2 new tyres - put on front or back? Opinions

sawfish

Got two new tyres.. told the garage to put them on the front...

I heard the front tyres wear faster so they should be put on the front...

But im also hearing that they should go on the back in case you lose grip?

Opinions on this...?

kirving

What car is it?

ON the back reduces risk of the back slipping out, on a fwd car I prefer fresh rubber on the front for braking reasons, ideally all 4 should have plenty thread though.

650Ginge

Your best tyres always go on the back, front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, 4 drive, makes no difference. They go on the back to give the best grip when you lift of the power after realising you are going to fast or panic and brake.

Mycroft H

In 90% of cases they should go on the rear axle if buying pairs. Old wives tail at this stage that they should always be fitted to the front

sawfish

back tyres still have 5.5mm thread...

joolsveer

I would always put them on the back for safety.

Mycroft H

Example supporting tyres on the rear argument

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5YsQ_a_ijA

teednab-el

its just the hassle of changing the tyres again after. If you buy new tyres and put them on the rear only, you are soon going to have to replace the front tyres as they will wear faster. Whereas if you buy new tyres and put them on the front and put the front tyres on the back, you wont have to get new tyres again for a good while unless you get a blow out or something.

CiniO

joolsveer wrote: »

I would always put them on the back for safety.

I would always put them on the front for safety.

650Ginge

teednab-el wrote: »

its just the hassle of changing the tyres again after. If you buy new tyres and put them on the rear only, you are soon going to have to replace the front tyres as they will wear faster. Whereas if you buy new tyres and put them on the front and put the front tyres on the back, you wont have to get new tyres again for a good while unless you get a blow out or something.

Hassle! try having an accident for hassle.

And you obviously don't rotate if 5-8ks either then....if you do want you are supposed to do tyres will always be replaced in 4's. Four matching tryes give equal grip in a conditions, mixing tyres means the front may have more grip than the rear, if you have to hit the brakes in a corner you could very well end up in the spin like the video a couple of posts up. It is no more expensive as the four tyres are getting equal wear and longer changes between changes.

650Ginge

CiniO wrote: »

I would always put them on the front for safety.

Ah but then you are wrong, try and google it see if you can find any body in the tyre industry that shares your view.

CiniO

650Ginge wrote: »

Ah but then you are wrong, try and google it see if you can find any body in the tyre industry that shares your view.

I don't need to google anything as I already did many times.
Case is really simple - better tyres in the front means better braking, that's important for me.

On the video above, it's shown that if because of worse tyres in the front front of the car skids on the bend, driver just takes foot off accelerator, and car returns to it's normal position. I wouldn't say it's that simple, but yes - generally that's the idea.
In the other case though, if you fit worse tyres into the back, it's show that car skids and that's over. The same like before (with worse tyres in the front) it was needed to slow down, here you need to turn the steering wheel in to opposite direction to prevent skid. That's it in short.

Best solution is to have good 4 tyres, but if you don't you have too choose which option you prefer.

I prefer second option.

The most important is to know the consequences.
If you put worse tyres on the front, car might behave understeer.
If you put worse tyres on the back, car might behave oversteer.

Probably for most drivers it would be easier to control understeer, that's why they are advising better tyres on the back in google search.
But if someone is confident enough to be ready to handle oversteer, then better tyres in the front is a good option.

166man

I find many of these posts really interesting, I would always have put the good tyres on the front for better braking and not the back.. assuming it's a fwd car.

mickdw

CiniO wrote: »

I don't need to google anything as I already did many times.
Case is really simple - better tyres in the front means better braking, that's important for me.

On the video above, it's shown that if because of worse tyres in the front front of the car skids on the bend, driver just takes foot off accelerator, and car returns to it's normal position. I wouldn't say it's that simple, but yes - generally that's the idea.
In the other case though, if you fit worse tyres into the back, it's show that car skids and that's over. The same like before (with worse tyres in the front) it was needed to slow down, here you need to turn the steering wheel in to opposite direction to prevent skid. That's it in short.

Best solution is to have good 4 tyres, but if you don't you have too choose which option you prefer.

I prefer second option.

The most important is to know the consequences.
If you put worse tyres on the front, car might behave understeer.
If you put worse tyres on the back, car might behave oversteer.

Probably for most drivers it would be easier to control understeer, that's why they are advising better tyres on the back in google search.
But if someone is confident enough to be ready to handle oversteer, then better tyres in the front is a good option.

I would pretty much agree with all of that.
The failsafe is without doubt an understeery car and that is why the industry recommends new tyres to the rear but I prefer the new ones on the front. If you havent a good front end, you have nothing IMO

There is also the whole other argument re the front tyres clearing standing water ahead of the rears anyway which common sense would say requires greater thread depth on the front.

It's quite simple really imo............

How often have you lost the back of a fwd car? If the answer is never that's because you drive to the conditions and are responsible and capable behind the wheel.

How often have you needed to brake suddenly? The answer would be quite a few times I imagine for most of us.

I'd hate to have to brake suddenly in the wet and find my 4mm threaded front tyres stopped me a foot or two too late as my 8mm new tyres were on the back as the tyre industry etc reckon that's the best place for them

If you are losing the back of a fwd car often enough to justify putting new tyres on the back than you'll be having a crash soon enough anyway I reckon regardless of the condition of your tyres and where you put the good ones.

dahamsta

The tyres on the front wheels of a FWD car are used for both steering /and/ propelling the vehicle. Suggesting that the rear is best place to put a new pair of tyres on these demonstrates an incredible level of ignorance and stupidity, made worse by the fact that it's being proffered as authoritative.

I can only assume these are the same idiots I see every day driving around with no lights on; most likely permanently lodged in the overtaking lane on a dual carriageway, at 50 mph or up someone's hole.

Seriously folks, take the bus, ye're not qualified to drive a car.

teednab-el

650Ginge wrote: »

Hassle! try having an accident for hassle.

And you obviously don't rotate if 5-8ks either then....if you do want you are supposed to do tyres will always be replaced in 4's. Four matching tryes give equal grip in a conditions, mixing tyres means the front may have more grip than the rear, if you have to hit the brakes in a corner you could very well end up in the spin like the video a couple of posts up. It is no more expensive as the four tyres are getting equal wear and longer changes between changes.

how?

I would imagine that the front tyres will wear quicker as they are the wheels that are being propelled by the engine (i.e FWD car) and the weight of the engine would be another factor.

sundodger5

dahamsta wrote: »

The tyres on the front wheels of a FWD car are used for both steering /and/ propelling the vehicle. Suggesting that the rear is best place to put a new pair of tyres on these demonstrates an incredible level of ignorance and stupidity, made worse by the fact that it's being proffered as authoritative.

I can only assume these are the same idiots I see every day driving around with no lights on; most likely permanently lodged in the overtaking lane on a dual carriageway, at 50 mph or up someone's hole.

Seriously folks, take the bus, ye're not qualified to drive a car.

You are entitled to your opinion, however it is just an opinion from what you personally believe and has no basis in fact.

Mycroft H

dahamsta wrote: »

The tyres on the front wheels of a FWD car are used for both steering /and/ propelling the vehicle. Suggesting that the rear is best place to put a new pair of tyres on these demonstrates an incredible level of ignorance and stupidity, made worse by the fact that it's being proffered as authoritative.

I can only assume these are the same idiots I see every day driving around with no lights on; most likely permanently lodged in the overtaking lane on a dual carriageway, at 50 mph or up someone's hole.

Seriously folks, take the bus, ye're not qualified to drive a car.

Ah now thats taking it a bit far now :rolleyes:


I will put new pair of tyres on the rear axle as understeer is easier to control then oversteer in my case.

That gives me better control in the corners especially in emergency situations.

RoverJames wrote: »

How often have you needed to brake suddenly? The answer would be quite a few times I imagine for most of us.

How often have you had swerve out of the way of something? Like that oblivious idiot that sails into your lane on the motorway.

RoverJames wrote: »

I'd hate to have to brake suddenly in the wet and find my 4mm threaded front tyres stopped me a foot or two too late as my 8mm new tyres were on the back as the tyre industry etc reckon that's the best place for them

Secondly, if your going to introduce figures into the argument, back it up with fact. It is proven that there is marginal difference in stopping distance between tyres that have 7-8mm thread and those with 4mm on tarmac ( and lets face it, the majority of irish roads are tarmac)

www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/tyre_tread_depth.pdf
(look someone independent from the tyre industry! )

If your interested have a quick google, there are more studies out there.

BX 19

BX 19 wrote: »

.......................




How often have you had swerve out of the way of something? Like that oblivious idiot that sails into your lane on the motorway.

Very rarely in 200,000 miles of driving
I have had to brake hard on many occasions

BX 19 wrote: »

Secondly, if your going to introduce figures into the argument, back it up with fact. It is proven that there is marginal difference in stopping distance between tyres that have 7-8mm thread and those with 4mm on tarmac ( and lets face it, the majority of irish roads are tarmac)

www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/tyre_tread_depth.pdf
(look someone independent from the tyre industry! )

If your interested have a quick google, there are more studies out there.

Marginal difference I do believe I mentioned a foot or two in stopping distance, and I meant that literally, anything over a mm might well be too much

langdang

Always on the front for new tyres for me. But obviously the rears aren't bald. Have never had the back of FWD move on me without me expecting/provoking it. What properly aligned FWD car wears back tyres quicker than fronts? None - the back tyres have an easy life.

CiniO

dahamsta wrote: »

The tyres on the front wheels of a FWD car are used for both steering /and/ propelling the vehicle. Suggesting that the rear is best place to put a new pair of tyres on these demonstrates an incredible level of ignorance and stupidity, made worse by the fact that it's being proffered as authoritative.

I can only assume these are the same idiots I see every day driving around with no lights on; most likely permanently lodged in the overtaking lane on a dual carriageway, at 50 mph or up someone's hole.

Seriously folks, take the bus, ye're not qualified to drive a car.

As I said earlier I always put better tyres on the front.
Earlier this year my wife had an accident in my car. She made a car skid on a bend and ended up in a ditch. Luckily she was fine, but car was an write off.
I pretty sure, that if the tyre configuration was opposite, the accident wouldn't happen.

Anyway - I got another car, and have it again - better tyres in the front. Only difference now is that my wife doesn't drive it anymore that often, and if she does, I always told her to make sure ESP is on

sundodger5

CiniO wrote: »

As I said earlier I always put better tyres on the front.
Earlier this year my wife had an accident in my car. She made a car skid on a bend and ended up in a ditch. Luckily she was fine, but car was an write off.
I pretty sure, that if the tyre configuration was opposite, the accident wouldn't happen.

Anyway - I got another car, and have it again - better tyres in the front. Only difference now is that my wife doesn't drive it anymore that often, and if she does, I always told her to make sure ESP is on

ESP suggests vw if you look at the manual they say that good tyres to front in a car with ESP. owners manual overides all generic advice. It also says that ESP cannot overcome the laws of physics.

kerten

I think there is not a single answer for this question.

I drove a car with completely bald and illegal tyres for 5k miles in a highly populated city and motorways without any understeer/oversteer problem or an accident. Because I was aware of reduced limits of grip and adjusted my driving for that. Whenever I gave the car to a relative or a family member, I was giving them 10 mins "don't take any chances with this car" lesson before giving keys.

But this doesn't mean what I did was correct. I just risked safety by trusting my driving skills but family members may end up with a bad accident.

This is why authorities suggests for the worst case scenario which is

- An incompetent driver who doesn't notice he/she is doing something wrong until car starts to slide
- An incompetent driver who will buy cheapest possible tyre which will gets harder after a year and lose 60% grip
- An incompetent driver who will change tyres when nct asks them to do.
- An incompetent driver who will sit in overtaking lane and will cut all lanes at once to exit motorway


Changing tyres when they reach 3 mm tread depth and putting two new tyres to back axle will decrease chance of involving to an accident by these incompetent driver. This is why these are the suggestion from authorities.

As a competent driver, if you are aware of limit of grips in your car with whatever tyre combination you have and you are adjusting your driving w.r.t. to that, you should be fine.

If you are suggesting to Joe Public, tell them to put new tyres into back axle and make sure he has proper tyres in front and enough tread depth. Or at least tell them what may happen if they don't do what you are suggesting.

CiniO

sundodger5 wrote: »

ESP suggests vw if you look at the manual they say that good tyres to front in a car with ESP. owners manual overides all generic advice. It also says that ESP cannot overcome the laws of physics.

It's not VW, I never had VW, and god help I never will.

It's mazda and my manual doesn't say a word about which tyres goes where.

PS. I'm sure ESP cannot overcome the laws of physics. And that's all my wife needs to know now

sundodger5

CiniO wrote: »

It's not VW, I never had VW, and god help I never will.

It's mazda and my manual doesn't say a word about which tyres goes where.

PS. I'm sure ESP cannot overcome the laws of physics. And that's all my wife needs to know now

Sorry made an assumption (danegerous i know) but from my days in the tyre game it was one of the things that stuck in my head. I would always have put tyres where the customer preferred after giving them the facts re front vs back and the VW ESP was the one exception that stuck with me, kinda surprised other manufacturers using the same system didnt have the same advice.

sundodger5

sundodger5 wrote: »

.............. It also says that ESP cannot overcome the laws of physics.

ESP can use the laws of physics far more competently and effectively that the vast majority of drivers though

sundodger5

RoverJames wrote: »

ESP can use the laws of physics far more competently and effectively that the vast majority of drivers though

Thats why they say new tyres to the back in all other circumstances, your average driver cant apply brake to individual wheels, read yaw rates etc.

evolving_doors

Ok now ,interesting thread,

but don't tyres on the left hand side wear quicker, due to potholes etc (especially on country roads)..

Armelodie

Armelodie wrote: »

................

but don't tyres on the left hand side wear quicker, due to potholes etc (especially on country roads)..

I think if that's true it's due to the camber of the road
I do remember mention of such a theory

sundodger5

Yep but more due to the camber of the road also outside edge of front left due to weight transfer going around roundabouts.
you can even it out by doing every second roundabout the opposite way;)

StormGazer.11

Just to throw in my opinion here I'd have always put new tyres to the back too and switched the ones that were on the back to the front... More for value and to get more use out of the tyres then anything, was never really concerned about the back fish tailing in corners, I'm only using the car for city driving not rally driving

BostonB

If something like 80% of your braking effort (Open to correction) comes from the front, then you're losing a lot of braking by putting them on the rear.

Granted putting them on the rear forces you to drive to the limits of the old tyres on the front, which is safer where oversteer would be a problem.

But if someone steps out in front of you and you brake in a straight line in the dry? I think them on the front would stop you quicker.

sundodger5

lets get rid of this braking in the wet thing, modern ABS will make maximium use of the grip available wherever it is on the four wheels.
i think we are down to whether or not you want to see the thing you are going to hit or not.

CiniO

sundodger5 wrote: »

lets get rid of this braking in the wet thing, modern ABS will make maximium use of the grip available wherever it is on the four wheels.

Please tell you are joking.

No matter if you have ABS or not, if you put better tyres on the back, and worse on the front, you will increase your braking distance.

It's the front tyres which are responsible for approx. 70% of braking force, due to fact that usually cars are heavier in the front, and obviously to fact, that during braking there is a weight distribution, which pushes even more weight to the front.

ABS has nothing to do with it.
And to even put things more straight forward, ABS in some condition instead of reducing stopping distance will increase it, comparing to car without ABS.

sundodger5

sundodger5 wrote: »

lets get rid of this braking in the wet thing, modern ABS will make maximium use of the grip available wherever it is on the four wheels.
i think we are down to whether or not you want to see the thing you are going to hit or not.

Baldies on the front, ABS tries to stop them from locking up, the rear wheels won't stop you quickly enough, ABS can't overcome the laws of Physics :pac:

166man

RoverJames wrote: »

It's quite simple really imo............

How often have you lost the back of a fwd car? If the answer is never that's because you drive to the conditions and are responsible and capable behind the wheel.

How often have you needed to brake suddenly? The answer would be quite a few times I imagine for most of us.

I'd hate to have to brake suddenly in the wet and find my 4mm threaded front tyres stopped me a foot or two too late as my 8mm new tyres were on the back as the tyre industry etc reckon that's the best place for them

If you are losing the back of a fwd car often enough to justify putting new tyres on the back than you'll be having a crash soon enough anyway I reckon regardless of the condition of your tyres and where you put the good ones.

+1

I'm with RJ on this one and the key sentence in that post is the one about braking. I have lost count of the number of times that I have had to stop suddenly due to poor driving in poor weather conditions by other users over the last year and good tyres on the front have been crucial. I don't drive like a maniac and as a result have never had to deal with oversteer on a public road.

The front tyres on the 156 do wear quicker than the rears and especially on the 159 but I think it's down to crap suspension on the 156 and a heavy engine in the 159.

sundodger5

Baldies anywhere you deserve what you get.
Questions 1 : stopping distance between new and tyes at 1.6mm (legal limit)
2: two cars identical cars on motorway, 1 doing 100 mph other doing 70 mph bothe have to emergency stop. when the car doing 70 is at a standstill what speed is the other car doing.
best guess folks keep away from google.

sundodger5

sundodger5 wrote: »

Baldies anywhere you deserve what you get.
Questions 1 : stopping distance between new and tyes at 1.6mm (legal limit)
2: two cars identical cars on motorway, 1 doing 100 mph other doing 70 mph bothe have to emergency stop. when the car doing 70 is at a standstill what speed is the other car doing.
best guess folks keep away from google.

I'm not making any guesses to amuse you tbh
And I'm sure as feck not going googling either.

My baldies comment was in reponse to you overestimating what ABS does.


Here's one for you, two cars identical cars on motorway, both doing 70mph in the wet, one has 4mm tyres on the front and 8mm tyres on the back, the other has 8mm tyres on the front and 4mm tyres on the back, both have to emergency stop, which stops first?

A nice exploration of your ABS theory.

sundodger5

the big assumption here is that in all cases you will be braking in a straight line
my first refers to tread depth difference in stopping distance new vs 1.6 is twice the distance.
the second refers to inertia in the example i gave the 100mph car is still doing 70mph when the other one is stopped.
1:facts vs opinion 2 : dont exceed your grip 3: if you did then no problem
Rover james what are the answers to your questions?

650Ginge

RoverJames wrote: »

sundodger5 wrote: »

Baldies anywhere you deserve what you get.
Questions 1 : stopping distance between new and tyes at 1.6mm (legal limit)
2: two cars identical cars on motorway, 1 doing 100 mph other doing 70 mph bothe have to emergency stop. when the car doing 70 is at a standstill what speed is the other car doing.
best guess folks keep away from google.

I'm not making any guesses to amuse you tbh
And I'm sure as feck not going googling either.

My baldies comment was in reponse to you overestimating what ABS does.

Sure don't bother then, stay thick!

650Ginge

650Ginge wrote: »

Sure don't bother then, stay thick!

How would guessing improve my knowledge?
I was told not to google :rolleyes:

No need for personal abuse :P

650Ginge

RoverJames wrote: »

650Ginge wrote: »

Sure don't bother then, stay thick!

How would guessing improve my knowledge?
I was told not to google :rolleyes:

No need for personal abuse :P

Ok sorry was badly phrased, no personal i insult intended, apologies.

Owen

Even manufacturers know a car has more braking force at the front. Thats why for years cars came with discs on the front, drums on the rear, and why now they have bigger discs on the front than on the rear. It's why Motorbikes have 2 320mm discs on the front, and one piddling 240 on the rear.

The real expert here is a user called Mr. David. He designs brake systems for Jaguar. Would love to see his input on this.

TestTransmission

650Ginge wrote: »

Sure don't bother then, stay thick!

650Ginge wrote: »

Ok sorry was badly phrased, no personal i insult intended, apologies.

If you're gonna post in motors , be civil or you'll be banned

650Ginge

Owen wrote: »

Even manufacturers know a car has more braking force at the front. Thats why for years cars came with discs on the front, drums on the rear, and why now they have bigger discs on the front than on the rear. It's why Motorbikes have 2 320mm discs on the front, and one piddling 240 on the rear.

The real expert here is a user called Mr. David. He designs brake systems for Jaguar. Would love to see his input on this.

The point here for fwd cars is lift-off oversteer not necessarily braking force. My Prius will go side ways in any wet roundabout with the crappy plastic Chinese Tyres the dealer stuck on it. A Prius side ways in lift off. That's ridiculous but it happens albeit not driving in normal Prius driver mode. 90% tread on the Tyres.

Still interested to heat what Mr David has to say.

Owen

I was addressing the braking force argument made earlier in the thread. But now that you've told us you drive a Prius, you opinions now have no weight here at all .... :pac:;)

Keith186

I've experience with driving my car with good tyres and bad tyres on both axles at different times.

I'd definitely prefer good tyres on the front if I couldn't have four good ones.

With poor tyres (still over legal limit) on the front the car would skid when braking in the wet quite easily and understeer a lot on roundabouts.

When they're on the back you wouldn't really realise you had crap tyres, barely ever compared to when they're on the front.

That's driving a short wheel base fwd, if it had a long wheel base I'd say you'd notice it more if you had poor tyres and there'd be more centrifugal force and it'd spin way easier.

650Ginge

Owen wrote: »

I was addressing the braking force argument made earlier in the thread. But now that you've told us you drive a Prius, you opinions now have no weight here at all .... :pac:;)

The Prius is the 37th car I have owned I am 38. Had 6 motorbikes and 3 cans too. I want a 911, I am currently looking to make it car number 38.

166man

650Ginge wrote: »

The Prius is the 37th car I have owned I am 38. Had 6 motorbikes and 3 cans too. I want a 911, I am currently looking to make it car number 38.

6 motorbikes and 3 cans can't be a good combination really.. :D