Hankook W404 anygood?
03-02-2006, 02:06 PM
#1
Hankook W404 anygood?
I am going to be buying winter tires and am looking for some advice. First, these winter tires are going on seperate rims from my summer tires. The car is a civic si, size 195-55-15.
I can get the Hankook W404 for $276 shipped from discount tire.
First are these a good choice?
Also I see they are studded winter tires on hankooks site. What does that exactly mean? Can they be used like regular studless winter tires or do you have to put in studs?
how would they compare to dunlop graspics which are only like $30 more?
Any info would be great!
Thanks
I can get the Hankook W404 for $276 shipped from discount tire.
First are these a good choice?
Also I see they are studded winter tires on hankooks site. What does that exactly mean? Can they be used like regular studless winter tires or do you have to put in studs?
how would they compare to dunlop graspics which are only like $30 more?
Any info would be great!
Thanks
03-02-2006, 07:21 PM
#2
H-T Order of Merit
Re: Hankook W404 anygood? (TurboEM1)
Studded tires are designed to hold studs, metal "teeth" that are inserted into holes in the tire and grip well on snow and ice. However, many locations have banned studs, and I wouldn't advise them unless you live at high elevations or someplace with a truly extreme winter climate. Otherwise, I would recommend against those tires, and suggest getting either a "studless winter tire" or a "performance winter tire".
There are a lot of excellent winter tires on the market, and most of them are available in 195/55-15. They tend to break down into two groups:
a) tires that have the very best traction on snow and ice, but have so-so ride and handling on days when it's not so cold; examples include the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50, Dunlop Graspic DS-2, and Michelin X-Ice. (The Tire Rack calls these tires "studless ice and snow tires".)
b) tires that have good traction on snow and ice and in cold, although not quite as good as the previous group, but they also have very good ride and handling characteristics on days when it's not so cold; examples include the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-22, Dunlop Winter Sport M3, and the Michelin Pilot Alpin PA2. (The Tire Rack calls these tires "performance winter tires".)
The choice between these two categories depends on the climate in your area, how much highway driving you do in the winter, how much you care about ultimate snow/ice grip versus ride comfort, whether you have another vehicle to use in the worst of winter, etc. Oh, and the tires in category (a) are usually significantly less expensive than category (b), which may be important. For example, I want the best snow/ice traction and I don't mind sacrificing some ride comfort and handling for those three months a year (mid-December to mid-March around here), and winter weather here in Chicago can be fairly nasty, so I have category (a) tires. But your priorities may be different, and you might be better off getting the category (b) tires.
The best category (a) "studless" tires, IMHO, are the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50. These tires have a "multicell compound" in the outer half of the tread, which acts like a sponge to soak up the moisture which melts when you drive on snow and ice. They really grip much, much better than other tires on those surfaces. They're $88/tire plus shipping from the Tire Rack. Granted, this is more than the Dunlop Graspic DS-2 ($70). But keep in mind that one set of winter tires may last you 6-8 winter seasons, if you drive on them 2-3K miles per winter, so you won't need to buy another set for many years.
There are a lot of excellent winter tires on the market, and most of them are available in 195/55-15. They tend to break down into two groups:
a) tires that have the very best traction on snow and ice, but have so-so ride and handling on days when it's not so cold; examples include the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50, Dunlop Graspic DS-2, and Michelin X-Ice. (The Tire Rack calls these tires "studless ice and snow tires".)
b) tires that have good traction on snow and ice and in cold, although not quite as good as the previous group, but they also have very good ride and handling characteristics on days when it's not so cold; examples include the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-22, Dunlop Winter Sport M3, and the Michelin Pilot Alpin PA2. (The Tire Rack calls these tires "performance winter tires".)
The choice between these two categories depends on the climate in your area, how much highway driving you do in the winter, how much you care about ultimate snow/ice grip versus ride comfort, whether you have another vehicle to use in the worst of winter, etc. Oh, and the tires in category (a) are usually significantly less expensive than category (b), which may be important. For example, I want the best snow/ice traction and I don't mind sacrificing some ride comfort and handling for those three months a year (mid-December to mid-March around here), and winter weather here in Chicago can be fairly nasty, so I have category (a) tires. But your priorities may be different, and you might be better off getting the category (b) tires.
The best category (a) "studless" tires, IMHO, are the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50. These tires have a "multicell compound" in the outer half of the tread, which acts like a sponge to soak up the moisture which melts when you drive on snow and ice. They really grip much, much better than other tires on those surfaces. They're $88/tire plus shipping from the Tire Rack. Granted, this is more than the Dunlop Graspic DS-2 ($70). But keep in mind that one set of winter tires may last you 6-8 winter seasons, if you drive on them 2-3K miles per winter, so you won't need to buy another set for many years.
03-03-2006, 09:20 AM
#3
Re: Hankook W404 anygood? (nsxtasy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Studded tires are designed to hold studs, metal "teeth" that are inserted into holes in the tire and grip well on snow and ice. However, many locations have banned studs, and I wouldn't advise them unless you live at high elevations or someplace with a truly extreme winter climate. Otherwise, I would recommend against those tires, and suggest getting either a "studless winter tire" or a "performance winter tire".
There are a lot of excellent winter tires on the market, and most of them are available in 195/55-15. They tend to break down into two groups:
a) tires that have the very best traction on snow and ice, but have so-so ride and handling on days when it's not so cold; examples include the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50, Dunlop Graspic DS-2, and Michelin X-Ice. (The Tire Rack calls these tires "studless ice and snow tires".)
b) tires that have good traction on snow and ice and in cold, although not quite as good as the previous group, but they also have very good ride and handling characteristics on days when it's not so cold; examples include the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-22, Dunlop Winter Sport M3, and the Michelin Pilot Alpin PA2. (The Tire Rack calls these tires "performance winter tires".)
The choice between these two categories depends on the climate in your area, how much highway driving you do in the winter, how much you care about ultimate snow/ice grip versus ride comfort, whether you have another vehicle to use in the worst of winter, etc. Oh, and the tires in category (a) are usually significantly less expensive than category (b), which may be important. For example, I want the best snow/ice traction and I don't mind sacrificing some ride comfort and handling for those three months a year (mid-December to mid-March around here), and winter weather here in Chicago can be fairly nasty, so I have category (a) tires. But your priorities may be different, and you might be better off getting the category (b) tires.
The best category (a) "studless" tires, IMHO, are the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50. These tires have a "multicell compound" in the outer half of the tread, which acts like a sponge to soak up the moisture which melts when you drive on snow and ice. They really grip much, much better than other tires on those surfaces. They're $88/tire plus shipping from the Tire Rack. Granted, this is more than the Dunlop Graspic DS-2 ($70). But keep in mind that one set of winter tires may last you 6-8 winter seasons, if you drive on them 2-3K miles per winter, so you won't need to buy another set for many years.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yea I dont think your allowed to use studs in the NYC and Long Island area. The weather is not bad enough to justify studs where i live anyway.
I would definatly be looking into category (a) tires. I have no problem sacrificing ride comfort for better performance, and the cheaper price is a plus.
Anyway, do you feel the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50 ($88 each +$72 total) are worth the price difference of the Dunlop Graspic DS-2 (70$ each). I would like to save almost $100 but if they are better I have no problem spending it. A $400 investment now can save my car because I have had to many close calls on my **** summer tires in the snow.
On a side note, My brother is going to buy snow tires at the same time as me (category (a)) except stock 14"crx si size (185-65-14 i think?). Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50 ($75 each) and Dunlop Graspic DS-2 ($56). Again Blizzaks worth the extra? I think he would like to keep this as cheap as possible so he will most likely get the Dunlops.
Any input is great. I really appreciate it!
There are a lot of excellent winter tires on the market, and most of them are available in 195/55-15. They tend to break down into two groups:
a) tires that have the very best traction on snow and ice, but have so-so ride and handling on days when it's not so cold; examples include the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50, Dunlop Graspic DS-2, and Michelin X-Ice. (The Tire Rack calls these tires "studless ice and snow tires".)
b) tires that have good traction on snow and ice and in cold, although not quite as good as the previous group, but they also have very good ride and handling characteristics on days when it's not so cold; examples include the Bridgestone Blizzak LM-22, Dunlop Winter Sport M3, and the Michelin Pilot Alpin PA2. (The Tire Rack calls these tires "performance winter tires".)
The choice between these two categories depends on the climate in your area, how much highway driving you do in the winter, how much you care about ultimate snow/ice grip versus ride comfort, whether you have another vehicle to use in the worst of winter, etc. Oh, and the tires in category (a) are usually significantly less expensive than category (b), which may be important. For example, I want the best snow/ice traction and I don't mind sacrificing some ride comfort and handling for those three months a year (mid-December to mid-March around here), and winter weather here in Chicago can be fairly nasty, so I have category (a) tires. But your priorities may be different, and you might be better off getting the category (b) tires.
The best category (a) "studless" tires, IMHO, are the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50. These tires have a "multicell compound" in the outer half of the tread, which acts like a sponge to soak up the moisture which melts when you drive on snow and ice. They really grip much, much better than other tires on those surfaces. They're $88/tire plus shipping from the Tire Rack. Granted, this is more than the Dunlop Graspic DS-2 ($70). But keep in mind that one set of winter tires may last you 6-8 winter seasons, if you drive on them 2-3K miles per winter, so you won't need to buy another set for many years.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yea I dont think your allowed to use studs in the NYC and Long Island area. The weather is not bad enough to justify studs where i live anyway.
I would definatly be looking into category (a) tires. I have no problem sacrificing ride comfort for better performance, and the cheaper price is a plus.
Anyway, do you feel the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50 ($88 each +$72 total) are worth the price difference of the Dunlop Graspic DS-2 (70$ each). I would like to save almost $100 but if they are better I have no problem spending it. A $400 investment now can save my car because I have had to many close calls on my **** summer tires in the snow.
On a side note, My brother is going to buy snow tires at the same time as me (category (a)) except stock 14"crx si size (185-65-14 i think?). Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50 ($75 each) and Dunlop Graspic DS-2 ($56). Again Blizzaks worth the extra? I think he would like to keep this as cheap as possible so he will most likely get the Dunlops.
Any input is great. I really appreciate it!
03-03-2006, 09:28 AM
#4
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ottawa,, top of the map
Posts: 2,641
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: Hankook W404 anygood? (TurboEM1)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TurboEM1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
. A $400 investment now can save my car because I have had to many close calls on my **** summer tires in the snow.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Wow, just wow.
I would say wait till next season to buy the new models of tires but I guess in your case that is not a possibility. Try giving the local newspaper classifieds a once over. Probably won't find anything this time of the year but you never know. It's where I buy all my winter tires. Save tons of money.
Cheers.
And I don't think they allow chains or studs anywhere on this continent anymore.
. A $400 investment now can save my car because I have had to many close calls on my **** summer tires in the snow.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Wow, just wow.
I would say wait till next season to buy the new models of tires but I guess in your case that is not a possibility. Try giving the local newspaper classifieds a once over. Probably won't find anything this time of the year but you never know. It's where I buy all my winter tires. Save tons of money.
Cheers.
And I don't think they allow chains or studs anywhere on this continent anymore.
03-03-2006, 12:25 PM
#5
H-T Order of Merit
Re: Hankook W404 anygood? (old man neri)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TurboEM1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yea I dont think your allowed to use studs in the NYC and Long Island area. The weather is not bad enough to justify studs where i live anyway.</TD></TR></TABLE>
They're not allowed in Illinois, either.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TurboEM1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">do you feel the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50 ($88 each +$72 total) are worth the price difference of the Dunlop Graspic DS-2 (70$ each).</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes.
You can see a test comparing the two on the Tire Rack website here. (They used an ice rink for testing.)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TurboEM1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">My brother is going to buy snow tires at the same time as me (category (a)) except stock 14"crx si size (185-65-14 i think?). Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50 ($75 each) and Dunlop Graspic DS-2 ($56). Again Blizzaks worth the extra?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes. Oh, and the proper 14" size for a CRX Si is 185/60-14, for which the WS-50 is $71.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by old man neri »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I would say wait till next season to buy the new models of tires but I guess in your case that is not a possibility. Try giving the local newspaper classifieds a once over. Probably won't find anything this time of the year but you never know. It's where I buy all my winter tires. Save tons of money.</TD></TR></TABLE>
If you're buying used winter tires, one thing I recommend watching out for is tread depth, which is different for these from regular summer and all-season tires. For example, most sizes of the Blizzak WS-50 come with a tread depth of 13/32". Only the outer 7/32" of that tread depth is made of the multicell compound that absorbs moisture on the road. So if you buy WS-50 tires with 50 percent of tread left, you're not going to be able to take advantage of the multicell compound's capabilities. Also, you normally don't use winter tires all the way down to the treadwear indicator bars at 2/32", because they're just not all that good on snow and ice when the tread gets low. Blizzaks have special "snow platform" tread depth indicators that connect the tread blocks, I think at 4/32", (not the normal straight bands across the tire that you find at 2/32") and these show where the tires should be retired (no pun intended) from winter service. Furthermore, many people are accustomed to evaluating tread depth as a percent going from 10/32" as new and 2/32" as needing replacement, so they'll call 8/32" as 80-90 percent tread left, whereas with these winter tires, at that point they're really 50 percent left and almost all the multicell compound is gone.
They're not allowed in Illinois, either.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TurboEM1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">do you feel the Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50 ($88 each +$72 total) are worth the price difference of the Dunlop Graspic DS-2 (70$ each).</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes.
You can see a test comparing the two on the Tire Rack website here. (They used an ice rink for testing.)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TurboEM1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">My brother is going to buy snow tires at the same time as me (category (a)) except stock 14"crx si size (185-65-14 i think?). Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50 ($75 each) and Dunlop Graspic DS-2 ($56). Again Blizzaks worth the extra?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes. Oh, and the proper 14" size for a CRX Si is 185/60-14, for which the WS-50 is $71.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by old man neri »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I would say wait till next season to buy the new models of tires but I guess in your case that is not a possibility. Try giving the local newspaper classifieds a once over. Probably won't find anything this time of the year but you never know. It's where I buy all my winter tires. Save tons of money.</TD></TR></TABLE>
If you're buying used winter tires, one thing I recommend watching out for is tread depth, which is different for these from regular summer and all-season tires. For example, most sizes of the Blizzak WS-50 come with a tread depth of 13/32". Only the outer 7/32" of that tread depth is made of the multicell compound that absorbs moisture on the road. So if you buy WS-50 tires with 50 percent of tread left, you're not going to be able to take advantage of the multicell compound's capabilities. Also, you normally don't use winter tires all the way down to the treadwear indicator bars at 2/32", because they're just not all that good on snow and ice when the tread gets low. Blizzaks have special "snow platform" tread depth indicators that connect the tread blocks, I think at 4/32", (not the normal straight bands across the tire that you find at 2/32") and these show where the tires should be retired (no pun intended) from winter service. Furthermore, many people are accustomed to evaluating tread depth as a percent going from 10/32" as new and 2/32" as needing replacement, so they'll call 8/32" as 80-90 percent tread left, whereas with these winter tires, at that point they're really 50 percent left and almost all the multicell compound is gone.
03-03-2006, 03:34 PM
#6
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ottawa,, top of the map
Posts: 2,641
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: Hankook W404 anygood? (nsxtasy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
If you're buying used winter tires, one thing I recommend watching out for is tread depth, .............(insert more good advice and knowledge)
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Ya, I forgot to mention that. I was just trying to save the guy some money, it sounded like he was in a bit of a crunch.
If you're buying used winter tires, one thing I recommend watching out for is tread depth, .............(insert more good advice and knowledge)
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Ya, I forgot to mention that. I was just trying to save the guy some money, it sounded like he was in a bit of a crunch.
03-03-2006, 05:08 PM
#7
H-T Order of Merit
Re: Hankook W404 anygood? (old man neri)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by old man neri »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ya, I forgot to mention that. I was just trying to save the guy some money, it sounded like he was in a bit of a crunch.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I know. There are times when used tires are a great deal. There are also times when used tires seem like a great deal, but turn out to be not so great. I've bought used winter tires several times, and have had both experiences...
I know. There are times when used tires are a great deal. There are also times when used tires seem like a great deal, but turn out to be not so great. I've bought used winter tires several times, and have had both experiences...
Trending Topics
03-04-2006, 03:27 AM
#8
Re: Hankook W404 anygood? (nsxtasy)
thanks for all the replies guys. You helped a lot. Ill be getting the blizzaks.
As a side note. For tires you should always replace all 4 at once correct? What if you replace 2 with the same tire and size its just newer. only asking because my brother has 3 all seasons and 1 got a flat. does he need to get all four, 1, or 2?
As a side note. For tires you should always replace all 4 at once correct? What if you replace 2 with the same tire and size its just newer. only asking because my brother has 3 all seasons and 1 got a flat. does he need to get all four, 1, or 2?
03-04-2006, 03:52 AM
#9
H-T Order of Merit
Re: Hankook W404 anygood? (TurboEM1)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TurboEM1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">For tires you should always replace all 4 at once correct?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Not necessarily. But usually, all four should match (same make/model of tire and, unless your car is designed for different size tires front vs rear, same size too).
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TurboEM1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What if you replace 2 with the same tire and size its just newer.</TD></TR></TABLE>
That's fine. I do it all the time.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TurboEM1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">my brother has 3 all seasons and 1 got a flat. does he need to get all four, 1, or 2?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I would just get 1. (Although I think some people might tell you to get 2, if the tread depth is drastically different from the others.)
Not necessarily. But usually, all four should match (same make/model of tire and, unless your car is designed for different size tires front vs rear, same size too).
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TurboEM1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What if you replace 2 with the same tire and size its just newer.</TD></TR></TABLE>
That's fine. I do it all the time.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TurboEM1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">my brother has 3 all seasons and 1 got a flat. does he need to get all four, 1, or 2?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I would just get 1. (Although I think some people might tell you to get 2, if the tread depth is drastically different from the others.)
03-04-2006, 07:34 AM
#10
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ottawa,, top of the map
Posts: 2,641
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: Hankook W404 anygood? (nsxtasy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I would just get 1. (Although I think some people might tell you to get 2, if the tread depth is drastically different from the others.)
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Here is a good one for ya. I know you are suppose to rotate your tires so they wear evenly. Lets say due to a flat you did need to get two. Do you put the two new ones on the front or on the back. If you put them on the front they will wear down quicker than the ones on the back and you will soon be able to rotate again. However, wouldn't 2 good tires on the front and two not as good tires on the back (let's say for this argument there is a substantial difference in wear) cause your car to be more subsceptable to oversteer (especially in snow or rain) as oppose to having the two bad tires on the front which would make your car more sbusceptable to the more preferable understeer? (What a long sentence)
I know of at least one tire place that if you decided to only get 2 winter tires they will put them on the back of your car, no matter what you say, to prevent oversteer. Liability.
I would just get 1. (Although I think some people might tell you to get 2, if the tread depth is drastically different from the others.)
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Here is a good one for ya. I know you are suppose to rotate your tires so they wear evenly. Lets say due to a flat you did need to get two. Do you put the two new ones on the front or on the back. If you put them on the front they will wear down quicker than the ones on the back and you will soon be able to rotate again. However, wouldn't 2 good tires on the front and two not as good tires on the back (let's say for this argument there is a substantial difference in wear) cause your car to be more subsceptable to oversteer (especially in snow or rain) as oppose to having the two bad tires on the front which would make your car more sbusceptable to the more preferable understeer? (What a long sentence)
I know of at least one tire place that if you decided to only get 2 winter tires they will put them on the back of your car, no matter what you say, to prevent oversteer. Liability.
03-04-2006, 10:25 AM
#11
H-T Order of Merit
Re: Hankook W404 anygood? (old man neri)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by old man neri »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Here is a good one for ya. I know you are suppose to rotate your tires so they wear evenly. Lets say due to a flat you did need to get two. Do you put the two new ones on the front or on the back. If you put them on the front they will wear down quicker than the ones on the back and you will soon be able to rotate again. However, wouldn't 2 good tires on the front and two not as good tires on the back (let's say for this argument there is a substantial difference in wear) cause your car to be more subsceptable to oversteer (especially in snow or rain) as oppose to having the two bad tires on the front which would make your car more sbusceptable to the more preferable understeer? (What a long sentence)
I know of at least one tire place that if you decided to only get 2 winter tires they will put them on the back of your car, no matter what you say, to prevent oversteer. Liability.</TD></TR></TABLE>
As usual, everything you say is true. And I consider both sides to have a valid argument (assuming you're talking about a FWD car).
What do I do, myself? I put new tires on the front. I prefer to have all my tires wear evenly, as a set of four, so that they eventually can be replaced as an entire set.
I know of at least one tire place that if you decided to only get 2 winter tires they will put them on the back of your car, no matter what you say, to prevent oversteer. Liability.</TD></TR></TABLE>
As usual, everything you say is true. And I consider both sides to have a valid argument (assuming you're talking about a FWD car).
What do I do, myself? I put new tires on the front. I prefer to have all my tires wear evenly, as a set of four, so that they eventually can be replaced as an entire set.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AJ@tirerack.com
Wheel and Tire
4
10-31-2019 04:57 AM
