Our '04 C 320 sedan has about 10K on it, and it has its OEM Michelin MXV 4 plus Engergy tires in the 205/55/16 size and the H speed rating. The tread is like new, but I lke to plan ahead. As I also drive a Honda S 2000, any lack of on-center feel, responses to crowns or side winds, or "rubbery" cornering bothers me a little. With the factory inflation of 30 psi front and 32 psi rear, I felt a lille bit of these things in the C 320. I increased inflation to 34 psi all around, and felt these things all improved greatly, with no sacrifice in "sedan ride" or road noise.The C 320 isn't used in any competition (neither is the S 2000), but the tire pressure increase made a noticeable improvement in the C 320's response as a highway cruiser, negotiating traffic, and mountain driving. The car is almost never driven in snow.

I mention these things, as I'm sure style of driving comes into play in tire recommendations. So, to start my tire research, I have these questions.

Would a "V" rated tire of the same size be as quiet? Smooth riding? Long lasting? As quiet? (I note that some of Tire Rack's most popular replacements are V rated.)

The door jam plate states that 225/50/16 would be an acceptable replacement (without changing wheels to 17", which is not my intent). What would be the advantages and disadvantages of making this change upon replacement in terms of the factors mentioned in the paragraph above?

Thanks in advance for your advice.

Thanks,
Richard

I've been doing some research for tires for my C, and maybe my months of research will help you.

1) as you probably know wear rating numbers like 330 & 400 are designations that manufacturers intend to be used between their own line of tires.

2) v rated tires will wear quicker than H rated in most cases within a particular manufacturers line. And when comparing similar style tires betweem manufacturers V will usually wear faster than H.

3) Round shouldered tires are geared toward front drive cars, and tires with multiple circumferential groves are designed for quietness.

4) wider tires may add noise and harshness, and wear will probably be greater, do to the fact that the tire is more performance oriented. You might think that the wider 225 would have better grip and it may, but how well the tire works with a suspension is a tricky science.

5) also consider load rating, 90, 91 or 95 be aware that tire rack doesn't use load ratings as a profile, though ratings are close simply due to size.

6) You should be able to triple the mileage on your Michelin's and when they are worn newer tires may be on the market.

7) I prefer tires made in Germany and Japan. Just because the manufacturer is japanese or german doesn't mean ther product is made in those countries.

Ethan:

Thanks for the wealth of advice and research. From what you describe, it sounds as if the OEM tires are really the best for this car:provided that I can successfully maintian them at a bit higher pressure than recommended by MB. Don't know why not. I'm running 34 psi, and the sidewall print says max. pressure 51 psi. They, for expample, use groves running the circumfrance of the tread with very small "cross tread" groves or slits in between for quitness. Also, they are square shouldered, not round. I had already had some info that as the speed rating goes up, the treadwear goes down, so I know that is true, so little need to go to a 149 mph rated V tire on a car electronically limited to 130.

So, unless anybody else has any other thoughts, I'll just plan to replace my OEM tires with another set of the same ---- or whatever Michelin has then that is the closest. Odd. In the last 15+ years, this is only the second car we've bought where the OEM tires were really any good. And the other was a Ford pickup with Firestones very much like those that were recalled on the Explorer. But those still have new looking tread after 30,000 miles! Maybe these Micheys will do the same.

And if anybody has a tire suggestion for this car that they believe is better than OEM, please chime in!

Thanks,
Richard

Arguably the best performance and durability all-season tire is the Potenza RE950. The C is the 2nd car I put them on. I also just upgraded from 195/65/15 OEM Continentals to 225/45/17 RE950s on C32-style AMG wheels.
Not my original intent either, but the ride does not suffer noticeably and the steering response is wordls better.

You will like the very straight, firm sidewall of the 950, and even in the stock size you won't believe the difference in feel and wet performance.

I second the RE950 recommendation. I was a Michelin exclusive user for 25+ years, but the MXV4 Energy series really turned me away. Too slippery, oddball wear patterns, etc. (and I bought many sets of them for several cars totaling 250,000+ miles before I finally gave up).

The relationship with Firestone dosen't sour your opinion of Bridgestone tires?
late August saw a recall on Bridgestone japaness produced SUV/TRUCK tires.

I'm looking at new tires and want to buy Bridgestone, the Bridgestone tire for my car is inexpensive and I'm afraid it is made in some mediocre Firestone factory

In my opinion, based on some research, the Firestone issue was overblown. It has not in any way soured my opinion. In fact, that is the period when I switched (after belt separation problems on the Michelin Energy MXV4 ties on my E430).

I actually have Firestones on my '98 Ford Ranger truck. They were not among the ones recalled. Also, the manufacturer didn't recommend a ridiculously low inflation pressure, as was done with the Explorer. Mine look almost new after six years and 30,000 miles. Probably have another 30K in them, and that's way good enough for me.

Any further suggestions for the '04 C 320?

Thanks,
Richard

Bridgestone makes three tires that would work well, the Turanza series for touring, the RE950 for more agressive driving with excellent wet weather performance, the SO-3 Pole Position for maximum performance. Read about each at www.tirerack.com.