emaison - I agree with wwest, and here is my reasoning:
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.
Like many things in our litigious world, I think the correct answer is based on the last lawsuit, current legal consultant, day of week, weather, cost of malpractice insurance, and how many people subscribe to this forum. And more than once, the next lawsuit reverses the current wisdom.
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...
emaison said: The best tire for dry conditions is a tire with no tread.
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 understeer you plow forward. The car resists turning. When you slow down sufficiently control is usually regained.
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.
My question to you is: How do you know the accident wasnt due to negligent driving instead of the tires?
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?)
... a great tire to consider is the Falken ZIEX ZE-512. Its M+S High or Ultra High Performance (varies based on size, I think) and handles great during summer, incredible in rain and pretty darn good in the snow (for an All Season). The 30K mile warranty and the price (half or less that of equivalent Michelins/Dunlops) doesn't hurt either.
Neither does the fact that it was rated number 1 by Consumer Reports for the All Season High Performance segment!
I have several tire warranty pamphlets around here but my desk is a mess right now. If I find them I'll post what they suggest, if anything. In the meantime have a look at each tire mfr's website to see what they suggest.
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.
Thx for the input. I'm going to follow both of your advice. I'll look for an online calculator, and also reconsider the Falken. I saw the Falken in Consumer Reports, but sort of dismissed it. Perhaps if I go to the Falken website I can find out if they sell it here in the NorthEast US. Thanks again. The Avids are also quite reasonably priced, at $91/tire in size 225/55TR17. Surprising what a huge difference there is between the smaller sizes and the bigger 17" sizes like I have for the same model tire!
Is there a way of finding out this detail on a particular tire. I installed BFG M80 control T/A on our sienna and am so far very happy with 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!!
Directional tires will (always?) have a sidewall arrow on them that says ROTATION and it must roll in that direction for best results. As a general rule, tires which have V-shaped patterns are directional. Asymmetrical patterns are not necessarily directional. Snow tires are often directional.
I recently installed michelin Aqua Edge on my Ody. van. They are directional and do have an arrow indicating the directional for correct installation. In order to rotate the X way they have to be reversed and reinstalled or just use back to front method which is ok.
Well I guess that settles that. I still think it makes better sense to put the newer tires on the drive wheels but clearly I am not the expert. Thanks for the lesson.
Hey deepan: Yes the arrow is on both sides.I did not know when I got the aqua edge that it was a directional tire,but its ok as they seem great so far. canuck
Seems like most of the discussion so far has been about maintaining speed or accelerating. Let's think about STOPPING on snow or ice or rain covered roads. Personally, I would want my rear tires to behave like an anchor and dig in and prevent the front from going in a different direction than the rear of the vehicle, unless I choose to steer it to one side. Seems to me that I would want the best tires on the rear axle for max traction in that scenario..
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.
When GOOD information wasn't as readily available as it is today, I got a chance to test some theories that were bantered about. With my first ever FWD vehicle I tried to believe the thoughts at the time that 'you don't need winter tires with radial tires on' and 'FWD is MUCH better in winter then RWD'. First ice storm proved those wrong on last mile home from work on un-treated surface. Went right out and got 2 (yeah just 2) winter tires and put them on front. Never had problem one with going or steering after that. Trying to brake while going downhill,,,,,was interesting to say the least, best make sure vehicle was perfectly straight and no room at all for panic stops. winters all around since then. I can understand why best traction tires should go on rear, but its still tough pill to swallow to not have them on drive/steering/does the most braking FWD's
Wow, you guys can go on forever about nothing. You take lessons from Seinfeld or what? 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!
buying four medium grade tires instead of two premium ones if that's all the money you have with four shiny baldos on the wheels now. shoot, "four for $99" tires beats slimy sliders.
Hi all - I have an '03 325ia that predominantly my fiancee drives that has the OE Bridgestone Turanzas on them 225-45-17. Yesterday morning I noticed a sidewall bulge where she had scraped a curb about 6 wks ago - no problem, ordered a new tire from tirerack. Well today, I go ahead and look closely at the other tires and notice another bulge in a different tire so I decided to do some reading about these bridgestones. From the surveys at tirerack.com I see that several people have had trouble with sidewall damage from these Bridgestone low profile tires.
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.
I believe a strong case has been made for starting them on the back. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 you put new on the rear of a FWD car then the fronts will have even less tread than the rears from the three to one ratio with the fronts wearing out sooner, but then after a while the fronts will have even LESS tread and then you are going to rotate? The disparity between the front and rears will be even greater than if you just put the NEW TIRES on the front to begin with. In other words if you put the new tires on the rear you will have a problem at the next rotation with a much more worn out set on the rears. The only way to put new on the rear is if you wear the fronts out on the front axle and keep buying new for the rear and to rotate to the front as the fronts wear out. Am I the only one who sees this? IF YOU PUT THE NEW TIRES ON THE REAR WHAT WILL THE TREAD DIFFERENCE BE BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR 5-7.5K MILES LATER WHEN YOU ROTATE?
one is moving the good tires up front and the slicks to the back. the second rotation is what the car does all the way downhill as soon as you touch the brakes.
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.
...I'll be putting the new on the front if I buy only 2 for a FWD car or van. Usually due to rotation I usually buy 4 at a time. But think of the disparity of tread wear you'll have if you put the new on the rear of a fwd at the FIRST rotation. It will be even worse than if you put the new on the front in terms of the rears having more tread. Think about it. The fronts on a fwd wear much faster, some say 3x as fast.
I can't find much info on these tires, does anyone have experience with them? I need a new set for my Olds Intrigue. Primarily looking for a long lasting tire that is quiet. My SP Sport A2's are worn out at 22K miles and sound like truck tires. I don't really need a ultra-high performance tire or a tire that does well in snow, we get very little where I live.
Some tire manufacturers are marketing tires with with 'rim protectors' which are supposed to protect the wheels from curb damage but I'm not sure if they protect the tires themselves or not. Same with runflats or self-supporting tires, they can run without air due to stronger sidewalls but that doesn't mean they're stronger. I've curbed my MINI's Goodyear Eagle NCT5 EMT runflats once or twice and they show absolutely no damage or marking so perhaps runflats help, I'm not sure.
I have a 2003 Mazda MPV LX. It came with Dunlop 215/60/16 "H" rated tires. I absolutely hate the way these tires ride. The ride is very choppy, and I'm assuming this is due to the stiffer sidewalls of the "H" rated tires. I also assume Mazda decided to go with "H" rated tires to improve the handling of the van. After all, the MPV is marketed as one of the Mazda "Zoom zoom" vehicles. I couldn't care less about handling. I would much rather have a set of smooth riding all season touring tires. I'd like to stay with the same size, what type of tires should I be looking for? "S" or "T" rated? Is there something else I need to look for?
chile96, bummer on the sidewall bulges. Your dealer should make that right on a 2003 car. Their OEM tire was clearly defective.
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.
My Lexus ES300 comes with stock 16 inch wheels. I was wondering if puting on smaller wheels and thicker tires would be okay? I wanted a softer and possibly quieter ride. But everyone seems to want thinner tires. I heard some complaints of Camry's wandering left and right on freeways due to too soft suspension. I hope this would not happen in the Lexus ES 300. The Buick Regal LS uses this wheel and tire combination and so does the early ES 300's before they redesigned. Does anyone have any input to this idea?? I was also thinking the rotors and disc brakes might be too big for smaller wheels. thanks, Sunny,
I think as long as the speed rating of the tire you are looking at is below the top speed of the van (100 mph or so) you should be OK. There is probably a big difference between types of tires as far as ride is concerned. On our van we swithced from Goodyear Eagle touring tires to Michelin Symmetry all seasons, and the ride did improve.
do any of you folks have info on whether chains are required if you try to go through chain control with an AWD vehicle with all-season tires?
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?
I have been plodding through this forum trying to find a suggestion for replacement tires for this car. I have 31k on the original tires and need to replace them. I need ones that are good in snow as well as dry weather it would be great if they were quieter than the oe ones. I have gone to tire rack for their research but the ones that have decent ratings don't seem to have many fans in the survey department.
I wouldn't think you would have any problems going down to a 15" wheels, but a tire store or performance shop could tell you for sure. My 2000 ES came with either stock 15"s or an optional upgrade to 16"s. I went with the 16" option. As I posted above, the tires were originally 205/60R-16s MXV-4s. I really like the new 225/55-16s I replaced the OEM tires with. ...... but I tend to like a slightly stiffer ride with the better cornering the 225s provide.
consider the Dunlop SP Sport A2. I have 2 sets, and they work very well. I assume they come in your size.
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.
Historically brands like Goodyear, Kelly, and Cooper have performed in snow for all season tires.
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.
Not sure there's an easy answer here. I think the CHP has the final say as to whether you can drive without chains in a specific area, regardless of how amazing your new snow tires are.
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.
"Keeping tabs on the condition of your tires and knowing which ones to use for winter driving make a huge difference in how your vehicle will react should you need to make an accident avoidance maneuver."
The original tires on my 2k1 Civic are finally coming to the end of their life. I have never dealt with tirerack and thus I would like to see what others say about them.
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.
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).
"Is it easy to find local vendors who can beat tirerack in price?"
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.
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.