When only putting 2 new tires on a vehicle where do the new tires go, the front or back?

Big argument here at work about this. Most people said if you have a front wheel drive vehicle the new tires go on the front.

Some say if you have an All Wheel Drive vehicle it doesn't matter, front or back.

If you have a rear wheel drive vehicle the new tires should go on the rear.

This is how it works:

When only purchasing 2 new tires for a vehicle, insist that the two new tires go on the REAR of the vehicle no matter what the drive is, FWD, AWD or RWD, it doesn't matter.

Now, tires dealers are allowed to mount the new tires on the front ONLY if the tread on the rear tires shows less than 1/32" of wear from original tread depth when the tire was new. Example if the rear tires had an original tread depth of 3/32", you could mount your new tires on the front ONLY if the tread on the rear tires shows a depth of MORE than 2/32".

BUT, most tire dealers will install the new tires on the rear of the vehicle no matter what, on any vehicle regardless of tread wear or the type of drive.

The reason for mounting new tires on the rear is to prevent hydroplaning.

 

"Allowed" by whom? They will put the new tires where I tell them to put them or they won't be getting my business. If my front tires are worn more than my rears and I can only afford two new tires, then the new ones are going up front (assuming we are talking about a FWD car).

My sister had a tire place tell her they weren't allowed to rotate her tires because they are over five years old. They told her it was a requirement of the Tire Manufacturers Association or some such nonsense when she really pushed the issue but they had originally implied that it was a legal thing. Sounds like a scam to sell tires to people who don't need tires.

 

Originally Posted by tonyford
Now, tires dealers are allowed to mount the new tires on the front ONLY if the tread on the rear tires shows less than 1/32" of wear from original tread depth when the tire was new..

This is state law...and no, they will not automatically put 2 new tires "where you tell them" to put them if you tell them you wanted them mounted on the front. The back tires first will be checked for tread depth as mentioned and if they meet the requirement, only then, will the new tires be mounted on the front...

 

You live in a nanny state too? What a bunch of nonsense. Sounds like your state legislature is in the bag for the tire manufacturers.

Guess I'd be an outlaw and sneak over the state line and buy my tires in a reasonable state (like many people here go to NH to save 6.25% sales tax). Or, just walk into the tire place with two rims and tell the dude to mount the tires and I'd install myself.

Just curious - does your state have rules about tire rotation and are they forced to measure tread depth before they can rotate front to back?

 

QUOTE: If my front tires are worn more than my rears and I can only afford two new tires, then the new ones are going up front (assuming we are talking about a FWD car).

This is dangerous and absolutely, completely wrong. Anyone who reads this, do NOT do this. It does not matter if you have a FWD, AWD, or RWD vehicle, new tires must be mounted on the rear for safety.

Watch this video and do research yourself before believing anything posted on a forum by uninformed posters:

YouTube - Install Two New Tires on the Rear Axle

 

When replacing two tires, it's safer to put the new ones on the rear.

 

So, this uninformed poster with well over 1.5 million miles of at-fault accident free driving who has also never hydroplaned a vehicle has a question.....

If my rear tires, with an original tread depth of around 10/32"(not the 3/32" in your example), are worn to 9/32", then the tire place isn't allowed to put tires on the front of my vehicle but it would be perfectly legal for me to drive my vehicle with 3/32" of tread depth remaining? Oh yeah. and the car would pass inspection this way as well.

SO, instead of tossing insults around, why don't you explain your position a bit better.

And by the way, where I live we have this thing called snow. I am still going to put the better tires up front in a FWD vehicle so that I have better traction in the snow and I am going to do what I have always done - reduce my speed in wet conditions so that I don't run the risk of hydroplaning.

 

9/32 rear and 10/32 rear wouldn't make much difference. USUALLY we are talking 5/32 left on the old tires, and the new ones are 10/32. See the video for how that works.

As for snow conditions, ok, you need traction up front to GET GOING. How do you turn corners and stop if you have substantially (not just a little) less tread on the back?

Congrats on your safe driving record.

As for "laws", insurance requirements, and legal precedents that guide or mandate certain policies: There's usually a line of tombstones behind those, as bad tires result in stacks of dead bodies all the time.

 

Its all a matter of oversteer vs understeer. Oversteer is more likely to lead to a loss of control, hence the better tires go on the rear.

 

It is really a moot point with me anyway. I rotate my tires for even wear, change tires well before I hit the wear bars and would never change just two tires at a time.

But, so far all anyone has proven to me is that if you drive too fast on a curvy, wet track with bald tires then you might spin out.

 

Then why are you arguing about this? I just posted this because some people still believe that when buying just two tires they can mounted anywhere, front or back. That is wrong if the back tires are worn to an unsafe point.

I will agree that you can mount 2 new tires on the front of a vehicle with this scenario:

You need new tires, they are worn, but still have a little life to them. You don't have the cash to buy 4 new tires at the time so you buy only 2 and are convinced by whomever and use good judgment that they go on the back of the vehicle. 2 months pass and you saved up enough money to buy the other 2 tires you need. Now in 2 months, unless you made several cross country trips to California back to New York in those 2 months, these 2 new tires can safely be put on the front of the vehicle.

You again are wrong about mounting new tires on the front of a FWD car because of snow traction. Most of the weight of a vehicle that is a FWD vehicle will fall on the front tires. That alone will give better traction even if the front tires are worn. You want your better tires on the rear in snow so the tires in the rear that have less weight bearing down on them will have new tread to help you get thru the snow
and avoid spin-outs while braking and cornering. The weight on the slightly worn front tires will equal out your traction if you have the new tires on the rear.

But you do have the best alternative, buy all 4 new tires at the same time...

 

Have you ever driven in snow? I have been driving for 29 years and have been driving FWD vehicles for about 20 years since I met my wife. Worn tires will most definitely spin badly in snow on FWD. You also lose steering ability and braking when the fronts don't have good tread.

If you were to mount snow tires on a FWD vehicle, where would they go?

 

No reputable tire dealer will mount snow tires on any vehicle FWD, AWD or RWD on the front:

"The tire guy is absolutely RIGHT, in fact no reputable tire shop will install two winter tires on the front of any vehicle. Grippier tires on the front will make the vehicle extremely unstable in situations in which you need control, going around corners and braking, do you want the rear end to spin around every time you go to stop on a wet or icy road? Read the links below for more detailed explanations.
Edit: hydroplaning is used to illustrate vehicle behavior in a reduced traction situation, icy, snow covered or slush covered roads will all follow the same dynamic principles. Yes getting going is an issue thats why everybody recommends 4 snow tires, but if you have to install only 2 put them in the back this is done for safety reasons: to save you from having an accident."

"The theory behind it is an imbalance of traction
exists if you have better tires on the front OR the back. If there is an
imbalance of traction, it is better to have less traction on the front
tires. The reason is, if the front tires lose grip, it is usually easier to
recover from that situation before it causes major paperwork. So if the
tire shop puts the new tires on the FRONT, there is a possible liability
situation. Basically, they put the new tires on the rear as there is less
chance that they will get sued that way."


With a front wheel drive vehicle the best bet is to have 4 snow tires installed so you have equal traction. If you only can purchase 2 snow tires it is better to have the better gripping tires on the rear of the vehicle with the assumption that the front tires are fairly good and not worn. We are not talking about bald tires here, I assume. Again, you want your better gripping tires on the rear of the vehicle for safety.

You seem that you cannot realize that you must have better traction in the rear of a vehicle no matter if it's snow or rain or any weather condition. Once you lose control of the rear of the vehicle in almost all cases you cannot regain control and who knows what will happen next. If you lose control of the front wheels it is much easier to get control back and most time most drivers do get control of the vehicle back, you cannot do this with loss of control of the rear.

By the way, I been driving in winter storms in the northeast for 48 years when we really had nor'easters,not these little pansy snow storms we have now. Those were the days when we put tire chains on cars and trucks to get around, no front wheel drive cars then, not that would make much difference.

Evidently you can't or don't want to admit you're wrong in your thinking and theory. So be it. But just take the advice given as a warning for you and your loved ones safety.

 

Your own post proved my point for me. I consider myself to be a highly competent driver. The "put the snow tires on the back of a FWD car" is merely to protect the tire store from liability in the event of the incompetent drivers. In other words, like so much of society, it has been dumbed down to the least common denominator.

Like was highlighted above - a competent driver can easily handle the imbalance. But, the highly competent driver will know the limits of the vehicle, obey the cardinal speed law BUT be prepared and capable of handling the worst case scenario.

So no, I won't admit I am wrong because I don't believe I am. I don't live my life worrying about how the less capable are doing things. I do what I feel is correct.

 

Like the title of this thread: "Controversy Settled" end of story...