I mixed radials and bias plies (and need to change my shorts)

i bought a 68 vista cruiser with bias on the left front and right rear. and radials on the other corners. what a fun ride that was! of course thats why i got it so cheap!!!

 

???? I had Firestone "Coker" 6.00 dirt sprint bias grooved on the front and a pair of Hurst radial cap slick on the rear of my 40 truck I built and drove the hell out of that truck. Several miles were on road trips and such. Sure it was not a new Lexus in the hadling department, but it never had the problems I hear every one tell about driving with one or the other on the front or rear. It just drove like a bias tire would. My old man drove it and he loved it, thought it drove very nice, He is 60 now so I'm sure he has driven bias tires in his day.

 

After years of experance and testing, my conclusion is it depends on the car and the tires themselves. I had a big old Dodge Polara that always seemed to need tires. Being cheap and broke, it got whatever came along. Learned early not to mix radials and bias on an axle, you could get away with either both radials or both bias on the front and both radial or both bias on the rear. Even with that, some tires just didn't mix well with other tires. Some bias were pretty forgiving when mixed with radials where others were not. I think the price level of the tires concerned made a difference. Cheap tires seemed to be less forgiving then more expensive tires were. The worst combo seemed to be high end radials on one end and cheap bias on the other. If you had a set of the belted bias ply tires they seemed to have little issues with radials. Wider bias were also more forgiving, probably because the the width made the sidewalls flex more.

One other thing I found was with the relationship between which type of tires were mounted on which end. Wide radials were a problem with any bias reguardless of where they were mounted. Skinny bias were a problem with any radial but a very skinny one and the radial would be better on the front. Wide bias work better on the rear, and most often the radial on the front was a better choice. After all that, it still depends on the tires themselves and which car they are on. Too many variables to be accurate, you mix bias with radials and it may be OK or it may be a disaster waiting to happen. Gene

 

My '60 Pontiac came with radials on the front and well-worn bias snows on the back.

I drove it some 70 miles home. It was managable, but on the interstate every time I crossed over a spot where they'd sealed cracks in the road, the back of the car wanted to follow those cracks on and off the road. I got used to it and drove it that way a short while, never needed new shorts, but it wasn't comfortable at all.

Finally went to a tire shop and the ***hole tried to sell me 4 new tires on the excuse that it would be bad to run bigger tires on the back, and they didn't have the same oddball size that was on the front (like a 215/70R14). Knew he was full of ****, said screw you, went home, put two somewhat dry-rotted 235/75R15s on that had some life left in them off another car with the same bolt pattern.

After that it handled great, the long wheelbase and wide track made it feel like I could have qualified it for the Nascar race at Watkins Glen without any trouble.

 

when i was 19 i bought a 70 Nova SS 4 speed car with a 3:73 12bolt Posi. it had some crustly old (and FAT) bias ply tires on it. i eventually burned off so much of the tread in the rear that the tires started to leak air. i bought a pair of fat radial tires for the rear only (i was a broke kid) and never had a single issue like everyone said then and says now that i would have. maybe i got lucky? i would imagine the type of car and suspension would make a big difference as to how it acted with different tires too.

that is just my experience. yours may vary.