Drive the conditions is really the best advice I have for anyone.
This is really the key to it all.
This is really the key to it all.
New tires on rear...why?
- Thread starter Propflux01
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
Originally Posted By: bigmike
I want good tires on the front so I can steer. I don't think any amount of convincing can change my mind.
And least you can admit you're being close minded.
But this issue is moot for me. AWD means I HAVE to have 4 matching tires. No more of the just replacing 2 of my RWD days.
Replacing two tires on an AWD car happens every day. Long as they are the same size, I wouldn't worry about it. I work with a guy who has been running 2 different brands of tires (IIRC, two each Kumho Solus and Hankook Optimo) on a Subaru for at least 2 years. Over 150,000 miles, zero problems.
What matters on a Subaru and AWD is rolling circumference(distance around tires). It differs between brands even for the same size tire but different make or model.
My 25year experienced Subaru indy mechanic said Subaru states 1/4" matters but his experience >1/2" rolling circumference will break the internals of the transmission. He pulled a few and found broken gears. On the Automatics it will burn out the clutch packs.
We had a guy in the local jeep club, against our suggestions, run THREE different size tires on his Jeep Cherokee. And they weren't similar size ... they were very different. He also thought that it was "safe" to use the 4wd on wet roads.
The Part time transfer case and front u joints did not like it. Grenaded.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
Originally Posted By: bigmike
I want good tires on the front so I can steer. I don't think any amount of convincing can change my mind.
And least you can admit you're being close minded.
But this issue is moot for me. AWD means I HAVE to have 4 matching tires. No more of the just replacing 2 of my RWD days.
Replacing two tires on an AWD car happens every day. Long as they are the same size, I wouldn't worry about it. I work with a guy who has been running 2 different brands of tires (IIRC, two each Kumho Solus and Hankook Optimo) on a Subaru for at least 2 years. Over 150,000 miles, zero problems.
What matters on a Subaru and AWD is rolling circumference(distance around tires). It differs between brands even for the same size tire but different make or model.
My 25year experienced Subaru indy mechanic said Subaru states 1/4" matters but his experience >1/2" rolling circumference will break the internals of the transmission. He pulled a few and found broken gears. On the Automatics it will burn out the clutch packs.
We had a guy in the local jeep club, against our suggestions, run THREE different size tires on his Jeep Cherokee. And they weren't similar size ... they were very different. He also thought that it was "safe" to use the 4wd on wet roads.
The Part time transfer case and front u joints did not like it. Grenaded.
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
We have done this with FWD and RWD and short wheelbase FWD works best - the car will turn within the wetted area and continue in a straight, but sideways trajectory.
Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. The light back end of the FWD layout would be the most prone to hydroplaning with that setup.
We have done this with FWD and RWD and short wheelbase FWD works best - the car will turn within the wetted area and continue in a straight, but sideways trajectory.
Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. The light back end of the FWD layout would be the most prone to hydroplaning with that setup.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Umm, no. That would be a little too much fun.
It wasn't a serious comment in any way. Just thought I'd throw out a situation where a person would rather have persistent understeer during winter driving than frequent extreme oversteer. My father used studded tires only on the rear of our RWD vehicles with all-seasons on the front during my first few years of driving and they were very capable and easy to drive. He uses a full set now though.
Umm, no. That would be a little too much fun.
It wasn't a serious comment in any way. Just thought I'd throw out a situation where a person would rather have persistent understeer during winter driving than frequent extreme oversteer. My father used studded tires only on the rear of our RWD vehicles with all-seasons on the front during my first few years of driving and they were very capable and easy to drive. He uses a full set now though.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: dparm
Oversteer is easier to control, in my opinion.
You mean...like in an old 911??
Sure, lots of those wrapped around trees when they had that "controllable" lift-throttle oversteer...
And understeer is felt through the wheel...more warning = safer...
No that was a design defect that only 911 and Tatra T87 owners can properly enjoy.
Good tires or bad if you lift that rear end is coming around.
By putting the good tires on the front, you build that same design defect into your new car, regardless of FWD or RWD...and it will be just as uncontrollable...you simply have to experience it.
Only those who have felt a car swap ends too fast for them to react have the experience to believe it can happen to them...all others believe that they are superior enough drivers to be able to control the oversteer.
But they can't.
And the testing proves it. Watch the Tire Rack video...the guy knows it's coming, he knows that the car is going to oversteer, he's ready...and it still swaps ends on him. What good is having the front tires planted when the car spins? Not a fun bit of oversteer as the car slides, it swaps ends...and you're still completely out of control.
People who refuse to believe basic advice like this, people who think their driving skills are superior, are the reason I bought my wife a Volvo...at least she'll walk away from the crash caused by the unbelieving driver who loses control of their car....
For starters if your driving fast enough on public roads to swap ends your driving to fast. I could drive a car with bald tires in the rain around town and not have any issues what so ever.
Cars break lose because they are driven to quickly, and in a modern car quickly is pretty fast and way above the speed limit.
I have tried to take, lets see a 2011 C300 4matic (rental) in the wet and, on purpose tried to spin it. Wouldn't do it, unless I did something beyond stupid, like 60mph wheel hard over. Which on residential streets is almost 2.5 times over the speed limit. At 30mph in a 25 zone, which is pretty reasonable I literally took the wheel and made a 90 degree turn without touching the brakes.
I also tried this with a FWD Buick Regal a 2012, and I hate FWD. But again the computers stepped in way, way early and unless your a total nimrod its going to stay pointed pretty straight.
I have no freaken clue how people manage to drive these modern cars off the road, I'm used to older stuff. I can only conclude they are to busy texting. On high power RWD cars I can understand it a bit, but one of these regular everyday cars? NFW should they ever be in the ditch.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: dparm
Oversteer is easier to control, in my opinion.
You mean...like in an old 911??
Sure, lots of those wrapped around trees when they had that "controllable" lift-throttle oversteer...
And understeer is felt through the wheel...more warning = safer...
No that was a design defect that only 911 and Tatra T87 owners can properly enjoy.
Good tires or bad if you lift that rear end is coming around.
By putting the good tires on the front, you build that same design defect into your new car, regardless of FWD or RWD...and it will be just as uncontrollable...you simply have to experience it.
Only those who have felt a car swap ends too fast for them to react have the experience to believe it can happen to them...all others believe that they are superior enough drivers to be able to control the oversteer.
But they can't.
And the testing proves it. Watch the Tire Rack video...the guy knows it's coming, he knows that the car is going to oversteer, he's ready...and it still swaps ends on him. What good is having the front tires planted when the car spins? Not a fun bit of oversteer as the car slides, it swaps ends...and you're still completely out of control.
People who refuse to believe basic advice like this, people who think their driving skills are superior, are the reason I bought my wife a Volvo...at least she'll walk away from the crash caused by the unbelieving driver who loses control of their car....
For starters if your driving fast enough on public roads to swap ends your driving to fast. I could drive a car with bald tires in the rain around town and not have any issues what so ever.
Cars break lose because they are driven to quickly, and in a modern car quickly is pretty fast and way above the speed limit.
I have tried to take, lets see a 2011 C300 4matic (rental) in the wet and, on purpose tried to spin it. Wouldn't do it, unless I did something beyond stupid, like 60mph wheel hard over. Which on residential streets is almost 2.5 times over the speed limit. At 30mph in a 25 zone, which is pretty reasonable I literally took the wheel and made a 90 degree turn without touching the brakes.
I also tried this with a FWD Buick Regal a 2012, and I hate FWD. But again the computers stepped in way, way early and unless your a total nimrod its going to stay pointed pretty straight.
I have no freaken clue how people manage to drive these modern cars off the road, I'm used to older stuff. I can only conclude they are to busy texting. On high power RWD cars I can understand it a bit, but one of these regular everyday cars? NFW should they ever be in the ditch.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
For starters if your driving fast enough on public roads to swap ends your driving to fast. I could drive a car with bald tires in the rain around town and not have any issues what so ever.
Cars break lose because they are driven to quickly, and in a modern car quickly is pretty fast and way above the speed limit.
I have tried to take, lets see a 2011 C300 4matic (rental) in the wet and, on purpose tried to spin it. Wouldn't do it, unless I did something beyond stupid, like 60mph wheel hard over. Which on residential streets is almost 2.5 times over the speed limit. At 30mph in a 25 zone, which is pretty reasonable I literally took the wheel and made a 90 degree turn without touching the brakes.
I also tried this with a FWD Buick Regal a 2012, and I hate FWD. But again the computers stepped in way, way early and unless your a total nimrod its going to stay pointed pretty straight.
I have no freaken clue how people manage to drive these modern cars off the road, I'm used to older stuff. I can only conclude they are to busy texting. On high power RWD cars I can understand it a bit, but one of these regular everyday cars? NFW should they ever be in the ditch.
Yep, it's highly unlikely for an experienced driver to lose control of a typical understeery street car with good tires at legal speeds, no matter how hard the cornering is and how clumsy the transitions are. But serious hydroplaning can occur at or below modern speed limits with poor tires. It was happening at only 45 mph on tires that were still legal in CapriRacer's example.
If you were driving a car with bald rear tires and new front tires on the highway during a downpour, what speed would you limit yourself to, while everyone on decent tires safely cruises by at 70+ mph?
For starters if your driving fast enough on public roads to swap ends your driving to fast. I could drive a car with bald tires in the rain around town and not have any issues what so ever.
Cars break lose because they are driven to quickly, and in a modern car quickly is pretty fast and way above the speed limit.
I have tried to take, lets see a 2011 C300 4matic (rental) in the wet and, on purpose tried to spin it. Wouldn't do it, unless I did something beyond stupid, like 60mph wheel hard over. Which on residential streets is almost 2.5 times over the speed limit. At 30mph in a 25 zone, which is pretty reasonable I literally took the wheel and made a 90 degree turn without touching the brakes.
I also tried this with a FWD Buick Regal a 2012, and I hate FWD. But again the computers stepped in way, way early and unless your a total nimrod its going to stay pointed pretty straight.
I have no freaken clue how people manage to drive these modern cars off the road, I'm used to older stuff. I can only conclude they are to busy texting. On high power RWD cars I can understand it a bit, but one of these regular everyday cars? NFW should they ever be in the ditch.
Yep, it's highly unlikely for an experienced driver to lose control of a typical understeery street car with good tires at legal speeds, no matter how hard the cornering is and how clumsy the transitions are. But serious hydroplaning can occur at or below modern speed limits with poor tires. It was happening at only 45 mph on tires that were still legal in CapriRacer's example.
If you were driving a car with bald rear tires and new front tires on the highway during a downpour, what speed would you limit yourself to, while everyone on decent tires safely cruises by at 70+ mph?
Originally Posted By: rpn453
It wasn't a serious comment in any way. Just thought I'd throw out a situation where a person would rather have persistent understeer during winter driving than frequent extreme oversteer.
Absolutely. When I say new tires on the front, that's a situation where the rears probably have 50% life left and the fronts are discarded from damage or poor wear and no proper rotations. If the back is anywhere near due for a replacement, even remotely, I'd do all four. I'm picky that way.
It wasn't a serious comment in any way. Just thought I'd throw out a situation where a person would rather have persistent understeer during winter driving than frequent extreme oversteer.
Absolutely. When I say new tires on the front, that's a situation where the rears probably have 50% life left and the fronts are discarded from damage or poor wear and no proper rotations. If the back is anywhere near due for a replacement, even remotely, I'd do all four. I'm picky that way.
I don't get it. If wheels are rotated a couple times a year the 2 new ones are moving back front back...
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: rpn453
It wasn't a serious comment in any way. Just thought I'd throw out a situation where a person would rather have persistent understeer during winter driving than frequent extreme oversteer.
Absolutely. When I say new tires on the front, that's a situation where the rears probably have 50% life left and the fronts are discarded from damage or poor wear and no proper rotations. If the back is anywhere near due for a replacement, even remotely, I'd do all four. I'm picky that way.
Likewise. I HATE changing tires on the side of the road, and I'd rather have a matched set for predictable handling.
No matter which wheels were driven.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
It wasn't a serious comment in any way. Just thought I'd throw out a situation where a person would rather have persistent understeer during winter driving than frequent extreme oversteer.
Absolutely. When I say new tires on the front, that's a situation where the rears probably have 50% life left and the fronts are discarded from damage or poor wear and no proper rotations. If the back is anywhere near due for a replacement, even remotely, I'd do all four. I'm picky that way.
Likewise. I HATE changing tires on the side of the road, and I'd rather have a matched set for predictable handling.
No matter which wheels were driven.
I see nothing wrong with putting new tires on front if the back tires have 3/4 or more of the starting tread.
since the front wear faster they will catch up fairly quickly
however if you only have 1/2 tread remaining that could be bad in the winter. Most likely I would replace all 4 or you could put the new on back.. old on front until winter then replace the fronts again.
It doesnt pay to mess around with tires.. one minor ding into a car or guardrail pays for multiple sets.
since the front wear faster they will catch up fairly quickly
however if you only have 1/2 tread remaining that could be bad in the winter. Most likely I would replace all 4 or you could put the new on back.. old on front until winter then replace the fronts again.
It doesnt pay to mess around with tires.. one minor ding into a car or guardrail pays for multiple sets.
Originally Posted By: yonyon
Um, jorton, with two nearly new tires and two that are more worn, there are no tire rotations a "couple times a year".
Oh yes, I was guilty of that more than once. Had tires rotated 2 weeks ago. Should have bought a good compressor 20 years ago!
Um, jorton, with two nearly new tires and two that are more worn, there are no tire rotations a "couple times a year".
Oh yes, I was guilty of that more than once. Had tires rotated 2 weeks ago. Should have bought a good compressor 20 years ago!
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Likewise. I HATE changing tires on the side of the road, and I'd rather have a matched set for predictable handling.
I hear you. The only time I've dealt much with changing out only two was in taxi service when certain drivers were a little reckless, let's say. Generally, with rotation, we could usually work it out so all four would be replaced at the same time.
The only time I replaced two on a personal vehicle was when I had new tires on my LTD years back, and an idiot at the dorm slashed two of them and got caught. He paid for two new tires - there was maybe only two months usage on them anyhow, so it really didn't matter where they were mounted, and the same tires were purchased for replacement.
Likewise. I HATE changing tires on the side of the road, and I'd rather have a matched set for predictable handling.
I hear you. The only time I've dealt much with changing out only two was in taxi service when certain drivers were a little reckless, let's say. Generally, with rotation, we could usually work it out so all four would be replaced at the same time.
The only time I replaced two on a personal vehicle was when I had new tires on my LTD years back, and an idiot at the dorm slashed two of them and got caught. He paid for two new tires - there was maybe only two months usage on them anyhow, so it really didn't matter where they were mounted, and the same tires were purchased for replacement.
Originally Posted By: Tim H.
Why do tire installers recommend putting new tires on the rear if you only need two new tires? I was looking at tires and saw a poster showing a car skidding around a curve (animated drawing) with old tires on rear and new in front, and below that was the car going around same curve normally with new tires on rear and older on front. Seems to me with only two new tires in back, you would be just as easy to have under steer with new in back, VS oversteer with new in front. What's the logic in this?
I experienced this phenomenon recently with the Volvo. I let the guy at DT talk me into this and cornering became very lively..to say the least! It's like the sled pivoted from behind the front seats. Very weird feeling. I took it back and told them to swap..handling much less touchy in the corners.
Why do tire installers recommend putting new tires on the rear if you only need two new tires? I was looking at tires and saw a poster showing a car skidding around a curve (animated drawing) with old tires on rear and new in front, and below that was the car going around same curve normally with new tires on rear and older on front. Seems to me with only two new tires in back, you would be just as easy to have under steer with new in back, VS oversteer with new in front. What's the logic in this?
I experienced this phenomenon recently with the Volvo. I let the guy at DT talk me into this and cornering became very lively..to say the least! It's like the sled pivoted from behind the front seats. Very weird feeling. I took it back and told them to swap..handling much less touchy in the corners.
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
I experienced this phenomenon recently with the Volvo. I let the guy at DT talk me into this and cornering became very lively..to say the least! It's like the sled pivoted from behind the front seats. Very weird feeling. I took it back and told them to swap..handling much less touchy in the corners.
You can get some unusual handling characteristics with mismatched tires. A tire with a softer sidewall or more flexible tread on the back compared to the front can give the car an oversteer feel during mild cornering. The car will still understeer at the limit as long as the front tires don't have significantly more grip than the rears, but until they actually break traction the rears may allow a higher slip angle.
I've played with this on my ex's MX-6. With the H-rated tires on the front and the S-rated ones on the back, it almost feels neutral. But put the S-rated ones on the front and it feels very understeery.
I experienced this phenomenon recently with the Volvo. I let the guy at DT talk me into this and cornering became very lively..to say the least! It's like the sled pivoted from behind the front seats. Very weird feeling. I took it back and told them to swap..handling much less touchy in the corners.
You can get some unusual handling characteristics with mismatched tires. A tire with a softer sidewall or more flexible tread on the back compared to the front can give the car an oversteer feel during mild cornering. The car will still understeer at the limit as long as the front tires don't have significantly more grip than the rears, but until they actually break traction the rears may allow a higher slip angle.
I've played with this on my ex's MX-6. With the H-rated tires on the front and the S-rated ones on the back, it almost feels neutral. But put the S-rated ones on the front and it feels very understeery.
Wow at that autox on the oval video. i think we would be hitting 100 mph on that course, thats more like a high speed slalom test than autocross but you have to run where they have the events...
in the old days under budget, i've put two new front Race tires on an autox car and left old half traction race tires on the rear. it's not bad in the dry, definitely faster than the other way around, and oversteer is controllable since the car is set up. but try that in the wet...or on real road courses where they go thru tires like candy
my hard rule for street tires is, better traction in rear is better, and lower psi to achieve more. Lately i've been buying 4 tires when changing and rotating so they stay near each other but i can run same size. if you have a car w/ diff sizes..
I'll take chances off the street, but on street it's not worth it
in the old days under budget, i've put two new front Race tires on an autox car and left old half traction race tires on the rear. it's not bad in the dry, definitely faster than the other way around, and oversteer is controllable since the car is set up. but try that in the wet...or on real road courses where they go thru tires like candy
my hard rule for street tires is, better traction in rear is better, and lower psi to achieve more. Lately i've been buying 4 tires when changing and rotating so they stay near each other but i can run same size. if you have a car w/ diff sizes..
I'll take chances off the street, but on street it's not worth it
Originally Posted By: bigmike
I want good tires on the front so I can steer. I don't think any amount of convincing can change my mind.
Same here.. I understand arguments against but in 16 years of driving FWD cars the only vehicles I ever spun out in were RWD. Well I have in FWD but that was intentional. The whole family does the same and again the only vehicles that have spun were RWD. Most of the times those are parked in winter due to it. So either we're too cautious or had some good cars.
I want good tires on the front so I can steer. I don't think any amount of convincing can change my mind.
Same here.. I understand arguments against but in 16 years of driving FWD cars the only vehicles I ever spun out in were RWD. Well I have in FWD but that was intentional. The whole family does the same and again the only vehicles that have spun were RWD. Most of the times those are parked in winter due to it. So either we're too cautious or had some good cars.
When it happens to you, you'll get it.
It amazes me the even with professional tire experts on this site chiming in about exercises they do with people to prove the point on their training grounds, people still can't see the light.
It amazes me the even with professional tire experts on this site chiming in about exercises they do with people to prove the point on their training grounds, people still can't see the light.
Putting the good tires on the back may produce better handling and braking stability in the short run but it may be short-sighted because you cannot subsequently rotate your tires front-to-back (which is the only recommended form of rotation with unidirectional tires) without creating a WORSE handling imbalance. Why? The front tires generally wear faster than the rear tires (particularly on FWD cars) so at the time of rotation, the front/rear tread depth difference is GREATER than it would have been if you originally put the good tires on the front wheels.
Putting the better tires on the rear makes sense ONLY if you do not subsequently rotate the tires front to back.
Putting the better tires on the rear makes sense ONLY if you do not subsequently rotate the tires front to back.
- Status
