By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Everything else being equal, better traction upfront translates in oversteer, better traction behind translates in understeer.
An oversteer (or skid) can develop very quickly and past a certain point most people will spin out of control. This is a very dangerous condition, and even experienced race drivers sometimes lose the car in a skid.
Understeer is a much more benign condition, and given enough space anyone will recover from it.
So from a safety point of view - yes - best tires should go on the rear wheels. And you should not rotate until you get another pair of good tires.
Perhaps. But behind most lawsuits there is someone who has been wronged, cheated, abused, or received the short end of the stick from someone who thought they were smarter than they actually were.
Here's an example:
Two lane road, covered in light snow with patches of ice. You and I are driving on this road towards each other. A curve is between us. You take the curve at whatever speed you deem safe, with your new tires on the front and the old ones on the rear. The old tires lose traction in the turn, the car spins, crosses the center line just when I'm coming to the same point. The resulting crash puts me in the hospital with serious injuries.
So my attorney starts their fact finding (gee, I hope you feel I'm entitled to legal representation). A crash investigator finds the rear tires are much more worn than the fronts. It appears the fronts are brand new so more fact finding ensues. Added research leads to the shop where you bought the tires, a deposition of the clerk who sold them to you and the tech who installed them. The clerk clearly recalls you as a customer and your insistence that the new tires go on the front and not the rear.
Now, at this point I probably have a good case against you and the tire shop. It would be easy for my attorney to hire a tire expert who can explain to a judge and/or a jury why it's safer to put new tires on the rear of a FWD vehicle. The crash investigator will testify as to how the accident happened, which of course will support what the tire expert said.
My question to y'all is this: How exactly would you defend your decision to install new tires on the front?
Is,"I plan with years of what I felt were successful decisions to get me out of everyday situations" an adequate defense?
The legal system exists for a very good reason. When people make dumb decisions, and those decisions result in injuries to an innocent party, that party deserves the opportunity to be protected under existing laws.
We don't live in a vacuum, people. You can do whatever you want to but if your actions and decisions adversely affect someone else, you're exposing yourself to potential legal action.
I understand what you are saying but how often does one skid out of control? I would think it happens because: 1. bad weather conditions 2. excessive speed 3. defensive manuever
I like to think of this question like this. From the tires you have on your car, you want the best possible traction combined for all possible weather conditions. The best tire for dry conditions is a tire with no tread. The best tire for wet conditions is a tire with deep treads to disperse the water. So:
Overall traction
Better tires on: Dry Wet
Front good better
Rear better not good
IMO its easier to pull a car out of a tail-spin than it is to pull a car out of a front-first spin.
bretfraz --
It is sad when in order to answer a question we must consider the fact of litigation. I guess its just a fact or our society.
My question to you is: How do you know the accident wasnt due to negligent driving instead of the tires?
(Also, is there some kind of special rule when it comes to adverse weather conditions? I thought fault might have been lifted when conditions got treacherous. Or maybe its just that I need some caffeine...)
Edit: My attempt at a chart didnt format too well...
Not quite. Only if specifically designed with no tread. A worn out tire will have its chemical compounds altered (call it aged or hardened if you will) and will have considerably less dry traction than a new tire, even though the old one will have larger contact surface.
But yes – the wet or snow conditions is where most "car-out-of-control" accidents occur, and here it is particularly important to have tread.
The bottom line is - dry or wet you will have less rear traction and will tend to oversteer. This will be particularly aggravated in the wet.
emaison said: IMO its easier to pull a car out of a tail-spin than it is to pull a car out of a front-first spin.
Oh, not at all. I can't disagree with you more.
My thoughts on all this - People are quite reckless sometimes. They will replace the front tires only on a FWD car, and think they made out like a bandit. They spent money on two tires only, and still got exactly the same traction (to get out of the snow if they get stuck, for instance) as the other guy who changed all 4 tires.
But the fact that their safety and the safety of others is compromised, seems to have no significance. And yes – the legal system is there to protect all of us from such individuals.
With an oversteer the car's tail breaks loose. Very hard to catch on time. Most people will instinctively have the wrong reaction and cause even more oversteer (as studies have shown). Those who correct, normally overcorrect and break loose on the other side.
The principal difference is that in the first case the car is stable and wants to continue forward (or widen the turn). In the latter case the car is actually in a spin, and will tend to spin around.
Replacing two front tires when the rear tires are clearly worn, and knowing the industry strongly recommends replacing rear tires on a FWD car, *IS NEGLIGENCE*.
That's my point here. I'm quite sure there is significant engineering data to support the tire mfr's position that vehicle owners should replace the rear tires first when replacing only two.
And I'm quite sure there is significant crash investigation data which can prove that worn rear tires were the culprit in certain accidents. This combination is, I feel, almost impossible to dispute in court.
It is sad when in order to answer a question we must consider the fact of litigation. I guess its just a fact or our society.
What is sad IMO is that individuals and corporations need to protect themselves from other individuals and corporations who engage in reckless and irresponsible behavior. Anytime the lives of people are at risk, you potentially involve the legal system. Why should I pay the price (financial, physical, emotional, etc) just because someone else was clearly negligent when it came time to safely maintain their car? It's not fair to me or anyone else on the road and since we cannot depend on others to protect us, we need attorneys and courts to do just that.
Thanks for the information. I dont think I have ever experienced understeer. I have experienced oversteer and I have been able to steer out of it.
bretfraz --
I am getting mixed info. I pulled out my Michelin warranty and it says to put the new tires in front if only two will be replaced. (It was a warranty written on 2001 so maybe its been changed since then?)
Neither does the fact that it was rated number 1 by Consumer Reports for the All Season High Performance segment!
This is an article about the Michelin HydroEdge tire and there you'll find recommendations from Mac Demere - Michelin test track driver and tire safety expert.
Quote from there:
Replace tires properly - If you only replace two tires at a time, mount them on the rear axle. Otherwise, your car could lose rear traction in the rain and spin out.
the traction and quietness. I was thinking ahead about tire rotation when i normally take the LF and swap it with the RR and so on.
so the abpve question is kind of important. I always thought tires were bidirectional!!
In order to rotate the X way they have to be reversed and reinstalled or just use back to front method which is ok.
canuck
canuck
Short discussion; good read.
Steve, Host
There are all too many discussions regarding traction (tire location, 4-wheel drive, et al) that focus on accelerating. A huge part of safety in inclement weather is stopping ability.
I spent 15 years in the tire business and there is no positive answer to the question.
Look, you have 4 tires on the car. You want all four of them to go in the direction you point them. Bad tires ANYWHERE on the car is a hazard. It really doesn't matter where they are, they are equally as dangerous. If your determined to put bad tires on a car, don't worry where they are, just how much insurance you have. Front?..rear? that's really not the issue. They'll cause an accident in either place. There are benefits and disadvantages to either scenerio but neither are safe so just GET RID OF THE TIRES!
I believe a strong case has been made for starting them on the back.
Jim
My question - is there a tire that is known to be a little more forgiving(i.e. stronger sidewalls) so I don't keep on buying tires every few months thanks to her lack of curb attention? I am willing to spend the extra money if it is worth it.
thanks for any help
fo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no strong case, there is no right answer. there are advantages and disadvantages to both choices. One driver might do better with them in front on one particular car and one particular emergency situation and another driver could do better with them in the rear with a whole different set of circumstances. Bottom line is a blowout is an EQUAL problem in either front or rear. The whole idea is to prevent the blowout in the first place. As far as traction, a FWD car has enough weight in front for traction not to be an issue. Rotation is far more important than initial placement. If the tires wear to the point that traction is an issue, then blowout becomes the issue. A FWD car will wear the front tires at a 3-1 ratio with the rears and will round the shoulders badly, a good reason to get them to the rear. I have always put the new ones on the front but for no particular reason except that they are a matched pair. They could start in the rear just as easily.
if the tires are really tired, why not put four on? I still maintain four cheapos with tread is better than leaving two junk formerly-premium baldos on one axle and putting two new premium tires on the other axle.
when your ship comes in, upgrade.
This summer I replaced the 205/60-16 Michlin MXV-4 Energys that were OEM on my 2000 ES300 with 225/55-16 Turanza-LS-Vs. I've got about 10K miles on them and love them. They are a great compromise tire for quiet ride and decent handling. Before you posted about the sidewall defects, I wouldn't have hesitated to recommend them.
The Turanza LS-V tire do have the 'rim protector' design with a thicker sidewall. BUt I do npt know about all of the variations on the Turanza.
thanks,
Sunny,
Dave
even if you can, is it a really stupid idea?
as a corrolary to this question, how do snow/ice tires fare on dry pavement at highway speed?
the reason for my question is I am considering an AWD vehicle (SRX, XC90, others) but I live 3 hours from the chain control point. How are my nifty tires gonna function when I drive through the sunny climes of the Bay Area nd the Central Valley before I hit the sleet and snow?
And do I have to take my snowies off when I get back home and drive around the Bay Area during the week?
Thanks for the advice
thanks a lot
Consumers Reports did a test recently on touring and performance a/s tires, so you might want to check that out. They did rate them for quietness and ride quality.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Something like the Goodyear Regatta 2 would be a good choice for that car. If you're a Sams Club member, they sell a Goodyear Allegra which is the same basic tire as the Regatta but sold and warranted exclusively thru Sams.
As for snow tires on dry pavement, do some research on various snow tire models. Some are designed to offer a good compromise between dry, wet, snow, and ice covered roads. Mfr's like Bridgestone offer speed rated snow tires, for example. Obviously they realize that many miles are driven on dry roads with snow tires and they've created tires that can work well under those circumstances.
1. Exactly what's on the car now - brand, model, size.
2. What do you need a tire to do for you? Priorities, I mean.
3. Any other preferences beyond round, black, and holds air? Anything you do not want in a tire?
Help us help you.
Tire Safety: Don't Ignore the Rubber on the Road
Steve, Host
1. Any unhappy experience with tirerack?
2. Is it easy to find local vendors who can beat tirerack in price?
3. If I order from tirerack, I assume they will ship the tires to my home. So I have to take them to a shop to get them installed and balanced. Would those shops charge higher price or do a lousy job because I didn't buy the tires from them?
4. Tirerack is selling Kumho Touring A/S 795 at $32/each. The user survey at tirerack rates this tire at good-to-excellent across the board.
That's amazing for such a cheap tire. Any comments on this tire? I live in CA coastal area and thus snow performance is a don't care.
Thanks.
Nothing but professional, never a problem in 8 sets of tires, plus 2-3 suspension orders.
2. "Is it easy to find local vendors who can beat tirerack in price?"
I always double shop to make sure - I've never been able to beat the prices on name brand tires. Maybe with Pep Boys garbage, but who wants to drive around on Pep Boys garbage (Futura)?
3. "If I order from tirerack, I assume they will ship the tires to my home. So I have to take them to a shop to get them installed and balanced. Would those shops charge higher price or do a lousy job because I didn't buy the tires from them?"
The Tire Rack has a vendor list - check those in your area - they do just that - you bring them the tires (or drop ship them to the shop) and they mount and balance. If they're a regular Tire Rack install shop, they do it all the time.
4. "Tirerack is selling Kumho Touring A/S 795 at $32/each. The user survey at tirerack rates this tire at good-to-excellent across the board.
That's amazing for such a cheap tire. Any comments on this tire? I live in CA coastal area and thus snow performance is a don't care."
I have two sets of Kuhmos - one set of W Rated 712s and a set of H rated 711s. Not a single problem - no weird bubbles, bumps, strange treadwear, noise, nothing. I dare say that these tires are much better than any non-premium brand (Michelin) and even knocking on Michelin's door (quality-wise).
I ordered a set of Bridgestone's from Costco and beat TR's price on the same exact tire by about $10 each. A local Firestone dealer was plenty willing to match TR's price on any set of Bridgestone or Firestone tire I was interested in.
Don't forget that you have to pay shipping on tires from TR. On some tires shipping costs can be more expensive than paying local sales tax.
One last caveat: If you have a problem with a tire purchased from TR, you have to send it back to TR for replacement or refund. A local dealer does not have to assist you in exchanging these tires because you did not purchase them from the dealer.
For those living in rural areas or regions with few tire dealers, TR is a terrific resource. For those living in large metropolitan areas with plenty of tire dealers, TR's price can easily be beat with some diligent shopping.