Is It Better To Put New Tires on the Front or Back

[EricTheCarGuy]

I waited a looooooooong time to make this video. Last year I posted on social media about this question and it was easily the most popular social media post that I’ve ever done. So I decided to do my own testing as I’ve always believed it was better to put new tires on the front. In my case, it was better to put them on the front, but I’m sure some of you will disagree with that. If so, let’s talk it out.

Topic

[Vlad2]

With my FWD cars, I put the new tires on the front and make sure my rears at least have decent tread. If you drive with no or little tread on any of your tires, you will have issues like everyone is stating.. But FWD cars eat front tires. If my rears are good and I buy 2 new fronts, then I’ll stick them upfront. If you have 2 nearly bald tires your spin out in bad weather regardless were they they are.

What I do is put 2 new on the front and for winter driving, toss in some weight in the back.. (weight in the back of a FWD car? you are all thinking). Well most FWD cars are front heavy, I had a FWD caddy that was great in the snow, but the back was so light it would come around in snow new tires or not. So I tossed about 150 lbs back there, car stuck like glue then. A little weight to equalize things doesn’t hurt, I would pass my friends in SUVs in the parking lot as they were stuck.

Now my questions is, what do you do with an AWD car.. my fronts are a bit low, do I rotate them so the front has the better ones on it?

[Kriss]

Hello, and thanks for the video Eric! I have an observation that is somehow related to this. In late 2015 I swapped the front and rear wheels on my 2000 Citroën Xantia station wagon (FWD), because one of the front tires were out of balance, causing a steering wheel wobble. I also did it because the rear wheels had 5 mm of thread depth, while the front ones had about 1,5 mm.

However, this is where it gets interesting. The rear (now front) tires with 5 mm thread depth is old (from 2002) while the front (now rear) tires with 1,5 mm depth is from 2011. All of them are studless snow tires, two from michelin (2011) and two from pirelli (2002).

So, with my current configuration, using the oldest, but best threaded tires on the front, I feel that the handling is significantly better now than before. I should mention that I live in Norway, so the winters are fairly cold, with regular snow and ice. I should also add that I cannot afford new tires at the moment. If I could, I’ll just change all of them

[Mauri Virtanen]

[quote=”kajac” post=159078]The (now front) tires with 5 mm thread depth is old (from 2002) while the (now rear) tires with 1,5 mm depth is from 2011.[/quote]
So your front tires are from 2002? Wow… the rubber hardens over time and will not have proper grip on wet or snowy/icy road. However, I think the tires are somewhat balancing each other out in this case. Still, wouldn’t want to drive on a road with any standing water at any sort of speed with those tires.

Actually, those are illegal tires. In Norway (as in Finland) the minimum tread depth for winter tires is 3mm, so that 1.5mm tread is definitely too shallow. It’s even too shallow for summer tires, though only just.

[Daniel Beaird]

The reason new tires are recommended to go on the rear when purchasing in pairs is not for the reasons that were tested in this video.

Pleas allow me to try and explain.

First:
Several years ago a repair facility that I will not name was sued for wrongful death that resulted from a vehicle that HYDROPLANED in the rear causing the driver to spin out of control and crash. There have been other such lawsuits that have been won since this.

Second:
It is ONLY RECOMMENDED placing the new tires on the rear if the tread depth of the tires being kept on the vehicle is UNDER 3/32 of an inch. This is because on WET road surfaces tires that are worn below 3/32 are much more likely to hydroplane. Hydroplaning occurs at speeds ABOVE 35 MPH making it near to impossible to recover from the rear of your car sliding out from behind you. This is in contrast to what you would feel if the front of your car began to hydroplane giving you warning and allowing you to slow down. If the rear goes out it is already too late to recover especially since 35 MPH is the minimum speed that hydroplaning can occur, it is much more likely you will be going 45+ MPH.

So to clarify, it is not a snow ice traction thing that is the reason they recommend new tires on the rear of a vehicle. It is a wet curved road hydroplaning at speeds above 35 MPH scenario that is the reason. Also as long as the customer is told of this issue and it is documented that they were aware but still insisted on placing two tires on the front then there shouldn’t be any issue with doing as the customer wants.

[Dave]

[quote=”Beaird” post=159215]The reason new tires are recommended to go on the rear when purchasing in pairs is not for the reasons that were tested in this video.

Pleas allow me to try and explain.

First:
Several years ago a repair facility that I will not name was sued for wrongful death that resulted from a vehicle that HYDROPLANED in the rear causing the driver to spin out of control and crash. There have been other such lawsuits that have been won since this.

Second:
It is ONLY RECOMMENDED placing the new tires on the rear if the tread depth of the tires being kept on the vehicle is UNDER 3/32 of an inch. This is because on WET road surfaces tires that are worn below 3/32 are much more likely to hydroplane. Hydroplaning occurs at speeds ABOVE 35 MPH making it near to impossible to recover from the rear of your car sliding out from behind you. This is in contrast to what you would feel if the front of your car began to hydroplane giving you warning and allowing you to slow down. If the rear goes out it is already too late to recover especially since 35 MPH is the minimum speed that hydroplaning can occur, it is much more likely you will be going 45+ MPH.

So to clarify, it is not a snow ice traction thing that is the reason they recommend new tires on the rear of a vehicle. It is a wet curved road hydroplaning at speeds above 35 MPH scenario that is the reason. Also as long as the customer is told of this issue and it is documented that they were aware but still insisted on placing two tires on the front then there shouldn’t be any issue with doing as the customer wants.[/quote]

Only if said agreement is in writing. Documentation here is the only defense if there is a lawsuit.

[Clifford Wagner]

ETCG1,

Thank you for the great videos and for starting a lively discussion. You have given me much confidence to dig into my cars in a way I didn’t think I would. I’m currently in the middle of a head gasket replacement on a Chevy V6 4.3L. As a computer programmer, that’s not something I ever thought I would be doing. You are an inspiration and wellspring of knowledge to those of us trying to learn a new hobby or save a few bucks fixing our own cars (for me it is both).

First, you did not test “directional stability” in the cone avoidance test. You tested the car’s ability to maintain traction while accelerating. When you do test directional stability during the straight brake test the video evidence and your statements indicate that you achieved greater directional stability while braking with the new tires on the rear. This is in opposition to your stated conclusion.

Next, this has nothing to do with human reaction time or driving ability. You may be able to steer beautifully when you have advanced notice of the event. Recently my brother was driving on dry roads in the mountains and turned a corner to find a patch of slush covering the entire roadway. There was no time to react, his vehicle was immediately reversed in orientation and left the roadway before he could even react. He had new tires on the front and bald tires on the rear.

This video is a dangerous subject to broach primarily because you do not understand the premise behind the safety recommendation. You defend your position with references to under steering, directional stability, and commenting on your own driving ability, while none of those factors apply.

In this video you attempt to provide a workaround or cheat where two new and two bald tires perform as close to four new tires as possible. You do say it is better to get four new tires, but then you go on to show us how to unsafely get better performance out of mixed tires.

There is no way to cheat and get good performance out of bad tires. It is not “better” to buy four new tires — it is the only way to get new tire performance AND safety. There is no compromise or workaround where you can trick two bald tires into not being bald. If you have significantly different tread on your front and rear tires you must install them safely and accept the fact that you might not experience much benefit until you can afford two more.

If it is unsafe to drive a car with two bald tires, it is unsafe. End of story. Don’t drive a car that might not be able to avoid an obstacle. Don’t drive a car that might suddenly spin out of control. We are all correct in our arguments, but are drawing different conclusions because we are arguing different premises. The only reason we have any debate here is because we are trying to convince ourselves that saving $200 is worth the risk of driving a death trap.

For the record, I’d rather drive a car that drives like it has four bald tires because I will drive it slower and more cautiously. Putting the new tires on the front will only provide me with false confidence. It also may delay the purchase of new tires as the problem is masked, causing the unsafe condition to persist.

[EricTheCarGuy]

[quote=”cliffordwagner” post=172601]ETCG1,

Thank you for the great videos and for starting a lively discussion. You have given me much confidence to dig into my cars in a way I didn’t think I would. I’m currently in the middle of a head gasket replacement on a Chevy V6 4.3L. As a computer programmer, that’s not something I ever thought I would be doing. You are an inspiration and wellspring of knowledge to those of us trying to learn a new hobby or save a few bucks fixing our own cars (for me it is both).

First, you did not test “directional stability” in the cone avoidance test. You tested the car’s ability to maintain traction while accelerating. When you do test directional stability during the straight brake test the video evidence and your statements indicate that you achieved greater directional stability while braking with the new tires on the rear. This is in opposition to your stated conclusion.

Next, this has nothing to do with human reaction time or driving ability. You may be able to steer beautifully when you have advanced notice of the event. Recently my brother was driving on dry roads in the mountains and turned a corner to find a patch of slush covering the entire roadway. There was no time to react, his vehicle was immediately reversed in orientation and left the roadway before he could even react. He had new tires on the front and bald tires on the rear.

This video is a dangerous subject to broach primarily because you do not understand the premise behind the safety recommendation. You defend your position with references to under steering, directional stability, and commenting on your own driving ability, while none of those factors apply.

In this video you attempt to provide a workaround or cheat where two new and two bald tires perform as close to four new tires as possible. You do say it is better to get four new tires, but then you go on to show us how to unsafely get better performance out of mixed tires.

There is no way to cheat and get good performance out of bad tires. It is not “better” to buy four new tires — it is the only way to get new tire performance AND safety. There is no compromise or workaround where you can trick two bald tires into not being bald. If you have significantly different tread on your front and rear tires you must install them safely and accept the fact that you might not experience much benefit until you can afford two more.

If it is unsafe to drive a car with two bald tires, it is unsafe. End of story. Don’t drive a car that might not be able to avoid an obstacle. Don’t drive a car that might suddenly spin out of control. We are all correct in our arguments, but are drawing different conclusions because we are arguing different premises. The only reason we have any debate here is because we are trying to convince ourselves that saving $200 is worth the risk of driving a death trap.

For the record, I’d rather drive a car that drives like it has four bald tires because I will drive it slower and more cautiously. Putting the new tires on the front will only provide me with false confidence. It also may delay the purchase of new tires as the problem is masked, causing the unsafe condition to persist.[/quote]

I understand that it is best to put new tires in the back. The video has been posted for more than a year now and I’m not un-posting it. As you pointed out, I said in the video it is always best to get 4 new tires. Please read my previous comments because I’m a little worn out from repeating myself.

[Clifford Wagner]

I wouldn’t want to waste your time or ask you to repeat yourself. I tried to bring up new points that don’t seem to have been made.

You are absolutely correct that putting the new tires on the front wheels best for traction and performance (at least FWD). The problem is that you are incorrect to suggest anyone take advantage of those benefits considering the risk associated with using that configuration.

This is a subject I consider important. I could have lost my brother if he had hit a tree. He had two new tires on the front and instantly lost control of the vehicle as soon as he hit a patch of slush. The event is instantaneous and beyond the control of the driver, which is why the safety recommendation has been established despite the obvious performance benefit provided by ignoring it. The industry standard has to be established because it flies in the face of a reasonable person’s assumptions.

[EricTheCarGuy]

[quote=”cliffordwagner” post=172649]I wouldn’t want to waste your time or ask you to repeat yourself. I tried to bring up new points that don’t seem to have been made.

You are absolutely correct that putting the new tires on the front wheels best for traction and performance (at least FWD). The problem is that you are incorrect to suggest anyone take advantage of those benefits considering the risk associated with using that configuration.

This is a subject I consider important. I could have lost my brother if he had hit a tree. He had two new tires on the front and instantly lost control of the vehicle as soon as he hit a patch of slush. The event is instantaneous and beyond the control of the driver, which is why the safety recommendation has been established despite the obvious performance benefit provided by ignoring it. The industry standard has to be established because it flies in the face of a reasonable person’s assumptions.[/quote]

I never said it wasn’t an important topic. I read your post and much of what you brought up I have responded to in the past. I didn’t alter any part of the results in the video, they speak for themselves. I admit it wasn’t very ‘scientific’, but it did raise awareness on the topic. If nothing else people will be more cognizant of it in the future. Honestly I think the most important take away is to alter your driving to suite road conditions and the condition of your vehicle and it’s tires no matter where the best ones are mounted.

Thanks for your input.

[Author]

Replies