New tyres fitted to rear?

"Al" wrote in news:Ocexf.106311$ snipped-for-privacy@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

I would find a tire place that puts the tires where I want them since I'm paying for them. I would listen to any objections they might have, but it would be with the understanding that I, the customer, makes the decision. That said, I wouldn't use Firestones anyway. Had them on a couple of non- Saabs and really didn't like anything about them.

I think you should be allowed to have them fitted where you want.

Fitting them on the back means they can get way with less accurate balancing too !

Graham

No it is not something imposed by the tire industry. Actually with front wheel drive cars the recommendation leads to only changing two tires at a time as the front tires wear out far quickest. I have been driving Saab for more than 25 years and never bought more than two tires at the same event. The recommendation of putting the best tires at the rear you can find in auto magazines, insurance company recommendations, research reports etc and not only in the tire manufacturer documentation.

-- th

I have been told the same thing by tire professionals, that on a FWD car you should put new tires on the rear. However, after a few thousand miles you'll be rotating them anyway and those new(er) tires will then be on the back, so... no big deal.

Where did it say anything in the post about the tires being Firestones? I assumed he was talking about Michelins.

make that "...on the front, so... no big deal."

But why rotate them? Rotation is only to make the wear a bit more even, but it violates the rule about having the best tires on the rear. If you always stick with the most worn ones on the front you will need to buy tires twice as often but on the other hand the average age of the tires decrease, something valuable especially for winter tires. Maybe this rotation recommendation "is a subtle ruse by the tyre industry to make us change all our tyres at once" to quote the original post?

Yeah, lots of people telling me I should have insisted, customer comes first and all that. I DID, and was told to buy my tyres elsewhere, since I was making a £30 saving by buying at Costco I swallowed my pride and let them get on with it.

I still think it's nonsense, I have driven front wheel drive cars since

1990, and I have never, I repeat never, lost the rear end under any conditions.....

Al

Fred W wrote in news:fdOdnW08PM96w1veRVn- snipped-for-privacy@adelphia.com:

never mind. Should never post until I finish my first cup of coffee.

The only requirement is for both tires on either front or rear be of the same dimensions and manufacture. Otherwise, do as you wish.

Personally, I like to change all of my tires at once.

I have heard this explanation, but it is also a bit of a mystery to me. If braking in the wet depends on thread depth, then you get the shortest braking distance when the new tyres are fitted at the front. The instability problem must be an extreme case with worn out rear tyres and a very front heavy car.

In practical terms, new tyres are always better than old tyres; they degrade in a linear fashion from 8mm and down to 1.6mm or whatever. Since we can't afford to change tyres as often as a F1 racing team, we must adjust our driving to the current state the tyres.

Johannes thankyou! I think your first paragraph explains my thinking far better than I did.

Laura I'm in full agreement on both of your points, i.e. not using Firestones and needing that coffee!

Al

I have long suspected that this was some kind of ploy by tyre dealers. If you fit new tyres on the rear, chances are that you will come back sooner for new front tyres. This of course evens out such that the combined tyre wear is no different. However, the shorter gap after fitting the rear tyres makes it more likely that you will remember where you got the tyres from. But can they really be that crafty?

I have Firestones Firehawk TZ200, W rated on my 9000. No complaints, but it may be possible that you can't W tyres rated in the US?

As an aside, and in support of your position, I have never, ever heard of a FWD car that exhibited oversteer. I do not think it is even possible...

Hi,

For information and not wishing to prolong the debate I used to fit new tyres to the front until I read a sensible explanation a while ago in this group.

The explanation went along the lines of ... if there was snow (and in the UK and Europe to a lesser extent winter tyres are unknown) and if the camber of the road takes the rear of the car into a ditch because the tyres were not good enough little you can do. If however the front tyres are more worn than the rear, and there is no traction you won't be moving at all but you will not be in a ditch.

The idea being that we have control of the front wheels of the car but not of the rear. If the front are not good enough to give confidence then they need replacing or adjust the driving style to their condition.

I've only had one espresso so far, so I am not sure if it makes any sense.

Regards Charles

The only argument for putting new tires on the rear that makes sense to me is that if you have a blowout it would be far better if it happened in the front. If the front tires are worn to the point where they are likely to blow then all four tires should be replaced.

Perhaps, but have you, or anyone you know, ever had a blowout with modern tires? I'm not saying it can't happen, but I haven't heard of it actually happening to anyone, for as long as I can remember.

Your probably correct. The last true blowout I had I was driving a barrowed 1948 Cheverolet in 1962. It was a rear tire but I was only going 30 mph. Since then I did have an occasion when a tire lost pressure in a matter of minutes and there was enough warning that I managed to stop safely.

Really? Why? That seems counter intuitive (and experience) to me. I would prefer to have my blowouts on the rear. That way I can still brake and steer relatively well.