Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog Tech Info Tech Forums
 
  Search our site:    
 Cart  | Project List | Order Status | Help    


Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes ShopForum > Technical Information and Support > Wheels & Tires

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-24-2003, 01:19 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,373
Post Tire spec question 70 vs. 75

Hey Tire Experts:

What is the difference between 195 70R14's and 195 75R14's?

Seems like my 240 had 75's but my 300's (123's) have 70's.

Are they interchangable or should I just stick with 70's on my 300's?

Thanks

Don
__________________
DAILY DRIVERS:
'84 300DT 298k (Aubrey's)
'99.5 Jetta TDI IV 251k (Julie's)
'97 Jetta TDI 127k (Amber's)
'97 Jetta TDI 186k (Matt's)
'96 Passat TDI 237k (Don's
'84 300D 211k Mint (Arne- Undergoing Greasecar Conversion)

SOLD:
'82 240D 229k (Matt's - Converted-300DT w/ 4 speed
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-24-2003, 02:02 PM
JHZR2's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Collingswood, NJ
Posts: 3,248
the difference is 5% bigger aspect ratio on the 75s... i.e. the sidewall is a bigger percentage of the tread width and therefore a little higher. The difference? Maybe a tiny bit on your speedometer, which if already not too great, may be worse.
The 70s may handle a bit better than the 75s, but tire quality and design are a bigger factor. Neither should rub or act different from one or another, should be very interchangable, if you wish.

If your speedometer has been calibrated for 195/70 R 14 tires, replacing them with 195/75 R 14's would result in the speedometer reading low by 3.01%. Same as with the speedometer, if your odometer has been calibrated for 195/70 R 14 tires, replacing them with 195/75 R 14's would result in the odometer reading low by 3.01%.

JMH
__________________
Own:
1981 240D (73K)
1982 300CD (162k)
2004 SAAB 9-3 (62k)
1991 BMW 318i (153K)
1998 Chevrolet S-10 ZR2 (61K)
2008 VW Rabbit (40k)
2011 BMW 135i cv (8k)
Had:
1983 300D (228K) (wrecked by at-fault uninsured driver)
1985 300D (233K) (now in FL)
1994 Acura Integra (188k) (Rusted out)
1992 Toyota 4Runner (72k) (Rusted out)
1990 Daihatsu Rocky (??) (No parts)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-24-2003, 02:05 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,373
Thanks for the info. Much appreciated.

Would mileage increase or decrease as well by 3%

dp
__________________
DAILY DRIVERS:
'84 300DT 298k (Aubrey's)
'99.5 Jetta TDI IV 251k (Julie's)
'97 Jetta TDI 127k (Amber's)
'97 Jetta TDI 186k (Matt's)
'96 Passat TDI 237k (Don's
'84 300D 211k Mint (Arne- Undergoing Greasecar Conversion)

SOLD:
'82 240D 229k (Matt's - Converted-300DT w/ 4 speed
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-24-2003, 02:11 PM
JHZR2's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Collingswood, NJ
Posts: 3,248
I believe that 'observed' mileage would be less, as the odometer wouldnt turn as much, and it would seem that the MPG was less. However, you would still be travelling the same actual distance, so your 'actual' MPG would remain the same.

The contact area of the tires should be essentially the same, and so rolling resistance (assuming the same exact tire in the two sizes) should be about the same.

It would be one thing if you went from 195s to 205s or something like this, but since the treadwidth is the same, I think all should be aboout the same, except for the measurement issue...

JMH
__________________
Own:
1981 240D (73K)
1982 300CD (162k)
2004 SAAB 9-3 (62k)
1991 BMW 318i (153K)
1998 Chevrolet S-10 ZR2 (61K)
2008 VW Rabbit (40k)
2011 BMW 135i cv (8k)
Had:
1983 300D (228K) (wrecked by at-fault uninsured driver)
1985 300D (233K) (now in FL)
1994 Acura Integra (188k) (Rusted out)
1992 Toyota 4Runner (72k) (Rusted out)
1990 Daihatsu Rocky (??) (No parts)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-24-2003, 04:39 PM
LarryBible
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The actual fuel mileage will be negligible as will the speedo difference. After well over a half million miles of driving and putting tires on 123's, I firmly believe that it's difficult to beat 195/75's.

They carry the weight of the car well, there is no significant handling difference because these are not sports cars anyway, and the 75 series tires have harder compounds and last longer. The added benefit is that even though they last longer, they are less expensive than wider profile, performance tires.

My preference over the years has been 195/75-14, Michelin XH. I have not seen the XH in many years, so I'm not sure what is the current Michelin equivalent.

In this size they are not terribly expensive, but they are round, smooth, balance out very easily and will outlast about any tire you can put on it. In the long run, you will get more miles per dollar than anything else you can put on these cars. That has been my experience.

Good luck,
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-24-2003, 04:59 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,373
Wow:

This is very helpful information from both of you. I'm headed off to get them tonight on the new (85 D) one. So the information was timely.

Thank you,

Don
__________________
DAILY DRIVERS:
'84 300DT 298k (Aubrey's)
'99.5 Jetta TDI IV 251k (Julie's)
'97 Jetta TDI 127k (Amber's)
'97 Jetta TDI 186k (Matt's)
'96 Passat TDI 237k (Don's
'84 300D 211k Mint (Arne- Undergoing Greasecar Conversion)

SOLD:
'82 240D 229k (Matt's - Converted-300DT w/ 4 speed
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-24-2003, 05:26 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Old Lyme, Connecticut
Posts: 3,592
diesel don,

Your 240D was more than likely equipped with 175/78-14's from the factory and in my opinion that size sucks on a W123. Too wimpy to maintain proper margins for strength and safety if the car is loaded. I never understood the technical justification for the 240D to 300D difference in rating. Fully loaded the two cars do not weight significantly differently, and coming down a windy mountain road those 175/78-14's (actually they have no aspect ratio number listed, and in that case the standard if no aspect ratio is specified, is 78) (edit-got distracted and left the sentence incomplete) is not confidence inspiring.

Since you are not fitting your 240D today, I guess all that is moot. Good luck though, Jim
__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

Last edited by JimSmith; 01-24-2003 at 11:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-24-2003, 11:16 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Evansville, Indiana
Posts: 8,150
Tire size specs have changed over the years, and radial tires were a new thing back then....

The 70 or 75 is the height of the tire, expressed in percent of tire width (so a 75 tire is taller than a 70).

You need to find a tire guy who is old enough and is knowledgeable enough to determine which current tire will have the same rolling diameter as the original spec tire -- this will give you correct gear ratio and speedo/odometer readings.

The tire size required may not spec out much like the original -- for instance, the "correct" tire for the 72 280 SE 4.5 is a 205/70, original tires are a 185/75 spec, but not radials, so they were taller for the same "height" -- radials squash down more that bias belt tires.

Peter
__________________
1972 220D ?? miles
1988 300E 200,012
1987 300D Turbo killed 9/25/07, 275,000 miles
1985 Volvo 740 GLE Turobodiesel 218,000
1972 280 SE 4.5 165, 000 - It runs!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-24-2003, 11:46 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,373
Jim:

I felt the same thing when I purchased my 240D awhile back. There were either 175's or 185 75R14's on it. Seemed skinny and didn't hold the road as well.
Tonight I put the 195 75R14's on the 300 and went for a test drive. Ran about 40 miles and up pretty high. I thought they did very well.
I'm with you on the skinnier ones.

Psfred:

Wow, never thought of the impact of radials and different measuring standards.

Thanks for the input.

Don
__________________
DAILY DRIVERS:
'84 300DT 298k (Aubrey's)
'99.5 Jetta TDI IV 251k (Julie's)
'97 Jetta TDI 127k (Amber's)
'97 Jetta TDI 186k (Matt's)
'96 Passat TDI 237k (Don's
'84 300D 211k Mint (Arne- Undergoing Greasecar Conversion)

SOLD:
'82 240D 229k (Matt's - Converted-300DT w/ 4 speed
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-24-2003, 11:50 PM
Randall Kress
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I too had this question when buying a new set of tires. I asked many a mechanic, but when the decision came in, I stuck with the 70. The 75s, while okay for the car, look too tall to my calibrated eye. Some may tell the difference, I really can tell. Another word of advice came from my dealer, they also said stick with the 70's... Why? Mercedes Benz put a lot of research in designing suspensions, etc. If they fit 70s, they did so for a reason. What, I really don't know. But I like my brand new Michelin MXV4s. I HIGHLY suggest you buy Michelins. For having Coopers and Avons in the past, Michelins are quite the tires! Rubber strengths and compounds depend on tires, not sizes...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-25-2003, 07:51 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 854
You will find a larger variety of tires in the 70 size than 75.

Tire developement has been going along with tire size.
IOW, when 70 series became the rage the tire companies spent millions on development; rain, grip, noise, etc. Then it was 60 series and the 70 series were not concentrated on much, but received some trickle down from the 60s. Now it is on to the ridiculous series, i.e. 45 and 55...

So, 75s are really old and 70s are sorta old.
Go with the 70s.
Buy Michelin or Dunlop. I happen to think that Dunlop D2 are very good on these cars.
__________________
Ed
1981 300CD (Benzina)
1968 250 S (Gina) 266,000 miles!
1983 Alfa Romeo GTV6 (Guido)
1976 Jaguar XJS-saved a V-12 from the chevy curse, what a great engine!
1988 Cadillac Eldorado (better car than you might think!)
1988 Yamaha Venture (better than a Wing!)
1977 Suzuki GS750B
1976 Yamaha XS 650 (sold)
1991 Suzuki GSX1100G (Shafty Gixser)
1981 Yamaha VX920RH (Euro "Virago")
Solex Moped
1975 Dodge P/U camper


"Time spent in the company of a cat, a beer, and this forum, is not time wasted!"
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-25-2003, 11:39 AM
Palangi's Avatar
L' Résistance
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Republique de Banana
Posts: 3,433
The difference between these two sizes is minimal. As long as all 4 tires are the same size, you won't notice any difference. The 75's will probably cost less, mainly because that is the more common size. My only advice would be that these are heavy cars on fairly small tires, therefore they don't tolerate cheap tires very well. Go with a premium brand tire like Michelin, Bridgestone, Dunlop, etc. Avoid the domestic brands as even their top of the line tires do not do well on these cars.
__________________
Palangi

1984 300D 123.133 Heavy Iron
2004 C240 Wagon 203.261 Baby Benz
2008 ML320 CDI Highway Cruiser
2006 Toyota Prius, Saving the Planet @ 48 mpg
2000 F-150, Destroying the Planet @ 20 mpg


Hope and Change Baby, Hope and Change, LOL
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-25-2003, 09:39 PM
zbenz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Indiana
Posts: 102
Tires

I have had Michelin's on both my Benz when I bought them . On both I found them quite inferior to the Goodyear Aquatread 3's I replaced them with. Just my $0.02
__________________
87 300SDL 220K
85 300SD 218K
82 diesel Chevette 440K
85 subaru 4WD turbo
83 4.1L buick powered cutlass THE TOY
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-25-2003, 09:48 PM
JHZR2's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Collingswood, NJ
Posts: 3,248
good to know... I am set to use aquatred 3s on the 300D, because due to minor alignment/suspension problems, the fronts wear funny, and my dunlop SP Sport A2s are a bit soft...
__________________
Own:
1981 240D (73K)
1982 300CD (162k)
2004 SAAB 9-3 (62k)
1991 BMW 318i (153K)
1998 Chevrolet S-10 ZR2 (61K)
2008 VW Rabbit (40k)
2011 BMW 135i cv (8k)
Had:
1983 300D (228K) (wrecked by at-fault uninsured driver)
1985 300D (233K) (now in FL)
1994 Acura Integra (188k) (Rusted out)
1992 Toyota 4Runner (72k) (Rusted out)
1990 Daihatsu Rocky (??) (No parts)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-25-2003, 09:58 PM
The Warden's Avatar
Certified diesel nut
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Pacifica (SF Bay Area), CA
Posts: 2,946
FWIW, I have BFG tires on my 300D right now; they came with the car. There's still a decent amount of tread on them, so I can't justify replacing them, but I'm not happy with 'em...

What do you all think about Big-O tires? I've used them on my trucks in the past, with great success...excellent warranty, good on- and off-road handling capabilities but I've never bought a car tire from 'em...
__________________
2001 VW Jetta TDI, 5 speed, daily driver
1991 Ford F-350, work in progress
1984 Ford F-250 4x4, 6.9l turbo diesel, 5 speed manual
Previous oilburners: 1980 IH Scout, 1984 E-350, 1985 M-B 300D, 1979 M-B 300SD, 1983 M-B 300D
Spark-free since 1999
Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2003, 09:58 PM
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2011 Pelican Parts - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page