Crapped. 2 tires have bubbles.
 

Was taking pictures of my car today and found out that the 2 rear tires have bubble on the sides/edge of the tires.

Tires are: Toyo 800 Ultra Premium. Tires were purchased in 1998 with 45K on the odometer. Now it's 84K and the tires still have alot of treads left on them.

Guess I'll just buy 2 replacement and put those on the fronts and the other 2 Toyo in the rears. Any specific tires to get? Current size is 175/70/13. Or should I just replace all 4 tires with stock size and keep the other 2 as spares?

Personally, I wouldn't trust a tire over 5 or 6 years old. They wear quicker and are more prone to blowouts at the older age.

Yes get replacement ones. My father does MOT tests (British government road worthiness test) for a living and having bubbles or bulges on the tires would be cause to fail the car, as i learned when he found some while checking over my car a while back. Something about how the bubble is equivalent to a hernia would be on a person, to paraphrase him.

Basically if it looks dodgy get a new tires since you don't want to mess around not getting something as important as them.

Unless the tire has real damage like in the case of sidewall "bubbles" (sounds more like a broken belt/cord if I'm visualizing it correctly) and it isn't worn out, there really isn't a need to replace it. I've seen some pretty scary looking tires (from a dry rot perspective) make it till they wore out. I wouldn't have driven on them, but the owners did just fine. I wouldn't fiddle around with running tires with busted cords like that, replace them. Tiny tires like that are far cheaper than totaling your car when one blows out.

I don't know if you should replace them or not, but if you get two new ones, they go on the rear and the old ones should go up front.

1998? they do go bad with age.....

Well I need to find a new set asap because tomorrow is the start of "No-Tax" weekend.

Um, personally I would put the carp times on the rear....
:thumbup:

Nope, I just found this out when my friend had to get two new tires, the shop put them on the rear.

It turns out that it is much easier to regain control if your front end slides out than if the rear end does. Also, in a panic situation, most people's instinct is to brake, which puts more weight and thus more traction on the front tires. So the new tires always go on the rear.

No shops around have any 165/70/13 in stock! They are all special order one. Sears quoted me 175/70/13 Sumitomo HTR for $350, includes installation. While I can get the 165/70/13 from tirerack for $41 each. $200 shipped.

Or should I up the size to 175/70/13 and stick with those? There are more options and cheaper prices.

Might throw the speedometer off a tick, but it's only a slight difference in height, so it wouldn't be much.

Yeah, I might just have to do the 175/70/13. Found Costco is selling the Michellin X Radial for $70/each with $80 off when buying 4.

$200 total and this weekend is no tax also.
Price includes:

Mounting, Balancing, Lifetime Services, Nitrogen Inflation, New Rubber Valve Stem, Environmental Tire Disposal, and the Costco Road Hazard Warranty (5 Years).

If you are looking for mileage over handling, go with 155/80R13's they are practically indentical in height but narrower. My Metro comes stock with 155/80R13 tires and the previous owner put 175/70R13's on instead.

I just ordered these from Discount Tire and had them price match Tire Rack's price of $41.00 each:Kumho Solus KR21

Discount Tire has a $50.00 rebate if you use your Discount Tire Car Care Credit Card. With mounting, balancing, and free replacement certificates the total will be like $220.00 after rebate. Just an option...

Hacksaw.

Sorry, but I need to switch these tires out before next week. School starts on the 25th, and I'm planning to drive back this Monday/Tuesday. Boston, MA to Buffalo, NY 460miles.

Also, just found out that the 2 rear tires were made in March 1997! The two fronts are made in 2004, which is a relieve. Probably going to throw away the rears and try to keep the fronts as spares or sell on craigslist.

Since this is the Ecomodder Forum, I would recommend taking this opportunity to instal some light weight low rolling resistance tires:).

If you are all about saving fuel then the 155/80R13 would be your best choice since they are skinny and have a low rolling resistance. Not only that, the traction will be better in the winter months. Just my 2 cents.

Well, I'm having the Michelin X Radial 175/70/13 install tomorrow morning from Costco.

Michelin makes a great car tire.

Front? Rear?
 

I just read your advice to put your crap tires on the front. This is where the steering is, right? How much trouble can you avoid with no steering control? :eek: Right! None!

Nope,

Around here it is standard to put the new pair on the drive wheels. Better traction in the snow!

I am with whitevette, I have noticed (by lack of proper care) that the front tires seem to wear much quicker than the rear tires. I really need to get new front tires, and I would guess that the rear tires will last until I need all new tires if I do thing that way, or I can move the front to the rear and drive for a long time. My guess would be that they put the crap tires on the front because they wear out faster and they get to sell you two more.

EDIT:
handy for those of us with front wheel drive

yeah, newest tires ALWAYS go on the steering axle, regardless of front or rear wheel drive. in a super-emergency-extra-crisis situation, you can drive pretty far on a flat rear tire. yeah, it will tear stuff up, but its doable. try that with a flat front tire, you wont get far before you slap a telephone pole.

I spent a dozen or so years in the tire biz. Here's my take on the situation.
First, I'd need to see the tires to be sure, but if you have an undulation in the sidewall of the tire only it's probably no problem. Tire casings get slightly larger with use--The heat expands and stretches the rubber. Just like a rubberband, it never contracts back to it's original shape 100%. A radial valley--pointing from bead to tread-- is where the seam is and there is more rubber there, so it stretches less. A normal condition especially on older tires.

Second, new tires on FWD should always go on the front. All of your steering, all of your acceleration traction, and up to 80% of your braking come from the front. Of course they wear faster up there, they do all of the work! If you want to take real good care of your tires, rotate them regularly, they will give you more miles--as a set of 4. Regular rotation also gets you an inspection of brakes, shocks, struts, springs, exhaust--a good way to head off problems. If you need rear traction, get snow tires.

Things have recently changed in regards to where "new" tires should be installed...
TireRack study.
"Recommendations

Ideally tires should be replaced in complete sets and rotated throughout their life to equalize front-to-rear and side-to-side wear quantity while enhancing each tire’s wear quality. However when tires are replaced in pairs, the new pair of tires should always be installed on the rear axle and the existing worn tires moved to the front."

All,

I did some Google searches and the tire companies do recommend the installation of two new tires on the rear of all cars FWD or RWD. Here is a link to a video of Michelins reasoning.

Michelin | New Rear Tires

The only problem I have with this is they want me to do this for the once in a blue moon situation where the combination of hydroplaning and speed and turning all mesh into an end for end swap. In my 30+ years of driving, I have had 1 time when my vehicle swapped ends on me without warning. Winter, black ice, straight road, 40 mph, slight dip in the road, wider than stock tires on a 1974 Mercury Bobcat (Pinto clone). When the weather gets bad, I slow down and drive like I have less traction. The people who drive in bad weather without slowing down are the ones who might benefit from putting the new tires on the rear. For me, I would rather have the benefit of the new tires increased steering and braking for the unexpected times that happen more often (deer, stupid drivers) and the winter when I have to climb the winding, 1/4 mile dirt road hill to my home every day.

Also, having my tires hyperinflated to 42psi helps prevent hydroplaning.

My 2 new tires that I usually end up with every 3 years, go on the front and the old fronts go on the rear.

Works for me. YRMV.

How about posting the photos somewhere so we can see what they look like?

Let me get this straight...
 

Since front tires wear out sooner than rear tires ( this seems to be the consensus), can we assume the front tires are also doing most of the work in steering, stopping, holding up the heavy end of the vehicle?
Based on this fact alone, why put worn tires where most of the work needs doing?
Seems kinda dangerous to me ....:eek:
I'll go with new tires up front, thank you.

If I understand the theory correctly, the danger is in low traction situations, such as wet or snowy road surfaces, and especially hydroplaning. In these situations - where more tread depth improves traction, and more speed hurts traction - having the better tires on the rear allows the vehicle to lose traction at the front first. When the vehicle slows down, traction returns and the vehicle can be steered away from potential obstacles.

The opposite - losing traction at the rear first - causes the rear to swing around. When the speed drops and traction returns, the vehicle is pointed in the wrong direction and can not be steered away from on-coming objects.

I get the reasoning behind choosing understeer vs. oversteer, but my personal preference is oversteer.

For me understeer means I just keep going straight into whatever I was trying to avoid. Sure there's a slight chance that traction will return, but for me that only happens when I realize that having max. press. on the brake isn't working, I let up, and the car suddenly turns at the last second.

When I spin out, true I have less control, but at least I am not pointing exactly in the direction I am trying to avoid.

Sort of like the broken clock is right every 12 hours thing. In my experience, when I am going a panic manouvre, the direction I am first pointing in is generally the least desirable option. Even if a spin out means essentially a random outcome as far as direction, that's still preferable to the understeer option.

That, and doing panic manouvres on my own in deserted parking lots and whatnot, I find the option that is most comfortable to me.

The most important thing to me is predictability and practice. If the panic manouvre is the first time you've ever taken your vehicle's handling to the limit, then you're best off bending over and kissing your ass goodbye. If you've done it before in surroundings where the worst outcome of loss of control is some lost rubber and lots of squealing noises, your chances of coming out of it OK are exponentially better, regardless of where the worn tires are.

Forgive my long-windedness.

I've had it work all four ways, so I can express it as a matrix:

understeer oversteer
avoidance
crash


I think that avoidance is avoidance, regardless of if you have to do some reversing to get headed back in the direction you want and/or embarrass yourself in front of other drivers.

So the other option is the crash. With understeer, you still plow right into the hazard with the front of your car. Not fun. With oversteer, you spin and, in the maybe 1 or 2 cases where I've crashed, I hit with the rear and at a much lower speed. Spinning scrubbed off more speed than plowing, and the impact was to a less critical area of the car.

I think the most important thing is comfort and personal preference. The whole thing with understeer built into current cars and tire positioning to promote understeer is just idiot proofing. If you're the type who just gets in the car and goes, without giving these sort of things a further thought, then just go with what the "experts" tell you. Presumably it's to save yourself from yourself.

Otherwise, think, practice, be vigilant, and go with what you feel is the safest option. It might well be understeer for your particular situation, which is fine, as long as you know that's what you're choosing.

Officelinebacker,

I'm afraid you've misunderstood, so I'm going to parse your post out so it is easier to understand my responses:

This isn't understeer or oversteer. This is no steer - in other words, loss of control.

You may not be pointed in that direction, but you're headed in that direction (but pointed sideways or backwards!) with no opportunity to correct the direction of travel.

I realize, this is somewhat counter-intuitive, but I've had more luck when I went off track nose first, than when I went rear end first. When going off front end first, there was a speed were the grip came back and I could steer again, but when I went off tail end first, I had to wait for the racecar to come to a complete stop before I could manuever again.

This isn't about personal preference or comfort. This is about safety and it should come first.

I'm "Scangauging", too!
 

Right on!! Exactly! There is yet another advantage to an over-steering
car ( trucks don't live in this world) most drivers aren't even aware of...and this is steering. It is a piece of cake ( usually...) to steer an over-steering car with the throttle! Try this with an under-steering car...and nothing happens.

NASCAR drivers refer to "tight" and "loose" - this is the same thing. "Tight" is over-steer, "loose" is under-steer. Question: NASCAR drivers seem to favor "loose"...do we ex-kart racers know something they don't? LOL! I much prefer to be able to steer than to just slide into trouble....

Your handle has the word "racer" in the title, so I'll give you the BOD. So I'll just say that you are misinterpreting what oversteer and understeer are.

That, and you seem to be arguing with me when there is no argument. As I said at the end of my post, it's all about experience and preference. You seem to feel more comfortable with understeer (or "no steer" as you call it). You've clearly taken your car to the limit and beyond, and choose understeer. Great. More power to you. I'm not knocking your preference. Please don't knock mine.

Also, please don't separate personal preference and safety. (Unless once chooses to be unsafe.)

Let me end by asking something, along the lines of whitevette's post:

When your car is understeering, what can you do as a driver to fix it? In my experience, keep cranking the wheel and hold on. Maybe modulate the brake pedal if you don't have ABS. Yes, the steering may come back, but when?

When oversteering, what can you do? You can steer into the skid for one, and you can apply throttle for another. Yeah, it's scary as **** to push the gas when you're losing control, but you only have to regain control once for the light to go on and say, WOW! That works!

Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, upon further meditation, I have pulled one "Gordon Smiley." Please forgive my gruesome reference, but this is when you oversteer where there's a barrier to the outside of the turn, steer into the skid, and suddenly regain traction, only to go head-on into the wall/barrier. This happened once when I was really tired and exited a freeway on an off-ramp that was unexpectedly covered in stay dry (kitty litter type stuff used to soak up oil spills). Apparently there had been an accident or some kind of oil leak and the authorities simply scattered stay dry all over the ramp and just left it there. Judging from the skid marks in the stay dry, I made it much farther then most, and had a lesser impact (for example, there were pieces of broken brake rotor further down the ramp, whereas my car was still drivable). Also in the interest of full disclosure, some cars must have simply made it through.

Whoops, you got that backwards--tight means the car is pushing, or going straighter than the steering input would dictate. Loose means oversteer.

I think most drivers prefer understeer because it's more predictable, and easier to compensate for (these cars are very well balanced so understeer in NASCAR isn't like understeer in a street car). You can induce TBO or TTO but I don't know of any way to "make" the car understeer.

That being said, the very fastest drivers can drive a loose race car, and you often see Kyle Busch and Carl Edwards coming out of the turns "sideways."

One thing I will agree with is that oversteer is way scarier and harder to handle, especially in a panic situation.

I know we already turned the subject around & around, but may I point this out:

Aged tires (sold as new)

Sensationalism aside, it's still worth to point out that tires have a shelf (and road) life. The "date code" part is interesting.

As for the "where to install worn tires" debate, my dad and some tire places I've been suggest to put the less worn in the rear, quoting oversteer prevention. Another "tire" place (Canadian Tire, for what it's worth :roll: ) installed new tires in front of my gf's car even though I asked otherwise (she had a flat and replaced only a pair). They had the FWD/traction argument. *shrugs* Both sides are logical and have their merits. As long as you're aware of 'em all, choose the way that suits you.

Myself, if the wear difference is minimal (if I have a matched set), I'd stick the best tires on front. They'll eventually wear some more, and then I rotate, etc. Else, you grind the already worn tires even more, and need to replace those two. The rear tires then last for years, leading to the age problem.

To end the debate: buy 4 new tires (or a set of used, but matched and with equal wear), and rotate 'em frequently! :)

I love this place. At the end of the spirited discussion, we don't knock each other (or at least try not to).

I used to think I was getting the best deal by ordering my tires from the Tire Rack and getting them mounted nearby, but then I found out about these used tire places. They're a steal!

So nowadays I just buy used--they're not being represented as anything but used, they're a better value, and installation is cheaper at these places, too.

Finally, slightly worn tires are lighter and lower rolling resistance--It's a win-win-win-win-win!

I'd have to side with keeping the traction on the rear. As a racer I perfectly understand these dynamics as well. Last weekend my front tires were reaching the end of their lives... my laps seemed faster because i was smoother and it felt safer... i was actually slower due to less steering traction, but the smoothness meant I had more control over the dynamics of the car.

I've gone off track due to understeer and i've gone off due to oversteer.... watching a wall approach in your rear view mirror is FAR scarrier than watching it approach from the front where you can still steer away when you slow down.

I know people that put snow tires up front only... they say "well it gives me more traction so i can go faster"... I ask them "so how fast can you stop when your car is sideways?"