Need help.. tire replacement in pairs?

danger boy

My friend has a Mazda 3 hatch back... he got a big bolt in his OEM tire, and the handbook says to replace tires in pairs.. whether it's only one bad/flat tire.
is this right? very few other cars seem to ask for this.. and would it make a car handle poorly if you only replaced the flat tire with a new one?

is someone trying to sell him snake oil?

F1nut

Depends. How many miles are on the current tires? Is the exact same tire still available? I don't know what the OEM tire is on that car, is it a high performance tire or a regular passenger car tire?

thsmith

I remember being at DIscount Tire and guy with a Subaru (I think) came in and they were having the same discussion. Maybe because it was all wheel drive (?). In any case Jesse's question s need to be answered.

Tankman

F1nut wrote: »

Depends. How many miles are on the current tires? Is the exact same tire still available? I don't know what the OEM tire is on that car, is it a high performance tire or a regular passenger car tire?

+1 here.F1nut is right.It depends on how many miles are on the rest of the tires.How much tread is left on them or the wear on them.But yes tires should be replace if they are punctured.

danger boy

tires are worn to the point of needing replacement.. that's ok.. but say if they weren't and then got a bolt so that one had to be replaced... would you still ditch one good tire and buy two? either way, they are 17" low profile tires... 2 tires = $495 i've learned that low profile tires wear out in half the miles that other tires do..

gdb

Not unless I had dain bramage.

nooshinjohn

danger boy wrote: »

tires are worn to the point of needing replacement.. that's ok.. but say if they weren't and then got a bolt so that one had to be replaced... would you still ditch one good tire and buy two? either way, they are 17" low profile tires... 2 tires = $495 i've learned that low profile tires wear out in half the miles that other tires do..

I have much experience on this, both personal and professional. It is never a good idea replace just one tire. The reason is that you end up compromising the handling of the vehicle in some way. I would get two new tires for the fronts, as these are the drive wheels on the Mazda 3. The best remaining tires should go to the rear. When it comes time to rotate them, I would get two more new ones, taking the fronts to the back.

Be careful to get the proper speed ratings as well and never mix ratings on the same axle either as this can also lead to unsafe handling conditions.

As far as wear goes, that statement is untrue. The wear of a tire is determined by several factors such as how the car is driven, the speed rating, and the "grip" of the tire. generally speaking, the stickier the rubber the faster it wears. Tires that are capable of high performance tend to wear out very quickly because they sacrifice wear characteristics for dynamics. If you are looking for a tire that will last more that 45k miles, you will sacrifice handling in the process.

cambir

The tires on these Mazda's wear quickly and can be expensive. Discount tire has some Yokohama's that work fairly well on our Mazda 5, shouldn't cost as much as your price above and have a decent mileage warranty. Then get their extra warranty in case your friend gets another bolt.

concealer404

danger boy wrote: »

tires are worn to the point of needing replacement.. that's ok.. but say if they weren't and then got a bolt so that one had to be replaced... would you still ditch one good tire and buy two? either way, they are 17" low profile tires... 2 tires = $495 i've learned that low profile tires wear out in half the miles that other tires do..

After all these years, i still don't know what "low profile" means, nor do i know why they would wear out faster.


Anyways, yes, i would replace in pairs, unless the remaining tire in the pair was already pretty new. Alternatively, you can have your tires "shaved" to get them to match, but that's not something i'd bother with on a normal passenger vehicle.

unc2701

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I would get two new tires for the fronts, as these are the drive wheels on the Mazda 3. The best remaining tires should go to the rear. When it comes time to rotate them, I would get two more new ones, taking the fronts to the back.

Surprisingly, that's wrong. Handling is always best with the newest tires on the rear, regardless of the drive wheels. There may be occasional exceptions, but the rule is to always go to the rear.

concealer404

unc2701 wrote: »

Surprisingly, that's wrong. Handling is always best with the newest tires on the rear, regardless of the drive wheels. There may be occasional exceptions, but the rule is to always go to the rear.

I would only agree with that in winter time.

Other than that... maybe only RWD cars, depending on how the car is used.

polkatese

unc2701 wrote: »

Surprisingly, that's wrong. Handling is always best with the newest tires on the rear, regardless of the drive wheels. There may be occasional exceptions, but the rule is to always go to the rear.

Just replaced mine a couple weeks ago. This is what America's Tire told me, new tires go to the rear. And yes, go in pair. One tire has premature tread wear due to alignment problem, he suggested and I heed to get a new pair to replace. $500+$249 for alignment later it handles better.

unc2701

concealer404 wrote: »

I would only agree with that in winter time.

Other than that... maybe only RWD cars, depending on how the car is used.

Long standing myth. Every single tire manufacturer recommends they go on rear wheels, FWD, RWD, 4WD and AWD.

concealer404

unc2701 wrote: »

Long standing myth. Every single tire manufacturer recommends they go on rear wheels, FWD, RWD, 4WD and AWD.

So... with my 300-350whp FWD daily driver, i should put the older more worn tires on the front, where they are tasked with doing ALL the of the accelerating, steering, and 80%+ of the braking?

No thanks.

They're saying that because they consider terminal understeer to be safer than the **** end of a car whipping around, in that most people who have no idea what they're doing when they drive might have a chance in hell at correcting understeer. You're also less likely to get throttle-lift oversteer with the fresh tires on the back, i suppose.

If you know how to drive and/or don't drive like a moron, it's not really an issue. I'd prefer to have the fresh good tires on the front in my FWD cars, since they're the ones that actually do most of the work, and the **** end is merely along for the ride. I feel safer that way.



I guess so this doesn't continue... i CAN see WHY someone might recommend that. Just saying that i'd never do that as a hard and fast rule. I bet Hoosier wouldn't tell me to put the worn tires on the front of my race car, either. :cheesygrin:



Oops my bad... you already covered this with your first quote:

Surprisingly, that's wrong. Handling is always best with the newest tires on the rear, regardless of the drive wheels. There may be occasional exceptions, but the rule is to always go to the rear.

Judging by what i see around me, i'd say that "those that can drive well" would be the "occasional exception," so screw it, i'll agree with you.


It's interesting that 99% of car enthusiasts will rather put the tires on the front.

unc2701

Will have to find it, but I think it was Road and Track: they took the manufactures to task and pretty much said your points exactly.... then took it for a whirl. In just every driving scenario, the performance was better with the tires on the rear with the exception of straight line acceleration. I was pretty dumbfounded myself, but if they're willing to eat crow and it lines up with what the tire makers say, I'm willing to go with it.

concealer404

unc2701 wrote: »

Will have to find it, but I think it was Road and Track: they took the manufactures to task and pretty much said your points exactly.... then took it for a whirl. In just every driving scenario, the performance was better with the tires on the rear with the exception of straight line acceleration. I was pretty dumbfounded myself, but if they're willing to eat crow and it lines up with what the tire makers say, I'm willing to go with it.

It's really going to depend on car and situation.

But in the end... bald tires are bad mmmmmmmkay? At least that much we'll agree on. :razz:

unc2701

Agreed on that.

I got VERY sideways a couple years back w/ balding tires on the rear of my FWD car- came over a slight rise followed by a turn: had rained earlier in the day but the road was dry... until I hit the patch where construction trucks had tracked about an inch of mud out into the road just past that rise. Managed to keep it on the road, but I've never gotten the **** end of a car so far out even dumbassing around in parking lots as a kid. Got me to replace my tires, and then I got into it with the shop when they just swapped out the rears instead of rotating the fronts back. Did some research and came away very surprised.

concealer404

unc2701 wrote: »

Agreed on that.

I got VERY sideways a couple years back w/ balding tires on the rear of my FWD car- came over a slight rise followed by a turn: had rained earlier in the day but the road was dry... until I hit the patch where construction trucks had tracked about an inch of mud out into the road just past that rise. Managed to keep it on the road, but I've never gotten the **** end of a car so far out even dumbassing around in parking lots as a kid. Got me to replace my tires, and then I got into it with the shop when they just swapped out the rears instead of rotating the fronts back. Did some research and came away very surprised.

Yeah, when i bought my Miata in July, i drove it back from CA, about 3000 miles. The rear tires were pretty shot. I hit a very nasty storm in Kansas. SCARY. The damn thing would just NOT stay pointed straight.

nadams

polkatese wrote: »

Just replaced mine a couple weeks ago. This is what America's Tire told me, new tires go to the rear. And yes, go in pair. One tire has premature tread wear due to alignment problem, he suggested and I heed to get a new pair to replace. $500+$249 for alignment later it handles better.

$249 for an alignment? AND $250/tire? Holy crap!

Alignments around here are $60 at most. And unless you're getting some high-performance low-profile tires, $150ea is more like it.

exalted512

I just got new tires and an alignment on my truck...freaking grand out the window

Oh well. Gotta have them. I'll spend more than that on motorcycle tires in a few months.

And the tires I got should last 70k miles and my truck has wet traction grip better than it's ever had, so im happy. Especially with all the rain we've been getting lately.
-Cody