losing one multi-million dollar lawsuit.


Can you successfully sue them if they sell you all-seasons without making you sign a form promising that you won't use them in the winter? Two winter tires on the back is still better than that!

I was actually surprised that Canadian Tire sold me two studded Goodyear Nordics today on loose rims with no questions asked, and no recommendation that they be used on the rear. However, I had no doubt that they'd sell them to me if I explained that I had two other studded tires in decent condition for the front. It says right on their sign that if only two tires are purchased, they must be installed on the back.

 

[SigShooter]

Try a Cooper tire dealer. I bought two Cooper snow tires about two years ago for the rear of a Chrysler 300C (Hemi). They had no problem selling me two. I learned to drive on rear wheel drive and all we ever did was put snow tires on the rear. They worked fine on th Chrysler. I now have a F150 4WD so I don't need snow tires anymore. Hope this helps.

 

[kballowe]

Hmmmm. Never, ever, been in the ditch unless I drove there on purpose.

Now I'll have to go and hunt up two more rims and two more tires so I can have all four snow tires instead of just two - and see what I'm missing.

 

[smokey1]

was told there was a lawsuit on this issue . A garage put snows ( studded perhaps ) on front and not rear of customer vehicle causing car to wreck . This causes uneven breaking throwing the rear end out , especially if studded snows on front and regular in rear . Most noticeable when braking on ice , packed snow , etc.. So , this is for your , their , and others benefit .

 

[smokey1]

we use studded snows for all four . Smartest choice we made after driving without snows for many years before causing a few fender benders . Haven't kissed a guardrail since the switch . Knock on metal .

 

[Audi Junkie]

I think 2 snows on the rear of RWD is fine as well as on the front of FWD. I've done the FWD thing frequently and no issues, just won't get stuck.

 

[fsskier]

I agree with putting snow tires on the rear only of a RWD car.
That has been done for 50 years on thousands of vehicles and I have never seen adverse problems reported.

Putting snow (particularly the "Ice" rated tires) on the front only of a FWD car can result in absolutely continous wild oversteer at speed in a snowstorm. I have experienced this once, hundreds of miles in a blizzard with Michelins on the rear. The Audi we had could NOT be kept straight, we later stopped and put the ice tires on the back and the Michelins on the front. We did not need a lot of traction to cross Nebraska in a blizzard, but did need to stay on the road!!!

To simulate lots of traction on the front, less on the rear, take a grocery cart and push it backwards for a while, next time you shop. After a few minutes of wild wobbling around you will be convinced!

 

[xxch4osxx]

I have never experienced these problems with snow tires only on the front on a FWD car.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
I have never experienced these problems with snow tires only on the front on a FWD car.


You'll have to try harder then! Take corners at higher speeds.

Since most cars are set up for understeer, maybe having good all-seasons on the back isn't enough to do it. You could try running a new set of winter tires in the front and some tires that are close to the wear bars on the back.

If that fails, you'll have to go with studs on the front and bald tires on the back to appreciate it.

 

[xxch4osxx]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
I have never experienced these problems with snow tires only on the front on a FWD car.


You'll have to try harder then! Take corners at higher speeds.

Since most cars are set up for understeer, maybe having good all-seasons on the back isn't enough to do it. You could try running a new set of winter tires in the front and some tires that are close to the wear bars on the back.

If that fails, you'll have to go with studs on the front and bald tires on the back to appreciate it.

Lol Well, I couldn't try that even if I wanted to, since I dont have a car anymore, I have a 4x4 truck

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
Lol Well, I couldn't try that even if I wanted to, since I dont have a car anymore, I have a 4x4 truck


Well, then you'll have to start by disconnecting the rear drive shaft!

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
Playing devil's advocate:

How many lawsuits do you think it would take to convince a tire retailer that installing only 2 winter tires is not economically viable?

I think the answer is one. They would have to sell an awful lot of tires to make up losing one multi-million dollar lawsuit.


Can you successfully sue them if they sell you all-seasons without making you sign a form promising that you won't use them in the winter? .......



I'm not an attorney, but I think you would be hard pressed to separate the other 2 issues:

- not changing to winter tires when the conditions changed - which is solely the decision of the owner of the vehicle

- The driver's driving ability.

Originally Posted By: rpn453
......

Two winter tires on the back is still better than that!......


May be for getting going, but the stopping part is not affected very much - and that's where the issue is.

Originally Posted By: rpn453
......

I was actually surprised that Canadian Tire sold me two studded Goodyear Nordics today on loose rims with no questions asked, and no recommendation that they be used on the rear.......



That's because THEY would not be puting the tires on the car. All they were asked to do was mount tires on a rim. THEY don't need to tell you what to do, the tire manufacturer does - and the manufacturers tell you that on their web sites. If you chose to do otherwise, that becomes a risk you assumed.

 

[xxch4osxx]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
Lol Well, I couldn't try that even if I wanted to, since I dont have a car anymore, I have a 4x4 truck


Well, then you'll have to start by disconnecting the rear drive shaft!

LOL, na, I only want to do that when the U-joints need replaced!

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
LOL, na, I only want to do that when the U-joints need replaced!


I actually have a friend who has been driving a 1970-something Ramcharger like that for about a year and a half now. The driveshaft was damaged somehow. I don't remember the details because I usually see him in party situations. The funny thing is, he bought new 33" mudders for it this past summer!

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
May be for getting going, but the stopping part is not affected very much - and that's where the issue is.


I always thought oversteer resulting from negligent installation practices is the main issue. Are you saying you can be sued if the tires you bought don't stop as well as other tires might?

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
That's because THEY would not be puting the tires on the car. All they were asked to do was mount tires on a rim. THEY don't need to tell you what to do, the tire manufacturer does - and the manufacturers tell you that on their web sites. If you chose to do otherwise, that becomes a risk you assumed.


True, but if I were in that position I'd feel it's my responsibility to point out any potential hazards.

CT will mount new winter tires on the rear only, though they do recommend you use four winter tires. That's a huge nationwide chain, so I'd think their lawyers have considered the potential liability.

Of course, this is Canada, and I'm only arguing my perspective. It may be in the best interest of a tire shop to only sell tires in sets of four down there. Regardless, the Chevette I drove in high school with studded winters on the rear and all-seasons up front was very enjoyable to drive in the snow!

 

[Nayov]

Alrighty then. I went to another tire place and he said 2WD CAN take rear snows only; 4WD/AWD can only have 4 (forgot what he said about FWD) "state law" (skeptical of that line). So I called Town Fair -- the tire place which refused my money -- and they said no problem, just sign a waiver (he checked with the manager). (Thanks for not telling me that when I was there!)

 

[UG_Passat]

I'm probably one of the few that would side with the shop guy. 2 snow tires.... an accident later... leads to a lawsuit.

on a RWD truck... sure you'll have traction in the rear to get going...

the front wheels are asked to steer, which it won't with inclement weather. the front wheels are also burdened with most of the brake bias... so you won't be stopping too well either, combined with not be able to steer.... it is an accident waiting to happen.

then again.... it's your money & car insurance premiums (if you get into an accident).

 

[Nayov]

^They actually coerced me into getting an alignment ($49) because the snows are "soft and will lead to handling problems."
I objected but it was a hard sales job. He said it was "free."
How he did it was by so-called discounting the tires from list of $152 each (I know, MSRP is a phony price) down to $105 each, voilà, there's my "free" alignment.

 

[tonycarguy]

You guys are mad because they won't sell you a product under your terms? I think you have your anger misplaced

 

[labman]

There is a lot of support for having the best tires on the back. I don't think I should run the front all season tires on my Cavalier over the winter. I will trash them, move the rears I bought last fall to the front, and buy 2 new ones for the back. Thus, snow tires or no, I will have better tires on the back. Too bad I can't buy tires appropriate for my driving in place of the stupid speed rated tires best fit for driving over the speed limit on a hot dry day.