Menu
What's new
By:
Advanced search...

Is it dangerous to swap front/back tyres over?

S

ship69

Members
Messages
274
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
Car
'08 i-DTEC EX man 5D
Hi

I have worn down my front tyres quite a lot at the front compared to the back. I was planning to swap front and rear around (as obviously the front tyres wear much faster being as they carry more weight, take more torque and even breaking goes more onto them) BUT the (aloof, arrogant, smug, condescending) guy at Honda told me that this would be "extremely dangerous" and refused to do so.

But I cant see why. I mean if the rear wheels lose grip first on a corner, that means that they will spin out which is called (correct me if I'm wrong) "oversteer", yes? And at this point you should simply steer into the direction that you want to go, yes? Which should correct the skid, yes?

Whereas I would have thought that the opposite (i.e. "understeer"?) is much more dangerous, because when the FRONT tyres give way first on a corner, the driver doesn't know whether to put more lock on or less... and the beginner's instinct is to steer towards where you want to go - i.e. to put more lock on, but this is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Am I correct? (Or what am I missing?)

J
 
John the dealer is wrong mate.I always rotate my fronts to the rear at about 10k.
This way you get the most out of your tyres and replace all 4 with the same amount of tread on.
If the fronts are not legal then I can understand but if they are do it.
 
Wasn't there some story from The States where some vehicle (a 4x4?) became unstable (and possibly injured someone) by having new tyres on the front and not the back (or vica-versa) and there was a big law suit. It has evolved into an urban legend and now everyone their two penneth about what constitutes 'dangerous'. Or am I remembering wrong?
 
With fwd its safer to have more tread on the rears then you just understeer if you push too hard but when you have worn rears and new tyres on the front theres danger of 'lift off oversteer ' occuring.
 
When I had a Mazda it was part of the annual service that front and rear wheels got swapped over.
 
Guys even if you don't rotate your tyres and just buy new fronts your still in the same predicament.
More tread in your front wheels.
As long as the fronts are legal i don't see the problem.
The only thing you will get is more drag if the tyres are worn uneven.
 
Well when you get 2 new front get them to fit them on the rear and make a habit of changing them round after 5 or 10k.
 
The last service I had at Honda, they advised this and did it for me FOC, so mate no I don't think they would have done it if it was dangerous.
 
Just buy 2 new tyres if they're on the limit, put the new on the back and the old backs on the front.
 
Personally, I don't like 'rotation' or front-back swaps. There is a period where the tyres need to bed into their new location and will therefore not be gripping as well as they were. And - because of the cost - I don't want all my tyres wearing out at the same time and needing to be replaced as a foursome. Like Trevor, I have the new pair put on the rear and move the old rears to the front. And best to have the newer. more grippy, tyres on the rear to avoid oversteer (which is a more serious problem than understeer).
 
The front versus rear for new tyres on FF cars is a hotly debated topic. Honda always offer to swap my wheels if the rears are more grippy than the fronts. But I think this is because they know it will make the car feel better as I pull away from the garage and think: wow what a great job they just did!

However, I have a very good relationship with my local tyre place, we're on first name terms and they always treat me very well. They advise the grippier tyres for the rear exactly as Jon says and they say every tyre manufacture recommends more grip on the rear for exactly this reason, regardless of front or rear wheel drive. So I'll echo Jon's sentiment here. Have your gripper tyres on the back.

However, as to whether or not it's dangerous to swap tyres, no, I don't believe swapping the tyres is dangerous as such. It's just the result of this: If it leaves you with poor grip on the rear then potentially yes. If your tyre-wear is uneven/angular because the camber is very different on the front compared to the back, then this too could be a real problem with contact surface area on either front or back. I think you need to ***ess your tyre's condition, ***ess the style of your car and make an informed choice. I don't see this as a clear-cut/black-white question if you know what I mean.
 
I certainly don't believe that tyre rotation is 'dangerous'.

Understeer is a very unlikely road situation, unless you enter a turn far too fast (or swerve at speed), and the Accord is nicely balanced. Oversteer is also unlikely on a FWD, but leads to such a significant vehicle displacement that you no longer know where the front wheels are pointing, so tend to over-compensate.
 
I might put some old tyres on the back then, wouldn't mind a bit of fun with lift off oversteer :ph34r:
 
In fwd front engined cars its a lot easier to deal with understeer rather than sudden lift off oversteer.

My EP3 Type R's were very sensitive to tyre choice and if they had more front end grip even a slight lift of throttle had the rear stepping out on wet rounderbouts.
 
If you rotate frequently - e.g. whenever you change summer/winter tires - the difference in tread wear front/back will not be significant and you won't notice under/oversteer, just a progressive lack of grip, down to the level when you will feel it's safer to change all tires. They all say it's better to have a better grip in the back but reality seems to contradict this - in everyday situations it just feels better to have more grip in the front.
 
I've always (last time a couple of weeks ago) put new tyres on the front of a FWD car and no tyre firm has ever queried it. I just don't believe this stuff about the difference between provoking understeer and oversteer at extremes. Don't go to extremes is my advice. I reckon that sort of advice has more to do with the tyre firm's balance sheet than anything else.
Doing it my way has worked for around 700,000 miles.
My first Accord - a 1982 second generation bought new - had a warning 'light' for tyre rotation.
 
'Don't go to extremes' is good advice, but you never know when you might have to swerve... not sure why you don't believe that less grippy tyres on the rear might provoke oversteer? I would have thought that to be obvious. I don't suppose your basic tyre fitter would query it, though, as it isn't illegal and they don't much care if you subsequently skid. And I don't see how that advice would help a tyre firm's balance sheet?
 
I don't really rotate my tyres because I would rather buy 2 at once than 4
The best example I have seen for having the tyres with the most tread on the rear was on 5th gear. They did one of their emergency brake tests with new tyres on front and back and I now know which I would go for. Try googleing it you might find it on YouTube
 
Dave G said:
I don't really rotate my tyres because I would rather buy 2 at once than 4
The best example I have seen for having the tyres with the most tread on the rear was on 5th gear. They did one of their emergency brake tests with new tyres on front and back and I now know which I would go for. Try googleing it you might find it on YouTube
Click to expand...
You still only buy 2, the fronts wear down much quicker than the rears, so you only rotate when you buy new fronts - you don't keep rotating them every week until they're all worn down.
 
Yes but some people rotate them every 6-10k miles until all 4 need replacing together. I have even known one person to include the spare in their tyre rotations so they needed to buy 5 at once!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top