New Tires to the rear, but then what

I saw advices that said that, when a pair of tires are replaced like the two front tires, always the new set of tires should go to the rear. Here is a youtube video by Michelin :

My question is what do you do when it is time to rotate tires.

If you’ve gone so far that there is a significant difference in tread depth, front to rear, then you don’t rotate until that gets corrected.

What’s significant? 2/32nds!

+1 for @CapriRacer because I’m not a big fan of rotating tires in the first place.

What do you do?
With a typical FWD car you drive until the front tires are worn down, move the rear tires to the front and put another set of new tires on the rear.

To each their own, but I’ve always found that new on the front works better.

As to that 2/32 of an inch? Really? Under the old OK inspection program that alone was enough for writing up a rejection slip and on any kind of wet pavement is tantamount to a death wish at speed.

That video also reeks a bit much on the staged factor.

Tire rotation is for a matched set of tires…Once you move away from that, forget tire rotation…I make every effort to buy tires in sets of 4…

Most tire manufactures, trade associations and car manufactures reccomend having the best tires on the rear axle. The reason being that you will have better vehicle control if a front tire fails vs a rear. There are a few videos out like the one in the original post demonstrating this.

When you buy 4 tires (outside of premium varieties) you usually get the fourth free or a $70 to $150 cash back/gift card.

Why are people still buying 2 tires at a time?

Well I was a 2 tire at a time replacement guy until I got 4wd, like since 1968. As ill advised, I would not rotate the tires, would buy new for the front, and move front to the rear undu the philosophy from my shop teacher that one would rather risk tire failure on the rear than the front.

I would usually get 10 to 15k miles extra per pair, and after 140k on my car that seemed to be a significant savings.

The tires never got to a low enough tread level to be dangerous, and never had a problem out of the norm for traction and road control because of my practices.

“The reason being that you will have better vehicle control if a front tire fails vs a rear. There are a few videos out like the one in the original post demonstrating this.”

Could you please provide a link to one of these videos?

You might want to keep the new tires on the rear a bit longer than your owner’s manual specified rotation schedule but they should be rotated or they might or might not develop noisy treadwear patterns. New tires on the rear keeps the trial lawyers away as there might commonly expected to be a very small reduction in traction from new to worn.

The variety of opinions expressed in reply to your question says that your question has no definitive answer.

My brand new 2009 car came with low rolling resistance tires that were frighteningly treacherous on ice and snow. When I locked the wheels, the rear end would come around and there was nothing I could do to recover. I have driven many cars for many years, rear and front drivers on winter ice and snow and thought that I could handle my then new car as well as any but I was wrong. I thought that it might have had a defective brake proportioning valve but it did not as became apparent later when the tire treads wore. Now that the low rolling resistance tires are nearly worn out, they are quite controllable on ice and snow. New tires from my view may not always be better than worn tires. Add this to the confusion!

very very interesting. I guessed there was a definite text book answer to the question. I didn’t expect to see these diverse opinions. However, I thank everyone who responded here.

My intention is not to make fun of someone. I just want to point out something. Wha Who said, “The variety of opinions expressed in reply to your question says that your question has no definitive answer.” I think the existence of “variety of opinions” alone isn’t sufficient to conclude that the “question has no definitive answer.”

OK4459 said: “…As to that 2/32 of an inch? Really? …”

I think you misunderstood. What I was trying to say was that any difference larger than 2/32nds is a significant difference front to rear. If the difference is lower than that, there isn’t enough difference to worry about and you can rotate tires as normal.

Ok, there is a definitive answer; actually two of them but neither is comfortable. Rotate your 8000 mile rear tires to the front and put your 50k or whatever mile front tires on the back. If the 8000 mile tires still have more traction than the 50k tires, you will have an unsafe car according to conventional wisdom. If you have a crash due to what has been done, you won’t sue yourself. If you don’t rotate the tires, they may or may not develop odd, noisy wear patterns.

First, the disclaimer-Dedicated winter tires.

I was able to start with sets of new directional summer tires on 2 different front drive cars. Over the life of those 8 tires, I rotated them at O/C intervals (backs to front, fronts to back) over the life of each set of tires. Each set wore down very equally, and were at a replacement tread depth very close to the same time.

Let me take @CapriRacer‌ good advice and simply add this. If the new tires are less then 3/32 inch better then the ones on the read, then I would
put them on the front.

Tire rack says that about 2/32 is a difference you can live with. That means putting a new tire at that or less difference on the front, with the same make and model tire should be fine. Ideally, you then keep checking your tires until the tread wear is about even or slightly more on front, then begin your tire rotation.

People who live and drive in fair weather states can get by with a lot of practices that others can’t.

Mr. dagosa, can you reconcile your 3:21PM post with the OP’s question?

Mr. @"Wha Who"‌ Aka Mr. PostPolice…I’m having trouble finding my 3:21 post…you know, the one about mounting a new tire on the rear with the exception when the tires differ by less then 3/32 inch. But, seeing how my 3:21 post disappeared, I will have to say yours is off topic too. Maybe agreeing with @CapriRacer is off topic. Son of a gun.