Tire Rotation

[flatlandtacoma]

Originally Posted By: ryansride2017
Well thank goodness I have a tire shop that actually listens to what I want done. I have a RWD, 4WD SUV that accumulates nearly 40,000 miles per year. I have always put new tires on the front and older on the back to maximize the tire life. I don't rotate and commonly get 70-80K out of a set. I also like the fact of having deep tread on the front to remove rain water from the road. Since the rear tires follow very near the same path as the front tires, one could nearly run bald tires (but I definitely don't recommend that) on the back since the front tires are removing water from the road and creating a "path" for the rear ones to travel. If traction in snow becomes an issue, I just flip the 4WD on. Obviouisly things would be different with a FWD vehicle. As I said, I've been doing this for years with no problems. To each their own, I guess.

That's fine on a straight road, but if you start to lose traction in a curve you may oversteer and are more likely to spin out. To each their own, I guess.

 

[SteveSRT8]

My prayers go out to the vehicle owners who do not understand this reasoning.

Get yourself into a curve, then suddenly brake. In a fwd you may spin so abruptly that you can't even countersteer!

Be careful, folks!

 

[ponderosaTX]

Rotation and "best-tires-on-back" are incompatible policies. The companies recommending "best-tires-on-back" are engaging in legal sophistry because the front tires wear faster on almost all vehicles. If you put the best tires on the back, the tread differential between front and back will be greater when it comes time for rotation.

Frequent rotation reduces the differential, but it still exists (or no rotation would be necessary). But the "best-tires-on-back" crowd must also insist on a policy of no rotation (except when purchasing new tires) and only purchasing two tires at time which must be installed on the back while moving the better old tires in back to the front. No other "best-tires-on-back" policy is sustainable for the life of a vehicle.

I actually sent email to Michelin complaining that their recommendation regarding the installation of two new tires on the rear mandates no subsequent rotation (see http://www.michelinman.com/tire-care/tire-basics/reartire-change/). They did not deign to reply because my argument is irrefutable.

The same dumb lawyer mentality dictates not installing lower speed rated tires than original equipment issue on vehicles that cannot exceed the lower speed rating. Walmart recently refused to install four new T-rated tires on my 2003 MPV minivan (which was originally equipped with H rated tires). I pointed out that even the wild-eyed folks at Car & Driver only managed 118mph (the maximum sustained speed for T-rated tires) as the top speed in road testing a brand new MPV and that my van had over 100K miles on the odometer as well as T-rated tires as current equipment. Nevermind, Walmart lawyers said it should not be done.

 

[jjjxlr8]

Originally Posted By: Ken2

...
Tire rotation is only to equalize unequal wear. If the wear is equal, there is no need to rotate. When I put the 3-season (no such thing as all-season tires) back on in the Spring, I just look the the ones with either slightly more tread depth or more square outside shoulder and put those on the front. I don't care if I cross or not.
...


I use the same "inspection" method for rotating my own tires when I switch between the winter and summer sets.

You should also look carefully for heal-toe wear. Heal toe wear is when individual tread elements wear more at the trailing edge than the leading edge. This is develops from a tire rolling in a single direction. Some tread patterns are more prone to this than others and it's often difficult to see. You can usually feel it, however, if you run your hand around the tire. You will also be able to hear it on the vehicle as it significantly increases tire noise!

 

[jjjxlr8]

Originally Posted By: ponderosaTX
Rotation and "best-tires-on-back" are incompatible policies. The companies recommending "best-tires-on-back" are engaging in legal sophistry because the front tires wear faster on almost all vehicles. If you put the best tires on the back, the tread differential between front and back will be greater when it comes time for rotation.

Frequent rotation reduces the differential, but it still exists (or no rotation would be necessary). But the "best-tires-on-back" crowd must also insist on a policy of no rotation (except when purchasing new tires) and only purchasing two tires at time which must be installed on the back while moving the better old tires in back to the front. No other "best-tires-on-back" policy is sustainable for the life of a vehicle.

I actually sent email to Michelin complaining that their recommendation regarding the installation of two new tires on the rear mandates no subsequent rotation (see http://www.michelinman.com/tire-care/tire-basics/reartire-change/). They did not deign to reply because my argument is irrefutable.

The same dumb lawyer mentality dictates not installing lower speed rated tires than original equipment issue on vehicles that cannot exceed the lower speed rating. Walmart recently refused to install four new T-rated tires on my 2003 MPV minivan (which was originally equipped with H rated tires). I pointed out that even the wild-eyed folks at Car & Driver only managed 118mph (the maximum sustained speed for T-rated tires) as the top speed in road testing a brand new MPV and that my van had over 100K miles on the odometer as well as T-rated tires as current equipment. Nevermind, Walmart lawyers said it should not be done.


If you rotate your tires frequently enough, you won't have a big differential in tread depth from the front to the rear. If you do, you are not rotating frequently enough or have alignment/heavy foot problems.

It's the LARGE (~half total depth)difference in tread depth that you - and tire shops - have to be cognizant of.

"Dumb lawyer mentality" - welcome to the USA! It's not going away anytime soon, unfortunately.

 

[FZ1]

Sounds like some of you boys never got a dealer mileage proration in your life.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Nor do I want one.

 

[flatlandtacoma]

Originally Posted By: ponderosaTX
Rotation and "best-tires-on-back" are incompatible policies. The companies recommending "best-tires-on-back" are engaging in legal sophistry because the front tires wear faster on almost all vehicles. If you put the best tires on the back, the tread differential between front and back will be greater when it comes time for rotation.

Frequent rotation reduces the differential, but it still exists (or no rotation would be necessary). But the "best-tires-on-back" crowd must also insist on a policy of no rotation (except when purchasing new tires) and only purchasing two tires at time which must be installed on the back while moving the better old tires in back to the front. No other "best-tires-on-back" policy is sustainable for the life of a vehicle.

I actually sent email to Michelin complaining that their recommendation regarding the installation of two new tires on the rear mandates no subsequent rotation (see http://www.michelinman.com/tire-care/tire-basics/reartire-change/). They did not deign to reply because my argument is irrefutable.

The same dumb lawyer mentality ...

Not incompatible. Did you even watch the video you complained about? They aren't talking about a 1/32" difference in tread depth. They specifically compared HALF WORN tires with new tires.

So yes, if you drive 30,000 miles without rotating your tires, don't start now. Just drive until the fronts need replacing and replace 2 at a time mounting the new ones on the rear.

I'm pretty conservative, but I'm actually glad if there are shops out there that won't put half worn tires on the back with new tires on the front. I don't want some broad yakking on her cell phone spinning into me and hurting me, my car, or her kids.

 

[FZ1]

O.K. You know best. Lol. My last tire proration credit was $288 on a set of 4 tires.

 

[Audi Junkie]

On what, ElDorados?

 

[FZ1]

No,man. The old set of tires were Goodyear. The new set of tires were Michelin Destinys. The new Destinys cost me $93 after proration,rebates,etc.,for the 4 tires mounted with lifetime rotation and balance. But,then,you don't need one,right?

 

[berniedd]

How come nobody includes the spare tire in their rotation? Many cars still have full size spares. The idea of rotating tires is to equalize wear across all tires, and that should include the spare tire too.

 

[Audi Junkie]

I don't need to sit at the tire store and rotate my tires fifteen times, every 5k.

Don't you have to hit the wear bars to get a pro-rate? I'm not sure 2/32 of tread is ideal for my driving.

 

[FZ1]

I think the rotations are about every 6,000.

 

[Kestas]

I agree with bernie about including the spare in the rotation. There's no sense in letting a perfectly good tire get old without wearing down the tread.

But this can be done with only very few cars. Most cars now have a donut spare or steel rim for the spare.

I'm not sure where the spare would be inserted in the rotation diagram.

 

[ryansride2017]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
I agree with bernie about including the spare in the rotation. There's no sense in letting a perfectly good tire get old without wearing down the tread.

But this can be done with only very few cars. Most cars now have a donut spare or steel rim for the spare.

I'm not sure where the spare would be inserted in the rotation diagram.


Now only if all manufacturers would give you a similar rim (not to mention tire pressure mounting sensor) with the spare similar to the other 4 wheels, you would be in good shape. Paying tire mounting charges during the course of a normal tire rotation would suck.

 

[teddyboy]

I bought a Volvo wheel and Michelin Primacy for my S60. It doesn't get rotated in because of the TPMS. Yet another reason to dislike TPMS.

 

[jds14]

Always front to back..back to front for me. Contrary to popular belief, its better for your best tires to be on the back to keep the vehicle from "swapping ends" in the event of a blowout.

 

[ronrackley]

I never rotate tires just to be rotating them. I let them wear in place and I think they stay "happy" that way. The front tires wear faster than the rear on front wheel drive cars, so they get replaced first from new - and then when the rear wear down and get replaced I move the front tires back to the rear, same sides, and put the new tires on the front. Next time, they will all wear down to where they need to be replaced at the same time.

What's the big deal about equalizing wear? My way, I get to stagger the cash outlay for tires when they are replaced two at a time. A set of tires gets the same total number of miles over time. What's not to like?

 

[Astro14]

Two problems with that approach actually...

1. The best tread should always be mounted on the back for safety. This approach will end up with the best tires on the front and a car with strong oversteer potential

Ref: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=52

2. if you've got an AWD, the difference in wear will fry the AWD system. My Volvo, for example, requires that the tread depth be within 2/32" on all 4 tires...
Ref: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=18

Best to rotate and keep all 4 wearing evenly, then replace all 4. If you have to go 2 at a time, then put the new pair on the rear...it's a safety issue...