16" or 17" upgrade? - 95 E320 Cab - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

deluxejb · #1 10-16-2003, 06:09 PM

I am ready to move out of the stock 15"'s for my recently acquired 95 E320 Cabriolet (cherry!!). For performance and no mods to install, what are the recommendations and experiences...mainly as to ride and handle, for 16 vs 17 and then 205?/55?. I still want the car to look clean and stock...except for the AMG look. Thanks

manny · #2 10-17-2003, 11:39 AM

In a nutshell.
Ultra low aspect ratios ( 35/40/45 ) equal ultimate handling & mostly crappy ride.
I consider 50 series borderline.
55's or 60's are a very good compromise between handling & ride quality.
Warning: This is only my personal opinion based on " been there, done that ".

ksing44 · #3 10-17-2003, 07:41 PM

I love my 16"s, but I know that most other s want to go as big as possible. I have 205/55/16 on 16" x 7.5" ET37 AMGs and I am planning to try to fit 215/55/16. I am glad that I have the extra sidewall to cushion the ride and to protect my beautiful rims.

manny · #4 10-17-2003, 07:59 PM

ksing44

Love your wheels.
Not too fussy on the colour of your car, should be silver.

Just kidding.

deluxejb · #5 10-18-2003, 06:38 AM

Thanks guys

...and ksing44, your look was the one that I first saw here that I really loved and will use as a plan for my beautiful, brilliant SILVER Cab.

But I want to know the technical differences, i.e. performance, handling, ride, mileage, wear, odometer problems, etc. What would be the characteristics of going to a 17" 215(225)/55?

To me, cosmetically, ksing44's E set-up is nearly perfect (better if silver); sleak, sportier, more contemporary, yet with none of the "chopper" or "low rider" feel that would cheapen the classic look of these babies. (Ok, it sounds like a wine review, but give me a break! I like the English language!)

deluxejb · #6 10-18-2003, 06:41 AM

...and, ksing44...

Why are you going to 215's the next time? What are the characteristics the 215's will give you over the 205's.

ksing44 · #7 10-18-2003, 08:07 AM

In general, I think there are quite a few reasons not to want wider tires. They are more likely to wear in unusual patterns and they tend to wander and follow imperfections in the road. They tend to hydroplane more easily and they can destroy ride comfort if they have a lower profile with stiffer sidewalls. Of course there are also positive things about wider tires. They are quicker handling if they have a lower profile and stiffer sidewalls. They stick to the road for better DRY traction because they have a larger contact patch. They also give the car a more glued to the ground, stable, aggressive look. Again, it is all about balance.

For me, the 215/55/16s will be wider for a more aggressive look and they will be just a bit taller so that the gap between the tire and my fender will be just a bit smaller. The smaller gap contributes to the more aggressive look. I think this is about as much tire as I can fit on my car with the current set-up. In addition, the wider tire will also be taller and that will give back some of the sidwall height I lost when I changed from 195/65/15s. The increased sidewall height should give back some ride comfort that was lost, but it isn’t so much bigger that my speedometer will be way off. I hope they don’t rub! I use Tireracks specs on the tires to determine what the changes will do to the overall tire diameter and the RPMs of the wheel.

It is hard to say what performance increase/ride deterioration came from the springs and shocks and what came from the change to 16" wheels and lower profile tires. It is pretty well documented that just about everything you do to tighten up the handling also degrades ride comfort. It is the blend of those characteristics that makes our cars so special and that is why most of us are so cautious about making modifications.

I know I have explained my decision process quite a number of times, but to summarize, I went with intermediate modifications for every selection. I chose progressive springs with a slight drop, not super low super stiff sport springs. I chose Bilstein HDs, not Sports or Koni Reds. I chose 16" wheels, not 17"s. I am happy with the car. It is noticeably tighter, stiffer, and more responsive, but it still has a comfortable ride. It doesn’t float along quite like before, but it is still comfortable.

I think it is also important to remember that our cars are probably never going to be all out handling beasts, like the M3s. These are rather heavy midsize sport sedans, not little sports cars, so even if you go to extremes for every modification you probably still won’t be able to match a true lightweight sports car and you will have absolutely destroyed any semblance of ride comfort. It really is the balance that makes our cars so special.

In the past, I wrote that I kind of wished I had gone with H&Rs, Bilstein Sports, and 17" wheels, because I only went half way. I don’t know how much performance I am missing or how much more of the comfort would have been lost. After living with the modifications on the car for about a year, I have to say that I am very happy and that I am glad I went with the intermediate modifications.

If only my car was silver!

manny · #8 10-18-2003, 09:01 AM

ksing44

I agree with all of your statements above.
Another small consideration on tire size may be fuel economy.
Wide-ass tires don't lend themselves to very good mpg ( increased rolling resistance ).
Last time I tried 225's, the car was tramlining so bad, it completely took the joy out of driving. And there are no worn suspension parts on this car.
For me it, is 215/55/16's forever baby.

ksing44 · #9 10-18-2003, 10:17 AM

Oh, I forgot to add that I have not made the switch to MAX Performance tires. I am running Grand Touring Tires. I have the Michelin MXV4 Energy Plus, but I may try the Bridgstone Turanza LS. Luke seems to prefer them to the Michelins and the Tirerack tests seemed to put them ahead in the performance category with almost no loss in comfort or increase in noise. I am always afraid to switch, because the Michelins are quiet. I hate road noise. The Michelins are certainly not super in the rain and that is one area where the Bridgestones shine. I also still use the H rated tires. I think the higher speed rated tires tend to be stiffer and noisier. I don’t usually drive faster than 110 or 120 mph, so I don’t think I need the V rated tires. If the higher speed rated tires are stiffer, then I suppose that a V rated grand touring tire might provide a bit more performance while cornering. Then again, it might start getting noisy. Here I am back at the balance thing.

Holson Adi · #10 10-19-2003, 12:25 AM

Dad's old 230E with 215/55/16 Dunlop SP9000s on some MB replica wheels.

Maybe the wheels were too far out or something but the left front tire rubbed on the plastic moulding just in front of the door and it took off some paint...

ksing44 · #11 10-19-2003, 07:25 AM

I just saw CME4BENZ’s coupe with new 16" wheels and 215/55/16s from Tirerack. They look great, but they rub on the driver side at about 3:00 o’clock on the plastic body cladding. CME4BENZ said that it only happens when he is pushing the car and happens to hit a dip in the road while cornering. He didn’t remember the offset of the wheels, so I’m not sure if maybe they are just a bit too low of an ET. It could also be that the original (never replaced) OEM shocks allow too much suspension travel.

Holson, do you know the offset for your Dad’s MB replica wheels?

ksing44 · #12 10-19-2003, 09:01 AM

It is funny. I read so many posts about 17" x 7.5" wheels with ET35 and my 16" x 7.5" AMG Monoblocks (the original) came with ET37, but these lower ET numbers really do place the wheels out toward the edge of the fenders. For handling and looks it is nice to have the wheels out as far as possible, but if it limits the size of the tires, then it seems like a mistake. It seems that the best ET would center the wheel inside the fender, so that it would be equal distance from the fender lip and the suspension components. I wonder what the ET number is for a perfectly centered 15" x 6.5", 16" x 7.5", 17" x 7.5", and 18" x 8" wheel. The shock angles away from the wheel on the inboard side, so as the wheels get larger in diameter, there should be more room close to the shock. Then again, as you go to larger diameter wheels they usually also increase in width, so they end up using that extra space close to the shock. I wonder if the OEM 15" x 6.5 ET44 wheels are centered in the wheel well. When I looked at my 15" x 6.5" ET44 OEM wheels, they were very close to the shocks on the inboard side. I’m considering getting 215/60/15 on my 15" x 6.5" ET44 OEM wheels, but I am a little concerned that the wider tires will rub the shocks. I am also considering 215/55/16 instead of 205/55/16 on my 16" x 7.5" ET37 AMG wheels, but I am a little concerned that they will rub the fender lip or plastic body cladding. The AMG wheels are definitely closer to the outside lip of the fenders. It looks good, but ultimately it may limit my tire size. The 205/55/16 tires never rubbed. I may be safe, because I have Eibach ProKit springs with Bilstein HD shocks, so even though the car is slightly lower, there is very little travel in the suspension to allow the tires to be forced up against the fender lip.

Holson Adi · #13 10-20-2003, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Holson, do you know the offset for your Dad’s MB replica wheels?

I really don't know... I'm guessing since the wheels were pretty much outside of the wheel wells.. they are probably ET35?

LRGaston · #14 10-22-2003, 01:16 AM

One thing to consider is the type of roads you will be driving on. If they're pretty smooth, you can probably get away with 17's. If NASA tested the lunar rover on them, you might want to stay with 15's.

FWIW, I put 17x7.5 ET 35 wheels on my stock suspended 89 300 TE with 215/45-17 tires. I had absolutely no problem with rubbing. There was some increased harshness on some impacts, but overall it was a worthwhile upgrade. One word of caution with this size; You really have to stay up on measuring your air pressure. With such a low profile and relatively stiff sidewalls, you really can't visually inspect the tires for low air pressure.

Here are a couple of pics I took after my visit to the Tire Rack. You can see that the 35mm offset is about the most you can go on the front without modifications.

ksing44 · #15 10-22-2003, 05:40 AM

Hey Lloyd, I couldn’t see those pictures you posted from ImageStaion.

I know the spring pads and amount of drop after changing springs can vary greatly from year to year and even car to car. I wonder if the W124s are just a bit different from year to year, in terms of the required offset for the wheels. For example, the OEM wheels on my 1995 E320 are 15" x 6.5" ET44, but I have read that some older W124s had 15" x 6.5 ET 49. My new AMG wheels are 16" x 7.5" ET37 and, although they are close to edge of the fenders, they do not protrude past the fenders. I have seen some W124s that have tires sticking out beyond the front fenders. Unfortunately, the protruding tires give a bit of a 4 x 4 look and I think it takes away from the sleek design of the car.

I am just wondering if my 1995 E320 is just a little different than the older W124s and if it has more tolerance for a lower offset, since my 16" x 7.5 ET37 wheels do not stick out past the front fenders.