Let's make ur choice and we discuss it out later after we collect enough answer....

Thanks...

This can be a general knowledge for all....

This post has been edited by BuFung: Mar 30 2013, 06:00 PM

You may also tell ur reason why put it in front or rear...

Depends :
FF car i'll use better one for front and vice versa for FR.

Because usage and tyre wear will surely different.

Best tires to the rear.

If the front tires slip you can still steer out of danger.

If the rear tires slip all you need to do is pray

http://www.cartalk.com/content/why-should-...o-back-find-out

http://www.tirereview.com/article/81718/al..._rear_axle.aspx

Ya... Most of us think newer tyre should be in front. The actual fact is the better grip tyre shall be in rear....

This is more important than you have any ESP/vsc in ur car....

Hope thread get pin and others aware of this...

I voted wrongly. I always put on front wheel because better tyre will avoid slip.

I put new tires to which ever axle will wear it out faster. The reason is to try even out the wear. Having said that I always rotate every 10k km in order to try even out wear if all new tires, so when comes time to change it will be for all 4 tires at once. Note that this is assuming front & rear are the same size (not staggered). For my current ride, I cannot do that anymore since it's staggered sizes, so can only rotate left/right.

Change all one shot.
I dun like to be cheapskate when it comes to tires.
Tires = control = ur life

For safety reason new tyre at rear.

How to rotate left right? And why?

I just replace them all at once...

Why my perokdua change the front tire only?? Damn them. Wont go for them anymore.

new tyre, put in front, rear all nearly botak tyre..because front is where your car braking force act most..unless if your car is super long like mpv/limo, or tail-heavy,i dont think if it is gonna make any significant different to lose control of the rear..just my 2 cents..i could be wrong though..

This post has been edited by megat89: Mar 30 2013, 08:50 PM

basically i should always make sure rear tire is in better condition than front for my jazz and fiesta?

change all in 1 shot if have money
or the cheaper alternative would be change whichever is due changing
if the front botak, thn change both the front
usually the rear is not longer behind

better change all. most ff car prone to suffer understeer, if put botak tyre at front..corner+braking the weight and load will shift to the front. front tyre will always take more load and grip when braking.
some people might think understeer is easier to correct than oversteer, but how many of use here really2 expert in controlling the car?

standard practice.

Just take out your left and put it on right and vice versa, but can do only for non directional tires. If directional then have to take out the tires from the rims, put it back with opposite direction, then switch left-right. It's just to try even out the wear as much as possible so that later can replace together, like you said.

This post has been edited by 6UE5T: Mar 30 2013, 11:36 PM

Normally inside and outside is defined on the tyres... Also there shouldn't really be different wear... unless you have too much chamber or something is wrong with the car... or you are a NASCAR driver.

Some people say not to swap left right, and turning them around sounds like a bad idea. It costs money, I didn't ever notice a difference in wear from one side to another, and it may have handling disadvantages. So... not really worth it IMHO.

Front skidding you still have control via steering and brakes.
Rear skidding you virtually have nothing to control.

So if you're on budget, new tyres or better griped tyres should always be at rear.

This post has been edited by Icehart: Mar 31 2013, 12:47 AM

That's if you're using asymmetric tires, then you cannot switch the tire/rims orientation but you can rotate left/right immediately. If directional symmetric tires, then there's no inside/outside so you can switch the sides, but for directional you need to change the tire/rim orientation to switch left/right.
As for the camber, cars which are running around 1-1.5 degrees will usually wear out the inner side just a bit more, will be a bit noticeable after around 10-20k km usage.
It's true that it might not be much difference between left/right and should not be if normal, but it's actually recommended to still rotate left-right if possible to really even out the wear. There won't be handling disadvantages. As for the cost, well when using non-directional tires I used to rotate myself for all 4 corners, so zero cost, just a little sweat which I take as extra work out! . If directional, then of course have to bring to tire shop, but then don't need to do it so often la. If want to save, can just do it every 15/20K km. The only other additional cost is a wheel realignment might be necessary but usually not.

Always change all together

bcos i rotate my tire regularly, until all worn out near the little 'pimple' in groove.
never bother about change front or back

^
this would be the ideal scenario

should replace tyre in rear first.

Imagine u cornering, ur rear tyre lose traction then it goes spinning and spinning.

if your front tyre lose traction, u can at least feel it lose traction or counter it back with ur steering. back lose traction you cant do anything.

of course if got money, replace all four lor.

got budget, change all
no budget, change new to the drive tyre
FWD- front
RWD- rear

or any side which need to change 1st, takkan depan sudah botak licin ko still nak tukar yang belakang?

This post has been edited by joefbi: Apr 1 2013, 10:23 AM

I voted REAR. Last time, I used to think that new tyres should be fitted front, but now I know better. Fish-tailing is not fun.

No leh, according to not so recent research, regardless of FWD, RWD AWD, all new tires have to be at the back.

if depan botak, u put ur rear set of tyre in front,

then rear get new tyres.

+1
its not recent research. Its just we arent aware of it, because our tyre shops usually recommend put new ones in front, so we just listened.
a quick reason to put better gripping tyre at the rear is, the rear is the direct relation to how straight your car is.

another debate I would like to discuss is... is shorter car like those B-segment really require VSC/ESP.... since a shorter car, chances of loosing the rear is lower...

Personally I'd rather have more grip in the front. Not being able to evade something that is in the way, or not being able to drive a corner and instead going straight (down a mountain, into a building, other cars...) sounds terrifying. Also, the front brakes do most of the work. If you have poor front tyres, stopping distance will be impaired. The only advantage of having the better tyres at the back is that it won't break loose so easily... but that can be brought under control by the driver... while for the disadvantages of having poor tyres in front there is _nothing_ you can do. You are going to crash, no matter what.

ESP also helps against rolling the car (especially important for taller cars... something like a Kancil, Viva, MyVi, Kenari, SUVs, pickups, MPVs, ...

I would also doubt that chances of loosing the rear is lower. I'd say it's exactly the opposite. You can easily control a Caterham during a drift... long wheelbase. A Clio V6 has to be driven by a master if you want to drive it at the limit... the rear will easily overtake you, and balancing it is hard. As soon as the rear breaks loose... Of course most small cars are not rear wheel drive, only the smart fortwo is amongst newer cars, and the Clio V6.

having a tail spin/oversteer is harder to control than understeer.
most understeer situations you can just brake more/apply engine braking, however for oversteer situations and/or when your car is already spinning out of control with the rear losing/lost traction, more often than not all you can do is pray. however if you're still able to maintain calm you could perhaps to attempt to countersteer, that's about it.

this is coming from experience of driving an iswara that fishtails HAPPY and in fact i just been in a terrible accident just 2+ months ago (before CNY january 2013) and the cause of it is due to my rear spun out of control, hit the road divider and got further spiraled out of control due to the impact from the rear.

regardless, i still stand firm that one should do proper tire management (eg: balancing/rotation/alignment) and change all 4 if possible

esp/vsc not only for fishtail situation. it can be use for both over or understeer.

As well as rolling:


Applying brakes with tyres that have no grip is a bit hard... and there may not be enough time/space to brake. Maybe it depends on how fishtail happy the car is?

Btw., the smart fortwo would be very dangerous without ESP. The same applies for the original A class... it easily rolled unless it was equipped with ESP.

I encountered understeer once when raining, forgot new tire on which side, i found out the more i press brake pedal, the car face more understeer, then i release the brake and correct using my steering.

Think of it this way. Even motorcycles have ABS and ESC.
So yes, ESC works wonders even for smaller wheelbase cars.

Yes, in event of tailspin, drivers will realize that the front 2-wheels are pretty useless when the BODY they are connected to, are misbehaving.
so how important are the 2 little wheels at the rear of the car? very important.

anyway, while the 2 rear wheels are important, NEVER neglect the front 2 as well.
Like many has clearly pointed out, we rely on them for many important things too.
This discussion is about putting new tyres at the rear, not about putting bad tyres in the front!

But if you put new cars at the rear, chances are the ones in front aren't exactly in good condition. Since most of the braking is also done with the front tyres... I'd rather have the best tyres in front.

Btw., the only time I ever encountered tailspin/oversteer was on snow/ice, using the handbrake. Understeer, yes. Had that before a few times. I find it quite scary, because usually there is a reason why I am steering in the first place. Like... a wall being in the way. Or the other side of the road, with cars on it. Or there is a reason why I need to brake hard... without having grip on the tyres that do most of the work...

How short is short? You must calculate the wheelbase length and not the length of the whole car (including the front and rear overhangs). The wheelbase of b-segment cars are not really that much shorter than a larger C-segment. The short overhangs on the b-segment makes it look like a shorter vehicle.

A shorter wheelbase car will have less chances of losing the rear and that is correct but you have to be so so so so so so so much shorter. The only thing that comes to mind is actually the Smartfortwo. That car would have very little chances of losing the rear as it drives like a go-kart. Other B-segments cars will lose the rear just as easily when you lose control and that is where VSC/ESP/ETC/ABC/123 will come in handy (but not a guaranteed) to help stabilise the car.

If the front is not in good condition, then all four should be changed. I believe that they are talking about here is in scenarios like this. You have 4 tires that is still good at 50%. You crash into a big hole and damage one of them. Since you have 4 at 50%, you can't just replace one tyre, therefore you replace 2. The question now would be where to put the 2 new tyres. This is when you put the new tyres in the rear and not the front.

You are giving a scenario like having 4 tyres at 15-25% wear left. If you bust a tyre with so little thread left on them, then it would be a better idea to change all 4. There is no need to discuss where the new tyres go since the thread levels between the tyres are so big that it would not be safe to use them either in front or rear.

If your normal practise is replace all 4 tyres at the same time, then should continue doing that.
For me, sometimes, due to damaged tyres (punctures, etc) I had to replace in pairs. So in those situations, I would move the new tyres to the rear 2 wheels. Anyway, I also dont dare to use bad tyres on the front. I replace when needed, because you are right, front wheels provide steering and most of the braking due to weight-force.

I read quite a bit on this rear wheel or front wheel topic. and I just decided to go with the "better tyres on rear" group.
There are still many people who prefer to put "better tyres on front" so I guess it works bothways.

My personal experience with slippage/car spin is on the NS highway on a moderate rainy day. Its not even heavy rain so I was driving around 100kmh in a car without ESC. I was driving in a straight road, but merely changing lanes when my car's tail decided to move sideways. My car turned in a circle and that was scary. Luckily no hit guard rails, and the car behind me were able to stop in time. I think that evening many people wasted money buy my nombor at toto but it didnt open.

not just the wheelbase, the weight distribution also have to take into consideration..

law of physic, still count.. the shorter it is, the chance are lower....

it is good to see more n more discussion going on here...

I did read in a review that cars with longer wheelbase are easier to keep going in a straight line. They are not so easily disturbed, feel more planted. That's why I wouldn't be surprised if the longer wheelbase does make the car more stable...

At least when the car is already starting to spin it should be harder to keep the short wheelbase one under control. That's what I gathered from comments about the Renault Clio V6 and Renault 5 Turbo. Especially the latter always spun... (both mid engined, rear wheel drive, lots of power and a short wheelbase).

ESC/VSA/ESP are not just to counter oversteer / fishtail, it also helps keep understeer in check. In the case of a understeering FWD, I think length is irrelevant.

I just asked an engineer. He says short wheelbase is easier to spin, harder to keep goin in a straight line.

"Likewise, a car may oversteer or even "spin out" if there is too much force on the front tires and not enough on the rear tires. Also, when turning there is lateral torque placed upon the tires which imparts a turning force that depends upon the length of the tire distances from the CG. Thus, in a car with a short wheelbase, the short lever arm from the CG to the rear wheel will result in a greater lateral force on the rear tire which means greater acceleration and less time for the driver to adjust and prevent a spin out or worse."

This post has been edited by kadajawi: Apr 1 2013, 04:25 PM

They are more planted in a straight line ONLY. That is why tourers with long wheel based are meant for long distance touring. The long wheel base resist the change in direction giving you stability in a straight line. That is also the problem. To change direction, you need to overcome more forces and once that happens, the additional forces makes it less stable mid corner aka in the middle of a drift.

Short wheelbase cars are more nimble and that term is used because you can easily turn a shorter wheelbase car with less resistance. This does not mean it is bad as a more nimble car is actually easier to control while changing direction.


As for any mid-engine rear wheel drive car... the MR2 started what we call the '360 Club' as anybody who drives a mid-engine rear wheel drive MR2 would have experience at least one in a lift time... turning the car 360 degrees. That's pretty normal when you put the weight of the car in the middle between the front and rear axles.

well, my iswara is fishtail happy, so that's that.

Depends what u want, even wear (front) or avoiding rear slip(rear).
For fwd that is.

Going up a mountain drive like Genting in a short wheelbase car is much easier and safer than a long wheelbase. You would know that if you have experienced it yourself instead of asking an engineer. The more nimble vehicle takes less effort to turn and change direction (esp in those left into right corners)and there is no hint of spinning out of control when the driver is in control.

When taken to the extreme, the snap-oversteer in a short wheelbase can be scary (that was what your engineer was trying to explain) but that would be more on the fault of the driver than car. Most snap oversteers that I have seen were due to an over enthusiastic driver entering a corner way too fast and trying to brake too late into the corner and hence unloading the rear tyres.

Even if that is true, longer wheel base cars tend to have wider, grippier tyres.

Anyway, that means the car won't break loose as easily in a straight line, but if you are driving in a corner it is more likely to oversteer? That sounds more reasonable. But does it happen often?

The only way I got to oversteer was by using the handbrake. Understeer yes. Oversteer no, unless I really force it. But then again I rarely drive cars with a long wheelbase (i.e. D segment and above).

Yes, I can agree with your latest post.

This post has been edited by kadajawi: Apr 1 2013, 04:46 PM

that's pretty much what happened to me

short wheel base cars can have wider/grippyer tires too

if a myvi can install 17", that's more than enough width or even grip that wide variety of 15/17" performance tires can offer.

Yeah, I meant typically. Most small cars use skinnier tyres, while big ones often come with wide tyres as standard.

Maybe I should not use 'drifting' as an example otherwise everybody thinks that a longer wheelbase car is oversteering into every corner.

It's more about the feel of the car, something quite difficult to explain on the Internet. A longer wheelbase car is more resistant to turning. You feel that you have to work harder to make it turn and once it turns, it is more difficult to change to the opposite direction (for example if you are entering a left corner that goes into a right corner).

easy... just compare a car vs a truck in turning corner....

Ah yes, I'd agree with that, though the longest wheelbase car I drove (2850mm) wasn't that resistant to turning, despite weighting 1.8 tons. Usually I drive a car with 2540mm or 2605mm wheelbase, both at around 1.1 tons. So not very short either.

Ideally it should be all four tyres but if it's a budget issue...can change two first and quickly change the balance when budget permits..

that is ideally. but hard to do in real life.
I already feel heart-pain when forced to replace 2 tyres, when only 1 of them is in need of replacement.
so in the case when 1 of my tyre need replacement, and I replace all 4, I will go crazy.

I've driven both LWB & SWB Isuzu Trooper, I would say I have more confident in cornering, hairpin & U turns in SWB than I would in LWB. On the straight line however I could feel the inertia more than LWB when overtaking or changing lane.

personally I felt that longer WB cars have slightly better stability at corners.
or maybe it's just a gut feeling, and nothing more.

That's because the tires were already sliding/loosing grip, so the the more braking force you apply would actually makes it worse as they will slide even more and would not make the tires regain grip. By letting off the brake pressure, you'll let the tires roll a bit more and hance can regain grip so then you can turn. If you watch racing, you can see that everytime the cars start to lock/slide underbraking, the driver will release the brake to regain the grip allowing him to steer back into the corner. This is actually what ABS is also doing for normal cars.
This can also happen in the dry, just at much higher speeds when entering a corner.

Small car with wide tyre might be prone to hydroplane...

that's solely on tire's width/contact patch issue, nothing to do with car size

the poll still tie...

Any car can still spin or flip so VSC/ESP should be able to benefit all, small or big cars. But I've driven cars with those features to the limit yet so I don't know how it actually feels/behaves with those features turned on.

This post has been edited by 6UE5T: Apr 1 2013, 07:31 PM

If your car is FWD, it's natural tendency is to understeer since it's more front heavy and the front wheels have to multitask (putting power to the road and steering), so more difficult to oversteer unless you do trail braking while entering corner too fast, or pull the handbrake like you mentioned.
If RWD, then can be easier to oversteer cause you can break loose the rear traction by applying more throttle to overpower the rear grip, hence the term power sliding which what drifters do. The weight distribution is also more even compared to FWD cars (some even able to reach 50/50, such as BMW).

if u view my web at my siggy, u can find the end of my rocket story...
my front is out of control. not my rear...huhu

now im driving kancil, shorter car...so i never feel oversteer in hard cornering.
so i think the new rear tyre setup is not significant to care about.

in my situation, (maybe only me?) last time i put new tyre at rear for my kancil (yes, rear)
but i only manage to buy budgeted tyre which is indonesian falken with suck quality and harder compound.
after a year, i manage to buy a new set of Yokohama tyre which better than current
rear tyre. so how good for me to put that yoko tyre at rear and switch the suck rear tyre to the front? yeah, this is the rare case, maybe only me got this situation...

Putting new tyres front has its pro too. That video only discuss bout losing rear end. Nothing more than that. U just can't conclude porting new tyres at rear is a better practice.
Say, u know your tyres r more worn at rear, u can corner at a lower speed.
What if u need to do emergency brake? I supposed new n better tyres will perform better here.

Front always for me, steering is based on the front.

No control, no grip = No chance.

Plus if your car has only front disk brake you should only change new tires to the front always. Even you have rear brake disk still the front is important because *read bold part*