16" 15 hole SL = same as EVO 16v? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Matt Smith · #1 06-27-2004, 10:54 PM

Hi
I was wondering if the 16" 15 hole 1991 SL wheels are the same as the evo 16V? if so great.

If not, will they still fit my '86 2.3 16v? I'm sure someone has done this swap before. I'm keen to keep a stock appearance but go to 16's (currently running E* 5 hole 16"'s , H&R, no clearance issues).

Thanks

Limited Edition · #2 06-28-2004, 08:41 AM

Quote:

I was wondering if the 16" 15 hole 1991 SL wheels are the same as the evo 16V?

Yes

Matt Smith · #3 06-28-2004, 07:26 PM

Thanks for the reply.

Unfortunately I had to buy them before knowing for sure (either the offset or the width), and take the gamble as the vendor wanted money NOW!!

It paid off: perfect condition, 16x8, ET34
Paid around $100 US!

They look far more purposeful than the stock 15" 16V 15 hole wheels, to the point where it is quite surprising when you hold them side by side.

I'll let you know how I get on fitting them in a week as my car is having the bumper resprayed at the moment.

yhliem · #4 07-08-2004, 12:38 AM

You'll be happy with the result. I got the same rims (at a screaming deal $350 Canadian for all 4... in MINT condition too).

Here's a pic:

Matt Smith · #5 07-11-2004, 10:32 PM

Thanks Yhliem, it was in fact the pics of your car I was looking for!
Anyway, found them on Rev once it came back up, so I'll be posting the results on there.
As a brief rundown though, I have gone with 225 50 series Michelins, and eventually (edit- nearly..!) managed to get it all to work without rubbing on H&R and no.1 spring pads all round.

Not easy, but I did it. I really like the results.

yhliem · #6 07-12-2004, 01:18 AM

Matt:

Have you got pics of your car w/ the new rims & tires? I was thinking about going to 50 series tires but wasn't sure that they'd clear. especially at the front of the front wheel arch.

Also, how do you find the H&R's? I'm looking for lowering springs that will let me keep the SLS. My preference is Eibach, but they have discontinued that kit. Apparently H&R still makes the kit, but I don't want to go to too firm a spring.

Thx

Matt Smith · #7 07-12-2004, 01:55 AM

No pics yet. I'll take some tomorrow if the sun manages to come out. Still got to figure how to post them though...

Well I almost had it figured, but I'm still getting a little rubbing in the rear (I think it may be one of the nuts holding on the wheelarch flare). I've just been going around the car and attending to anything that seems to rub. Nothing drastic, just replaceable/undo-able, detail things.

In all truth it's a bit of a mission making it all fit, and I would/will probably go up a spring pad size in the front.. Clearing the front bumper-to-fender join takes the most work, but a teeny bit of trimming and pumping out the fender bases and bumper tops with 1/2" bushes and longer fastners seems to have done the trick.

The H&R themselves are really nice. The ride is firm but certainly not jarring or anything. This sort of thing is subjective, but for me it's certainly liveable. Handling is far, far, far better in terms of less roll and ability to nip around corners quickly and enjoyably. The EVO's made this better too I might add.

I've retained my SLS too. Dumping this down sufficiently is a whole new chapter!!

Matt Smith · #8 07-12-2004, 02:06 AM

Forgot to say: looks really good, and I guess that's what makes it worth the effort.
I'll have a go at uploading a pic of the old wheels (all I had to hand sorry)....

norman · #9 07-13-2004, 12:33 AM

how much does the rim weigh? i thought the correct profile is 45?

yhliem · #10 07-13-2004, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by norman
how much does the rim weigh? i thought the correct profile is 45?

Not sure about the weight, but the ORIGINAL rim has an offset of 44. These rims that Matt and I are discussing, are not original 2.3-16 rims, and therefore have a different offset. Which is what we are trying to achieve since the OEM 2.3-16 rims are tucked WAY too far in.

If you look at the EvoI in the current Mercedes Enthusiast, you'll see that it too has its rims tuckd quite far into the body. It's common for Mercedes to choose such a high offset.

norman · #11 07-13-2004, 10:43 AM

the ones in the pic above are SL rims? i dont like the tucked look either, i would rather have a smaller ET to have a wider stance but my understanding is that MB chose to "tuck in" the 16v wheels was due to reduce wind drag?
Also would the 500e rims fit a lowered 16v? i think they are the same ET34 16x8?

yhliem · #12 07-14-2004, 12:48 AM

Norman:

You are correct as to the reason for the degree of tuck on OEM rim choices.

That being said, I don't think the difference in drag is much of an issue in daily driving.

Besides, the use of 225s creates significantly more mechanical grip and car looks a hell of a lot better with the wider stance.

500E rims will fit exactly the same as the 15 hole rims. Whether they fit on a lowered 16v realy depends on your choice of tires.

yhliem · #13 07-14-2004, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by norman
how much does the rim weigh? i thought the correct profile is 45?

The correct profile IS 45, however Mark has decided to go one size up. I had considered it as well as it is the specified size for an EvolutionI. Additionally, the 45 series tires seem a little out of proportion with the rim at times, particularly from the side.

More than anything else, I believe it is for the sake of appearance.

Matt Smith · #14 07-14-2004, 01:18 AM

Ok- took a couple. Mid winter here, so sorry about the garden...

Edit; Huhh? Why no piccy?..Keep trying..

Edit- still too big. Hw many mega bytes can we get away with, and what physical size?

Thanks

While I'm waiting to find that out, some answers:

Original 15" (15 hole) 2.3 16v wheels are ET44. I have just checked this on my wheels in the garage. They do indeed tuck under.

The 16" (15 hole) wheels I have bought have an ET of 34. Whatever they are off (supposedly a 91 SL) this is the ET stamped on them. They do stick out more than the 15" rims, as they should. I calculated it at around 23mm or so, and this is what it looks like on the car. They feel light too, so I guess they are forged like the 15"ers

Now, whether they are the same as Evo 1 wheels or not can only be answered by someone who has an original EVO 1 to look at.

Most places I have read say the ET is indeed 34 in the factory EVO 1 wheels, so it figures these ARE the same!!

The specs I have researched on the net say EVO1's come with a 50 profile tyre. That didn't mean much to me: I chose 50 series because that is what was available to me at the time,pure and simple. 45's would be sweet too.

NOW: back to the original question- how do they look? Help me post a pic and I'll show you.!!

Matt Smith · #15 07-14-2004, 02:46 AM

maybe..just maybe..