Search Tires
Q/A Archives
July 2006
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jun | Aug » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Related Experts
Sign-up for RSS
Archive for July 8th, 2006
Tire Rotation Arguement
Posted by Tim on July 8, 2006
I work in a retail tire store and have an ongoing arguement with my store manager and my general service guys about the purpose of tire rotation. It is common practice in my shop to not rotate if the rear tires are at a lower tread depth than the front tires, say 8/32 front and 6/32 rear. They believe that they are extending the life of the 6/32 tires by keeping them off the steer/drive axle, which is hard to argue with because it is true. However, aren’t we now just sacrificing the 8/32 tires to accomplish this? Isn’t one of the main reasons for rotation to spread the shoulder wear induced by turning and front engine weight bias? Won’t this practice create adverse wear that voids any treadlife warranty the customer may have?
Tire rotation is intended to even out the wear between (or among) wheel positions and, by reversing the direction of rotation, attempting to even out any irregular wear that may have started. I can't speak for all the tire manufacturers but, in our case, rotating the tires will not void the warranty and, if done properly, should help adverse wear not create it.