Mixing Tire Brands

novaderrik wrote: the people that make tires and the people that sell tires are likely the people that tell you that they need to match.. they also tell you not to run tires that are more than 4 years old.. i wonder why they would say something like that?? maybe they are trying to sell more tires and charge more labor to install them? nahh- that can't be it. i'm sure they are just being good citizens and trying to look out for the welfare of the general public..

Lets not forget Mike Rowe reminding us not to measure with a penny anymore, but with a quarter!

You have got to be kidding me.

novaderrik wrote:

wlkelley3 wrote: There was a time in the not so distant past that replacing all 4 tires at the same time wasn't allowed by my checkbook. As long as the axle has the same size tires and preferably close to the same tread, you won't have a problem. My truck has 2 different brands front/rear. Did it for a brief time on my wifes old Camry. My daughter did the same on her Tiburon. And until last week the RX8 had 2 different brands installed.

it's amazing that your cars don't spontaneously explode when you try to drive them.

And when I was young I drove Ford Pintos.
I live on the edge, man.

RexSeven wrote: What I learned (the hard way) on my Saab GM900 was to keep the new tires (or if around the same age, the tires with more grip) on the the rear axle, even on FWD cars. You will lose a little bit of forward traction, but this makes the car less likely to fishtail in rainy or snowy weather. Expect understeer with such a setup during hard driving. Reversing this introduces oversteer. Good tires up front and crappy tires out back is a popular drifting setup, but I for one would rather avoid driving sideways down a congested highway again.

big lawsuit vs major tire slinging joint >>>>>>>>>>>>> basically it was that she asked about tires and they said well you can get away with two just put the new ones on the front ////////// four months later she hydro d and spun out got killed . So now they make you sign a waiver if you want new on front

Stop hitting curbs and the sidewalls will last as long as the tread. When I drove trucks we would have tires recaped (new treads glued onto a used tire) all the time. How can that be possible if the sidewalls wear out first? Wouldn't there have to be a big pile of flaming trucks somewhere with all the recaped tires out there?

Wally wrote: Stop hitting curbs and the sidewalls will last as long as the tread. When I drove trucks we would have tires recaped (new treads glued onto a used tire) all the time. How can that be possible if the sidewalls wear out first? Wouldn't there have to be a big pile of flaming trucks somewhere with all the recaped tires out there?

Off-topic rant, but:

When are we going to send a bill to the trucking industry and get them to pick up the millions of blown out tires that litter our interstates? You cannot drive a one-mile stretch of interstate here in Virginia without passing the disintegrated carcasses of tires. And what is the total for damage caused to other vehicles?

It would be nice if the industry would step up and institute a maintenance/replacement policy, instead of waiting for the tire to blow out.

I drove with two identical (worn) tires on the front of the Toyota and two different ones on the back (all the same size though) for a while after I bought it. When the front tires started to go completely bald things would get...interesting...in the rain, but apart from that I didn't have any problems.

I run mixed pairs on cars/trucks all the time. Have not had one explode or irrationally head for oncoming traffic.

I have even mixed brands on track cars and I think I qualify as an enthusiast...

novaderrik wrote: the people that make tires and the people that sell tires are likely the people that tell you that they need to match.. they also tell you not to run tires that are more than 4 years old.. i wonder why they would say something like that?? maybe they are trying to sell more tires and charge more labor to install them? nahh- that can't be it. i'm sure they are just being good citizens and trying to look out for the welfare of the general public..

There's a new thing up here, where the tire shops won't sell you 2 snow tires. They say it's dangerous, and illegal, and you have to buy 4. Of course, it's not.

Canadian tire (ripoff joint of epic proportion) started that, and now all the tire shops are doing the same.

Inglorious wrote: One of our church vans made it from minnesota to new york and back on 4 very different tires,

Well, sure, a CHURCH van...that's different.

chuckles wrote:

Inglorious wrote: One of our church vans made it from minnesota to new york and back on 4 very different tires,

Well, sure, a CHURCH van...that's different.

Yup. That surely would have ended differently if it was a van full of lawyers, politicians, and used-car salesmen.

Exactly how is running two different brands of tire front to rear any different from running two different sizes front to rear?

As a guy who does sell tires for a living I suppose I should throw in some insight.

Mixing and matching tires isn't the most horrendous thing in the world to do. Less than ideal? Sure. Mixing and matching different season tires (snows/summers/all-season)? Thats where it gets dicey. The traction and construction of these different types are so different that unpredictable handling can result.

Add into that the new industry proclimation for the newer tires on the rear (reason sited) to make understeer the most likely outcome when traction is being lost.

So in regards to the OP's case. If you were in my shop I'd advise its best to make them match, but if two is all you want I'd put the stickier summers on the back (of course I have no idea how much tread is left, but all things being equal) untill the cold snaps start coming when the summer rubber loses its effectiveness.

In regards to the no less than 4 winter tires, I'm an advocate as well. If you're insistent on just 2, you better be putting them on the rear only then. Is it because I want to make that 4 tire sale? No its a saftey issue.

Another hotbutton is AWD/4WD systems. The industry has a standard of saying all 4 must be the same, size, tread design, load, and even within the same general tread depth on all 4 corners. It has to do with stressing the center diff. Is it a safety issue? No it's a liability issue. I have seen shops get raked over the coals for installing different tread tires on a 4WD system. Despite for only a short duration and the vehicle having elevty billion miles on it. If you still want just 2 you better be sure there' waviers involved.

As far as age, 4 years is no spring chicken, butits by no means unserviceable. DoT has no term limits for tread unlike some other countries which tend to give about 6 to 8 years. I base it on rubber condition, an under used tire is an unhappy tire and will dryout faster.

And finally penny vs quarter. The penny gives you a measurement near DoT legal limits of 2/32, the quarter trick shows when you're around 4 or 5 32's which is when most people start feeling traction issues in inclement weather. No its not just smoke and mirrors to "move more hoops"

1988RedT2 wrote:

Wally wrote: Stop hitting curbs and the sidewalls will last as long as the tread. When I drove trucks we would have tires recaped (new treads glued onto a used tire) all the time. How can that be possible if the sidewalls wear out first? Wouldn't there have to be a big pile of flaming trucks somewhere with all the recaped tires out there?

Off-topic rant, but: When are we going to send a bill to the trucking industry and get them to pick up the millions of blown out tires that litter our interstates? You cannot drive a one-mile stretch of interstate here in Virginia without passing the disintegrated carcasses of tires. And what is the total for damage caused to other vehicles? It would be nice if the industry would step up and institute a maintenance/replacement policy, instead of waiting for the tire to blow out.

i've always felt that they should put serial numbers on several locations on the big truck tires, then log which tires go on which truck in some sort of a database somewhere. during DOT inspection they can log in all of the tire serial numbers to keep it up to date.

when someone hits a chunk of tire on the road and there is some damage or when the highway cleanup crew picks up the pieces, it's a simple matter of finding the serial number of the tire and finding the registered owner of that tire.

oldeskewltoy wrote: I'm a self confessed tire whore, and as I led into my first post... and no one has yet denied.... you have a 2600# projectile on about 4 square feet of contact patch... why have something less then ideal, or fully predictable????

I might sound like a smart ass - I am a smart ass - but I don't say this just to be a smart ass. So give me a second and try to follow what I'm trying to say.

Okay, I live in Denver. It snows here. I run snow tires, but lots of folks don't. So I kinda say the same type thing- "why do you compromise your safety with less than ideal tires"? So I get that. But truth is, most people do. So most drivers in Denver are on tires that are "less than ideal" for months at a time.

Does that make them a safety hazzard? Eh, not really.

But keep going with this for a second. LOADS of folks go to Big O when they need tires and say "what's the cheapest thing you have that will fit?" So they're always on tires that are "less than ideal". Are they a safety hazzard?

And how 'bout this- what if I buy an '86 Toyota Celica and drive it around. If I bought a '91 MR2 it would have more grip and better brakes. Am I a safety hazzard for the car I bought?

I drove by one of those brake places- they'll do your brakes for $60 or something. What kind of parts do you think they're using for that price? So that makes you car less than ideal. And that's the brakes! Personally I spare little expense there.

Shoot what about brake fluid? How many cars are driving around on 8 year old brake fluid. Most of us here probably know how much that degrades performance.

I hear what you're saying, but there are a LOT MORE dangerous things on the road than a decent car with a decent driver on mixed pairs of tires. If we wanted to make things 100% ideal all the time, we wouldn't have radios or cup holders in our cars.

If I had more time to think about this I would find a shorter way to say it that made me sound like less of an ass. Not attacking you, I just disagree with you. You're implying that it's irresponsible to do something that's just not that big a deal.

So let me say it clearly- for a daily driver that you use to get from here to there on a stock suspension that is a compromise from the factory, you are likely to be just as safe with mixed pairs as you would be on matched pairs, especially if the four matched tires are all cheaper. The driver's ability and attention is worth a TON more, assuming that we're talking about decent tires of the same general type, ie all season and all season.

Shoot, all season tires are a compromise. I don't run them.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Exactly. The simple fact is the loose nut behind the wheel is a MUCH bigger factor in vehicle safety than any other. Mismatched tires? It's a non-issue.

I'm still not convinced about the worn tires on the front (FWD) idea... ya the idea of induced understeer works... but... as far as hydroplaning because the rears have less tread hasn't made any sense yet...

if I'm going fast enough to hydroplane (with poor tires on the front) sure the rears would have traction ... but if the fronts had the deeper tread then they would still be in contact with the road at even higher speeds... and so would the rears since they wouldn't have anywhere near as much water to evacuate....

since so many advocate better on the rear, I'm sure some one here can poke all the holes necessary in my reasoning to bring me into the 21st century...

Damn, I did not realize I was starting a flame war.

In reply to Zoo:

ZOO wrote: I think one of the things that sets us apart as enthusiasts is that we would actually care to have four matching tires. Mixing tires, for no other purpose than to save money, suggests to me a mechanical and aesthetic indifference out of touch with being an enthusiast. There, I said it

Last Time I checked the url here was 'grassroots'. It seems like half the people here spend more on entire car purchases than it would take to replace the four tires on my car. Just sayin... If budget was the only contraint for an enthusiast, this forum would be empty.

wbjones wrote: if I'm going fast enough to hydroplane (with poor tires on the front) sure the rears would have traction ... but if the fronts had the deeper tread then they would still be in contact with the road at even higher speeds... and so would the rears since they wouldn't have anywhere near as much water to evacuate....

It's not like Charlton Heston parting the Red Sea. Most tires utilize circumfentral (mind the spelling, my tounge gets tied just saying it) grooves to give the water somewhere to go since it cannot compress. All but the most agressive direction tread designs do this. The water exiting the front contact patch is still very much there and heading for the rear tires. Even aforementioned aggressive directional tires aren't completely sweeping the water away so the rear tires still need to be able to "hold their own" so to say.

GTwannaB wrote: Damn, I did not realize I was starting a flame war. In reply to Zoo:

ZOO wrote: I think one of the things that sets us apart as enthusiasts is that we would actually care to have four matching tires. Mixing tires, for no other purpose than to save money, suggests to me a mechanical and aesthetic indifference out of touch with being an enthusiast. There, I said it

I didn't get ZOO's post at all.

I'm still not convinced about the worn tires on the front (FWD) idea... ya the idea of induced understeer works... but... as far as hydroplaning because the rears have less tread hasn't made any sense yet...

Have the ass-end come loose on you while going around a MILD curve on I-75 in Atlanta in the rain, make one full rotation and begin shouting "Oh yeah bitch, I got this E36 M3!" only to make another half-rotation and get hit head on by a U-haul truck.

It'll all make sense then.