I have had a question regarding Mercedes logic when it comes to tires for all models. This is more related to pre 2000 models and especially the late 80's and early 90's cars. Why do Mercedes always put such small rubber on the cars? 300E's look great with a 205/60/15 rather than the 195/65/15's stock. Looking at my 500E, why did Mercedes not go bigger than the 225/55/16's? They are 8" rims right? Not comparing the two cars but the IROC's of the 80's had nice 245/50/16's from the factory and they looked really good. They were I believe 8" rims as well. Not to doubt the Mercedes engineers but wouldn't putting something bigger on these wheels improve the car or are the stockers good enough? I just ask because Mercedes has historically put small tires on the cars. Personally I think 245/50/16's would look great on the 500E or maybe a 235/50/16 but I do not want to compromise what Mercedes and Porche thought is right. Let me know your thoughts. Have a great Thanksgiving. (fellow Canucks) Cheers!

Shaun

I think their reasons are:
1. Money.
2. Fuel economy.
3. Ride quality.

You really only need the " biggies " ( 245/255/265/285 ) etc. for traction on high powered engines, and the super low profiles ( 35/40/45 ) for " balls-out " handling.
The trend nowadays for some people is to go with way more tire, than really needed.
Look at some of the " super economy " boxes on the road today ( Toyota Prius, etc. ), running 175's and very high tire pressures, all in an effort to gain another mpg.

__________________
2007 C 230 Sport.

Thanks for the reply. I guess it is up to the driver to see which one or all they will sacrifice. I need traction in the 500 so I don't engage ASR. I may go with a bigger tire in the future. Cheers!

Shaun

ride quality, fuel economy and the desire to make the car understeer per the DOT standards

__________________

Please, call me to place orders or for more info
use my name for on-line orders

Would you keep the same size tire all around? Since each rim is the same size, it would be better for handling if they all were the same size, eh? Bigger on the back and smaller (much smaller) is better for drag racing and a bit smaller is beneficial to understeer right? (having the front tire give before the rear). This seems to be the setup for the M series BMW's. Cheers!

Shaun

__________________
1992 Pearl Black 500E (08/91) SOLD
1997 White C36 AMG (T-Boned by Chevy truck)
2003 Silver C32 AMG (lease due, traded up)
2002 Pontiac Montana VisionSOLD
2007 Volvo XC90 3.2
2005 E55 AMG (newest ride)

actually your analogy is a little incorrect. The wider rear tire will induce understeer which, in real world terms, is somewhat safer for the average driver but, hurts the cars cornering abilities. In 1995 when the E36 M3 first came out it had 17x8 wheels with 235/40-17 tires on all four corners. Then in 1996 the DOT told BMW to make the car more "average driver" friendly so they change to a 17x7.5 front wheel with a 225/45-17 tire and a 17x8.5 rear wheel with a 245/40-17 tire to create understeer. To this day for the entusiast driver the 1995 E36 M3 is still considered one of the best handling cars mass produced for the general public. They also offered a special version in 1995 with a roll cage and very sparse amenities (no radio or AC) called the "lightweight" for use as a race car. The "E36 Lightweight" is still one of the most sought after cars for club racers nationwide.

for better handling go with the same size on all four corners

__________________

Please, call me to place orders or for more info
use my name for on-line orders