Oil change interval
Had One
Foci is longer than in the states. In the states its 5000 miles. What is
the recommended change interval in Europe.
Thanks
Gary McClean
news:uT_Nb.81375$I06.348851@attbi_s01...
10,000 to 12,500 miles depending on the model year.
G.
Dave Gower
"Gary McClean" <GaryMcNO...@yahoo.com> wrote
> 10,000 to 12,500 miles depending on the model year.
Uh are you sure you don't mean Kilometres? I've never heard of a
recommendation of 12,500 miles (20,000 kilometres)
I read last Fall that GM had published a report saying that most North
American cars are wasting a lot of oil by being changed far too soon, that
oil is good for at least 6K miles (10K kilometres) even if it starts to look
a little dirty. Unless the car is mostly driven in stop-and-go traffic and
short trips.
Since most of my driving is highway I have decided to go with 10K.
saynothankyou ourhouse.com
Don't know about europe, but in the States we've been getting screwd
into too frquent oil changes for a long time now. Cnanging oil and
filter or having it done used to be an event. Now the bastards would
have you in there twice before breakfast if they could think of a
line of BS that people would buy. There used to be a 10,000 mile
interval, then it went to 7500 a lot of years ago. At that time
Penzoil came out with an additive called ,"PZL" that raised the price
of oil 10 cents a quart. There claim was that it doubled the
time/miles between oil changes. So for a lot of years I changed oil in
my 1960 Ford Falcon every 15,000 miles.
Suddenly the oil with the , "PZL" additive was removed from the
stores. I had to make a command decision and asked myself, "What the
hell could they be adding to this oil that would double the miles
between oil changes". The answer, of course was nothing. So I kept
right on with my oil changes at every 15,000 miles.
I traded the old Falcon in at well over 100,000 miles as I have every
other car I've owned and changed oil lin religiously every 15,000
miles. When I take my 2001 Focus for an oil and filter change which is
recommended every 5,000 miles, they put a big sticker on the
windshield that says I need to come back in 3,000 miles. There would
be no end to it if the little bastards could have their way.
Remember when it was recommended that the filter be changed every
other oil change? Not any more. All the "experts will now chime in
about hotter running engines and higer revs, etc. Wouldn't one be
correct to expect that lubricants have improved over the years as
well?
Freddie
Michael Heiming
> "Gary McClean" <GaryMcNO...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > 10,000 to 12,500 miles depending on the model year.
> Uh are you sure you don't mean Kilometres? I've never heard of a
> recommendation of 12,500 miles (20,000 kilometres)
Yep, 20000 km (12500 miles) is the recommendation of Ford, at
least for the petrol engines, diesel are usually shorter but I
don't know exactly the number.
> I read last Fall that GM had published a report saying that most North
> American cars are wasting a lot of oil by being changed far too soon, that
> oil is good for at least 6K miles (10K kilometres) even if it starts to look
> a little dirty. Unless the car is mostly driven in stop-and-go traffic and
> short trips.
> Since most of my driving is highway I have decided to go with 10K.
Yep, some oil that doesn't get dirty isn't worth anything, the
changed color shows that the oil is able to absorb the dirt.
--
Michael Heiming
Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for
inconvenience, but I get tons of SPAM
Alan
<michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote
>Dave Gower <davegow.r...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Gary McClean" <GaryMcNO...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> > 10,000 to 12,500 miles depending on the model year.
>
>> Uh are you sure you don't mean Kilometres? I've never heard of a
>> recommendation of 12,500 miles (20,000 kilometres)
>
>Yep, 20000 km (12500 miles) is the recommendation of Ford, at
>least for the petrol engines, diesel are usually shorter but I
>don't know exactly the number.
Diesel 10,000 miles.
For both models there is a caveat in the owners manual saying that the
oil and filter should be changed (independently of a 'normal' service)
at an undefined shorter period if the car is used for:
Short trips of less than 10 miles, particularly in winter when the
outside temperature is low.
Mostly in start/stop urban traffic or with excessive idling.
In the UK handbook(s) the recommended oil is SAE 5W-30 - although 5W-40
or 10W-40 can be used depending on the ambient temperature and with
possible reduced engine performance, reduced fuel economy and increased
emission levels
>
>> I read last Fall that GM had published a report saying that most North
>> American cars are wasting a lot of oil by being changed far too soon, that
>> oil is good for at least 6K miles (10K kilometres) even if it starts to look
>> a little dirty. Unless the car is mostly driven in stop-and-go traffic and
>> short trips.
>
>> Since most of my driving is highway I have decided to go with 10K.
>
>Yep, some oil that doesn't get dirty isn't worth anything, the
>changed color shows that the oil is able to absorb the dirt.
>
--
Alan
mailto:news2me...@amacleod.clara.co.uk
per
meddelandet news:4008a60c...@news.texoma.net...
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:57:14 GMT, "Had One" <1ri...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >I live in the states and been told that the oil change interval for
European
> >Foci is longer than in the states. In the states its 5000 miles. What
is
> >the recommended change interval in Europe.
> >
> Thanks
>
> Don't know about europe, but in the States we've been getting screwd
> into too frquent oil changes for a long time now.
Read your bible lately?
See:
http://www.motor-oil-bible.com/index-test9-new.html
/per
Kelly M
warrenty will be void. I was also told by ford that my oil must be changed
every 5000km. I have actually let that slip and gone around 10 000km without
an oilchange and I felt pretty guilty about doing so. But After reading this
thread, I dont feel so bad anymore =)
Also, there are local places such as "lube-x" that are saying that people
should change their oil every 3000km-4000km. So it looks like this is
turning into quite the money grab
...Just my two cents
Kelly
"Alan" <junk_...@amacleod.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wVmF7XmA...@amacleod.clara.co.uk...
Info
told you that you would void your warranty if you did not use 5W-20, and
that
oil must be changed every 5000km.
My Ford dealership here in Alberta puts right on the service receipt that
Ford recommends oil changes every 7500 KMS. Also the Ford dealership put in
5W30 oil for the first year of ownership because they could not get 5W20
oil. You will not void your warranty as long as you have a record and
receipts that oil changes took place. I am running 10,000kms between changes
and keep accurate records of all service and repairs.
"Kelly M" <Kelly_Machula@shaw(NOSPAM).ca> wrote in message
news:aLeOb.148116$X%5.145657@pd7tw2no...
Andy Lee
<junk_...@amacleod.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <kjpaub...@news.heiming.de>, Michael Heiming
><michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote
>>Dave Gower <davegow.r...@magma.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> "Gary McClean" <GaryMcNO...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>> > 10,000 to 12,500 miles depending on the model year.
>>
>>> Uh are you sure you don't mean Kilometres? I've never heard of a
>>> recommendation of 12,500 miles (20,000 kilometres)
>>
>>Yep, 20000 km (12500 miles) is the recommendation of Ford, at
>>least for the petrol engines, diesel are usually shorter but I
>>don't know exactly the number.
>
>Diesel 10,000 miles.
>
>For both models there is a caveat in the owners manual saying that the
>oil and filter should be changed (independently of a 'normal' service)
>at an undefined shorter period if the car is used for:
My dealer has just told me that the recommended interval for the TDCi
is 12500 same as the petrol I'll take their word for it. The Americans
here seem to be getting screwed with this 5000 mile rubbish or do they
use massively different engines that really "do" need more frequent
changes. Mind you a lot of Americans seen fascinated with this tyre
rotation thing as well. Seems like a waste of time and money to me
what possible benefit can changing wheels from front to back have just
leave em on till they are worn out then replace them.
Regards
Andy Lee
--
It matters not whether you win or lose; what matters is whether I win or lose.
Gary McClean
news:ipqdnQ1c4en...@magma.ca...
>
> "Gary McClean" <GaryMcNO...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > 10,000 to 12,500 miles depending on the model year.
>
> Uh are you sure you don't mean Kilometres? I've never heard of a
> recommendation of 12,500 miles (20,000 kilometres)
Quite sure. 10,000 miles and 12,500 miles are the figures these days for
BOTH petrol and diesels!
G.
Dave Gower
"Andy Lee" <a...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>The Americans here seem to be getting screwed with this 5000 mile rubbish
or do they
> use massively different engines that really "do" need more frequent
> changes.
Actually it's worse - 3000 miles (5000 kilometers in Canada) and no the
engines aren't all that different except that they are only 2 litre (well
2.3 has been added this year).
>Mind you a lot of Americans seen fascinated with this tyre
> rotation thing as well. Seems like a waste of time and money to me
> what possible benefit can changing wheels from front to back have just
> leave em on till they are worn out then replace them.
Ford dropped that recommendation recently. My dealer says put the best ones
on the back.
Rockin Ronnie
"Andy Lee" <a...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dckj00tebolpcqjbk...@4ax.com...
Tire rotation makes a difference when you have AWD. Example Subarus; tire
rotation is critical.
I change oil every 5000 Klms. Call it peace of mind and cheap maintenance.
Ron
Had One
correct. I think are the victums of a scheme to sell more oil that is
between the car makers and the oil giants. I am going to change to Amsoil
synthetic and do a 10,000 oil change from now on.
Wasted enough money on useless oil and filter changes.
Thanks every one for you posts.
"Had One" <1ri...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:uT_Nb.81375$I06.348851@attbi_s01...
Kelly M
It was Spruceland Ford in Whitecourt Alberta. I was working at a lube bay in
whitecourt at the time and thus I had access to cheap 5W-50 full sythetic..
and I was told that if I did put that oil in my engine.. that I would no
longer have warrenty coverage on my engine
"Info" <unk...@centre.com> wrote in message
news:q3jOb.152097$ts4.26338@pd7tw3no...
Gary
oil (he uses synthetic, which is recommended. Ther dealer told him he
can go as long as 15K miles between changes. Anyway, the inside of the
engine was quite dirty with black deposits that looked like the
engines of the old $100 cars I had as a teen. Goven that he always
uses synthetic, I was very surprized. I opened the oil cap on my Focus
and he was a amazed at how clean it is inside...almost like new with
43K miles.
Perhaps these deposits will not hurt a thing, but I will continue with
3-4K mile oil changes. For me that is only 4 times/year and an extra
$10-20 over 2x/yr. Most of us actually do meet the severe use
maintenance schedule. I know that I do.
So I guess it is hard to prove either way but it is cheap insurance if
you err on the side of too often oil changes.
Gary
Alan
<gm...@yahoo.com> wrote
>Perhaps these deposits will not hurt a thing, but I will continue with
>3-4K mile oil changes. For me that is only 4 times/year and an extra
>$10-20 over 2x/yr.
Today I did an oil change on my car. The oil (5W30) and filter was 21GBP
(approximately 35 dollars US). I could have paid a third more for a
'branded' oil so in the UK it's a bit more than an $20 for extra oil
changes. I do a lot of commuting in very slow traffic so I tend to
change oil at around 8k miles.
>Most of us actually do meet the severe use
>maintenance schedule. I know that I do.
In the UK we have a temperate climate so we don't see the extremes of
temperature seen in countries with a large land mass. This may explain
why the oil change interval is longer than recommended in the US.
--
Alan
mailto:news2me...@amacleod.clara.co.uk
per
news:6282de2.04011...@posting.google.com...
I have changed oil every 10,000 km (6,250 miles) instead of the European
recomended 20,000 km (12,500 miles) interval on my 2 litre Zetec engined
Focus '00. My car now has 90,000km on it and I just checked the inside of
the oil fill cap and the parts of the cam and lifters that can be seen in
there. It looks all clean with absolutely no sludge or deposits. The oil is
coloured all right, but then its due for the 9th change now. I have always
made the oil changes at the Ford garage with the 5W30 they have in the
barrel there. (Not 5W20) I believe it's a semi synthetic, probably refined
in Europe.
I don't believe in the 300 miles intervals the american oil companies want,
and I also find it hard to believe in the 30,000 or even 50,000 km intervals
some german car makers use as sales points for their cars too. (With
special, fully synthetic oil only, but still...)
/per
per
"I don't believe in the 3,000 miles intervals.."
/per
Carlos Focus
year 2000, every 20.000 kms. Before it was 15.000 kms. When I bought my
Focus 2.0i the car dealer told me it was better to change the oil every
7.500 kms, like the cars from 80's, but when I told them that in the
brochure said it was 20.000 kms, they did not answer (of course it was
better, for them!)
I read a magazine some years ago, in which they sealed the engine of a
Citroen ZX (80's and middle 90's car) for more than 90.000 kms, no oil
changes, nothing done in the engine. They wanted to know if the car was
going to break down. When they opened the engine, it was in pretty good
conditions.
So be sure when they say 20.000 kms, the oil can be used for at least 30.000
kms.
--
Carlos Focus [MLPEC #2]
HP ipaq 2210 + Haicom HI303 CF
saynothankyou ourhouse.com
<a...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> The Americans
>here seem to be getting screwed with this 5000 mile rubbish or do they
>use massively different engines that really "do" need more frequent
>changes. Mind you a lot of Americans seen fascinated with this tyre
>rotation thing as well. Seems like a waste of time and money to me
>what possible benefit can changing wheels from front to back have just
>leave em on till they are worn out then replace them.
>
Don't weep for us, you poor chaps must get pretty raw yourselves with
the inflated fossil fuel costs over there.
Freddie
Timothy J. Lee
Andy Lee <a...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Mind you a lot of Americans seen fascinated with this tyre
>rotation thing as well. Seems like a waste of time and money to me
>what possible benefit can changing wheels from front to back have just
>leave em on till they are worn out then replace them.
If you like having your tires matched, then tire rotation will cause
them to all wear out at about the same time, so you can replace them
with all of the same type of tire (instead of trying to match your
remaining not worn out tires that may no longer be available).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Andy Lee
Please, pleasem don't remind me! It would be cheaper to run the car on
Beer if possible.
>Freddie
Andy Lee
<joiner...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Tire rotation makes a difference when you have AWD. Example Subarus; tire
>rotation is critical.
Why? I don't get this. If the tyre is worn out replace it. What
possible difference can it make putting a part worn tyre from the back
of the car on the front? I'm no expert but I would guess having the
best possible tyres on the wheels that steer the car would be the best
bet.
>
>I change oil every 5000 Klms. Call it peace of mind and cheap maintenance.
>
Whats cheap about replacing the oil more frequently than the Car
manufacturers intervals. Do you think that this will stop the engine
wearing out more often?
>
>Ron
>
Michael Heiming
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:18:17 GMT, "Rockin Ronnie"
> <joiner...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Tire rotation makes a difference when you have AWD. Example Subarus; tire
> >rotation is critical.
> Why? I don't get this. If the tyre is worn out replace it. What
> possible difference can it make putting a part worn tyre from the back
> of the car on the front? I'm no expert but I would guess having the
> best possible tyres on the wheels that steer the car would be the best
> bet.
The best tires should be mounted on the rear of your car.
> >I change oil every 5000 Klms. Call it peace of mind and cheap maintenance.
> Whats cheap about replacing the oil more frequently than the Car
> manufacturers intervals. Do you think that this will stop the engine
> wearing out more often?
If you are not driving very low distance (<3 km), where the
engine doesn't get warm, better use a bicycle then, there's
nothing wrong with the manufacture intervals. Once a year or
every 20.000 km for the petrol Focus engines. Everything else is
just a waste of money.
saynothankyou ourhouse.com
wrote:
>In article <dckj00tebolpcqjbk...@4ax.com>,
>Andy Lee <a...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Mind you a lot of Americans seen fascinated with this tyre
>>rotation thing as well. Seems like a waste of time and money to me
>>what possible benefit can changing wheels from front to back have just
>>leave em on till they are worn out then replace them.
>
>If you like having your tires matched, then tire rotation will cause
>them to all wear out at about the same time, so you can replace them
>with all of the same type of tire (instead of trying to match your
>remaining not worn out tires that may no longer be available).
The simple truth is that the tires tend to wear even and so last
longer. Many tire stores will rotate and balance tires bought in their
store at regular intervals for free. Driving on evenly worn and well
balanced tires sure makes the car drive better. As the shop owner of
the last place I bought tires said, "be sure and come back every 6,000
miles and let me rotate and balance your tires. They'll last longer,
you'll like them more and that will make you buy your next set from me
as well".
Smart business man.
Freddie
Chris Whelan
As the shop owner of the last place I bought tires said, "be sure and come
back every 6,000
> miles and let me rotate and balance your tires. They'll last longer,
> you'll like them more and that will make you buy your next set from me
> as well".
Here in the UK the front tyres on my Focus are down to the legal limit
(1.6mm) within 10,000 miles. I wouldn't be going back many times, would
I.....!
I guess this is down to the fact that not many roads here are straight for
more than half a mile or so. Also, because of much higher traffic densities,
there are many more traffic lights, roundabouts and other junctions than in
the US. Nipping out smartly into a busy traffic stream must take its toll.
Getting back on topic, before my '99 Focus I owned two other Zetec engined
cars. (Both Escorts). These only ever had oil changes at 10,000 miles. Both
vehicles ran totally reliably up to 4 years old/80,000 miles. None of them
have ever needed a single drop of oil to top up with between changes. I
would say these longer intervals between changes are fine unless you
regularly do trips less than 3 miles.
Chris
--
Remove prejudice to reply.
Alan
<michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote
>
>The best tires should be mounted on the rear of your car.
Surely not on a front wheel drive car? The fact that the front tyres
wear faster than the rear suggests that the best tyres should be fitted
to the front.
--
Alan
mailto:news2me...@amacleod.clara.co.uk
Tim (Remove NOSPAM. Registry corupted, reformated HD and lost alot of stuff :(
"Chris Whelan" <cawhelan...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bugj56$h1tpo$1...@ID-117116.news.uni-berlin.de...
> <snip>
>
>
> Here in the UK the front tyres on my Focus are down to the legal limit
> (1.6mm) within 10,000 miles. I wouldn't be going back many times, would
> I.....!
>
You must go like jensen Button- both sets of (4) tyres on my '00 Zetec have
lasted 25k!! I dont hang about either.
Tim..
Michael Heiming
> In message <3vdgub...@news.heiming.de>, Michael Heiming
> <michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote
> >
> >The best tires should be mounted on the rear of your car.
> Surely not on a front wheel drive car? The fact that the front tyres
> wear faster than the rear suggests that the best tyres should be fitted
> to the front.
Ever heard of hydroplaning/aquaplaning? If the front wheels get out
of control, not a big problem, but if the rear ones do, well
you'll be skidding and be hardly able to get it back safely.
It doesn't matter what kind of car, the best tires belong to the
rear, unless you live in a desert. You can try that with some
small toy car and some tape on the front/rear to simulate no contact.
Andy Lee
Registry corupted, reformated HD and lost alot of stuff :\("
<the....@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
Nah you only think you go fast Tim :-) Seriously mine normally last
around 20,000 as well. Chris must really give em some stick!!!
All this rotation stuff is bollocks Tires wear faster at the front and
less at the rear. If you leave em on the back they will last a lot
longer and just replace the fronts as and when. I could see if you
were concerned about keeping the same tyre make and model all round
but on cars like a focus I don't see this as a major problem
>
>Tim..
>
Chris Whelan
> All this rotation stuff is bollocks Tires wear faster at the front and
> less at the rear. If you leave em on the back they will last a lot
> longer and just replace the fronts as and when. I could see if you
> were concerned about keeping the same tyre make and model all round
> but on cars like a focus I don't see this as a major problem
Not sure of the validity of your technical terminology Andy, but I agree
100% that tyre rotation makes no sense at all. ;-)
Chris
saynothankyou ourhouse.com
<andy.leeNO_...@siemens.com> wrote:
>I could see if you
>were concerned about keeping the same tyre make and model all round
...and why in the hell would you not want the same make and model all
around?
>but on cars like a focus I don't see this as a major problem
It looks as trashy on a focus as on any other car. I can't imagine a
people noted for their love of motor cars and driving, thinking it's
OK to have more than one make and model tire on a car. What's become
of all that pride, the stiff upper lip and all that good stuff. Sir
Reginald out for a spin in his MG with 2 or 3 different kinds of
tires? What's this world coming too?
Freddie
>
>>
>>Tim..
>>
>
Timothy J. Lee
Andy Lee <andy.leeNO_...@siemens.com> wrote:
>All this rotation stuff is bollocks Tires wear faster at the front and
>less at the rear. If you leave em on the back they will last a lot
>longer and just replace the fronts as and when. I could see if you
>were concerned about keeping the same tyre make and model all round
>but on cars like a focus I don't see this as a major problem
Two things that may be an issue with mismatched tires:
1. With half-worn tires in front and new tires in back (assuming same
make and model of tire), the front will grip better in dry conditions,
while the back will grip better in wet conditions. Might make for some
"interesting" handling characteristics. Different make and model tires
may also grip differently.
2. It is possible that if you just keep changing front tires as they
wear out (never moving the partially worn tires to the front), the rear
tires may deteriorate due to age before you use up all of the tread, so
you'll have wasted some of their tread life.
Andy Lee
(Freddie The Crook Finder) wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:34:25 +0000, Andy Lee
><andy.leeNO_...@siemens.com> wrote:
>
>>I could see if you
>>were concerned about keeping the same tyre make and model all round
>...and why in the hell would you not want the same make and model all
>around?
Being honest I really couldn't care less what make of tyre is on the
wheel so long as it does the job, as for cosmetic purposes if you
spend your time worrying what makers trade mark is moulded into the
tyrewall then you have way too much time on your hands.
>
>
>>but on cars like a focus I don't see this as a major problem
>It looks as trashy on a focus as on any other car. I can't imagine a
>people noted for their love of motor cars and driving, thinking it's
>OK to have more than one make and model tire on a car.
As a keen driver I'm more concerned with a tyres performance going
around bends than what it looks like. Do you guys still paint the
makers marking with white or gold paint? I'll leave that to the chaps
who are more show than go :-)
> What's become
>of all that pride, the stiff upper lip and all that good stuff. Sir
>Reginald out for a spin in his MG with 2 or 3 different kinds of
>tires? What's this world coming too?
You really want to watch those sterotypes old been they will catch you
out one day :-)
>
>Freddie
>>
>>>
>>>Tim..
>>>
>>
Andy Lee
Well it seemed like a good term at the time but maybe not. The comment
lower down the thread about the rears perishing before being
completely worn out has some validity, but I'm fairly sure no rear
tyres I've ever had have ever experienced this problem they usually
last around twice as long as the fronts and are never perished when
replaced. It could be a problem in countries where exposure to the sun
is more of a problem or in cars that have a very low annual mileage
rate.
saynothankyou ourhouse.com
<andy.leeNO_...@siemens.com> wrote:
>Do you guys still paint the
>makers marking with white or gold paint? I'll leave that to the chaps
>who are more show than go :-)
>You really want to watch those sterotypes old been they will catch you
>out one day :-)
You mean Stereotypes? Who, me?
Freddie
>>>>Tim..
>>>>
>>>
>
Blown Fuse
bollocks. ESPECIALLY, all this bollocks about the best tyres should be on
the back!! Who are these morons?
1. Tyre tread is there only to cope with water on the road.
2. Tyre tread is not necessary for acceleration, is the tyres slip while
giving it some stick - so what, you know what you are doing.
3. You need very good water removal when breaking and cornering, and its the
fronts that do all the braking and cornering. The back wheels just follow,
that's why tyres on the back last longer than on the front.
4. And where is all the weight on a car - the front. Ever seen a car
sinking in water - always front first.
5. Even on non ABS cars, it is never possible to lock the rear wheels.
There is very little braking effect from the rear wheels as they lock up so
easily, so why do you need tread?
So, starting with a new set of 4 tyres, I wait until the fronts are 2/3 rds
worn at the front, then swap the fronts for the backs. This gives me a few
more K miles when I end up with worn out backs, and 1/3 fronts. Then by 2
new fronts, and put the used fronts back on the back. When the backs get
down 2mm, I buy 2 new for the fronts, and new the warn fronts to the back.
This is a great way to use the tyres to their fullest amount, while limiting
tyre purchase to only 2. Give a try. 4 tyres at a time is too rich for me!
And how do I know when it is time to change the fronts? - When I go round a
corner I know well, in the rain, at a particular speed, I can feel the front
starting to slide.
And I wonder why UK TDCIs can do 12,500 UK miles before an oil change, and
yet USA TDCIs can only do 5000 Km (2500 miles). Must be due to the low cost
of oil products. If us in the UK were told to change the oil every 2500
miles, we would say to the car manufacturer 'get knotted' and they
wouldn't sell a single car.
Uk costs would be about £18-20 for the oil plus £30-40 for the change if you
paid someone to do it - I guess as I usually do it myself.
You in the USA should do the same thing.
"Andy Lee" <andy.leeNO_...@siemens.com> wrote in message
news:q72q00dkdllan2apc...@4ax.com...
Info
These people you refer to as "morons" are the tire manufacturers and
knowledgeable tire dealers.
If you really knew what you were talking about, instead of bull shitting,
you would be also knowledgeable in the latest recommendations from the tire
manufacturers.
You put the best tires or the 2 new tires on the back because the back will
break free sooner than the front in adverse weather conditions and hard
manoeuvres. This applies to both rear wheel drive as well as front drive
vehicles .
Tire tread is really necessary for traction and acceleration.
The back wheels do not always follow the front. In snow and really icy
conditions, put summer tires on the back and snow tires on the front and you
will find out really quick that the fronts do not follow the back. Worn
tires on the back will not always follow the front (on a front drive car)
under these conditions.
A car sinks front first in water, of course it does its heavier at the
front. But a rear engine car in water, will sink rear first, so what's your
point.
"Even on non ABS cars, it is never possible to lock the rear wheels.
There is very little braking effect from the rear wheels as they lock up so
easily, so why do you need tread?'
I do not understand this statement as you first say that rear brakes never
lock up and then you say they do.
Yep you should rotate tires so you get even wear. If you do not, you can get
cupping and uneven wear especially with cars which have rear independent
link suspension. You will also increase the "life" of you tires.
The latest information coming out from testing, is tires might start to have
expiry dates on them. It has been found that tires naturally degrade over
time due to weathering, ozone exposure and heat, cracks and internal faults
develop causing the tread and belts to separate.
But I am sure you will respond to that information with "bollocks"???
Regardless of tires a professional driver (( imo) which you do not appear to
be) will always drive and take into account weather conditions.
You have just been flamed.
"Blown Fuse" <qq...@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:WGBPb.26$v0...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
HbgpodLW
mileage and tire brand used...with and w/o rotation. I don't have money to
waste on replacing tires sooner than I have to but I did notice with my 2000
wagon I got shorter wear than expected even with rotation...and I'm sure it
wasn't my driving as the wagon was a little underpowered. Still love my Focus
though - 2003 ZX5 Linda
Michael Heiming
> You posting name "blown fuse" is a description that suits you very well.
> These people you refer to as "morons" are the tire manufacturers and
> knowledgeable tire dealers.
> If you really knew what you were talking about, instead of bull shitting,
> you would be also knowledgeable in the latest recommendations from the tire
> manufacturers.
> You put the best tires or the 2 new tires on the back because the back will
> break free sooner than the front in adverse weather conditions and hard
> manoeuvres. This applies to both rear wheel drive as well as front drive
> vehicles .
Ack, that was just a troll who probably never heard about
hydroplaning/aquaplaning.
If the front wheels get out of control, not a big problem,
but if the rear ones do, well you'll be skidding and be hardly
able to get it back safely.
--
Andy Lee
<michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>Ack, that was just a troll who probably never heard about
>hydroplaning/aquaplaning.
>
>If the front wheels get out of control, not a big problem,
So if the front wheels get out of control/aquaplane its not a problem?
Would you like to explain how one controls a car with no steering.
>but if the rear ones do, well you'll be skidding and be hardly
>able to get it back safely.
Never heard of opposite lock? How do you think rally drivers control a
car which is almost always skidding.
Michael Heiming
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:15:38 +0100, Michael Heiming
> <michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote:
> >Ack, that was just a troll who probably never heard about
> >hydroplaning/aquaplaning.
> >
> >If the front wheels get out of control, not a big problem,
> So if the front wheels get out of control/aquaplane its not a problem?
> Would you like to explain how one controls a car with no steering.
It will drive straight with no problems at all, as long as the
rear wheels have contact, if those break out you have lost.
> >but if the rear ones do, well you'll be skidding and be hardly
> >able to get it back safely.
> Never heard of opposite lock? How do you think rally drivers control a
> car which is almost always skidding.
Are you a rally driver? No you aren't as you have obviously not
even the slightest clue about elementary physics that keep a car on the
road.
BTW
*Plonk*
Paul Giverin
<michael...@www.heiming.de> writes
>Andy Lee <andy.leeNO_...@siemens.com> wrote:
>
>> So if the front wheels get out of control/aquaplane its not a problem?
>> Would you like to explain how one controls a car with no steering.
>
>It will drive straight with no problems at all, as long as the
>rear wheels have contact, if those break out you have lost.
>
front wheels step out when cornering. It might drive straight into the
oncoming vehicle but that's about it. Like most others, I stick my new
tyres on the front if its a FWD car.
>> >but if the rear ones do, well you'll be skidding and be hardly
>> >able to get it back safely.
>
>> Never heard of opposite lock? How do you think rally drivers control a
>> car which is almost always skidding.
>
>Are you a rally driver? No you aren't as you have obviously not
>even the slightest clue about elementary physics that keep a car on the
>road.
>
I'm not sure that you do.
>BTW
>*Plonk*
>
Do you always plonk when you are losing an argument? That's not very
mature is it. Perhaps you might want to plonk me too.
--
Paul Giverin
British Jet Engine Website http://www.britjet.co.uk
Reply to address NOT valid. Replace NEWS with paul.
Michael Heiming
> In message <mh3rub...@news.heiming.de>, Michael Heiming
> <michael...@www.heiming.de> writes
> >Andy Lee <andy.leeNO_...@siemens.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So if the front wheels get out of control/aquaplane its not a problem?
> >> Would you like to explain how one controls a car with no steering.
> >
> >It will drive straight with no problems at all, as long as the
> >rear wheels have contact, if those break out you have lost.
> >
> What a load of nonsense. How is the car going to drive straight if your
> front wheels step out when cornering. It might drive straight into the
> oncoming vehicle but that's about it. Like most others, I stick my new
> tyres on the front if its a FWD car.
LOL...You obviously don't have a clue about about physics that
hold a car on the road, or about hydroplaning/aquaplaning. Ask
someone that knows more about it and stop dispersing your false
assertions. I don't feel like wasting anymore time about the
problem, as you insist on your FUD.
Once again, the best tires belong to the back of a car, no matter
if front/rear driven. Ask some tire manufacturer about it, they
will tell you.
Stephen F.
"Paul Giverin" <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EmWXtcCL...@10.0.0.3...
> In message <mh3rub...@news.heiming.de>, Michael Heiming
> <michael...@www.heiming.de> writes
> >Andy Lee <andy.leeNO_...@siemens.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So if the front wheels get out of control/aquaplane its not a problem?
> >> Would you like to explain how one controls a car with no steering.
> >
> >It will drive straight with no problems at all, as long as the
> >rear wheels have contact, if those break out you have lost.
> >
> What a load of nonsense. How is the car going to drive straight if your
> front wheels step out when cornering. It might drive straight into the
> oncoming vehicle but that's about it. Like most others, I stick my new
> tyres on the front if its a FWD car.
Perhaps like many Germans he's most familiar with driving in a straight line
ad nauseum on the Autobahn. My experience from following German tourists
through the Alps is they really don't have a clue what a curve is, and
therefore he could be excused if he has never experienced understeer in a
corner.
:-)
Stephen
Paul Giverin
<michael...@www.heiming.de> writes
>LOL...You obviously don't have a clue about about physics that
>hold a car on the road, or about hydroplaning/aquaplaning.
So you keep saying (to everyone who disagrees with you).
> Ask
>someone that knows more about it and stop dispersing your false
>assertions. I don't feel like wasting anymore time about the
>problem, as you insist on your FUD.
>
So you feel that posting here is a waste of time? Don't bother then.
I suspect that you really means that you don't want to see your own
views challenged.
>Once again, the best tires belong to the back of a car, no matter
>if front/rear driven. Ask some tire manufacturer about it, they
>will tell you.
>
I don't have to ask anyone about it. I've got almost 25 years experience
of driving FWD cars and its always the front wheels which will step out,
not the rears. That's why I make sure the best rubber is on the front
wheels.
Michael Heiming
> In message <5o8rub...@news.heiming.de>, Michael Heiming
> <michael...@www.heiming.de> writes
> >LOL...You obviously don't have a clue about about physics that
> >hold a car on the road, or about hydroplaning/aquaplaning.
> So you keep saying (to everyone who disagrees with you).
Yep, only that some people state something wrong doesn't make it
anymore true.
[..]
> >Once again, the best tires belong to the back of a car, no matter
> >if front/rear driven. Ask some tire manufacturer about it, they
> >will tell you.
> >
> I don't have to ask anyone about it. I've got almost 25 years experience
> of driving FWD cars and its always the front wheels which will step out,
You fear that they tell you the truth?
;)
Stephen F.
> of driving FWD cars and its always the front wheels which will step out,
> not the rears. That's why I make sure the best rubber is on the front
> wheels.
>
Well, yes and no. Not so relevant to aquaplaning, but in poor traction such
as snow or slick roads, but where the tire still contacts the road, having
the poorer tires on the back can exaggerate any evil tendencies a FWD car
may have under braking or in lift-throttle conditions. If you've ever
driven a Peugeot 205GTI, you're well aware of the concept of
lift-throttle-snap-oversteer. :-)
On my 1st generation VW Scirocco (light, fairly neutral handling) the best
setup in the winter was to rotate the worst tires to the *front*. There was
more than enough weight over the front wheels to help out on traction. With
the worse tires on the back, it had more of a tendency to oversteer. Now,
did it ever spontaneously go into oversteer without being provoked (i.e.
braking or lift-throttle in a *heavy* corner, or being a hooligan with the
steering)? Nope. Of course, when I say "worse" tires, I'm really only
talking about a mm of tread depth difference max. Anything more than that
and you should probably be visiting a tire store quickly.
Stephen
Paul Giverin
<michael...@www.heiming.de> writes
>Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Once again, the best tires belong to the back of a car, no matter
>> >if front/rear driven. Ask some tire manufacturer about it, they
>> >will tell you.
>> >
>> I don't have to ask anyone about it. I've got almost 25 years experience
>> of driving FWD cars and its always the front wheels which will step out,
>
>You fear that they tell you the truth?
>
road in favour of someone else's opinions then you are either brave or
foolish.
Do you believe everything your are told by a large company?
Was Thalidomide a safe drug? The manufacturer thought so.
Are cigarettes safe to smoke? The manufacturer's say they are.
What where the manufacturer's claims about the Titanic?
Andy Lee
<michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>Andy Lee <andy.leeNO_...@siemens.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:15:38 +0100, Michael Heiming
>> <michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>
>
>> >Ack, that was just a troll who probably never heard about
>> >hydroplaning/aquaplaning.
>> >
>> >If the front wheels get out of control, not a big problem,
>
>> So if the front wheels get out of control/aquaplane its not a problem?
>> Would you like to explain how one controls a car with no steering.
>
>It will drive straight with no problems at all, as long as the
>rear wheels have contact, if those break out you have lost.
And what happens if you have to avoid the vehicle in front? care to
explain how one steers with no steering on the front wheels. This can
be the result of driving with badly worn tyres on the front axle
>
>> >but if the rear ones do, well you'll be skidding and be hardly
>> >able to get it back safely.
You really talk some garbage don't you just because you may not be
able to control a rear wheel skid doesn't mean the rest of us cannot.
>
>> Never heard of opposite lock? How do you think rally drivers control a
>> car which is almost always skidding.
>
>Are you a rally driver? No you aren't as you have obviously not
>even the slightest clue about elementary physics that keep a car on the
>road.
Well if you don't understand the principles of how to apply opposite
lock whilst driving a car which has lost adhesion on it's rear wheels
I suggest that you too are not a rally driver. BTW I also comes in
usefull when on public roads
>
>BTW
>*Plonk*
Is this the normal reaction of a German who can not hold a decent
debate on a subject? Most of the ones I work with are far more polite
or have I been lucky?
Regards
Andy Lee
--
It matters not whether you win or lose; what matters is whether I win or lose.
Alan
<pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote
>Do you believe everything your are told by a large company?
>
>Was Thalidomide a safe drug? The manufacturer thought so.
>Are cigarettes safe to smoke? The manufacturer's say they are.
>What where the manufacturer's claims about the Titanic?
>
or
You need to change your oil every 3000km?
I find it strange that in the UK rotating tyres doesn't appear to be the
cult activity that it seems to be in other countries. I've never been
advised to do this by any tyre dealer and this 'important' advice
doesn't seem to be included in my car's handbook. Ford do state that
that safety and performance can drop if the tread is 3mm or less.
--
Alan
mailto:news2me...@amacleod.clara.co.uk
Paul Giverin
<junk_...@amacleod.clara.co.uk> writes
>
>I find it strange that in the UK rotating tyres doesn't appear to be
>the cult activity that it seems to be in other countries. I've never
>been advised to do this by any tyre dealer and this 'important' advice
>doesn't seem to be included in my car's handbook. Ford do state that
>that safety and performance can drop if the tread is 3mm or less.
>
was less strain on your wallet replacing tyres in pairs rather than all
four at once. You pay the same both ways but one method spreads the
load.
Michael Heiming
> In message <vaarub...@news.heiming.de>, Michael Heiming
> <michael...@www.heiming.de> writes
> >Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >Once again, the best tires belong to the back of a car, no matter
> >> >if front/rear driven. Ask some tire manufacturer about it, they
> >> >will tell you.
> If you would choose to disregard 25 years of your own experience on the
> road in favour of someone else's opinions then you are either brave or
> foolish.
> Do you believe everything your are told by a large company?
Not applicable here. Believe what you want, I go with physics.
BTW
If you happen to take a car security training one day, ask the
instructor about it.
Timothy J. Lee
Blown Fuse <qq...@spamfree.com> wrote:
>And I wonder why UK TDCIs can do 12,500 UK miles before an oil change, and
>yet USA TDCIs can only do 5000 Km (2500 miles).
Ford does not sell TDCi engine cars in the US.
The only diesel engine cars for sale in recent years in the US are from
VW, who recommends 10000 mile oil change (and other service) intervals.
Blown Fuse
Wasn't that terrific? What a fantastic response! I loved it. I'm still
giggling. I have read all the responses and I'm no sure where best to fit
in the reply!
I fancy that all the stuff that Michael was talking about realy applies to
the sort of cars that Top Gear reviews. You know, fast twitchy cars, loads
more horse power than I could ever afford and indeed would ever want to buy.
Yeah, I'm sure that for fast cornerning at 90 mph, with only 3 wheels on
the ground going around the hammer head corner on that aerodrome, 8mm of
treat on the back, 6mm on the front, just the sort of track driving that
Top Gear shows when visitors to the programme drive the 'ordinary' car as
fast as they can, then that is the right thing to do. Under those
conditions (not that I would know) I could imagine that a back going before
a front would be more scary that a front going before the back.
Forget all that. Its hyperthetical bollocks for us guys. We all here,
except you may be, drive on public roads where we try and stop before we run
into pedestrians and other unpredictable obstructions that suddenly appear
in front of us with out our permission!
I drive my car on either narrow country lanes, or 'straight line' A roads &
motorways.
On a country lane, in the wet (3 inch deep puddles made of cow shit and
fallen leaves), and the near side has inch deep loose road surface chippings
that have piled up over the summer, I need to stop damn quick when someone
comes the other way who hasn't learnt what the middle peddel is for yet, and
where I live there is a shicane! Yeap, a real schicane! Its amazing. No
priority signs; a blind bend lead up to it one side and a dead end dive hole
the other. The road narrows to 8 feet. So you are approaching this 8 ft
gap at 30-35 MPG, (if you drive at 25 MPH you can't get out of the shicane
before someone coming the other way crashes into you ) you see someone
appear around the bend coming the way, you have to either go or stop. If you
stop you need to stop in the 'lay bye' before you hit the 3ft diameter oak
in the middle of your path. You have got 8mm of tread on the back, and 2mm
on the front. Its pissing down with rain, there is flood water running down
the road, and the cows have recently gone across the road for milking (shit
everywhere). And you are more confident of straight line stopping with your
this configuration rather than having 2mm on the back and 8mm on the front?
If so, then please don't drive near where I live!
Put this scenareo in front of your tyre manufacturer experts and see what
they say!
The other time when you NEED tread is when you are on a long drive, doing 70
MPH, tried, fed up, pissing down with rain, thinking about
.................., then there is a pile of red stop lights in front of you!
Again you, Michael, are more confident of straight line stopping with this
tyre configuration than having 2mm on the back and 8mm on the front? If so,
then please don't drive behind me when I am on a motorway in the wet.
And why didn't you understand my comment about a front engine car sinking
front first in a lake? I didn't explain it as I thought that I would be
patronising! However, the point is (as you correctly alluded to), front
engine cars are heavy in the front. (Focus news group, I assume we are
talking about front engined cars here are we?). When any car breaks heavily
most of the weight 'transferes' to the front. With a front engined car
there is vertually no weight on the rear and therefore virtually no breaking
force given by the rear tyres. Why do you want any treadon the back under
these straight line maximum breaking conditions in the worst weather? You
don't, but you do when whizzing around corners quick, especially if the car
heals over so much the offside rear tyre is off the ground!
So its all a matter what you use your car for. Racing, or trying to not run
over kids that dash out in front of you!
Take my advice chaps, watch the current child safety advert with the kid
that is going to be run over cause the car was doing 35 mph rather than 30
mph. The front tyres are locked and smoking, the rears are free and are
rotating. Draw your own conclusions about the laws of physics and which
tyres need the tread in the wet.
And bear in mind that the Focus cars you see on race tracks are stripped
out, different engines, different suspension, different ....... and
everthing is balanced, and I bet they don't put tyres with 2mm of tread left
back on the car to get another 2000 miles out of them as I do!
Blown Fuse
"Timothy J. Lee" <remo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:busu3j$8so$1...@bolt.sonic.net...
Michael Heiming
> I'm back!
[ Lots of rubbish ]
> Take my advice chaps, watch the current child safety advert with the kid
> that is going to be run over cause the car was doing 35 mph rather than 30
> mph. The front tyres are locked and smoking, the rears are free and are
Over here all Focus have ABS, there's nothing smoking.
> rotating. Draw your own conclusions about the laws of physics and which
> tyres need the tread in the wet.
If you happen to take a car security training one day, ask the
instructor about were the better tires belong, you'll be
surprised. ;)
Stephen F.
> Blown Fuse <qq...@spamfree.com> wrote:
> >
> > Take my advice chaps, watch the current child safety advert with the kid
> > that is going to be run over cause the car was doing 35 mph rather than
30
> > mph. The front tyres are locked and smoking, the rears are free and are
which
> > tyres need the tread in the wet.
Or draw your own conclusions about which manufacturer has installed a
completely bogus brake proportioning valve, perhaps cautious after the fuss
about the old GM X-Cars locking their rear brakes too early. The "laws of
physics" would dictate that the weight shifts to the front under braking,
unloading the rear tires, which should break traction first. To have locked
front tires and freely rotating tires, your either live in a parellel
universe where Newton never existed, or have some hunk of junk with frozen
rear calipers.
Blown Fuse
normally a special valve fitted in the rear brake lines (or other similar
mechanism) to prevent rear wheel lock up under virtually all conditions. So
you get f*** all breaking from the back.
"Stephen F." <ferguso...@bluewin.ch> wrote in message
news:40176a65$1...@news.unibe.ch...
Stephen F.
> Its a fact, for cars without ABS, and most cars in UK don't, there is
> normally a special valve fitted in the rear brake lines (or other similar
> mechanism) to prevent rear wheel lock up under virtually all conditions.
So
> you get f*** all breaking from the back.
>
Like I said... a poorly designed proportioning valve. However, it's not
catastrophic as most FWD cars could have their rear brakes disconnected and
still turn in stopping distances within a few metres, as there is so much
weight over the front wheels, which is increased under braking, that there
isn't much chance to develop substantial braking forces at the back.
Stephen
Gerry
"Michael Heiming" <michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote in message
news:84asub...@news.heiming.de...
If you rotate your tires regularly you won't have to decide that question.
Your car was designed to have tires with equal tread all round. That's why
we rotate tires.
Gerry
Michael Heiming
> "Michael Heiming" <michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote in message
> news:84asub...@news.heiming.de...
> > Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In message <vaarub...@news.heiming.de>, Michael Heiming
> > > <michael...@www.heiming.de> writes
> > > >Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >> >Once again, the best tires belong to the back of a car, no matter
> > > >> >if front/rear driven. Ask some tire manufacturer about it, they
> > > >> >will tell you.
> > [..]
> > > If you would choose to disregard 25 years of your own experience on the
> > > road in favour of someone else's opinions then you are either brave or
> > > foolish.
> >
> > > Do you believe everything your are told by a large company?
> >
> > Not applicable here. Believe what you want, I go with physics.
> >
> > BTW
> > If you happen to take a car security training one day, ask the
> > instructor about it.
> > ;)
[..]
> If you rotate your tires regularly you won't have to decide that question.
> Your car was designed to have tires with equal tread all round. That's why
> we rotate tires.
Your misbelief doesn't make that anymore true, almost none
rotates tires over here. As already stated, if you happen to take
a car security training one day, ask the instructor where the
better tares belong.
Rapid Rick
tread thickness. Not sure about any of the other AWD systems.
I will say this t(h)read has been interesting (sic)--I'd always assumed that
the best tires would go on front. Are there any tire/car manufacturers
advocating the best tires on the rear?
Semi-moot with me, as I've always strived for equal tread all the way
around, mostly attainable by rotation. Really not that expensive to
do--Ford dealers are advertising an oil change & rotation for about $35 +
tax, DIY even cheaper...it's the balancing that gets expensive.
--
Raider Rick
"Just drive, baby
Gerry
Yep, I used to live there. What you say may have some truth in it somewhere?
But then again you guys seem to get through tires pretty fast :-))
Gerry.
Alan
<ra...@spammerseatshit.kda.attmil.ne.jp> wrote
>Except those that own Subarus, of course. Their AWD system demands uniform
>tread thickness. Not sure about any of the other AWD systems.
>
>I will say this t(h)read has been interesting (sic)--I'd always assumed that
>the best tires would go on front. Are there any tire/car manufacturers
>advocating the best tires on the rear?
The Michelin UK site says that the best tyres should go on the back.
<http://www.michelin.co.uk/uk/auto/auto_cons_bib_pqr_neuf.jsp>
Ford recommend tyres are replaced long before the tread depth reaches
the UK legal minimum.
As the front tyres always wear much quicker than the back not rotating
tyres probably means that for the average UK motorist the tyres with the
greater tread depth will be on the back for the majority of the time.
>
>Semi-moot with me, as I've always strived for equal tread all the way
>around, mostly attainable by rotation. Really not that expensive to
>do--Ford dealers are advertising an oil change & rotation for about $35 +
>tax,
Probably double that price (in dollars) in the UK - Value Added Tax
(VAT) is 17.5 percent on parts and labour.
--
Alan
mailto:news2me...@amacleod.clara.co.uk
Michael Heiming
> In message <101nghh...@corp.supernews.com>, Rapid Rick
> <ra...@spammerseatshit.kda.attmil.ne.jp> wrote
> >I will say this t(h)read has been interesting (sic)--I'd always assumed that
> >the best tires would go on front. Are there any tire/car manufacturers
> >advocating the best tires on the rear?
> The Michelin UK site says that the best tyres should go on the back.
> <http://www.michelin.co.uk/uk/auto/auto_cons_bib_pqr_neuf.jsp>
Thx, that's exactly what I had tried a short search about, to
back up my statement, but couldn't find. I have been told that
during various driver security training from the instructors.
Already bookmarked, for further discussions about the problem.
;)
Regards
SayWhat
> Alan <junk_...@amacleod.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message <101nghh...@corp.supernews.com>, Rapid Rick
> > <ra...@spammerseatshit.kda.attmil.ne.jp> wrote
> [..]
> > >I will say this t(h)read has been interesting (sic)--I'd always assumed
that
> > >the best tires would go on front. Are there any tire/car manufacturers
> > >advocating the best tires on the rear?
>
> > The Michelin UK site says that the best tyres should go on the back.
>
> > <http://www.michelin.co.uk/uk/auto/auto_cons_bib_pqr_neuf.jsp>
>
> Thx, that's exactly what I had tried a short search about, to
> back up my statement, but couldn't find. I have been told that
> during various driver security training from the instructors.
>
>
Northern US states for tire dealers to install a new set of winter tires
only on the rear axel. After some experimentation this winter, I found the
only reliable method of breaking loose the rear of my SVTFocus was to get
into a turn and yank up on the parking break. Rotates beautifully. On the
other hand, getting the front to push was 'n slide no problem at all. New
winters all aroundd, BTW.