How to rotate dually tires

[bobbolotune]

The manual for my 2016 Ram 3500 dually shows tire rotation only side to side. Specifically, switch the driver front and the passenger front tires, switch the outer rear tires driver to passenger, and switch the inner rear tires driver to passenger. The picture showing how to rotate shows no rotation back to front.

The manual really doesn’t explain why not to rotate back to front. It does say the rear tires must be matched for wear. Possibly the concern is that if tires are moved back to front that wear won’t match.

The manual does explain why it says to keep the inner rear wheels inner and outer rear wheels outer. It is for the Tire Pressure Information System. To quote, “The Tire Pressure Information System uses unique sensors in the inner rear wheels to help identify them from the outer rear wheels, because of this, the inner and outer wheel locations cannot be switched”.

With my last tires it turned out that I had an alignment problem (now fixed) that I wasn’t aware of until I noticed that the tires were wearing unevenly. Since I was rotating the front tires only side to side both front tires wore unevenly on the outer edges. By the time I noticed this the tires were unsafe and I had to replace the tires probably 6,000 or 8,000 miles early.

I had to have the tires replaced during a trip. I ended up at a tire shop in a rural area that seemed to have plenty of experience with duallys. He told me to ignore the manual. He said that they rotate back to front all the time. He says they take the best looking tires from the back and put them on the front.

If I had rotated like that it would have stalled the uneven wear that killed my last tires.

I am about to get the new tires rotated for the first time. I have been telling the mechanic to follow the manual. I am now totally unclear what to do. It would seem that only rotating side to side in the same positions really isn’t going to help much because every other rotation the tires end up back in the same location.

It could be what the manual says that if you don’t keep the inner tires inner and outer tires outer it will confuse the Tire Pressure Information System. But really how important is that? It is nice to have the tire pressures in the instrument cluster because I look at the pressures frequently as I drive, much more often than I would find myself checking tire pressure manually. But I don’t care much about location. If a tire is low (something that actually has never happened yet) I can find out which one by checking the tires manually.

Does anyone know the correct answer to this question? A set of dually tires is expensive so I want to take care of the new tires.

[Grit_dog]

This is getting good now!

[ticki2]

JRscooby wrote:

ticki2 wrote:

JRscooby wrote:


If the tires age out without rotation, why even think about rotation?

True enough . But then how much useful tread life ( $ ) are you sacrificing if your tires are timing out . One other point I noticed in your scenarios is in A you will need tires in 2037 , in B you will have a complete new set by 2036 , again , apples to apples .

The scenarios are not mine.
But do you suggest somebody do something to wear the tires faster so the tread is gone at the same time the tires age out? Maybe find somebody that drives hard or lots of miles, sell your tires at about half lifespan for the value of tread?

No sir , I make no suggestions , there is no need .

[JRscooby]

ticki2 wrote:

JRscooby wrote:


If the tires age out without rotation, why even think about rotation?

True enough . But then how much useful tread life ( $ ) are you sacrificing if your tires are timing out . One other point I noticed in your scenarios is in A you will need tires in 2037 , in B you will have a complete new set by 2036 , again , apples to apples .

The scenarios are not mine.
But do you suggest somebody do something to wear the tires faster so the tread is gone at the same time the tires age out? Maybe find somebody that drives hard or lots of miles, sell your tires at about half lifespan for the value of tread?

[ticki2]

JRscooby wrote:


If the tires age out without rotation, why even think about rotation?

True enough . But then how much useful tread life ( $ ) are you sacrificing if your tires are timing out . One other point I noticed in your scenarios is in A you will need tires in 2037 , in B you will have a complete new set by 2036 , again , apples to apples .

[Grit_dog]

time2roll wrote:
deleted

You did it! Yay!

[Grit_dog]

You guys need to see if you can make this 5 pages… gold star to the guy who resurrected it!

[JRscooby]

mkirsch wrote:

JRscooby wrote:
Unless all 6 tires are wearing at same rate, scenario B will wear all tires faster, and likely wear the differential more than scenario A. At first rotation, the only 4 tires that are matched well enough to prevent axles spinning at different rates are the 4 that have been on the drive axle. If you split the pairs that have been running side by each, you will chew the tread off the more worn tire in very few miles, and that excess wear will speed up as it happens.

Maybe this is true but the difference is so minute as to not even be worth considering. Especially when you have six 10-year-old, barely worn tires.

If the tires age out without rotation, why even think about rotation?
If your fronts are wearing faster or slower than rears, or not at the same rate as each other most any way you put them on the back will speed tire ware, and/or differential wear.

[mkirsch]

JRscooby wrote:
Unless all 6 tires are wearing at same rate, scenario B will wear all tires faster, and likely wear the differential more than scenario A. At first rotation, the only 4 tires that are matched well enough to prevent axles spinning at different rates are the 4 that have been on the drive axle. If you split the pairs that have been running side by each, you will chew the tread off the more worn tire in very few miles, and that excess wear will speed up as it happens.

Maybe this is true but the difference is so minute as to not even be worth considering. Especially when you have six 10-year-old, barely worn tires.

[JRscooby]

BigToe wrote:

ticki2 wrote:
It seems you have switched from a 10 year cycle in Scenario A to a 7 year cycle in Scenario B . Not exactly apples to apples .

Scenario A leaves the drive tires alone, and therefore does NOT expose the drive tires to any of the accelerated wear cycle of periodic tours of duty on a front axle. Instead, the rear tires are shielded from that exposure, and remain true to the rear.

Remember, both Scenarios assume a problematic alignment issue, or a spirited and assertive driving style, or bad front shocks... something that causes front tires to wear out quickly enough to want to undertake a tire rotation regimen. Also, the spare tire is ignored in both scenarios.

Scenario A rotates only the steer tires, and assumes that in 5 years, the steer tires are done, requiring replacement. This Scenario was prescribed by the earlier respondent who assumed that I had purchased "8 or 10 tires" in the 10 year period that my drive tires lasted unrotated, because he assumed that I had replaced the steer tires "two or three times" during that same interval. I hadn't, but it was still worth recreating the scenario he assumed, so as to explore his idea.

Scenario B rotates all 6 operating tires, spreading the known tire wear issue over all 6 tires in rotation. In this scenario the rear tires are in fact exposed to all the cornering, steering, and scrub stresses typical of a front tire, as well as any alignment issues, bad shocks, and driving style characteristics.

Since Scenario B uses all 6 tires in rotation, the tire life before replacement is extended by 2 years, from 5 years to 7 years. That extension is afforded by the fact that the wear is distributed over more tires. But since it is being distributed over the rear tires, the 10 year life of the rear tires is reduced by 3 years. Hence the seven year life cycle for all tires in Scenario B.

Both Scenarios are hypothetical. A lot of folks burn through tires far more frequently.

The more frequently one churns through sets of tires, and the longer one keeps a truck, the more savings one can realize by not rotating in the four dually pairs on the drive axle.

However, an entire other group of folks change trucks every 3 to 5 years, so for them, none of this matters. For me, it matters, because in the past I have kept trucks for 20 years, but now that truck prices have climbed so high, I will likely keep this truck for 40 years, having already clocked 22 years into it, with only that one tire change 10 years ago.

As I shop for the next set of tires, I consider the entire life cycle of tire ownership, and share those considerations here, in one of the best threads I have found covering a variety of tangents on the topic.

Unless all 6 tires are wearing at same rate, scenario B will wear all tires faster, and likely wear the differential more than scenario A. At first rotation, the only 4 tires that are matched well enough to prevent axles spinning at different rates are the 4 that have been on the drive axle. If you split the pairs that have been running side by each, you will chew the tread off the more worn tire in very few miles, and that excess wear will speed up as it happens.

[time2roll]

BigToe wrote:

ticki2 wrote:
It seems you have switched from a 10 year cycle in Scenario A to a 7 year cycle in Scenario B . Not exactly apples to apples .

Remember, both Scenarios assume a problematic alignment issue, or a spirited and assertive driving style, or bad front shocks... something that causes front tires to wear out quickly enough to want to undertake a tire rotation regimen. Also, the spare tire is ignored in both scenarios.

Get the truck fixed and drive normal. This will save even more tires.

[BigToe]

ticki2 wrote:
It seems you have switched from a 10 year cycle in Scenario A to a 7 year cycle in Scenario B . Not exactly apples to apples .

Scenario A leaves the drive tires alone, and therefore does NOT expose the drive tires to any of the accelerated wear cycle of periodic tours of duty on a front axle. Instead, the rear tires are shielded from that exposure, and remain true to the rear.

Remember, both Scenarios assume a problematic alignment issue, or a spirited and assertive driving style, or bad front shocks... something that causes front tires to wear out quickly enough to want to undertake a tire rotation regimen. Also, the spare tire is ignored in both scenarios.

Scenario A rotates only the steer tires, and assumes that in 5 years, the steer tires are done, requiring replacement. This Scenario was prescribed by the earlier respondent who assumed that I had purchased "8 or 10 tires" in the 10 year period that my drive tires lasted unrotated, because he assumed that I had replaced the steer tires "two or three times" during that same interval. I hadn't, but it was still worth recreating the scenario he assumed, so as to explore his idea.

Scenario B rotates all 6 operating tires, spreading the known tire wear issue over all 6 tires in rotation. In this scenario the rear tires are in fact exposed to all the cornering, steering, and scrub stresses typical of a front tire, as well as any alignment issues, bad shocks, and driving style characteristics.

Since Scenario B uses all 6 tires in rotation, the tire life before replacement is extended by 2 years, from 5 years to 7 years. That extension is afforded by the fact that the wear is distributed over more tires. But since it is being distributed over the rear tires, the 10 year life of the rear tires is reduced by 3 years. Hence the seven year life cycle for all tires in Scenario B.

Both Scenarios are hypothetical. A lot of folks burn through tires far more frequently.

The more frequently one churns through sets of tires, and the longer one keeps a truck, the more savings one can realize by not rotating in the four dually pairs on the drive axle.

However, an entire other group of folks change trucks every 3 to 5 years, so for them, none of this matters. For me, it matters, because in the past I have kept trucks for 20 years, but now that truck prices have climbed so high, I will likely keep this truck for 40 years, having already clocked 22 years into it, with only that one tire change 10 years ago.

As I shop for the next set of tires, I consider the entire life cycle of tire ownership, and share those considerations here, in one of the best threads I have found covering a variety of tangents on the topic.

[ticki2]

It seems you have switched from a 10 year cycle in Scenario A to a 7 year cycle in Scenario B . Not exactly apples to apples .

[BigToe]

mkirsch wrote:
How many sets of fronts did you go through with the same set of rears, though? Two? Three?

Now you've got four tires with tons of wear left in them, but have aged out and need to be replaced!

So instead of rotating and only needing 6 tires, you've bought 8, or possibly 10 tires total, AND had to discard four tires with tons of tread on them.

The whole premise of your argument is that tire rotation is only to compensate for alignment issues, but it isn't. You yourself have admitted that the fronts wear more quickly than the rears. Doesn't it make sense to spread the wear across all six tires and replace them all with fresh rubber at once?

I went through zero (0) sets of front tires during the same time period as the rear tires. Ten years ago, I replaced all seven tires at the same time, and have not bought any new tires since.

The front tires show 12/32nd remaining tread measured at the center rib (both sides). These have also aged out before they have worn out, despite also having 40,000 miles on them.

The spare tire is the same type of tire (HSR, where "S" stands for steering) as the two front tires. About a year or two after installing all the tires, I noticed uneven wear on the right front tire, so I installed the spare tire, and did an alignment, which for my straight axle truck only involved resetting the toe.

A few years later, I removed the front tires to grease the front wheel bearings, and I may have rotated the front tires side to side when I assembled it all back together. If I did indeed swapped front tires side to side (I'm guessing I would have, but no abnormal wear or feathering has been observed since resetting the toe) then that would have constituted two (2) front tire rotations during the 10 year, 40,000 mile period of use, with no tire replacements.

I had intended to work the spare tire back in, but was waiting for evidence to manifest a reason to, and no further evidence appeared.

Hence, addressing what in my case would have been the root cause of unnecessary tire wear (misaligned toe) as soon as it appeared, rather than allow every tire to be feathered in the right front, and then unfeathered by rotating it through all other tire positions, saved me a lot of work (since I do the work myself), and if I didn't do the work myself, it would have saved me a lot of money from paying others to do my tire rotations.

Even though, contrary to your assumptions, I never had to buy new steer tires during the life cycle of my drive tires, let's suppose for the sake of argument that someone did.

Scenario A is 6 tires purchased and installed in 2022, plus 2 intermediate replacement steer tires purchased five years later in 2027, and then a full set of 6 new tires purchased in 2032, adds up to 14 tires that will carry on until at least 2037.

Scenario B is 6 tires purchased in 2022, plus 6 tires purchased seven years later in 2029, plus 6 tires purchased seven years later in 2036 adds up to 18 tires.

Already, Scenario A means 4 less tires purchased, or $1,600 savings in today's dollars. Who knows what tires will cost in 2036/7.

One concept that has been repeated throughout this thread is that there is no one best practice that works for every owner, in every situation. The dually tire rotation recommendations of Vehicle manufacturers not only differ from vehicle brand to vehicle brand, but also have differed diametrically from year to year for vehicles produced by the same brand. For example, Ford has published three different dually tire rotation recommendations in the Super Duty owner's manuals over the last 20 years.

Another concept that was only briefly mentioned is the difference in drivers and driving style. The driving style in my household is such that either one of us can get 100,000 miles out of any set of tires on any vehicle. Ford, Chevy, Honda, Toyota, big car, little car, Bridgestone, Michelin, it doesn't matter. Our driving style is easy on tires, as well as brakes. So that could by why my front tires never needed replacing.

However, for other driving styles, and for trucks that are a challenge to keep aligned, especially when the same truck is used with a truck camper and without the truck camper, which can change the geometry of some suspension designs... the merits of leaving the back four tires alone, and only rotating the fronts, or the fronts with the spare, are worthy of consideration, and that was the point that I was trying to highlight, offering my personal experience merely as an anecdote.

[JRscooby]

mkirsch wrote:
How many sets of fronts did you go through with the same set of rears, though? Two? Three?

Now you've got four tires with tons of wear left in them, but have aged out and need to be replaced!

So instead of rotating and only needing 6 tires, you've bought 8, or possibly 10 tires total, AND had to discard four tires with tons of tread on them.

The whole premise of your argument is that tire rotation is only to compensate for alignment issues, but it isn't. You yourself have admitted that the fronts wear more quickly than the rears. Doesn't it make sense to spread the wear across all six tires and replace them all with fresh rubber at once?

The only way to make front tires on a dually last same as rears would be move front to rear. And if you put fronts side by each on rear axle, the smaller tire put more stress on the differential gears. If front tires are wearing even a little faster than the rear, and you rotate so that tire is mounted dual next to a less worn tire, which will be a slight bit taller will cause the more worn tire to wear much, much faster.