Just got two new tires, and they put them on the rear. I was told that is where the newest tires should go...but why? Seems like a blow-out on the front wheels would be more dangerous than on the rear since you would lose ability to steer, correct? Thanks guys!

 

Hrm...

I *think* that applies to RWD vehicles. For instance...

With motorhomes, you never buy a new set of (6) tires - at least nobody I know does - you buy 2 at a time.

The 2 new tires go on the right-rear (dualies) 'cause that's what does all the pushing!

The 2 tires off the right-rear are moved to the front-end, which do the steering, and most of the braking.

And, the 2 front tires are moved to the left-rear. All they do is hold the left-rear up in the air.

With a FWD vehicle, like my '98 Vic, I put my best tires in the front 'cause they do all the pulling, the steering, and most of the braking. The back tires just hold the rear-end up.

The only reason I can think of for putting the new tires in the rear is if you drive in an area with a lot of road debris! The front tires tend to roll over nails and screws, stand them up on end (every so often), making it easier to puncture worn/thin rear tires. Matter of fact, I can't remember the last time I had a 'flat' on the front!

Anyway, I'd put the new tires on the front...

 

Thanks, interesting about the road debris. The guy knew it was a FWD Civic, his defense was that a blowout on the front is LESS dangerous than on the rear. Seems like common sense would dictate the opposite, since as you said, the front tires do all the steering/controlling. Seems like a rear flat would allow the car to continue in a straight line, since rear tires don't turn and cant be influenced to turn by a flat tire.

 

Yeah, it all depends on the car, I suppose...

I was driving an old Chevy Corvair once, and a welding rod went through the right-rear sidewall.

LoL!

I was only doing 35 MPH, but ended up going from sidewalk-to-sidewalk, one side of the street to the other, before I got it under control... No kidding!

Somebody wrote a book about those things flipping over, called 'Unsafe At Any Speed' or whatever....

Made a believer out of me!

 

The rear affects directional stability. If you ever blow the rear out, you'll notice that the car is all kinds of squirelly under braking. That's why early ABS cars like the Mitsu. Starion had rear ABS only.

 

Good tires go on the rear of a FWD car so you don't "overdrive" your tires.

Regardless of it being manufacturer backed and tested, this shows the facts:

http://www.michelinman.com/tire-care...artire-change/

 

That advice is NOT specific to RWD cars (or any car in particular). It has to do with handling.

Most tire shops and experts will tell you to put the tires with more tread on the rear, so that during cornering, the car will understeer (have a tendency to "plow" straight ahead, when the rear grips better than the front) rather than oversteer (have a tendency for the rear end to swing around on you, when the front grips better than the rear). The reason they advise this is that understeer is considered safer than oversteer.

However, there is a different reason to put the tires with more tread on the front, on FWD cars like most of ours. Because front tires wear faster than rear tires on FWD cars, this will even out the treadwear, so that all four tires wear out at the same time.

This is your decision, of course. As for me, I like to take the latter approach, and put the tires with more tread depth on the front. (I also try to rotate the tires frequently enough so that the difference in tread depth between one pair of tires and the other is never all that great.)

Oh, and if they put them on the front, and you want them on the rear instead, on most of our cars it's easy to swap them. On the FWD cars like Civics and Integras, if you jack up the car using the jacking point just behind the front wheel well, you can lift the entire side of the car (both wheels) off the ground with one jacking. Switch the two tires while they're both up in the air and that side is done.

 

why not just get 4 new tires

 

Too expensive?

 

Yep, 'tis the season to be broke.

 

If you still have enough tread depth on two of the tires, you can still use them.

 

Yep, me too...

And, once the difference gets too great NO amount of rotating will make up for it!

Plus, if you don't rotate frequently enough, you run the risk of ending up with out-of-round tires that are impossible to balance.

LoL!

I got 90,000+ miles out of Costco Michelin X-Radials on a Caddy Coupe DeVille by rotating & balanced them every 5,000 miles. Matter of fact, I got 90K+ miles twice on this same brand of tire. The first set just got old (7 years) and I started getting thread separation problems, one tire after the other. The second set was still on the Caddy when I sold it, and doing fine.

Alternately, I got lazy with my Vic and wrecked a new set of Pirellis by NOT rotating them for 30,000 miles - my bad!

Besides protecting your investment, rotating your tires every 5K or whatever gives you a chance to clean & shine your rims and tires inside n' out, while they're off your ride!

 

I work at a tire shop. The reason for this is(using a FWD vehicle) if you put 2 new tires on the front and leave 2 old half or more worn tires on the back. If you are going around a curve at highway speeds when roads are wet, the new tires will grip better than the worn tires that are on the rear causing the rear end to slide out. This is why they say the new tires go on back. This is called the 2 tire policy. Yes we think it is stupid. We have had alot of complaints about this, but it is company policy and if we dont go by it then we are not doing our jobs correct.