TimGinCentralNJ Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 I realize that most cars' & trucks' recommended tire pressures are usually different between front and rear. On some cars, the front is higher...on others, the rear is higher. I was wondering if anyone happens to know the reason for the fronts to be higher on our cars. My '05 OBXT recommends 32 psi front & 30 psi rear. Is it to promote more neutral handling given that the car's weight distribution probably isn't 50/50? (I'm assuming the lower rear pressure would be to help promote greater traction given that the front has more weight on it than the rear). The reason I'm asking is, I've been running 38F/36R on my Falken 512's and just had my tires rotated---but didn't change the tire pressures, so now I'm running 36F/38R and I think the handling has improved noticeably. I just want to make sure that the reason for the different tire pressures didn't have anything to do with the AWD system, and that I'm not messing anything up by running 2 psi lower pressure up front than in rear. Thanks, all.... Tim G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devobuzz Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 I would guess they suggest more front pressure to promote understeer, so your car isn't tail happy. Understeer helps the more inexperienced driver. It's not going to damage the AWD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatbastard Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 I don't think you have anything to worry about with this change other than having the car oversteer. Many people here have played with tire pressures to make teh car more neutral from the stock setting for under steer. My only concern would be that with snow coming you'll be likely spin when traction is limited. As for the AWD system I wouldn't worry too much....many people here are running higher than stock pressures without seeing heavy wear on the center of the tire which would indicate that the rolling diameters are not really changing much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f1anatic Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 You may wanna bias it more towards the front if you encounter snow. I do run about 40F-38R but may drop to 36-35 on the rear when we get snow...tonite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGinCentralNJ Posted November 21, 2007 Author Share Posted November 21, 2007 Thanks Devo & F-bastard.... The whole understeer thing is a good point, especially since I have not spent any time practicing how to get my car out of a skid. I know the principles of "what" and "what not" to do--just haven't tried applying them in a controlled environment yet I'm glad to hear that it doesn't sound like I'm doing any damage to the AWD system by running the pressures reversed...it just seems (at least on my Falken 512's) that 38 is too much for the front, and 36 is just too little for the rear--but since pretty much EVERYONE here runs 2 psi higher pressure in the front than in rear, I didn't want to do this without asking the board first. Thanks, fellas.... Have a good turkeyday! Tim G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGinCentralNJ Posted November 21, 2007 Author Share Posted November 21, 2007 You may wanna bias it more towards the front if you encounter snow. I do run about 40F-38R but may drop to 36-35 on the rear when we get snow...tonite. Yeah, I still haven't switched over to my dedicated snows yet (studded WinterForces) which is a whole different animal when it comes to handling, so I may need to mess with those pressures and front/rear bias, too, once I mount them. Personally, I'm still surprised at how many people here run between 6-10 PSI more than the pressures recommended in the door jam. I know that 38 psi on my fronts tend to make the ABS kick in when coming to a stop on even slightly uneven pavement, whereas 36 psi does not. I can't imagine how dangerous my Falken 512's would feel at 40+ psi like many folks here run. Thanks! Tim G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devobuzz Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Not to bash you or anything but I just read an article in Tirerack.com that said the studded Winterforces were the worst of the tires they tested. All of the non studded tires worked better. You may know that already since they are the cheapest tires Tirerack sells (you get what you pay for). How do you rate them? If you want I can see if I can dig it up. Since I'm cheap, I bought the cheapest non studded tires - Dunlop Graspic. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinduc Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Weight balance of the vehicle. Since most cars are biased with more weight on the front, the front pressures are higher. My Corvette has a 50/50 bias, the pressures are equal all the way around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGinCentralNJ Posted November 25, 2007 Author Share Posted November 25, 2007 Not to bash you or anything but I just read an article in Tirerack.com that said the studded Winterforces were the worst of the tires they tested. All of the non studded tires worked better. You may know that already since they are the cheapest tires Tirerack sells (you get what you pay for). How do you rate them? If you want I can see if I can dig it up. Since I'm cheap, I bought the cheapest non studded tires - Dunlop Graspic. :-) No bash taken. I haven't seen that article but given all the various criteria and viewpoints of many of the articles I've seen floating around this winter season, I wouldn't be surprised. It's funny; at the time I bought them (about 4 seasons ago), the WinterForces were the "new kid on the block" and getting rave reviews on Tirerack....and now...not so much. Personally, I've had really great luck with my WinterForces and given how terribly they maintain the roads in my area of NJ, they've paid for themselves several times over. My only complaint is their road noise--and even that doesn't bother me much (does bother my wife though). I'd LOVE to try a set of WinterSport M3's and some of the other new studless ice/snow tires out there, but these still have so much tread left--I can't justify getting another set. Anyway....If you happen to find the article, I'd love to see it. Thanks, Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devobuzz Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Hi Tim, I found it here: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=94 Ralph No bash taken. I haven't seen that article but given all the various criteria and viewpoints of many of the articles I've seen floating around this winter season, I wouldn't be surprised. It's funny; at the time I bought them (about 4 seasons ago), the WinterForces were the "new kid on the block" and getting rave reviews on Tirerack....and now...not so much. Personally, I've had really great luck with my WinterForces and given how terribly they maintain the roads in my area of NJ, they've paid for themselves several times over. My only complaint is their road noise--and even that doesn't bother me much (does bother my wife though). I'd LOVE to try a set of WinterSport M3's and some of the other new studless ice/snow tires out there, but these still have so much tread left--I can't justify getting another set. Anyway....If you happen to find the article, I'd love to see it. Thanks, Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.