Replacing front tires

I always followed the pattern, similar to what Nate described, under
these circumstances.

1] The rear tires were less worn and in good shape [more prevalent on
FWD than RWD].

2] Whether the car was FWD or RWD, I did this on both drive systems, I
always rotated the better back tires to the front, and put the new tread
on the back.

Sure beats $$$ for 4 all-around, I still ended up with better tread
front tires and new on the back. That is a real-world situation for
most folks, just spend what is needed to keep the car reasonably safe,
and I truly don't care if others say do it right always. That is
certainly good advice, but not always practical advice for limited
budgets.

However, a drawback to this. Tire rotation, later, which many folks
neglect, will then put the more worn tires on the back, or if they
follow an X-pattern rotation, they get a worn and a new tire on both
axles.

Myself, I pay attention to that, as best as I can on a limited budget.
I haven't had any problems with two new instead of four new tires.


--
Knifeblade_03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knifeblade_03's Profile: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...?userid=262826
View this thread: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...d.php?t=614066

http://www.automotiveforums.com

SP Cook > wrote in article
. com>...
>
>
>
> It is dangerous and foolish to replace only two tires on any front
> wheel drive car.
>

Don't you just love guys who make a statement such as the one above, but
give absolutely no rational reason or reasonable support for it?

Musta' been the guys at the local Elks club told him that over a few
beers......

Or, maybe his Grampa' told him that on the same day he recommended carrying
around a chamois to strain the water out of the gasoline.......just like he
did with his brand-new Model T Ford....

"Don't EVER put two tires on a FWD, and ALWAYS strain your gasoline through
a chamois to remove the water..."

SP Cook wrote:

> Wally wrote:
> > Hi.
> > I have an '89 Olds car with 4 Goodyear Aquatred tires on it.
> > I need to replace the front pair of tires as the car will not pass
> > state inspection because of tread depth. I want to just replace the
> > front tires as the rear tires are still in good shape, tread-wise.
>
> It is dangerous and foolish to replace only two tires on any front
> wheel drive car.

What utter rubbish !

Graham

On 2 Sep 2006 18:06:41 -0700, "SP Cook" > wrote:

>
>Wally wrote:
>> Hi.
>> I have an '89 Olds car with 4 Goodyear Aquatred tires on it.
>> I need to replace the front pair of tires as the car will not pass
>> state inspection because of tread depth. I want to just replace the
>> front tires as the rear tires are still in good shape, tread-wise.
>
>
>It is dangerous and foolish to replace only two tires on any front
>wheel drive car.
>
>Spend the money and buy four good standard tires.

On a FWD car, the rears simply follow the front. They don't even
provide power, as they do on a RWD car.
There's no need to replace good tires on the rear.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Bill Funk" > wrote
> On 2 Sep 2006 18:06:41 -0700, "SP Cook" > wrote:
>>Wally wrote:
>>> I have an '89 Olds car with 4 Goodyear Aquatred tires on it.
>>> I need to replace the front pair of tires as the car will not pass
>>> state inspection because of tread depth. I want to just replace the
>>> front tires as the rear tires are still in good shape, tread-wise.
>>
>>It is dangerous and foolish to replace only two tires on any front
>>wheel drive car.
>>
>>Spend the money and buy four good standard tires.
>
> On a FWD car, the rears simply follow the front. They don't even
> provide power, as they do on a RWD car.
> There's no need to replace good tires on the rear.

I think this should be clarified. When buying two tires (usually
to replace the fronts which wear faster than the rears on a FWD
car), the NEW tires should be placed on the REAR. The reason
is that leaving the worn (but still legal) tires on the rear exposes
the car to possibly severe oversteer conditions in wet when the
rears hydroplane and the fronts (with new rubber) do not.

FloydR

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 11:38:49 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"
> wrote:

>> On a FWD car, the rears simply follow the front. They don't even
>> provide power, as they do on a RWD car.
>> There's no need to replace good tires on the rear.
>
>I think this should be clarified. When buying two tires (usually
>to replace the fronts which wear faster than the rears on a FWD
>car), the NEW tires should be placed on the REAR. The reason
>is that leaving the worn (but still legal) tires on the rear exposes
>the car to possibly severe oversteer conditions in wet when the
>rears hydroplane and the fronts (with new rubber) do not.
>
>FloydR

IMO:
Sounds good in theory, but in practice, my experience (very limited!)
is different.
In an F-250 (>6000lbs) with equal tires front & rear, the only
hydroplaning experience I've had occured; the front tiers were
hydroplaning. When I turned the sterering wheel, nothing happened. I
let up on the throttle, and a few seconds later, the truck turned.
It wasn't the rear tires (the less loaded tires) that floated, but the
fronts (with equal water on the road all around). When I let off the
throttle, the rear tires slowed the truck.
Just my (limited) experience.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

In article >, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 11:38:49 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"
> wrote:
>
>>> On a FWD car, the rears simply follow the front. They don't even
>>> provide power, as they do on a RWD car.
>>> There's no need to replace good tires on the rear.
>>
>>I think this should be clarified. When buying two tires (usually
>>to replace the fronts which wear faster than the rears on a FWD
>>car), the NEW tires should be placed on the REAR. The reason
>>is that leaving the worn (but still legal) tires on the rear exposes
>>the car to possibly severe oversteer conditions in wet when the
>>rears hydroplane and the fronts (with new rubber) do not.

> IMO:
> Sounds good in theory, but in practice, my experience (very limited!)
> is different.
> In an F-250 (>6000lbs) with equal tires front & rear, the only
> hydroplaning experience I've had occured; the front tiers were
> hydroplaning. When I turned the sterering wheel, nothing happened. I
> let up on the throttle, and a few seconds later, the truck turned.
> It wasn't the rear tires (the less loaded tires) that floated, but the
> fronts (with equal water on the road all around). When I let off the
> throttle, the rear tires slowed the truck.
> Just my (limited) experience.

Your experience supports putting the good tires on the rear. This way
instead of having the rear come around, one can just let up on the
throttle and allow the vehicle to slow to where the fronts grip again.

Even in a FWD car, there is friction to slow the car, just not engine
braking from the rear.

"Bill Funk" > wrote
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 11:38:49 -0700, "Floyd Rogers" wrote:
>>> On a FWD car, the rears simply follow the front. They don't even
>>> provide power, as they do on a RWD car.
>>> There's no need to replace good tires on the rear.
>>
>>I think this should be clarified. When buying two tires (usually
>>to replace the fronts which wear faster than the rears on a FWD
>>car), the NEW tires should be placed on the REAR. The reason
>>is that leaving the worn (but still legal) tires on the rear exposes
>>the car to possibly severe oversteer conditions in wet when the
>>rears hydroplane and the fronts (with new rubber) do not.
>>
> IMO:
> Sounds good in theory, but in practice, my experience (very limited!)
> is different.
> In an F-250 (>6000lbs) with equal tires front & rear, the only
> hydroplaning experience I've had occured; the front tiers were
> hydroplaning. When I turned the sterering wheel, nothing happened. I
> let up on the throttle, and a few seconds later, the truck turned.
> It wasn't the rear tires (the less loaded tires) that floated, but the
> fronts (with equal water on the road all around). When I let off the
> throttle, the rear tires slowed the truck.
> Just my (limited) experience.

That's a very different situation: 1) RWD vs. FWD, 2) equal tread
depth (vs. less depth in rear), 3) understeer vs. oversteer (induced
by hydroplaning.).

Placing the best tires on the rear virtually guarantees that the fronts
will hydroplane 1st, which results in an understeer (and easily controlled)
condition.

Oversteer is rarely encountered because most drivers are used to
understeer (all FWD cars understeer, indeed most RWD cars are
tuned to provide understeer as a first response). Oversteer is
definitely to be avoided by the majority of drivers, since almost
none of them have experienced or trained for it.

FloydR

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 2 Sep 2006 18:06:41 -0700, "SP Cook" > wrote:
>
>
>>Wally wrote:
>>
>>>Hi.
>>>I have an '89 Olds car with 4 Goodyear Aquatred tires on it.
>>>I need to replace the front pair of tires as the car will not pass
>>>state inspection because of tread depth. I want to just replace the
>>>front tires as the rear tires are still in good shape, tread-wise.
>>
>>
>>It is dangerous and foolish to replace only two tires on any front
>>wheel drive car.
>>
>>Spend the money and buy four good standard tires.
>
>
> On a FWD car, the rears simply follow the front. They don't even
> provide power, as they do on a RWD car.
> There's no need to replace good tires on the rear.

Unless you like keeping the front of the car pointed forwards, that is.
see my other post

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:53:39 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 11:38:49 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"
> wrote:
>>
>>>> On a FWD car, the rears simply follow the front. They don't even
>>>> provide power, as they do on a RWD car.
>>>> There's no need to replace good tires on the rear.
>>>
>>>I think this should be clarified. When buying two tires (usually
>>>to replace the fronts which wear faster than the rears on a FWD
>>>car), the NEW tires should be placed on the REAR. The reason
>>>is that leaving the worn (but still legal) tires on the rear exposes
>>>the car to possibly severe oversteer conditions in wet when the
>>>rears hydroplane and the fronts (with new rubber) do not.
>
>> IMO:
>> Sounds good in theory, but in practice, my experience (very limited!)
>> is different.
>> In an F-250 (>6000lbs) with equal tires front & rear, the only
>> hydroplaning experience I've had occured; the front tiers were
>> hydroplaning. When I turned the sterering wheel, nothing happened. I
>> let up on the throttle, and a few seconds later, the truck turned.
>> It wasn't the rear tires (the less loaded tires) that floated, but the
>> fronts (with equal water on the road all around). When I let off the
>> throttle, the rear tires slowed the truck.
>> Just my (limited) experience.
>
>Your experience supports putting the good tires on the rear. This way
>instead of having the rear come around, one can just let up on the
>throttle and allow the vehicle to slow to where the fronts grip again.

My experience was that the front tires floated; why would this support
putting the better (not *good*; the rear tires were good) on the rear?
Then the fronts still would have floated.
>
>Even in a FWD car, there is friction to slow the car, just not engine
>braking from the rear.
>
>

This would mean you'd want the better tires on the front, to provide
engine braking. The rear tires on a FWD cars just follow along,
providing very little resistance (friction losses to speed). You can
see this by jacking up the car, and spinning the rear tires.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"