Tire dilemma - 2016 CX-5 GT

That’s simply outrageous, you will not get the footprint of a 245 tire on a 7” rim. Just because something fits, doesn’t mean it fits well...

The best tires on the rear is a load of s*** and recommended by tire companies so you have to replace your tires more often. There was a very thorough thread somewhere on here where this was explained in depth.


ALL of your tires should have sufficient tread to reduce the chances of a skid, but these are FWD based vehicles. Many of you don’t even have AWD to begin with, meaning the fronts are steering, braking and accelerating while the rears just follow the front axle. Even with AWD, I believe this system simply stays FWD biased until they begin to lose traction. So why the hell would you want the rear tires, which do absolutely nothing to have more traction?

Obviously you want neither unless you are a driver capable of properly correcting a skid, but what would you rather have, oversteer which is predictable and gives you every chance in the world to correct your intended line and continue on, or watch as your car understeers toward the curb?

Obviously you want sufficient tread in the rear, but the better tires should ALWAYS be on the front unless you’re just trying to change your tires more often and satisfy the tire companies.
You are entitled to your opinions. However if you google "new tires front or rear", almost all tire manufacturers, retailers, tire experts, etc say new or best tires belong on the rear! Take a look at tirerack.com and here is Consumer Reports take: https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/car-parts-and-accessories/tire-safety/index.htm
I think you misunderstand the concept of oversteer which you say is "predictable". Oversteer is loss of traction in the rear (aka fishtailing); this is dangerous and UNpredictable. This is the main reason you want higher coefficient of friction in the rear, especially in wet conditions.
 
Last edited:
I always find this a curious discussion. In particular, the last sentence in the previous post:

"Oversteer is loss of traction in the rear (aka fishtailing); this is dangerous and the main reason you want max coefficient of friction in the rear especially in wet conditions."

The clear implication is that it would be preferable to have the front end lose traction first. Resulting in a massive understeer that will see you heading off into the bushes or straight into incoming traffic for a head on collision.

For the average driver, IMO oversteer is much more easily controlled and responded to than understeer.

The scariest situations I have experienced in cars was when the car was understeering off the road. Overseer - turn into the slide, pretty easy to deal with most times.
 
Just my luck, I caught a screw in the shoulder of my stock Toyo. The only area where you can't patch/plug tires. It's also a bit concerning as I only have about 4/32 tread left and I've only driven around 13k miles.

So now I'm faced with a dilemma. Should I replace one tire only or replace all tires?

  • If I replace that particular tire, the tread depths will be all off. My alternative is replacing all four tires from Costco.
  • My Costco don't seem to carry 225/55r19 tires so I was going to go for some 235/55r19 Premier LTX. OTD price is around $902. I did read some posts where people managed to get 225/55r19 from Costco, but there doesn't seem to be availability online.
What do you guys think I should do?

Go to your Costco and special order the 225/55R19 Michelin Premier LTX tires. i did this and they came in 3 business days and Costco just installed yesterday. total price was ~$910 which includes the $70 Michelin promotion going on right now. do so quickly before the promotion runs out this month (then you will have to wait 2-3 months for it to come back).
 
just buy one new tire, you'll be fine man. you're clearly more concerned about striking a good deal with some low performing commuter tires from costco, don't waste your time changing all 4.

when it's time for you to get new tires all around, I would invest in some performance Yokohama tires like the advan sports, s drives, avid envigors, etc. these tires are brilliantly tuned to Mazda's chassis and results in great steering feedback, excellent grip in both dry/rain and amazing chassis balance.

if you don't care about how your tires perform, buy the cheapest thing you can find from a reputable brand.

Wow terrible advice.

Since the life of your other tires are nearing the end, I'd say go ahead and replace all 4. Otherwise buy a used tire around the same wear as the other 3 until you are ready to buy replacements.

Downside of AWD I suppose.

Mazda includes a the same size spare tire of completely different diameter for the AWD versions as well, give it a break. A slightly less worn tire isn’t going to do anything to your AWD system. If you want to play it safe, have the new tire shaved to the correct size like someone else mentioned. Why the hell would you get new tires on a basically new car?

And this spare tire is not to be driven on more then what....50 miles max I think?

Edit: And I'm not surprised. Stock tires sucked and their performance sucked. Had to replace my Yokohamas at 18k miles. I won't be using pos Yokohamas on my CX-5 any time soon (at all).
 
Last edited:
"Oversteer is loss of traction in the rear (aka fishtailing); this is dangerous and the main reason you want max coefficient of friction in the rear especially in wet conditions."

The clear implication is that it would be preferable to have the front end lose traction first. Resulting in a massive understeer that will see you heading off into the bushes or straight into incoming traffic for a head on collision.

For the average driver, IMO oversteer is much more easily controlled and responded to than understeer.

The scariest situations I have experienced in cars was when the car was understeering off the road. Overseer - turn into the slide, pretty easy to deal with most times.

Very, very incorrect. Oversteer is inherently more dangerous than understeer. In extreme situations, either can lead to an accident, but having a vehicle swap ends is order of magnitudes more dangerous -- and less controllable by the average driver. There's a reason all tire and auto manufacturers recommend having the highest traction tires on the rear axle.

(I spent 10 years as an R&D engineer at a top tier tire company and am currently an engineer a vehicle OEM. IOW, I've seen / measured the data.)
 
Last edited:
Very, very incorrect. Oversteer is inherently more dangerous than understeer. In extreme situations, either can lead to an accident, but having a vehicle swap ends is order of magnitudes more dangerous -- and less controllable by the average driver. There's a reason all tire and auto manufacturers recommend having the highest traction tires on the rear axle.

(I spent 10 years as an R&D engineer at a top tier tire company and am currently an engineer a vehicle OEM. IOW, I've seen / measured the data.)

+1

Thank you for your knowledgeable scientific experience and input!

It is indeed very troubling to see the horribly incorrect and unsafe advice that was given here by another poster.


Since you are most likely the most qualified poster here yet on this subject:
In your opinion Gary, what would you recommend the original poster do? Buy 1 used tire, buy 1 NEW tire, Buy 2 new tires, buy 4 new tires?
 
I wouldn't presume to be the most knowledgeable by any means. I have no expertise at all regarding the true drive-line stress induced by using tires of (slightly) different rolling radius, so I'd side with the manufacturers on this: replace all four. Since the OP's tires are close to end of life, just replace the set. If it was a FWD, then sure, two new tires on the rear are safer -- if you REALLY have to limit the expense -- but now you have tires with (possibly) different construction that will react differently to cornering, braking, water evacuation, and so on. At least with cornering, you expect the replacement tires are better than the worn front tires to prevent oversteer. ;-)

Tires are the one and only interface from your vehicle to ground, with only four small contact patches. I would never skimp and although it's a painful (I'm a cheap engineer), unexciting expense, I always go for the best tires I can. The best doesn't always mean the most expensive. I pour over reviews on Tire Rack and Discount Tire just like the next guy, but suck it up and spend way more than I'd like to for a quality product.

Being a cheap engineer, I tend to keep vehicles for the long haul. To save some money over time, the OP could think about switching from the OE 19" wheels/tires to the 17". You should be able to find a set at a reasonable cost. Replacement 17" tires are much cheaper... and I find them more comfortable and enjoy a bit of handling gain from the lower unsprung mass. Just a thought.
 
Very, very incorrect. Oversteer is inherently more dangerous than understeer. In extreme situations, either can lead to an accident, but having a vehicle swap ends is order of magnitudes more dangerous -- and less controllable by the average driver. There's a reason all tire and auto manufacturers recommend having the highest traction tires on the rear axle.

(I spent 10 years as an R&D engineer at a top tier tire company and am currently an engineer a vehicle OEM. IOW, I've seen / measured the data.)

Appear to be a lot of expert opinions out there:

Scrutinizing New Tires On Rear Axiom, Tire Age Debate


"New-tires-on-rear" is a universal axiom propagated by tire manufacturers that doesnt hold up under scrutiny, according to John M. Baldwin, principal scientist at Exponent Inc. and Ford Motor Co.s polymer technical expert for more than six years.

Using figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and interpolating from the rules of straight probability, Mr. Baldwin said the minimum number of vehicles in the U.S. with at least 9/32 inch of tread on the front and 4/32 or less in back is 8.8 million.

"Youd think there would be a heck of a lot of accidents because of this, based on the videos," he said. "From NHTSA accident statistics, we should be able to pick out whats going on with new-on-rear vs. new-on-front."

Yet a statistical analysis of NHTSA data did not indicate an increase in accidents when new tires were on the front of vehicles, Mr. Baldwin said.

He was hired as Assistant Vice President at Discount Tire not long after this was published and has not spoken on it since.

Full article here: http://www.tirebusiness.com/article/...ire-age-debate
 
Appear to be a lot of expert opinions out there:

Scrutinizing New Tires On Rear Axiom, Tire Age Debate


"New-tires-on-rear" is a universal axiom propagated by tire manufacturers that doesnt hold up under scrutiny, according to John M. Baldwin, principal scientist at Exponent Inc. and Ford Motor Co.s polymer technical expert for more than six years.

Using figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and interpolating from the rules of straight probability, Mr. Baldwin said the minimum number of vehicles in the U.S. with at least 9/32 inch of tread on the front and 4/32 or less in back is 8.8 million.

"Youd think there would be a heck of a lot of accidents because of this, based on the videos," he said. "From NHTSA accident statistics, we should be able to pick out whats going on with new-on-rear vs. new-on-front."

Yet a statistical analysis of NHTSA data did not indicate an increase in accidents when new tires were on the front of vehicles, Mr. Baldwin said.

He was hired as Assistant Vice President at Discount Tire not long after this was published and has not spoken on it since.

Full article here: http://www.tirebusiness.com/article/...ire-age-debate

Very important quote right here.
 
+1

Thank you for your knowledgeable scientific experience and input!

It is indeed very troubling to see the horribly incorrect and unsafe advice that was given here by another poster.


Since you are most likely the most qualified poster here yet on this subject:
In your opinion Gary, what would you recommend the original poster do? Buy 1 used tire, buy 1 NEW tire, Buy 2 new tires, buy 4 new tires?

I did not give anyone any advice, thank you very much! Please dont misrepresent others.

I simply outlined my own experience.

In those extensive tests done by manufacturers, how did cars with new (or better) tyres on the rear go in straight line emergency braking tests in the wet, compared to new tyres on the front?
 
Last edited:
+1

Thank you for your knowledgeable scientific experience and input!

It is indeed very troubling to see the horribly incorrect and unsafe advice that was given here by another poster.


Since you are most likely the most qualified poster here yet on this subject:
In your opinion Gary, what would you recommend the original poster do? Buy 1 used tire, buy 1 NEW tire, Buy 2 new tires, buy 4 new tires?

Youre a funny guy you know that?

I said to buy a used/new tire and make sure it is shaved to the correct tread as the rest of the tires. I dont see how this is bad or incorrect information.

You always want the best tires to be on the front, unless youre trying to satisfy the tire companies. Another poster explained all about this.

Funny how you say my information is incorrect, yet you say wrongly advise everyone that the Mazda MZI motor was designed by ford. Youre literally a moron..
 
I did not give anyone any advice, thank you very much! Please dont misrepresent others.

I simply outlined my own experience.

In those extensive tests done by manufcaturers, how did cars with new (or better) tyres on the rear go in straight line emergency braking tests in the wet, compared to new tyres on the front?

Good point, and you won't find any tests for wet weather emergency braking distances with new tires on front vs rear from the tire manufacturers. They only try to whip the rear end around on a wet track.
 
Last edited:
I did not give anyone any advice, thank you very much! Please dont misrepresent others.

I simply outlined my own experience.

In those extensive tests done by manufacturers, how did cars with new (or better) tyres on the rear go in straight line emergency braking tests in the wet, compared to new tyres on the front?

My post was not directed at you. Sorry if it appeared that way.
 
You’re a funny guy you know that?

I said to buy a used/new tire and make sure it is shaved to the correct tread as the rest of the tires. I don’t see how this is “bad” or incorrect information.

You always want the best tires to be on the front, unless you’re trying to satisfy the tire companies. Another poster explained all about this.

Funny how you say my information is incorrect, yet you say wrongly advise everyone that the Mazda MZI motor was designed by ford. You’re literally a moron..

and you're an immature know-it-all asshole.

(rockon)
 
You’re a funny guy you know that?

I said to buy a used/new tire and make sure it is shaved to the correct tread as the rest of the tires. I don’t see how this is “bad” or incorrect information.

You always want the best tires to be on the front, unless you’re trying to satisfy the tire companies. Another poster explained all about this.

Funny how you say my information is incorrect, yet you say wrongly advise everyone that the Mazda MZI motor was designed by ford. You’re literally a moron..

HUH?? Do I need to go back and quote everything you said to remind you? You are totally false...

You told the original poster to:
"just buy one new tire, you'll be fine man. you're clearly more concerned about striking a good deal with some low performing commuter tires from costco, don't waste your time changing all 4."

This is bad advice, I do not know any other way to put it to you.
 
Last edited:
I use my common sense putting tires with a little more tread at front which carry more responsibility on car safety and performance hence wearing faster. This will even out the tread depth better for all 4 tires. We're not talking about putting worn-out tires with less than 2/32" tread depth to the rear.
 
I use my common sense putting tires with a little more tread at front which carry more responsibility on car safety and performance hence wearing faster. This will even out the tread depth better for all 4 tires. We're not talking about putting worn-out tires with less than 2/32" tread depth to the rear.

Agree, common sense goes first always.

You people need to stop being a bunch of sheep and falling for the bulls*** that tire companies spew to get more money from all of you. Its ridiculous..
 
Curses, you've uncovered our dastardly plot! All that work to make driving safer was really just a front to extract money from the masses.

(Did you know we use 0W20 oil in the tire formulations? Shhh, don't tell anyone...)
 
Good point, and you won't find any tests for wet weather emergency braking distances with new tires on front vs rear from the tire manufacturers. They only try to whip the rear end around on a wet track.

Indeed, I knew that of course before I posted the question.
 
Back