[Rohaun888]

Yeah Ive gone thru the whole forum lol. Yeah I know people have their personal preference..With that said,
Im happy to join this forum and now back to the question...
Just bought a 2008 Honda CRV 2wd for the wifey and were both happy with the purchase.
Back tires are practically new (both different brands) but the fronts should be changed soon.
Im looking at the Kumho Solus TA11 or Pirelli Scorpion Verde all season plus. Both are not that expensive
and they both have good reviews. I was planning on just changing the front tires and see how the feel before I commit to all 4.
Ok dont hold back guys what do you think and why should I pick one over the other or why I should stay away from those ?
Thanks in Advance.

 

[hondo]

Michelin - Premier LTX on all our CRVs and Ridgelines

 

[racoon]

I just replaced all four tires on my 2014 with RT4WD.
I went with 225/65R-17 BFGoodrich Advantage T/A Sport LT SL and am very happy with them.

While your CR-V is FWD you don't need to worry too much about all four tires matching, you do need to be worried about rotating your tires, and with mismatched rear tires I'd be tempted to replace them, too, or to replace them when you're ready to rotate the new front tires to the rear.

 

[Wildcat]

Im looking at the Kumho Solus TA11 or Pirelli Scorpion Verde all season plus. Both are not that expensive
and they both have good reviews.

I have multiple sets of the Kumho Solus TA11 on our cars, including one of our '09s. No issues whatsoever--they're quiet, have plenty of grip and ride well. My latest set was the Kumho Crugen HP71 on my own '09, which is also a good choice and supposedly designed for SUVs.

I've owned Yokohama tires in the past--also a good brand, and I always shop between Yokohama and Kumho. I nearly bought their Geolandar A/T G015 instead of the Kumho Crugen HP71 due to anticipating some use on unpaved roads out west, but wasn't sure about how quiet they would ride on a freeway.

I upsized my tires to 235/65R17 from 225/65R17. The speedometer in many Hondas (including all the CR-Vs I've owned, the Civic, Accord, and the Acura TL we no longer own) runs about 2.5% fast, and the slight increase in diameter makes the speedometer register the exact speed (within about 0.3 MPH at 70 MPH, vs. reading 72.5 to 73 MPH when actual speed was 70). They also fit the wheelwell nicely with no rubbing.

I'd owned several sets of Michelins many, many years ago but switched to Yokohama for performance and price reasons--a far better tire at a lower price. The one Pirelli set I had on a performance car was not very good. The Toyo Extensa tires I had on my '97 were flat-out dangerous--I could break them loose at half throttle on a wet road, and they had a terribly harsh ride quality; cured both problems with the TA11s.

 

[DerbyDad03]

I was planning on just changing the front tires and see how the feel before I commit to all 4.

The latest recommendation from the experts is to put the best tires on the rear even with a FWD vehicle. FWD, AWD, 4WD, car, truck or SUV. Doesn't matter.

Back in the RWD days, it was a given that the best tires were put on the rear and most people assumed that that was done because they were the drive wheels. Then when we moved to FWD, the "drive wheel" theory followed suit and people started putting the best tires on the front.

The problem is that it's the rear end that tends to let go on wet surfaces due to less weight and the physics involved with dragging the rear around curves. Many shops now have a sign stating that if you buy only 2 tires, they will be installed on the rear. Some require a signed waiver before installing them on the front.

Don't even get me started on the practice of tire rotation. Why do we continue to rotate our tires if the tires with the most tread belong on the rear? The second you make that first turn with that set of 4 brand new tires, the fronts will be worn more than the rears. It just continues to get worse from that point on. What we should be doing is wearing out the fronts, moving the rears to the front and buying 2 new ones for the rear. The problem is that the tire industry doesn't make that easy because you're just about guaranteed to always be running mismatched tires. Tire models, or more specifically, tread patterns, get changed so often you can rarely buy the same tire twice.

 

[Wildcat]

Why do we continue to rotate our tires if the tires with the most tread belong on the rear?

Because tires wear differently front and back, and not just due to weight distribution. If that were the case, we would simply do as you say--move the rear tires to the front, and buy new ones for the rear.

Consider this.

The front wheels steer the car, and are subject to all sorts of different angles during use. (Turn them hard left, then go out and look at the odd angles they sit at.) The shoulders of the tire tread wear become somewhat more rounded.

The rear wheels on the other hand are largely stationary, not moving in any way except up and down. They tend to wear straight across, and the shoulders of the tire tread will be more squared off.

On top of this, consider minor alignment issues and suspension wear, to where bushings and other components dry rot and/or loosen up over time. Rear tires on these CR-Vs are prone to cupping issues (both of my '09s do it to some degree, even after a 4-wheel alignment), so rotation needs to happen regularly to lessen the effects of cupping.

For what it's worth, I totally do not buy into this "better tire on front" (or rear). All four corners need good, equal tires, especially if we expect ABS and VSA to work properly. Rotation keeps them as equal as can be expected. Treadwear is more evenly balanced throughout the set when they are rotated. It also solves the dilemma of deciding which tire brand and model to replace two worn out tires with. There may be similar tread patterns, but nothing exact, unless we are lucky enough to find the exact same brand/model of tire a few years from now. (Tire manufacturers are continually changing and improving their products.)

 

[racoon]

Since the CR-V is a front wheel drive most of the time, the "best" tires belong on the front.

Having said that, I agree that regular tire rotations to keep the same amount of tread on all four tires is the best solution.

 

[kloker]

The old practice of keeping the best tires on the front (it was never the rear, though lead-foots wanted the good ones on the rear for obvious reasons!) comes from the days of all rear wheel drive cars when us pore folks could not afford to replace tires until they were plumb wore smooth out. The rears always wore fastest, because cars were heavy and had big engines, but you wanted the best ones on the front, the theory being that a smooth tire or a blowout was worse on the front than the rear. Also, this was before radials, and you never rotated tires in such a way that direction of rotation changed, is this would kill a bias ply tire in a heartbeat. So tires were rotated front to rear only. I still follow this rule today, even though tires are now radials and cars are IRS and FWD. Why? For the same reasons. I would always want the best tires on the front, for steering traction and to prevent front tire blowouts. I've also read many times over the years that some tire engineers believe the same belt separation risks exist today for steel belted tires as those old bias ply ones when tire rotation direction is reversed. YMMV, but I have seen this proven time and again on big truck tires and four-wheeler tires alike. Believe what you like, but it still works for me. With steel belts, once mounted in one direction and broken in, the "grain" of the belt's weave takes a directional set. If you ever change direction of rotation after that, the set will become uneven, causing temperature variations that will cause premature tire failure. This is also the cause of many blowouts. There are other folks out there who will tell you that that's old tech and no longer applies, but it ain't so. I've had tires literally catch fire between belts and burn from the inside out with this issue. Seriously. It's a wondrous and spooky thing to behold, in the middle of the night, on the side of the road. Looks like a tire possessed!

To the OP - I have the Scorpions on my V. They came on it. They have held up well. They have 27k on them right now and have yet to show wear. They are, however, quite loud and noisy, and somewhat stiff. But I have no doubt they will last a long time. I will likely go with Michelins when it's time, looking for a quieter and softer ride.

 

[DerbyDad03]

Because tires wear differently front and back, and not just due to weight distribution. If that were the case, we would simply do as you say--move the rear tires to the front, and buy new ones for the rear.

Consider this.

The front wheels steer the car, and are subject to all sorts of different angles during use. (Turn them hard left, then go out and look at the odd angles they sit at.) The shoulders of the tire tread wear become somewhat more rounded.

The rear wheels on the other hand are largely stationary, not moving in any way except up and down. They tend to wear straight across, and the shoulders of the tire tread will be more squared off.

In terms of rear end traction on wet/snowy roads (something that some parts of the country experience more than others) which would you prefer on the rear: Less wear and squared shoulders or more wear and rounded shoulders?

On top of this, consider minor alignment issues and suspension wear, to where bushings and other components dry rot and/or loosen up over time. Rear tires on these CR-Vs are prone to cupping issues (both of my '09s do it to some degree, even after a 4-wheel alignment), so rotation needs to happen regularly to lessen the effects of cupping.

Same question applies.

Keep in mind that I am not talking about maintaining even wear on the tires. From a strictly rear end traction on wet/snowy roads perspective, would you prefer rear tires that are cupped tires or tires with more wear and rounded shoulders? Which do you think are more apt to let go?

For what it's worth, I totally do not buy into this "better tire on front" (or rear). All four corners need good, equal tires, especially if we expect ABS and VSA to work properly. Rotation keeps them as equal as can be expected. Treadwear is more evenly balanced throughout the set when they are rotated. It also solves the dilemma of deciding which tire brand and model to replace two worn out tires with. There may be similar tread patterns, but nothing exact, unless we are lucky enough to find the exact same brand/model of tire a few years from now. (Tire manufacturers are continually changing and improving their products.)

I agree about good tires on all four corners - in a perfect world, that is. However, the OP is talking about buying only 2 and putting them on the front. That I don't agree with.

 

[racoon]

I agree about good tires on all four corners - in a perfect world, that is. However, the OP is talking about buying only 2 and putting them on the front. That I don't agree with.

The 2008 CR-V Owners Manual has this on Page 306:

It is best to replace all four tires at
the same time. If that is not possible
or necessary, replace the two front
tires or two rear tires as a pair.

There are also comments on the same page about replacing them with the same size, load range, speed rating, and maximum cold pressure rating. In other words, don't mix sizes.

 

[DerbyDad03]

The 2008 CR-V Owners Manual has this on Page 306:

It is best to replace all four tires at
the same time. If that is not possible
or necessary, replace the two front
tires or two rear tires as a pair.

Thank you for that reference.

On page 356 of the 2006 Odyssey manual, it says just a bit more: (My emphasis added)

It is best to replace all four tires at
the same time. If that is not possible
or necessary, replace the two front
tires or two rear tires as a pair. If you
replace just the front tires, move the
rear tires to the front, and install the
new tires on the rear.

I won't play the game of posting a long list of links that clearly state that new tires should go on the rears for the reason I stated. Tire companies, insurance companies, tire dealers, tech magazines, etc. I know that you can find those links on your own. I also won't jump in my car and go take a picture of the signs in the local tire shops that say they will only install 2 new tires on the rear (some may with a signed release).

Yes, you will find lots of forums where there are members that don't agree with "new on rear". That's fine, we all have our opinions. Me...I'll go with the wide and varied majority.

 

[racoon]

On page 356 of the 2006 Odyssey manual, it says just a bit more: (My emphasis added)

Not a valid comparison, since the Odyssey does not have Real Time AWD.

 

[DerbyDad03]

Not a valid comparison, since the Odyssey does not have Real Time AWD.

Nothing to say about all the links that say AWD, 2WD, 4WD, car, truck, SUV - doesn't matter?

BTW...the OP asked about a 2WD CR-V, so he doesn't have Real Time AWD either.

We could go back and forth all day. You'll do what you do, I'll do what I do.

Let's put it to rest.

 

[racoon]

Apples and Oranges or CR-Vs and Odysseys, both are bad comparisons, depending on what you are comparing.

 

[mrtn]

I had a van which ate front tires for breakfast (twice or more the rate of rears). Not because of a fault but because of design (I had two, identical issue). So I always put the new ones in the front.

In all other cars it's logical to put new ones in the back to help with emergency braking. It might only help by a few inches but this may just be the distance between life and death. Or a cracked bumper.

 

[kloker]

I have never, ever seen a single online reference or sign in a tire shop saying this. Also, I would never, ever allow any tire shop to dictate terms to me. It's my money, and you will do as I say, or I will take my money elsewhere. Not really an issue for me, as I always buy a full set. I don't consider anyone a better expert on tires than me, as I have over five million miles of experience, and I say if you have to buy only two, always put them on the front - it's much safer. The entire trucking industry agrees with me, as does Federal law and trucking regulations in all nations and all states. It's why the rules are different for steer (front) tires on big trucks. The same reasons mean it's also best for cars. There was a train of thought for a few years that said that rear tire blowouts were more dangerous than front tire blowouts, due to the inability of inexperienced/unskilled drivers to retain control, but statistics over time did not support it. Did you know that you can buy recaps for cars? Yup. But it is illegal to put them on the front. It's also illegal, when buying used tires, to put those on the front. This is due to having no way of knowing which rotating direction the belts are set to. The so-called experts you guys refer to also recommend, as do some carmakers, tire rotations that change the rotation direction. I would never do this, or recommend it. It is an unsafe practice, and if you do it you are putting your family and self at risk. Period. I can quote tiremaker experts on this too. And about emergency braking - the front brakes do almost all of the braking in all conditions, outside of one where the brakes have failed and you are using the hand brake, and front/rear weight bias hurts more than tire tread there. Which is why the newest cars don't really have an e-brake any more, except to fulfill the law. Functionally it just won't save you. They don't call it an e-brake any more, just a parking brake. The electric ones are useful only for parking, not emergencies. As are the ones on all modern cars - they are too small and weak for any emergency. ABS and proportioning apply brake force to the front first in any hydraulic failure. So, again, the front is critical, not the rear, in brakes as well as tires.

You will do what you choose, I know, and that's as it should be. But I can promise you that I have more experience and expertise on tires than you and a sizeable group of your peers have, combined. So take what I say with a grain of salt, but discard it out of hand at your own peril, and that of your family. Be safe!

 

[mrtn]

I don't consider anyone a better expert on tires than me

Yes, Mr. President.

 

[KCGL1800]

Nothing like a tire or oil thread to get some opinions and thoughts shared!

Tire Rack has some tire rating charts that provide some thoughts/opinions from others who claim to have purchased tires for a variety of vehicles. As I live in an area where we get some snow and ice each year what others say about those categories are something I consider.

I am an oldster as I worked in and around the tire business back in the early 70's when radials were first making their appearance on passenger cars here in the states.

I have with only a couple of exceptions always purchased all four tires at the same time. I don't know what the average tire sells for these days but if I use a price of $200 per tire and I make the assumption that I will get 3 years out of the tire it costs me less than $6/tire per month to provide the safety and security of knowing what is between me and the road. In my mind the benefit far outweighs the cash outlay.

For my SUV/Car applications I have been using a variety of Michelins for the last 30 years and have been pleased with the performance. I always consider other brands but when the dust has settled I've come back to the tried and true. I'll be in market for tires on our CR-V probably in the next couple of years and I'll will be interested in what others have purchased here.

Happy New Year to All!

 

[DerbyDad03]

I have never, ever seen a single online reference or sign in a tire shop saying this.

I'm not really sure what say to that. Well, actually I am sure. That can only mean that you've never, ever looked. A simple search of anything like new tires front or rear will return hit after hit stating what you claim to never, ever have seen.

Here, I'll make it easy for you. Whether you choose to agree with various sources or not is obviously up to you, but once you click the following link, at least you will have seen the references from tire manufacturers, insurance companies, tire dealers and tech magazines that I've been referring to. Articles, videos, images...it's all there.

new tires front or rear - Google Search

 

[kloker]

Nothing like a tire or oil thread to get some opinions and thoughts shared!

Tire Rack has some tire rating charts that provide some thoughts/opinions from others who claim to have purchased tires for a variety of vehicles. As I live in an area where we get some snow and ice each year what others say about those categories are something I consider.

I am an oldster as I worked in and around the tire business back in the early 70's when radials were first making their appearance on passenger cars here in the states.

I have with only a couple of exceptions always purchased all four tires at the same time. I don't know what the average tire sells for these days but if I use a price of $200 per tire and I make the assumption that I will get 3 years out of the tire it costs me less than $6/tire per month to provide the safety and security of knowing what is between me and the road. In my mind the benefit far outweighs the cash outlay.

For my SUV/Car applications I have been using a variety of Michelins for the last 30 years and have been pleased with the performance. I always consider other brands but when the dust has settled I've come back to the tried and true. I'll be in market for tires on our CR-V probably in the next couple of years and I'll will be interested in what others have purchased here.

Happy New Year to All!

I absolutely agree, and have done the same thing over the years. Still do.