My car has Michelin Crossclimates all round.
Front were replaced last year after a burst tyre due to broken spring. Prob still on 6mm.
Rears are now down to probably getting close to limits.
Tyre size is 225/50/18
I am struggling to get this size anywhere, have found one place with this size and they are about £190 a tyre.
Am I ok to put a different make of all seasons on the back instead of Michelin?
Car is a BMW X1 non permanent xdrive (in other words FWD 99.9% of time)
|
>>Am I ok to put a different make of all seasons on the back instead of Michelin?
What does the manual say?
|
keep same make on an axle,, so yes you can replace both the rears with a different make.
|
>> keep same make on an axle,, so yes you can replace both the rears with
>> a different make.
That's exactly the line we've followed back at least as far as our BXs.
BF Goodrich were recommended as a good substitute for Michelin but I've struggled to find the brand recently.
|
I don't understand why some folk are so worried about different brands across axles, for fear of 'winding up' their diffs.
Your diff gets 'wound up' every time you go round a corner, or roundabout.
|
>> I don't understand why some folk are so worried about different brands across axles, for
>> fear of 'winding up' their diffs.
>> Your diff gets 'wound up' every time you go round a corner, or roundabout.
>>
With no disrespect then you don't understand how a diff works especially on a 4wd.
|
>> With no disrespect then you don't understand how a diff works especially on a 4wd.
Agreed. BMW xDrives are especially picky about mixed tyre wear side-to-side. I've seen several reports of cooked diffs on industry forums. So the OP's question is a sensible one!
And yes, any other brand of tyre on the rear wheels is fine; the important part from an xDrive point of view is to be sure the tread depths match. From a road safety point of view I would always fit new tyres to the rear, because in an extreme manouevre most average drivers don't want the back end breaking away first.
|
|
If you go to a reputable tyre place they should be a good source of advice about what to fit. Or if you decide to keep to the brand, you should be able to order from BlackCircles who will deliver to a local fitter of your choice.
|
‘BF Goodrich were recommended as a good substitute for Michelin but I've struggled to find the brand recently.’
B F Goodrich are a Michelin brand, they’ve owned them since 1990. Was the advice from ATS, by any chance? They’re also owned by Michelin.
|
>> B F Goodrich are a Michelin brand, they’ve owned them since 1990. Was the advice
>> from ATS, by any chance? They’re also owned by Michelin.
I think it was Formula 1 who have been my Go To for tyres and other 'fast fit' stuff since the nineties.
Are they still owned by Michelin?
|
>> Are they still owned by Michelin?
Missed edit.
I meant BF Goodrich rather than ATS.
|
“am struggling to get this size anywhere, have found one place with this size and they are about £190 a tyre.”
That’s not too bad a price. I’d stick with a matching set of Cross Climates. Handling and safety are not worth compromising for a few quid,
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 9 Apr 26 at 15:55
|
<< That's not too bad a price. I'd stick with a matching set of Cross Climates. Handling and safety are not worth compromising for a few quid >>
I may be out of date, but I don't yet think of £190 as a few quid :-)
It's very hard to judge, but I suspect many normal cautious drivers spend a lot more than they need to on tyres, mainly for peace of mind. Unless you really go for the cheapest tat of all, there should be no problem with mid-range.
|
>>there should be no problem with mid-range.
Quite. If I was trying to keep the cost down I'd look at Kumho. Around half of MX-5 owners use Kumho touring tyres, the self identified driving gods tend to look to UHP tyres from Goodyear F1/Michelin Pilot Sport 4/5. I just replace the Yokohamas that mine came with.
Falken are getting popular and are even on some new Toyotas now.
It depends on the car but some can get surprisingly squirrelly just with odd tyres (or pressures of course). This includes having to correct the steering when coming off the accelerator. I bought an old MX-5 with 3 different makes on it back in 2013 I think. It had a low frequency body shake and I could hardly keep it on the road when it was even slightly damp, slithering round roundabouts etc. I put 4 new matched tyres on (Vredestein Sportrac 3 I think) and I couldn't unstick if when I tried. The shake disappeared.
As far as all-season goes - I've not used them but Vredestein Quatrac Pro did very well in the Tyrereviews.com test, and should be significantly cheaper than Cross Climates.
|
Cheers for all the advice.
I have ordered Kumho all seasons at £109 each from My Tyres and I’ll get my local indie to fit them. I have previously had Kumho summer tyres on cars and find them fine. And also their tread pattern looks very similar to the Michelins.
These will go on the back purely as that is the tyres that are coming off. Normally I would put new tyres on the front but as they are still very good tread I’ll just make things easier by having them replace the back.
I know the arguments for it but I am firmly of the belief that newest tyres should go to the front. That is the driven wheels and the steering wheels. Front tyres always wear away quicker as they are doing the hardest work so need the best grip. I simply do not drive on the edge of limits, or anywhere near it. In my 40 years driving experience I have never once encountered the rear end twitching or breaking away.
And because of my views on this, it makes the “new to rear” argument worse because by implication you are saying put your more worn tyres on the front. Which do the most work and which are driven and steer. Just doesn’t make sense to me.
The cynic in me thinks that putting new tyres to the rear is a way of tyre companies and fitters getting you to buy more tyres over the life of a car but I’m not sure I could prove that in court.
Maybe it’s new goes on rear, worn to front and then a month later the driver buys another pair cos they can’t cope with the poor grip at the front? Who knows.
|
New to the rear is a safety thing. Costco will refuse to fit new tyres to the front only.
4wds can require 4 evenly worn tyres depending on the type. The only way to do it properly is to move them around so that they wear evenly.
|
As I say, I understand the safety argument but I disagree with it from my own personal driving style and perspective.
Re the 4WD, I wonder what the actual tolerances are. If you think of a new tyre having 8mm and wanting to change at say 3mm.
So that leaves 5mm of wear. Assuming rotating is not a regular thing so how much difference is permissible? Changing at 2mm difference between front and back means the car has been running at that difference without any issues. Same with 3mm.
How much “height” difference is say 1psi in tyre pressure.
I must watch some YouTube on this. 5mm tolerance in engineering terms to me I would think that should be acceptable but obviously it’s not.
|
A lot of people prefer the new to the front on a front wheel drive car.. Most don't end up in ditches. And almost any car can be made to oversteer by a clumsy driver.
On a modern car with DSC, TC and ABS I don't think it's much of an issue.
A couple of years ago we wrote off a back tyre on the Roomie. I needed a new Goodyear Efficient Grip. Costco could only supply a Goodyear F1. When I went to get it the guy at the counter looked up the last order and said they wouldn't fit just one.
Fortunately I had just removed the wheel and had it in the back of the Outlander. They were quite happy to mount the tyre as long as they weren't fitting to the car.
|
I wonder whether Costco's policies derive from it being a US outlet and reflect a prevalence of larger MPV and pick up style vehicles with RWD/AWD?
It's a long time since I needed to replace a single tyre and when I did sod had it that the unrepairable puncture was in one of a pair fitted only weeks earlier. F1 were happy to fit a like/like replacement.
I know AWD vehicles can have problems with unevenly worn tyres and diffs. Are there reported issues with conventional FWD cars/vans?
|
On my Ampera I had a 100% reproducible problem which was that at moderate speed (50mph+) on a particular left hand bend on a dual carriageway the traction control would kick in and cruise control would just flip off, which was a bit disconcerting as being a PHEV it used regenerative braking so the deceleration was quite harsh - not like applying the rakes, but certainly a bit unnerving. It started to happen after I put a new pair of tyres on the back.
On the specialist forum someone suggested it could be due to a small difference in the circumference of the tyres front to back, and to switch them around, So I did that, which instantly cured it.
So small differences can be significant.
|
I can only guide you on my experience on my x-drive with over 100k miles up, driven quite hard and 15k+ miles of towing, and having read about its falabilities.
Tyres get changed per axle, they wear evenly side to side so thats not a problem, a puncture on a half worn tyre could be so I changed both. BMW say diff and transfer box oils are for life, mine started to get snatchy, fluids changed, problem fixed, the x drive feels as it did when it was new.
|
Google tells me that X-drive is a rear biased AWD system. Is that right?
As to the Ampera issue I'd not considered effect on ABS and more particularly traction control.
|
>> Google tells me that X-drive is a rear biased AWD system. Is that right?
It is, only sending a portion to the front if the rears lose grip. On some M sport models its switchable by the driver for rear drive only. Its not as good as the Audi system tho.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 10 Apr 26 at 12:16
|
>> I must watch some YouTube on this. 5mm tolerance in engineering terms to me I
>> would think that should be acceptable but obviously it’s not.
But its not just 5mm. Its 5mm x outer circumference of tyre. Your worn tyre does more revolutions than your unworn tyre for the same distance, removing backlash in the diff on one side, all the time. And the "all the time" bit is key.
|
<< As I say, I understand the safety argument but I disagree with it from my own personal driving style and perspective. >>
I think the theory is that with FWD cars (as most are) the fronts are more heavily loaded, especially with a diesel on board, so the rears lift off more easily in an 'incident'. In those circs more tread on the rear may help.
A few years ago I was driving one of my previous 205s on a familiar dry road and passed a crew doing some tree surgery. All of a sudden I was heading off a right-hand bend and hit the kerbs, luckily not too hard, but enough to snap two rear subframe mounts. I have to assume that the tree fellers had left some oil on the road. Tyres were good, and I doubt I would have done any better with different ones.
Two new sandwich mounts from Ebay, replaced on my front drive - sorted ....
|
<< If I was trying to keep the cost down I'd look at Kumho.
Falken are getting popular and are even on some new Toyotas now. >>
I've got Kumho on my Pug 207SW now, and while they seem OK, I'm not sure they will manage a high mileage. On the other hand, when I bought my 205 3 years ago, the owner had been advised several times that her tyres were shot, and she finally got four Falkens fitted. Five years later they still look almost new and never need topping up - tho admittedly thay have only done about 4000 miles ...
|
>>
>> Falken are getting popular and are even on some new Toyotas now. >>
>>
I replaced the original fit Michelins on the Smart with Falken all-round. They get reasonably reviewed, and a local output specialise in them (to the extent that I could get them fitted cheaper than buying online and arranging my own fitting!).
Different sizes front and back (à la MB). Subjectively they seem slightly better than the Michelins, quieter and more predictable handling. Not sure about wear, but at the mileage the Smart does I'm not going to worry about that unduly.
Certainly about £150 cheaper than equivalent Michelins for all four corners.
|
I’m in the middle of doing some work for Bridgestone at the moment, and one of the activities is running an identical pair of FWD cars through a wet grip area.
One car has brand new tyres at one end, the other end are shaved down to 2mm.
The other car has the opposite combination.
Through the wet section, new tyres on the rear, shaved on the front, is producing mild, easily controllable understeer.
New on the front, 2mm on the rear is producing oversteer - a less intuitive situation to deal with for the vast majority of drivers.
The tests are skewed by the fact that drivers know something is going to happen, and they’re ready for it.
In real world even a self proclaimed Driving God, whilst driving normally, will cope more easily with a car pushing straight on than one attempting to swap ends.
Always new tyres to the rear, no matter how good you think you are.
|
Alternatively dont drive at a level that you are approaching the levels of grip.
If this is the tyre industries claim, and has been for years, why are Bridgestone still running tests on it?
|
>> Alternatively don't drive at a level that you are approaching the levels of grip.
Good advice but you can still be caught out by spilled diesel or whatever.
|
>> >> Alternatively don't drive at a level that you are approaching the levels of grip. >>
>> Good advice but you can still be caught out by spilled diesel or whatever. >>
True enough, but there are pragmatic limits to spending lots of money on 'extras' which just may be safer in a situation which just may happen. I suspect that very few tyres will provide grip on spilt diesel, or black ice for that matter ?
One thing not so far mentioned is aquaplaning. I would think that deep tread on the front might be quite useful in that situation ?
Last edited by: Andrew-T on Fri 10 Apr 26 at 13:54
|
|
One of the reasons for fitting new to the rear is that on low mileage cars the rear tyres can last for many years and the rubber degrades and cracks to the point it starts to separate.
|
>> One of the reasons for fitting new to the rear is that on low mileage
>> cars the rear tyres can last for many years and the rubber degrades and cracks
>> to the point it starts to separate.
Rears on our BX estate started to fail structurally with bulges in the tread before they were even close to the limit for wear.
Ten year old caravan had had new tyres 'cos the originals were aging.
|
‘If this is the tyre industries claim, and has been for years, why are Bridgestone still running tests on it?’
They’re not running tests on it, they’re reminding tyre retailers that this is the safest way for the tyre end user - the retailers’ customers.
Yes, I was sceptical beforehand (former rally driver, race and rally school instructor for 15 years, done some advanced driver training for US Special Forces, employed by motor manufacturers for VIP chauffeur activities), but I’m now firmly of the opinion that the better grip is more usefully deployed at the back.
|
I'm a best-tyres-to-the-rear man myself.
We are all basically habituated and attuned to understeering cars. Even rear wheel drive cars that can break rear traction and spin with careless driving usually have natural understeer. If you're running wide, unless you've really overdone it then adding a bit of lock and/or lifting a bit, both absolutely natural reactions, will correct it almost without you noticing that there is a skid at all.
It's popularly supposed that the rear tyres on a front wheel drive car don't have much to do. As a thought experiment, imagine substituting a pair of castors for the rear wheels.
|
<< It's popularly supposed that the rear tyres on a front wheel drive car don't have much to do. As a thought experiment, imagine substituting a pair of castors for the rear wheels. >>
You may remember that when Peugeot introduced the 306 (basically a slightly enlarged 205) it had moderate passive steering on the rear wheels ? I don't know whether that idea caught on, but I haven't heard of it since.
|
>> We are all basically habituated and attuned to understeering cars.
Some of us were brought up on Ford Capris. Understeer wasnt a word in its dictionary.
|
I put new tyres on the front - I want the bast traction on a FWD car.
I accept the rear can slide under more spirited driving or braking on a bend - but:
(a) I tend to replace tyres well before they are worn to the legal limit,
(b) I want the car to go where I steer it,
(c) having driven FWD cars for the last 30+ years, reaction to oversteer is a distant memory.
|
|
I care not which good tyres go on which end. which ever axle needs a pair of tyres, gets them. I cant even remember what pair I changed last.
|
>> I care not which good tyres go on which end. which ever axle needs a
>> pair of tyres, gets them. I cant even remember what pair I changed last.
>>
If it was the fronts, by all accounts it might have been your underpants! :-)
|
>> If it was the fronts, by all accounts it might have been your underpants! :-)
I dont think you can turn your tyres inside out.
|
>>I put new tyres on the front - I want the bast traction on a FWD car.
Same 'ere with my wife's Suzuki Allgrip, which spends 99.999% of it's time as a FWD.
Unlike my Subaru which is permanent AWD.
|
Nothing like a 'new tyres to the front or rear?' debate. :)
The industry standard is new to the rear to minimise oversteer.
The question is. 'Do you want to go int the ditch backwards or forwards?'
I, like Terry. prefer fresh deep rubber on the front. Better water clearing on the steering axle.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcH4w2osEzM
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 10 Apr 26 at 19:39
|
<< The industry standard is new to the rear to minimise oversteer. The question is. 'Do you want to go int the ditch backwards or forwards?' >>
I would be interested to know how many of those insisting on 'new at the rear' do so because they have been into a ditch backwards. If any have not, perhaps they have an irrational fear.
My worst experience of this kind was in (I think) 1965, driving a Morris 1100 on a dirt road in the foothills of Alberta. The gravel was rather deep and the car started to snake, causing an opaque dust cloud so I couldn't see that I was heading off a low embankment. When everything settled and the car had not rolled, I wondered how the h*ll to get back on the road, when after about 5 minutes of silence a tow truck appeared and dragged us out. Didn't expect payment, so we continued our journey. That's backwoods Canadians for you.
I don't think it would have made any difference to insist on best tread at the rear.
|
>> << The industry standard is new to the rear to minimise oversteer. The question is.
>> 'Do you want to go int the ditch backwards or forwards?' >>
>>
>> I would be interested to know how many of those insisting on 'new at the
>> rear' do so because they have been into a ditch backwards. If any have not,
>> perhaps they have an irrational fear.
>>
>> My worst experience of this kind was in ...
I think the manufacturers aim for their advice to be general, I'm not sure people driving in the backwoods of canada 60 years ago is relevant to the uk motorist of today.
|
<< I think the manufacturers aim for their advice to be general, I'm not sure people driving in the backwoods of canada 60 years ago is relevant to the uk motorist of today. >>
No doubt they do. But if you find yourself on a road surfaced with plenty of loose gravel I don't think the condition of your tyres (within limits) will make a great deal of difference, even 60 years later.
|
>> << I think the manufacturers aim for their advice to be general, I'm not sure
>> people driving in the backwoods of canada 60 years ago is relevant to the uk
>> motorist of today. >>
>>
>> No doubt they do. But if you find yourself on a road surfaced with plenty
>> of loose gravel I don't think the condition of your tyres (within limits) will make
>> a great deal of difference, even 60 years later.
>>
I don't think that's likely to happen to the majority of the car driving population.
|
<< I don't think that's likely to happen to the majority of the car driving population.
Quite so. But nor are some of the events apparently worried about by some who buy expensive tyres as soon as the tread reaches 3mm ?
|
>But if you find yourself on a road surfaced with plenty
>> of loose gravel I don't think the condition of your tyres (within limits) will make
>> a great deal of difference, even 60 years later.
>>
I have done plenty of driving on gravel roads both in front wheel drive and rear wheel drive. You need to take great care. It is like driving on ball bearings. I preferred front wheel drive. As long as you kept the front in front it didn't matter too much if the rear wagged a bit. One big problem is corrugations. Gravel roads quickly become corrugated from the impact of traffic on them. You have to keep speed up so as to float over the top of the corrugations. Slow down and you get shaken to bits. I took a Mini Moke with 10" wheels up north and the little wheels were too small to float over the corrugations so I had to slow down to about 20mph which was a pain on 300 mile stretches. The Austin 1800 with 14" wheels that I took the next time was very much better. You could easily cruise at 60mph but you had to be aware of the loose surface for braking and cornering. Also the cloud of dust up ahead would probably contain a road train doing 70mph!
|
<< One big problem is corrugations. Gravel roads quickly become corrugated from the impact of traffic on them. >>
Can't say I drove on many such roads, but I remember them well. Known as washboarding and usually blamed on the suspension of large American cars.
|
>>
>>
>> >> We are all basically habituated and attuned to understeering cars.
>>
>> Some of us were brought up on Ford Capris. Understeer wasnt a word in its
>> dictionary.
Good comedy comment but yes they did understeer naturally. The oversteer was usually man made:)
|
Tyre question - bathtub tom
