|
Might as well be me, i disagree with this accepted wisdom of fitting new to the rear, it's another one size fits all mantra which assumes the driver hasn't a clue about vehicle control/feel...on the family cars (though i seldom buy tyres in pairs as i rotate and get 4 at a time) the new pair go on the drive axle whichever end that might be, unless i deliberately wanted to wear the wear the older set out sharpish in which case i might leave them on the drive.
Here's my reasons, and i'm happy for anyone to pick as many holes as they like.
Its assumed now that no one can correct an oversteer slide any more, but i'd far rather an oversteer than that awful feeling of lightness when you turn the wheel and the vehicle just ploughs straight on tat which point there is very little you can do...though its understandable that some take the view they would rather an unavoidable accident was head on than sideways.
In heavy rain the front tyres clear the path and the rears follow in a partly cleared channel, so it makes sense to me to have some decent tread up front, then there'e the case of grip in general.
If this new to rear was so vital what happens with cars with different sizes front/rear, also with new tyres having a coat of releasing agent that takes up to 1000 miles to scrub off, you don't see cars with new to rear fighting to keep control as they leave the tyre bay, also its entirely possible the older tyres are premium quality and the new are budget ditchfinders, so again whats to do then?
IMHO a competent driver will know how his or her car handles, and will very soon judge and feel for themselves the fine balances of whats happening down on the road, and should make their own judgements where the new tyres are going, or should have gone if they find the car suddenly not behaving as expected.
However, many car owners take no interest in handling/grip, so for those its probably best to go with the official guidelines.
There that's as clear as mud innit :-)
As for alignments, it makes no difference whether the tyres are worn or not, the wheels are the alignment machine contact points not the tyres, its having an alignment done if suspension bushes or joints need changing soon that would be money wasted.
Can see me being on premod at this rate.
|
|
First question is how much tread is on the rear tyres?
If they are at 5mm or more leave them where they are - new tyres are 7-8mm so very little difference between all four and the fronts will soon wear . If they are at 3mm or less buy 4 new ones, not 2.
If you have an unused full size matching spare, swap the best rear tyre for the spare and you only need to buy three new ones!
|
|
The wisdom in replacing tyres on FWD was that the rear tyres would never wear out as they were just trailer tyres. Eventually they would break down and crack over several years and would need to be replaced while still having plenty of tread left. For RWD cars just swap the logic and the front tyres would meet the same end.
So to get the use out of the tyre placing new on the un driven axle and rotating the existing tyres to the drive axle makes sense. Assuming they are the same size of course !
Clearly if you have a 4WD just replace the tyres when needed
|
|
|
|
|
I`m with you there GB as I am of the opinion the driving wheels must have the best tyres on ie deepest tread but I always change mine about 3mm and have the same problem with the new Civic I did with the old one, tyres on the front only last 12-13k- rears twice that!
|
12-13k? The Cross Climates on the front of my Civic have done 15k and are just over 5mm. As they started at under 7 I expect another c 20k before they reach my change point of 3mm.
Mind you, now that I no longer commute via a lot of roundabouts my usage is mainly longish A road trips but even so..........
|
|
|
I`m with you there GB as I am of the opinion the driving wheels must have the best tyres on ie deepest tread but I always change mine about 3mm and have the same problem with the new Civic I did with the old one, tyres on the front only last 12-13k- rears twice that!
Funny you should mention that, new set of tyres went on daughter's new to her 08 Civic she uses for commuting and general doggy transport some 3.5k miles ago, i serviced the car last week and noticed the fronts have lost almost 2mm of tread already, the rears as new...she does nip about it must be said, er no, she goes like hell...so it got the first tyre rotation at the same time, but yes 12k miles is about as long as the fronts would last if left in place by the looks of it.
Luckily 225/45 x 17 is common and reasonably cheap size.
interestingly all 4 tyres were down to 25psi from the 30psi required (yes i know but if you can tell my daughter anything by all means fire away :-) so presumably the cooler temps account for most of that.
Edited by gordonbennet on 02/10/2018 at 10:12
|
|
As GB has said, the 'proper' way with tyres is to rotate them between axles so they all wear out together, but I don't suppose many drivers bother these days. As I gained much of my early driving experience in Canada, with an early FWD car (Morris 1100) it was always best tread on the front, as you needed all the traction you could get in snow - which hasn't been mentioned yet.
As a rule of thumb, a FWD car's rear tyres last 3 times as long as the fronts, so if your annual mileage is small the rears may start to crack with age if left there too long.
|
|
|
I`m with you there GB as I am of the opinion the driving wheels must have the best tyres on ie deepest tread but I always change mine about 3mm and have the same problem with the new Civic I did with the old one, tyres on the front only last 12-13k- rears twice that!
Funny you should mention that, new set of tyres went on daughter's new to her 08 Civic she uses for commuting and general doggy transport some 3.5k miles ago, i serviced the car last week and noticed the fronts have lost almost 2mm of tread already, the rears as new...she does nip about it must be said, er no, she goes like hell...so it got the first tyre rotation at the same time, but yes 12k miles is about as long as the fronts would last if left in place by the looks of it.
Luckily 225/45 x 17 is common and reasonably cheap size.
interestingly all 4 tyres were down to 25psi from the 30psi required (yes i know but if you can tell my daughter anything by all means fire away :-) so presumably the cooler temps account for most of that.
Mine are 205 55 16 I didn't want 17" wheels as the lower profile would give a harder ride, it does notice as well, but I`ve changed from Michelin to Bridgestone turanzas as they are much less noisy, Michelins drove me mad when I had them on, but now the car is much quieter and at £65 each were £25 cheaper than Michelin but much better tyres imo
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many threads have we had on this?!
Trouble is GB, you have to be cautious about advising anybody else to put the new tyres on the front, lest they come a cropper as a result.
I agree that the "straight-ons" on a wet road can be pretty frightening; also most insensitive drivers will probably lose traction first on the driving wheels, which ever they are, due to heavy-footedness. In any case, if the rears are decent then putting new on the front is unlikely to result in disaster.
For many years, when living in the kneehills of the Pennines, I always put new on the driving wheels to give me the best chance of getting around in the snow.The only collision I ever had, in the snow, was a low speed "straight-on" on a bend with a lot of adverse camber - not a rear slide. However.
I concluded a while ago that the safest most predictable handling probably comes from having four of the same model of tyre in the same state of wear, so now I move the wheels around if necessary to wear them all out at the same time. It stands to reason that having materially different levels of grip from the tyres front and rear will not give you the handling that the manufacturer intended. Some cars can be absolute shockers, properly dangerous, with mismatched tyres.
Incidentally, and this is not for your benefit as a wise old owl, the idea that the back tyres on a front wheel drive car have nothing to do is mistaken. They are very necessary for steering. If that makes no sense, imagine what would happen if castors were fitted instead.
|
Incidentally, and this is not for your benefit as a wise old owl, the idea that the back tyres on a front wheel drive car have nothing to do is mistaken. They are very necessary for steering. If that makes no sense, imagine what would happen if castors were fitted instead.
Some may recall that the Peugeot 306 allegedly had a degree of 'passive steering' in the rear suspension. I was never aware of anything going on there, as it were. Does anyone know if that notion has died a death?
|
|
|
Trouble is GB, you have to be cautious about advising anybody else to put the new tyres on the front, lest they come a cropper as a result.
No, he doesn't! This is a discussion forum, not HJ's advice section, and if you wish to say your car is MoT'd with its nearly new winter tyres on and drive carefully during the drier months of the year on your nearly slick summer tyres you are perfectly entitled to do so. And I agree entirely with GB's heresy against the 'best on rear' dogma.
I think the best thing to do for two-wheel-drive cars is, knowing roughly the lifespan of your tyres - say 30,000m, to swap front to rear at around 15,000m, 'cos it's best to replace all four at once if poss.
Edited by John F on 02/10/2018 at 12:59
|
|
I think the best thing to do for two-wheel-drive cars is, knowing roughly the lifespan of your tyres - say 30,000m, to swap front to rear at around 15,000m, 'cos it's best to replace all four at once if poss.
Personally I do not see the logic of that, wearing them all equally means you lose tread all round, where if the rears are left as they are and only the fronts wear you get more tread for grip on the rears while losing water clearance on the front till you replace them.
and as long as the tyres on the rear are replaced within so many miles and not got problems, I cannot see why its recommended to wear equally
|
|
I like all tyres about the same too, hence why i rotate so all 4 get swapped together, disnlike having odd tyres dotted about, you see some cars where all 4 are different makes and states of wear, not for me ta.
That applies particularly to our two cars which are both full time 4WD, much rather all the tyres had rolling radii as near as possible, plus rotating sensibly helps iron out any shoulder wear characteristics.
|
|
My Mother in law put her '06 Kia Rio in to a local garage for a service and MOT recently. Turned out they put one new tyre on it, on the front. I think it was something to do with a slow puncture, but i found it very troubling that they would put it on the front. I'll probably swap the front wheels with the back when i get the chance. Fortunately, she drives very, VERY cautiously, but they didn't know that.
|
Trouble is GB, you have to be cautious about advising anybody else to put the new tyres on the front, lest they come a cropper as a result.
Sensible advice.
Its OK claiming you are a driving god but in an emergency situation with poor road conditions you need every bit of help you can get. Having the best grip on the rear will help prevent the rear stepping out and potentially putting you off the road backwards. If the fronts are low on tread the front grip will obviously be compromised but the resulting understeer is naturally easier to control for drivers of all abilities. If you are going far to fast you still plught off the road but at least you will see what you are going to hit.
With modern driving aids such as ABS and TCS we can assume we are immune to loosing control but as the name suggests they are only aids not a 100% cure.
|
|
|
|
Trouble is GB, you have to be cautious about advising anybody else to put the new tyres on the front, lest they come a cropper as a result.
No, he doesn't!
I think the best thing to do for two-wheel-drive cars is, knowing roughly the lifespan of your tyres - say 30,000m, to swap front to rear at around 15,000m, 'cos it's best to replace all four at once if poss.
I suspect we are in violent agreement on your first point as I don't think GB did give advice, it was clear from his post that he is at variance with the "accepted wisdom".
On the second, I think that's a bad idea to let a big wear difference build up. Also, any uneven wear exacerbates the difference. I recently swapped my MX-5 wheels around at about 8,000, there was only 1mm difference front to rear.
@Bolt - to me, the logic of evening out wear is clear - allowing the balance of grip to change materially between front and rear must have an effect on handling. This will matter more on some cars than others.If I was wearing tyres down to 1.6mm I might take a different view but as I change them when they go under 3mm, I'll stick with my approach.
I wouldn't want 1.6mm on the front - too much chance of aquaplaning. If that happens on a left hander with traffic on the other side, it will end badly. (As it happens, that was how my treasured Holbay Hunter was written off in 1978, by a berk in a Marina with bald front tyres. I still have a scar on my right shin to remind me.)
Edited by Manatee on 02/10/2018 at 17:31
|
|
If I was wearing tyres down to 1.6mm I might take a different view but as I change them when they go under 3mm, I'll stick with my approach.
Fair comment, so will I, and I change tyres at 3mm tread depth as the tyre wear does notice grip wise below that, but your point about aquaplaning, I`m surprised it doesn't happen more with the amount of cars with tread depths at the limit or worse, which I often see in supermarket car parks
|
|
|
|
|
Trouble is GB, you have to be cautious about advising anybody else to put the new tyres on the front, lest they come a cropper as a result.
I suppose a very few drivers will visit this part of the forum looking for 'advice' on where to put their tyres, but as most drivers believe they are better than average, I suspect most enquirers are looking for points they may have not considered before making their own decisions.
Various suggestions have been made, some preferring the fronts, others the rears. I am in the equal-wear segment. I guess those drivers who are likely to 'lose it' may well do that whatever their tyres are like, as they discover their limits of traction the hard way.
|
|
I wonder what Del Boy did about the tyres on the Regal - rotate all three, or fit some dodgy remoulds imported from Transnistria? Lovely rubbery jubbly!
|
I wonder what Del Boy did about the tyres on the Regal -
... probably nothing ... :-)
|
I wonder what Del Boy did about the tyres on the Regal -
... probably nothing ... :-)
he bought a clapped out Capri and gave the Regal to bruver lol
|
I am in the equal-wear segment.
So am I, its ensures that the car is balanced but a good many drivers (probably a majority) don't want the expense of buying 4 at a time and for those the advice form the manufacturers and tyre fitters associations is simple, fit the new ones on the rear. Lets be honest, its not like this advice is going to sell any more tyres, they are buying 2 so the cost is the same wherever thay go.
But one thing that no one seems to have mentions is certain 4x4's. Some have to have tyres that are within a few mm's front and rear or diff damage can occur. The newer Kia Sorento with a "clever" system is one such car, the older one with manual 4 wheel drive was not affected.
Edited by skidpan on 03/10/2018 at 14:02
|
|
don't want the expense of buying 4 at a time and for those the advice form the manufacturers and tyre fitters associations is simple, fit the new ones on the rear
cost for some has nothing to do with it, fit new tyres on rear assumes the rear tyres have less tread and may cause aquaplaning..in the case of tyres with tread in excess of 5mm imo there is no need to do this as their is plenty of tread already
some motors wear fronts twice to one rear set, in which case they usually replace all four at the second front set, I have had several Rovers in the past that wore fronts out first and so far not had a problem and there is no out of balance problems with any car so far, so I can only assume you mean by balanced the water clearance is not the same between front and rear which will happen anyway due to different scenarios
|
|
If it's a reasonably small and/or light car then I'd definitely recommend putting the new tyres on the rear, the relatively unloaded rear tyres have a much harder time clearing standing water - particularly when braking (inducing even greater weight transfer to the front) and are much, much more prone to aqua-planing. In essence the car will be more likely to swap ends on the brakes with part-worn rear tyres.
|
If it's a reasonably small and/or light car then I'd definitely recommend putting the new tyres on the rear, the relatively unloaded rear tyres have a much harder time clearing standing water - particularly when braking (inducing even greater weight transfer to the front) and are much, much more prone to aqua-planing. In essence the car will be more likely to swap ends on the brakes with part-worn rear tyres.
This is why I mentioned different scenarios because what you mentioned would want the new ones on the front to prevent the planning, though I wouldn't call the rears unloaded as they still have to work
TBH best idea to be safe is replace all 4- you stand a better chance that way, I think I will do that in future
|
In essence the car will be more likely to swap ends on the brakes with part-worn rear tyres.
My series 3 SWB Land Rover was lethal for that, and would easily lock the back wheels on a damp road. They would then drift out sideways, initiating what would end up as a spin if the brakes weren't released. Easy enough to catch but a bit of a buttock clencher if you really needed to be braking hard. An exception of course and not a good comparison with modern cars that have ABS.
I don't, but it would be pretty dangerous for anybody in the habit of braking while cornering, which is probably the main potential issue for newer ABS-equipped cars with much less grip at the rear than the front.
|
|
|
|
|
