MX-3.com

Check out this news post. Be aware.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4826897" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yep i work at canadian tire and you wouldnt believe the amount of people that come in to replace a tire that blew out. the worst is when buddy has a blow out and buys one new tire. lol what about the 3 other 10 year old tires???

Greets from CTAS 395!

i work at can tire too!
tones of people do that here too.
my favorite people are the ones that you tell them about that and think your lying and trying to cheat them.

People think I'm trying to cheat them when I tell them it is management's policy to refuse to install 2 winter tires. Apparently it's corporate policy.

really? our rule in ontario is if two new tires are being purchased then they MUST be installed on the rear of the vehicle for better stability in adverse conditions. biggest load of bull ever but...

haha yeah greetings from me ctc 040. i hate working at the tire sometimes but i will say i have learnt soo much there and feel comfortable tackling anything on my car myself.

oh and i LOVE it when people bring their car in for 4 tires, that were never rotated so only two are really worn the non drive wheels are still fine, and they are the same size as my cars, lol mismatched tires front and back but still lots of tread depth (and less then six years old for those who are concerned)

I still disagree 100% that winter tires in back only are better than winter tires in front only on a FWD car, and unless I see test results and PHYSICS explainations, I will continue to preach the opposite.

I've driven many cars w/ winter tires in the front, and had no problems, yes 4 winters are better, but 2 winters in the back is just stupid.

From physics - the front tires of a car do about 70% of the braking, this is why the front brakes are bigger than the rear brakes. If you were to lock up either the front 2, or the rear 2 tires, what would happen?

Well if the front 2 locked up and the backs didnt, your car would not spin around most of the time. There would be fishtailing, but no 180's or anything.

If the back 2 locked up and the front didnt, your car would be highly unstable and would spin around.

Now on icy roads a "locked up" tire does not count as any tire that loses traction. You can have your ebrake ON and brake and your car will not do a 180...the rear tires arent nearly as important as the front ones.

Go try it! I have many times! It's a BS LIE that companies propogate to get you to buy more tires!

I entirely agree with Mr. Romeo

I'd rather steer than stop, too. Or be able to motivate my car out of an intersection when T-boning seems imminent.

It's not about braking, it's about control. How about I show you a picture of my sister's car and what happens when the rear tires have significantly less traction. Once the rear gets loose, you lose control and it'll be extremely difficult, like trying to control a bucking bronco. Even in a straight line, you brake hard, especially because the front is doing all the braking, that rear end is going to want to kick out sideways.

I'm surprised this is an argument.

I have seen tests. I have tested the theories. In an emergency stop situation, having less traction on the back tires will cause a loss of control. Like it or not, your average driver does not have the gas/brake pedal modulation and steering skill to counteract a fishtail slide.

This is like the arguments on 600rr.net about whether the rear brake on a bike does anything. Because so many of the track riders are trained to use the front brakes, they refuse to accept the use of the rear brake to trim speed.

I recommend four winters no matter what, but the sale is no longer my decision. If the customer doesn't want to create a set of four winters, I can't make the sale.