Maybe I'm crazy, but...

[jporter12]

apparently it's a lawyer thing...

look at this article, but it still doesn't prove much either way..

Are new tires best in front or back?

my wild guess/opinion: The standard practice is to never put a radial on front, with bias ply on the rear.

A radial mixed with bias must always go on the back wheels.

Therefore, perhaps tire shops can't identify types of tires, and cover their ass by putting all radial tires on the rear to be safer.

Theoretically, if you tried to buy bias ply tires, they would insist on putting them on the front.

The only bias ply tires I have seen available for street use are bikes, and trailers.

[SWing'R]

I'm totally confused also... I thought standard practice for front wheel drive vehicles was to buy two, put them on the front drive wheels, and put the best two of the other four tires, on the rear... dunno... (and generally it's the original rear tires, since they don't wear out back there on front wheel drive vehicles.)

That was what I was thinking when I set out to do all this.

[scottb]

Thanks Jporter for the info. No ABS on the Durango..

[f4isvt]

industry standard states the better tires go in the rear to keep the rear from sliding and due to the fact you have control over the front wheels and not the rear. I agrue to an extent on this but that is industry standard

[ReconRat]

The only bias ply tires I have seen available for street use are bikes, and trailers.

yeah, I'm living in the past. There's a few bias ply race tires for cars. But I don't see them on the street.

I have been in cars with the radial/bias tire combo done wrong, and the stupid car will jump all over the road. It's generally obvious, but people including mechanics seldom figure it out quickly.

[snodgrass23]

That makes VERY little sense to me. If this is the situation, someone is outdriving the road conditions. I ALWAYS want the better traction tires on the front of a front wheel drive car. My wife's car is that way.

BTW, I do this stuff for a living, although we're not a tire shop. We do tires, but it's not our primary business.

Whether it makes sense to you is irrelevant to the shop's policy.

uhhh NO.. That makes ZERO sense at all. Using your logic his car should spin out equally as easily with the snow tires on the rear. On my front wheel drive vehicles I have always installed the studded tires on the front. If you don't have traction at your drive tires then you ain't driving you're just sitting in your driveway kicking up snow!

Again, whether it makes sense to you is irrelevant. Having the tires on the front or the back determines the handling characteristics of the vehicle. Having the snow tires on the back isn't ideal either, but under-steer is a lot more safe and controllable than over-steer. Why do you think 99.9% of all vehicles in their stock form are setup to under-steer. Find any car that has any tendency for over-steering, and I guarantee is also is one that gets wrecked more often.

Most people here, though, are talking about worn or "better" tires especially when talking about rotating them. This is a completely different situation and it revolves around wear, not traction. This issue with this situation is the snow tires are going to have a completely different traction profile than the other ones. Realize this doesn't just apply to things like heavy snow driving, but also cold, wet, and icy driving as well. This would be like taking a race car and putting slicks on the front tires and street tires on the rear. How long do you think it would take before that car was spun out, and this is with an experienced driver.

If they knew that installing the tires in such a way that they thought it would be dangerous, they definitely could be held responsible in some way. If your loved one died in an accident after installing these tires, and they said they thought it could cause the car to become uncontrollable, you don't think they would then shoulder some of the responsibility for installing them anyway?

However, if this was their policy, they should have been as adamant about it when he was buying the tires so that he didn't have to go through the process of taking them back afterward.

Edited February 20, 2010 by snodgrass23

[Disclaimer]

under-steer is a lot more safe and controllable than over-steer.

I'd consider them both pretty unsafe driving conditions.

Why do you think 99.9% of all vehicles in their stock form are setup to under-steer.

99.9%, O rly?

Find any car that has any tendency for over-steering, and I guarantee is also is one that gets wrecked more often.

Corvette, Mustang, CTS, Camaro, Challenger... now go find me statistics boy.

[chevysoldier]

Most people here, though, are talking about worn or "better" tires especially when talking about rotating them. This is a completely different situation and it revolves around wear, not traction. This issue with this situation is the snow tires are going to have a completely different traction profile than the other ones. Realize this doesn't just apply to things like heavy snow driving, but also cold, wet, and icy driving as well. This would be like taking a race car and putting slicks on the front tires and street tires on the rear. How long do you think it would take before that car was spun out, and this is with an experienced driver.

If they knew that installing the tires in such a way that they thought it would be dangerous, they definitely could be held responsible in some way. If your loved one died in an accident after installing these tires, and they said they thought it could cause the car to become uncontrollable, you don't think they would then shoulder some of the responsibility for installing them anyway?

Are you talking about a race in snow? Nascar at least is RWD, so the rear tires push the vehicle forward while the slicks steer. The car would not spin out on dry pavement because you have much better traction on the front. Being a slick 100% of the tire is touching the ground for traction. Street tires have grooves for water, ice, snow. Not perfect traction on a dry road. It would spin out on snow/ice/wet because the slicks would then have no traction.

Going with your race car theme, if you put slicks on the front of a FWD car and brand new snow tires on the rear, how well is this going to drive in the snow? Probably nowhere right? Now reverse the tire locations, all of a sudden you have traction to drive. The weight of the engine and transmission is over the drive wheels that have the traction.

Edited February 20, 2010 by chevysoldier

[max power]

I agree with Cheevy. On every front wheel drive vehicle I have ever owned, I have always had my best tires on the front and I lived to tell the tale!

[chevysoldier]

If you go to the tire store and only need 2 tires... you're doing it wrong.

True, but between people not rotating like they should, and people not having alignment issues corrected, and people being broke, 4 tires is not always feasible.

[chevysoldier]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4243992.html

Interesting....

Here's a video with a side by side comparison...maybe new on rear on FWD is correct? I'm gonna look into it more before I retract my statements...Personally I still want better traction on the front drive tires.

http://www.michelinman.com/tire-care/tire-basics/reartire-change/

[RVTPilot]

. but' date=' history shows they don't listen to [b']engineers or tire testers..

JRMMiii is an engineer and you don't listen to him. Hi, Pot, this is Kettle.

Thread jack over. Please go back to the conversation at hand.

[SWing'R]

Problem/issue solved.... I went to a different shop and got FOUR brand new all season 60Kmile tires. I figure it may be the last set of tires I put on this car,

might as well get a better tire and a complete set so they are all matched as far as the mileage.

Checked at two places, neither had in stock the OEM size I needed so I opted for a optional wider tire in higher mileage rating,

figured the wife's safety was worth it

Not gonna tell you guys what I paid for them , but my choices were this...

1. no new tires this weekend.

2. four more expensive tires now

I'm the kinda guy that wants what he wants when he wants it, so waiting was not an option

Got four Yokohoma YK520's

[snodgrass23]

Corvette, Mustang, CTS, Camaro, Challenger... now go find me statistics boy.

You may be thinking of power oversteer, or the ability to invoke oversteer, which is different. Just because a car can oversteer doesn't mean the suspension is setup for it. Look at the old 911's that had a bad case of oversteer. They were notorious for spinning out for seemingly no reason. That is why they have such a difference in tire size, front and rear, to try to keep it under control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understeer#Understeer_values

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversteer#In_road_cars

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e39-m5-e52-z8-discussion/13025-understeer-good-bad-2.html#post117596

Edited February 20, 2010 by snodgrass23

[snodgrass23]

Are you talking about a race in snow?

No, a car that usually uses slicks wouldn't be racing in the snow. I was using a normal dry day as a comparison to remove some variables.

Nascar at least is RWD, so the rear tires push the vehicle forward while the slicks steer. The car would not spin out on dry pavement because you have much better traction on the front.

You do realize that loss of traction on the rear tires is what generally causes a spin out, right???????

Being a slick 100% of the tire is touching the ground for traction. Street tires have grooves for water, ice, snow. Not perfect traction on a dry road. It would spin out on snow/ice/wet because the slicks would then have no traction.

Thanks for explaining how street tires work. It would not spin out, however, it would under-steer.

Going with your race car theme, if you put slicks on the front of a FWD car and brand new snow tires on the rear, how well is this going to drive in the snow? Probably nowhere right? Now reverse the tire locations, all of a sudden you have traction to drive. The weight of the engine and transmission is over the drive wheels that have the traction.

You have mistaken the ability to drive as in moving at all in snowy conditions with the ability to control the car once up to speed. This is the initial traction, and although annoying, isn't usually dangerous. What is dangerous is a car that has plenty of the kind of traction you want which gets it up to speed better but then can be dangerous because the tires with the worse traction, in this case much worse, will then be in danger of losing all traction.

Your theory works great in deeper snow moving 10-20mph, but what happens when it clears up a little and you'd like to drive closer to a normal speed on the highway.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071122192629AAskAdT

http://besttiresonline.com/TiresBlog/9/winter-tires-snow-tires-critical-in-winter/

http://www.saturnfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129226

Edited February 20, 2010 by snodgrass23

[chevysoldier]

I understand what you are getting at, I also posted a little earlier with a video I found and said it makes sense to put them on the rear, I have been doing some research into it. but I wont do it like that. I want the best tires on the front. I want to get going out of my snow filled parking lot. I also don't over drive the roads and know how to correct should you know what hits the fan.

That being said, I rotate them regularly and also don't normally get just two tires at a time.

[snodgrass23]

I understand what you are getting at, I also posted a little earlier with a video I found and said it makes sense to put them on the rear, I have been doing some research into it. but I wont do it like that. I want the best tires on the front. I want to get going out of my snow filled parking lot. I also don't over drive the roads and know how to correct should you know what hits the fan.

That being said, I rotate them regularly and also don't normally get just two tires at a time.

That's your choice and I'm fine with it. A retailer, though, can't guarantee that whomever drives the car will be able to deal with this type of handling characteristic. Remember also that a snow tire example (depending on the capabilities of the original tire, ie. summer performance, or all-season) will magnify the differences of normal worn/new tires like shown in that video.

[Disclaimer]

I know those cars are all capable of 'power oversteer' and I selected them because they're RWD, but in your articles you cited it said they're specifically setup NOT to understeer, but to have a more neutral setup.

Any Left-Turn-Racing nut will tell you.... Loose is fast. So, especially in the Corvette case... you wouldn't bias anything toward understeer.

[jporter12]

^^ That IS intersting.

[snodgrass23]

I know those cars are all capable of 'power oversteer' and I selected them because they're RWD, but in your articles you cited it said they're specifically setup NOT to understeer, but to have a more neutral setup.

Yes, a "more neutral" setup, but it still is going to be biased to the side of understeer in normal setups.

I'm not sure what part you're reading. The first wikipedia link list several cars with the amount of understeer they have, with the Corvette Z06 listed.

Here are some quotes from the other two links:

"Understeering cars do not suffer from this, which is one of the reasons why high speed cars tend to be set up to understeer."

"Usually most modern sport car like BMW and Porsche with the exception of GT3 are all setup to understeer. Reason because car companies believe understeer is safer and easier to recover for most people."

"Their suspension is not balanced heavily toward understeer.."

"It seems intuitive that race drivers would prefer a slight oversteer condition to rotate the car around a corner, but this isn't usually the case for two reasons."

Any Left-Turn-Racing nut will tell you.... Loose is fast. So, especially in the Corvette case... you wouldn't bias anything toward understeer.

You're assuming that since some race cars tend to try to be biased slightly towards oversteer for speed, that a Corvette will too? Most drivers, especially in racing that turns both directions, will still setup the car to understeer very slightly as the additional handling to be gained from a looser setup isn't worth the additional risk of losing control.

[f4isvt]

for years that was the norm for controlling a vehicle to put the better tires on the front i know that michelin has done lots of testing with it and has come out and said what we used to believe is wrong that the better tires belong on the rear for the reason i stated earlier you have direct control over your front wheels not matter where the drive axles are. At my shop we dont rotate if the better tires are in the rear if the customer still wants it done than we do it.

[jporter12]

I just put 2 new Tripletreds on the wife's car, and they went on the FRONT! The set on the front doesn't have enough wear for all of this to become an issue, and hopefully we'll be in a regular rotation cycle with it now.

[CoolWhip]

Ok now I'm really confused, because my last vehicle was a GMC Sonoma with rwd and no 4wd and when I bought it the guy told me that two of the tires were brand new and the other two needed to be replaced, so I went to NTB and they put the nice new tires on the front and the older ones on the back... Is this because it was rwd or are they just morons?

[natedogg624]

why are you getting snow tires at seasons end?

would have made more sense to get snow tires in december...

[jporter12]

Ok now I'm really confused, because my last vehicle was a GMC Sonoma with rwd and no 4wd and when I bought it the guy told me that two of the tires were brand new and the other two needed to be replaced, so I went to NTB and they put the nice new tires on the front and the older ones on the back... Is this because it was rwd or are they just morons?

Since 2 of them were really new, it probably didn't matter. Same as my example, the existing good set weren't worn hardly any at all.