Focus Fanatics Forum banner

Rear end wander on icy roads

25K views 43 replies 17 participants last post by  elsolo 
#1 ·
Had a bit of a little snow storm blow through the other evening, and I had to make a 40 mile trip on the highway.

On the icy patches, where the road was ice rink slick, the back end of the car kept wandering around, like someone was shoving it from side to side, or fishtailing badly. Very disconcerting above 25 or mph.

I bought the car used in August. The tires are all the same brand and model, but the front pair were in better shape. The back were worn down pretty good, but I didn't think they were completely shot. Goodyear GS-A's, I think they were.

Its been absolutely fine otherwise, rain, and dry.

I ended up putting a new set of tires on the next day, but the ice had cleared up so I couldn't confirm, was this just a bad tire problem? Or something else?

I mention it, because a co-worker says he's had the same problem in his 2003 ZTW. And he's been back and forth with the dealer, and tire shop i think.

2002 Focus SE sedan
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Same problem with my 2002 Focus wagon. 25 or 30 max on even just a light dusting of snow. That was with all-season tires. Snow tires (Blizzaks) made the vehicle tolerable, but even so we favored our other vehicle whenever it snowed. There is actually a class-action lawsuit against Ford over the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. Typos and terseness are to be expected.
 
#6 ·
the tires with good tread should always be mounted on the rear of the car. If you buy two new tires, make sure they are mounted on the rear as they should be. If you buy 4 new tires, just be sure to rotate them regularly.

I just had to explain this to someone and they just gave me a look then told me that the good tires are supposed to go on the front on a FWD car. FWD, 4WD, AWD or RWD, it doesn't matter, the tires with the best tread belong on the rear for directional stability (especially around turns)
 
#7 ·
I don't find my car bad for this, but I tend to keep a bit of weight in the trunk.
 
#8 ·
There's another angle here, that pertains to the original Poster for sure.

berndt has a car with noticeably more wear in the rear, so I'd guess he might have excessive toe-in in the rear. (proper specs stickied in Wheels, Tires, Brakes & suspension)

Lived with this problem on a car I had from the 70's, NORMALLY bearable with 4 snows, but treacherous at times....

What happens is one side getting traction and tracking "straight" while the other is skidding a bit - when they alternate you get the "wiggle", and it DON'T feel good.. (grin)

Extreme version is felt on wet pavement when rear suspension bushings are worn out, leading to variable and excessive toe-in when cornering. (or toe out depending on which side is loaded/worn out)

My ZTS sedan from '04 doesn't currently exhibit this behavior, but I adjusted the alignment to the specs from this site B4 it's first winter with me.

Luck!
 
#14 ·
berndt has a car with noticeably more wear in the rear, so I'd guess he might have excessive toe-in in the rear. (proper specs stickied in Wheels, Tires, Brakes & suspension)
Am I blind?!? Can you please link me to these specs?? Thanks. New tires now, so I'd better get an alignment anyway.
 
#9 ·
^As Stated,

Proper alignment, proper bushings and good tires are the cure for this.


I've been harping on people to replace their control blade bushings when these 'fish tail' type threads come up. I've yet to hear anyone replace them and post back. But I'm confident it will help the problem, it did on my cars.
You can't expect worn parts to function as they should.
 
#11 ·
The car is a 2002, and has 120K on it. If I were to replace all the bushings, is there a neat list of exactly which ones to get? Is this something the average backyard mechanic can do, or are special tools needed?

And Duh, now it makes sense that the rear looked like they were wearing faster, or might have just been older, I don't know.
 
#12 ·
'Fraid it's not as easy as it could be to just replace all the bushings...

Factory bushings are not avail., as they are installed in a "one time" manner - nice & secure in there but not replaceable. Std. factory fix is replacing the arms complete - they're relatively inexpensive & at shop rates this is actually cheaper than replacing bushings.

Aftermarket has performance Poly bushing kits available which CAN be backyard installed, however a press or some skill with a good vise is the minimum to be able to do it.

The largest PITA most run into (especially on cars that have seen winter) is that the bolts rust into the bushing sleeves making removal whole nearly impossible. Once thoroughly frozen in the bushings most posters have reported having to cut the bolts for removal. In some cases even having to cut off the tack welded captured nuts if the bolts can't be turned free. ( if you get them to turn B4 cutting you could unscrew the remnants afterwards, many don't put that much effort into saving the tack nuts)

The simple appearing job turning difficult due to the "Rust Monster" is the reason most just replace worn out items (in pairs recommended) OR go "Whole Hog" and re-bush the entire rear end.

LCA's (lower control arms) would be the first place I'd look for sacked bushings if wiggle was starting to be an issue.
Luck!
 
#16 ·
At 120k, I would bet there isn't hardly a good bushing on the rear of that car. I did my ZX3's suspension at 100k and had to cut out almost every rear upper and lower control arm bolt.

Your shocks and struts are also well past due for a change. Don't forget sway bar links too.

The only problems I have in the snow and ice are how low the car is. It doesn't wander at all. Like Iminhell and sailor are saying, I would make sure the car is in good shape mechanically first.
 
#17 ·
anyone have a handy list of what (could) needs to be replaced. or a forum post detailing the procedure(s)? Im just curious. I don't know if Id attempt any of this work, or just let a shop rape me to replace the worn bushings.

I will start with a good alignment. Is there a set of specific settings I can give a shop? I've been searching the forums, and haven't found anything obvious yet.

thanks all for the info.
 
#22 ·
I can't find an alignment shop that will do exact specs for me, I just told them to use an 03' SVT (I have SVT suspension remember) for reference and my local shop does a good job.

Its really just a matter of using a metal cutting wheel on an angle grinder, cut all the stuck bolts out, replace with new parts, torque to spec. Not fun but it wasn't hard either if you are used to working on cars. If you do order lower rear control arms, Tousley Ford has great prices and service.

I would start with:
-New lower rear control arms, inside camber bolts and outside bolts
-inspect rear-front lower control arm bushings
-inspect upper rear control arm bushings
-inspect sway bar bushings
-inspect wheel bearings
-replace front and rear sway bar end links
-replace shocks, struts, and strut mounts
 
#18 ·
The lawsuit is pretty funny, they should be suing for all years of Tempo and Contour which do the exact same thing, the rear squat from bushing sag throws tire alignments off. The tires then wear funky because they don't sit flat. Guess what, that is what independent rear suspension does, funny how they don't tell you that part while touting how great handling is when car is new. The major reason why I learned to hate working on Corvette drag cars.

I have to STRONGLY disagree with the guy who says to put all new tires on the back of FWD cars. There IS a difference between RWD and FWD, there is much more weight back there directly n the tire with the heavy rear end and more stability as a result. I put all new tires on my FWD front, to not do so is asking for all over the road at even as slow as 35 mph and trying to go straight in rain. I have corrected problems many times on other FWD cars doing just that. The rear will always be light, there is no weight back there, either in car overall or rear end weight proper.

Someone should pick up the engineering studies done on the old sixties Corvair at the time the million dollar lawsuits were going on, the cars were unstable due to suspension design but all car weight on ONE END of the car was a major contributor to the rear slide out problems this car was known for. FWD simply switches all that around to make same potential problem but up FRONT now, the inertia is all there now and on a quick roll into a curve in rain the front end can easily snap loose with braking to throw car outboard into a curb or other. Unlike the rear wishy washy issue which will warn you, the front end snap loose is sudden and unexpected when it happens. I'll take the better tires there ANY day.

Every FWD drive car I've driven greatly wears rear tires eccentric or egg shaped, again, no weight back there to dampen oscillation does that, the tires get slightly out of round and then begin to bounce thus making them get even more out of round. Alignment or new tire has no effect on that phenomenon at all. In short, new tires put back there do not live as long as tires put up front new do. The front has enough weight to dampen that oscillation, the tires wear much more evenly up front. Take the rear tires worn out of round and put them on the front and the car becomes absolutely undriveable. The steering wheel will shake you to death. Yet take the front ones and put them on the back with same mileage and car drives usually fine.

Ice???? You people are killing me. Anyone with common sense knows there is a point at which certain icy road conditions can make a car wishy washy in the back end with even brand new car and under 25 mph. The answer is called 'slow down'......................you are driving 'too fast for conditions' as any police officer will be happy to point out.
 
#20 ·
The lawsuit is pretty funny, they should be suing for all years of Tempo and Contour which do the exact same thing, the rear squat from bushing sag throws tire alignments off. The tires then wear funky because they don't sit flat. Guess what, that is what independent rear suspension does, funny how they don't tell you that part while touting how great handling is when car is new.
I wish my mechanic had told me that. Knowing what I know now, I am thinking that I might have been able to fix the problem years ago by replacing the rear suspension parts. Instead, my mechanic never seemed to even really believe what I was telling him about what I experienced during winter driving. That experience of not being believed and thus not getting actionable advice is frustrating.
 
#24 ·
Went to the a trusted tire shop ( according to a friend who's been using this guy / shop for 20+ years).

I didn't get a print out, so let my try to remember what he showed me on the alignment computer screen....
The front axle was pretty well within specs, with only very minor adjustments needed.

The rear axle was a little messed up. I don't remember which was which, but one measurement, I think toe, was .015, or .15. well under 1 anyway, not zero, but close. He said a toe of zero and the car would handle like crap. I think the camber was 1.3 on the passenger side, and 2.3 on the drivers side. 2.3 is Ford's limit on normal within spec. So a shim to bring that one wheel in to at least what the passenger wheel is.

The technician said he recommended a shim for the drivers rear, and then a full alignment, but he'll have to order the part, and we scheduled another appointment for later this week.

The bushings, he said looked fine. He also said he hadn't heard of Focus' wearing out tires real fast, and i mentioned the 2005 and up class action suit. But he has seen Focus SVT's wear out tires, because those have a different camber setting, for handling. Oddly, the SVT's that aren't driven hard seem to wear out faster, that SVT's that _are_ driven hard...

I figure I'll get the alignment, and then keep an eye on them, and rotate often.
 
#27 ·
He said a toe of zero and the car would handle like crap.
honestly, he doesn't know the Focus like we know it. we have millions of motoring miles experience in these cars. he doesn't. You NEED to set your rear toe to zero.

also set the front out to to the minimum allowed ( i like 1/16" to 1/8" out)

also "On spec" can still mean a crap alignment. you need to have him align to our custom specs.
Dont waste your money on a generic " on spec" alignment, where you'll need to replace tires again. if he wont do a custom alignment, find another shop.

good luck.
 
#25 ·
I had a problem similar to this about a year ago. I was headed to a concert in the pouring rain on the highway and I started to fishtail. I knew before then that I needed new tires since my rears were almost bald. My front tires were brand new. Apparently the people that put them on for me didn't know what they were doing because they put the good tires on the front and at the time, I didn't know any better either. If I went over 55mph in that rain I would fishtail. So I had to drive about 50mph on a 70mph highway while trying to make it to a concert on time.
 
#29 ·
So I had to drive about 50mph on a 70mph highway while trying to make it to a concert on time.
Okay, but is Justin Bieber really worth an accident?? [:p]

Anyway, here's my fishtail story: as some of you might recall, I had my rear suspension rebuilt a few months ago. Couldn't get an alignment until a few days later, during which time I had the pleasure of driving with rear toe way over a degree on newish Eagle GT's. After a light rain a few blocks from home, I took an EASY corner on good pavement at about 25mph...and wiped out. Did a 180 on a busy 4-lane road and only by the grace of God did not get clobbered (although, I did manage to stop traffic and everyone stared at me). I've done my share of deliberate 180's in FWD & RWD cars (dry, rain, snow, ice), but this one just felt wrong - a complete and total lack of control. It was probably the only 180 I've ever done where I yelled "WTF?!".
 
#26 ·
Nope. If the same bald tires were on the front I guarantee you wouldn't have been able to go 35 mph in same circumstance. The jerking there is much more violent and more likely to lead you into accident.

You need at least some semblance of good tire on front OR back, not having it (running bald) is a driver competence issue. But only the unlearned put the new tires on the back on FWD, if I need back ones, the new go on front and old go to back. That is after experimenting with both end priorities many years ago. The same evidence is supported on 2 Tempos, a Topaz, a Contour and 2 Focus, they ALL like the 2 new tires FAR better on front. If you are sliding out the rear you are going too fast or need FOUR new tires, not just two new on back, handicapping the front on FWD car is a serious mistake showing you know nothing about cars.
 
#31 ·
You need at least some semblance of good tire on front OR back, not having it (running bald) is a driver competence issue. But only the unlearned put the new tires on the back on FWD, if I need back ones, the new go on front and old go to back.
Roger that! That's how we were taught and it's common sense old school. I don't understand where this rationale comes from when it comes to placing two new tires on the rear wheels of a front wheel drive car and leaving the older worn tires up front.
 
#28 ·
You realize of course if you set rear at dead zero static then it will be slightly toe out when car moving from rubber bushing and other part deflection right? A slight toe out like that could easily make the car do what OP complained of. I'd be looking for ever so slight toe in that would neutral out to zero while moving. Even a bit of toe in there acceptable, it makes the rear stay better on a set line.
 
#36 ·
true, but put even a bag of groceries in the trunk and the compression of the springs will cause toe in. also many people keep stuff in there trunk permanently. i know i've got some boots, a shovel, windsheild fluid and some oil.

i dont believe that a very slight toe out will cause the wobble. I also want to avoid much static toe in, as putting alot in your trunk (or compressing hte springs coing around a corner) will cause a lot of toe in which IMO is worse.

anyways i think we can all agree that minimal toe in in the rear is called for (between 0 and v.slight)
 
#30 ·
Berndt - I'll have to see where the specs. are hiding over in the wheels tires & brakes section - Geezer is the member who listed the best reference numbers, and you can find a good write-up on "toe" by him in the general stickies there (including some specs.)

Alignment threads were more current & easier to find when I did mine, but years pass fast!

There's a simple backyard method to check toe - you just need fishing line, a mechanic's ruler, and a couple jack stands or equivalent to tie the line to.

(Mechanic's Ruler is inexpensive, it's just flat metal 6" rule with a slide marker/pocket clip)

Set the fishing line on it's holders next to the center of the wheels vertically, and close to equidistant from the wheels horizontally.

Adjust the distance of the line from the wheel centers so it's 5/32 further out in the rear (I used a 2 5/32" setting on the rule for the rear, and set the front at 2'' so it was easy to see) The reason for this is that the rear wheelbase is SLIGHTLY narrower than the front, and you want the line parallel to the car.

Then measure & record the distance to the front & rear of each wheel to the line. (just measuring the front distance is adequate, both will give you the "big picture" the first time)

Repeat the process on the other side of the car.

THEN you get to compare numbers, and it should be apparent just where the wheels are pointing!

I was never "lucky" enough to stop with the front wheels exactly straight for example, but with one side toed in 1/32", and the other OUT 1/32" - I could be pretty sure they were approx. at 0 in/out if they HAD been straight.

In the rear I found MY issue, the left was 2/32" in while the right was 4/32" in - a bit excessive "in" at that right rear corner.

Fighting with frozen adjuster for a couple weeks (letting the penetrant work for a bit helped) I eventually got the right rear to move to 1/32" IN, and called it a day.

Car tracked right, steering straightened up, and the "feathering" I'd noticed starting on the rear tires didn't reappear (tires got rotated, new rears wore normally)

NOT a perfect job, but certainly adequate as it's held OK for 3 years now.

Just got back to town this aft. & saw your question, so I thought I'd elaborate a bit!

Luck!
 
#32 ·
That method can be perfect enough to never need to pay for alignments as I do. I line up my own using that and other ideas. Once you are close enough to start splitting sixteenths you are there, no car on the planet cares about amounts of error smaller than that, the deflection from actually driving the car will be more. It's funny to hear all these people talk about digital numbers that bye and large mean very little in many cases.

The rear may be SUPPOSED to be narrower than the front but careful measurement can show whether that too is the case real world. Every car can vary slightly from that, you just gotta shoot the lines and see where they end up, then adjust to fit the need.
 
#33 ·
markwb - AFAIK, the "rationale" came from chain store lawyers who felt that it would be hard to defend a suit claiming that the worn tires on the rear let the vehicle "skid out of control" causing an accident. From there it spread, like a (leave bleep to imagination).

This is not "logical" says Spock...

Unfortunately "logic" and "legally defensible position" have little in common...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top