newer tire in the back arguement

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
It has to do with "blowouts".

My one highway speed "blowout" was really only a blowout in the vernacular, early to mid 1990s. It was a separation, I think one would call it. The tread stayed on the tire, the tire stayed on the rim. The tread, instead of being basically flat, took on the look of a motorcycle tire (rounded tread) and the thing had deflated. I've driven many, many miles, but this was the one and only really rapid deflation at highway speed. It seemed more alarming than it actually was, simply because the ride quality went down the toilet instantly. It was a front, driver's side tire in a RWD LTD. The tire was almost brand new (under 6 months), and it was replaced by the tire shop without any questions.

Another fast deflation (nowhere near as fast as above) was a flat in the same vehicle, if I recall correctly, probably in the early 1990s. I don't recall the position, but this falls into the "funny stuff that punctured your tire" category. I threw the donut on, and went home. I had a tire changer at the time. So, I took the tire off the rim, and I found a 6" crescent wrench inside the tire. I still have and use that crescent wrench.

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: George Bynum
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer


Do you think that old tires are more prone to blowouts than new tires? Or is tread depth the deciding factor?
You're the expert....

But even experts need a reality check from time to time.

Originally Posted By: George Bynum
....but my guess would be underpressure/overload (which are for my purposes the same thing on a properly equipped vehicle) is most often the cause, and old/new is of no significance. Running over an item in the road which cuts through the tire would have some age (tread thickness) issue, but minor; the rubber isn't what provides the strength, but a 3/8" cut might not get through rubber and belts.....


This is sort of where I was trying to go with this - the mixing of road hazards and structural failures when the term "blowout" is used. I'm trying to sort out how the term is used.

 

[y_p_w]

I've had a couple of blowouts. Both were at highway speeds and were easily attributable to some sort of road debris. Both times someone looked at it and said that basically it was toast at freeway speeds.

I've also had nails or screws result in leaks of various rates, including some tires that actually held reasonable pressure rather than completely deflating.

One of those blowouts was with an included road hazard warranty and I paid a prorated $30 (plus installation) to get an otherwise $120 tire. It was a rear tire that blew, but I hadn't rotated yet. Even on my Subaru, they recommended the new tire on the rear, even though I knew it wouldn't wear very fast in the rear and the front tire would continue to get more wear. So I told them to put the new tire on the front (it was still within the 1/4" difference that Subaru says is needed, although I sort of question that manufacturing differences are often more than 1/4" with new tires.

 

[accent2012]

Originally Posted By: 08sienna
so I have about 1/2 worn 2 Michellin Radial X and 2 new Defenders. I thought mounting 2 new in the front would be nice because they will wear even at the end if I don't rotate them. But Costco insisted that I must install new ones in the back. I know about the better traction arguement for the rear tires but how much of difference in thread depth will make meaningful traction panalty if newer tires are mounted in the front?
It is a Sienna van. BTW, Radial X and Defenders' road noise is horrible, in the same degree. I don't remember any tire I used before made this much of road noise.


Is the Sienna a rear-wheel drive van??

I Don't think so... that costco is stupid. Only RWD drive cars should new tires be put on the back, but that is mainly due to legal reasons.

For FWD cars, new tires should go upfront... I've seen those posters in Firestone/TiresPlus shops that shows BOTH FWD & RWD cars...

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted By: accent2012
Originally Posted By: 08sienna
so I have about 1/2 worn 2 Michellin Radial X and 2 new Defenders. I thought mounting 2 new in the front would be nice because they will wear even at the end if I don't rotate them. But Costco insisted that I must install new ones in the back. I know about the better traction arguement for the rear tires but how much of difference in thread depth will make meaningful traction panalty if newer tires are mounted in the front?
It is a Sienna van. BTW, Radial X and Defenders' road noise is horrible, in the same degree. I don't remember any tire I used before made this much of road noise.


Is the Sienna a rear-wheel drive van??

I Don't think so... that costco is stupid. Only RWD drive cars should new tires be put on the back, but that is mainly due to legal reasons.

For FWD cars, new tires should go upfront... I've seen those posters in Firestone/TiresPlus shops that shows BOTH FWD & RWD cars...

I get the reason for that recommendation, especially with FWD vehicles typically being lighter in the rear. It's really about hydroplaning risk given that the rear end is usually lighter and more likely to lift going over standing water.

I had a '95 Integra GS-R and I got tired of bringing it in for rotations. So one time I started from scratch with 4 new tires. My intention was to drive until the fronts were worn, then buy two new tires to place in the back and rotate the tires to the front. I managed to do this once at about 20K. The replacements weren't the same, and the previous tires (only on the rear until rotated) were only lightly worn with about 85% of the original tread down to the channel. I would have continued to do this except that someone stole the car and my other car was a Subaru (which really needs regular rotations anyways).

 

[Lapham3]

I worked for a Goodyear independent dealer back in the late 60's. The early Polyglas tires were great for separations and blowouts. I had a couple myself. A couple others with other brands around those years. I haven't had one in a long time now, but my wife had a rear Michelin blow last year on the freeway on her Grand Cherokee-a couple miles after leaving home. I'm pretty sure it wasn't low on air, but not enough left to tell for sure. I think the hydroplaning issue is that the 'good' front tire cuts the path for a bit lesser rear to follow on mostly water cleared pavement. Dan