I must have missed the memo on that?
I saw talk of "universal rules" and "averages". Shrug.Better to have new tyres at the front or at the back?
- Thread starter Ken
- Start date
I must have missed the memo on that?
I saw talk of "universal rules" and "averages". Shrug.
Company policy to always put the new tyres on the front is a bit like saying it's NHS policy to always replace the arteries on the left side of the heart first...it's just stupid, it very much depends on what kind of drive train the car has and what the wear levels on the current tyres are like etc.
I completely agree. As I said earlier, there are just too many factors for there to be a hard and fast rule. I thought most people would have agreed on this?
'Lean' running not leaning. I never saw you say that mind, but I'm pretty sure you mean lean
D'oh. You're right, I meant 'Lean'. Edited
Joshy, are you being Bentley and Rolls Royce specific with what you are saying or applying that theory to all other front engine RWD cars?
Front engine RWD MX5 (not much power) and the rears still wear 2x the speed of the fronts. I've literally just come from the garage to get them changed (new wheels and new tyres all around previously).
Front engine RWD MX5 (not much power) and the rears still wear 2x the speed of the fronts. I've literally just come from the garage to get them changed (new wheels and new tyres all around previously).
Just Bentley/Rolls Royce specific on my "on average" comment. I'm not trying to apply my "theory" to other cars because A) I don't have a theory to apply, my thinking is that there isn't a hard and fast rule and B) I don't have masses of experience with other being that I don't have a lot of experience with other makes and models (One of the biggest disadvantages of working at a Franchised dealer
) so I quite frankly do not know.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 2,328
- Location
- Ilkley / London
Associate
- Joined
- 15 May 2010
- Posts
- 98
- Location
- Ashford, kent
Just Bentley/Rolls Royce specific on my "on average" comment. I'm not trying to apply my "theory" to other cars because A) I don't have a theory to apply, my thinking is that there isn't a hard and fast rule and B) I don't have masses of experience with other being that I don't have a lot of experience with other makes and models (One of the biggest disadvantages of working at a Franchised dealer
Im not having a dig here joshy but surely Rolls Royce and Bentley are not your "average" car, they are not driven by your average driver either. I have only really ever seen either; the more mature well funded gentlemen driver or the young footballer/pop star.
Now how many miles do these cars average yearly? How often are they given a good country lane thrashing? What type of customers are buying cars from your franchised dealer?
I cant see any of the cars from your place of work ever being driven in an average way so how can you try and get your point across about the fronts wearing quicker than the rears on an average car
With decent tyres, even fairly worn ones I've not personally had a problem with unexpected loss of grip at the back and find understeer more annoying. I found that even at about 3mm the Falken 452's on the back of my 200sx still offered plenty of grip so I wouldn't bother swapping front to back if it needed new fronts. On the other had I'd also be thinking of replacing the rears soon anyway if they were less than 3mm.
I think the only situation were putting new tyres on the rear and swapping worn ones to the front would be if you're the sort of person to run the tyres down to the legal limit. Even in that situation I'd rather take my chances with a bit of possible oversteer rather than substandard braking performance.
The fronts will not be slipping (as much if at all) relative to to the road unlike the rears though, thus will wear far, far less.
The spinning up of the rears is what causes the higher wear rates, while the fronts are only there to provide lateral grip
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
oh calm down ladies,
johsy,
as said it is a big variying factor.
as your doing reports on lazy man cars that weigh as much as a house, its understandble the fronts wear quick, on that particular type of car, its got to turn and brake a a lot of wieght. and i doubt if you owned that car you would be spinning up the wheels cornering quickly or accelerating off the line like a boy racer
as for wear, the driven wheels 99% of the time wear quicker, as above ive owned a range of fwd and rwd cars and currently a bmw e34, and guess what all new tyres all the same make. as proof on the recipt from last owner and im about to change both rear tyres
now were not talking like 6mm fronts and 2 backs the fronts are close about 3.5/4mm and the rears are boarding illegal,
BUT.. to start a new handbags and 30 paces moment, its atturly even better to change all your tyres at once, BUT not economical
johsy,
as said it is a big variying factor.
as your doing reports on lazy man cars that weigh as much as a house, its understandble the fronts wear quick, on that particular type of car, its got to turn and brake a a lot of wieght. and i doubt if you owned that car you would be spinning up the wheels cornering quickly or accelerating off the line like a boy racer
as for wear, the driven wheels 99% of the time wear quicker, as above ive owned a range of fwd and rwd cars and currently a bmw e34, and guess what all new tyres all the same make. as proof on the recipt from last owner and im about to change both rear tyres
now were not talking like 6mm fronts and 2 backs the fronts are close about 3.5/4mm and the rears are boarding illegal,
BUT.. to start a new handbags and 30 paces moment, its atturly even better to change all your tyres at once, BUT not economical
[TW]Fox;16646384 said:
Seriously Fox, shut up.
I'm no longer going to sit here and try to justify my personal findings or my Company's policy to a wannabe Mike Brewer. I've said my piece, agree, disagree, quite frankly I don't actually care, just like I don't care about your Dislike/Distrust of Main Dealer Technicians - I'm in a better position to comment of the wear trends of Bentley tyres than you are. This is a fact.
Just like in the past, I've been in a better position to comment on the similarities of Volkswagen Phaeton and Bentley Continental series cars than you. Fact.
And I've been in a better position to comment on the lifespan of W12 engines than you. This is also a fact.
The sheer cheek of you to question what I see on almost a daily basis is utterly incredible.
Has nothing to do with purposely spinning up the tyres, in order to generate maximum longitudinal grip the tyres tend to travel 5-10% faster than the road (ie they are slipping)
ok ill word it differently, the forces applied to most rwd cars arent applied to Bentleys and Rolls Royce's in the sense there not driven around in the same manner due to there size
at the end of the day we got more people saying the same thing then not and in MY experience rwd's wear rear tyres quicker and fwd cars wear tyres faster at the front
any more hand bag wielding ladies?
at the end of the day we got more people saying the same thing then not and in MY experience rwd's wear rear tyres quicker and fwd cars wear tyres faster at the front
any more hand bag wielding ladies?
What you appear to be missing is that you are posting in a MOTORS forum. On average (there is that word again!), people here are more likely to have driven RWD cars on a regular basis than your man in the street. What does this mean to this debate? Well, you have people like Fox who currently has in his household THREE front-engine, rwd cars. Wicksta, who has posted his list of cars, NathanE etc etc and myself (I have owned both front and mid-engined RWD cars).
In just these four example owners, all have shown that, in their considerable combined wealth of experience, the driven wheels exhibit significantly higher wear rates than the wheels which are not driven. In each of our experiences, this difference in wear rate is a ratio of approximately 2:1 (2 sets of rear tyres to one set of fronts).
Unfortunately, your experience (and I don't know in what capacity you speak) has either been limited to the point where you have extrapolated incorrectly based on a very small data set or you simply do not have the experience you claim to have.
Most people in this thread are assuming the latter of those two possibilities and quite frankly, I am one of them.
well said that man, i dont think any one can argue a point in the above.
like i said Bentleys and Rolls Royce are a diffrent ball game. 1. they weigh like 3-4 ton, and 2: there tyres are reinforced.
we may as well compare my e34 tyre wear to a ferrari............
like i said Bentleys and Rolls Royce are a diffrent ball game. 1. they weigh like 3-4 ton, and 2: there tyres are reinforced.
we may as well compare my e34 tyre wear to a ferrari............
They hardly equate to being the "average" car though, which is what the majority of posters were referring to.