vtsnake

Ok so through my infinite searches it seems most people are getting anywhere from 2 to 5K miles out of their rear tires.

Of course most of you blame the high horsepower and tons of torque. IMO that doesn't make much sense. I have a Mustang with more power and the rear tires last at least 10K with lots of hard launches.

My C has 1200 miles and the rear tires have maybe 4/32s left on the inner edge. I am running 295/25R20 Cont DW. The cars been lowered in the front with HnRs and the rear has the thinnest OEM spring pads. I'm gonna have the alignment checked but regardless the outer edge might have 5 or 6/32s. So lets say it wore evenly across, that means I'd get maybe 2500 to 3000 miles on them. I drive the stang way harder than the C so what gives?

The high power theory just doesn't make much sense. There are plenty of cars out there with similar or more power but I'll bet you they get way more than 5K out of the rears.

So is it alignment, suspension geometry, or whatelse?

This thread isn't to complain about our crappy tire wear. I really want to see what some of you might think it is besides power.

Thanks!

WhiteC63

I just crossed 10k miles on my original tires, and they still have a few thousand left on them. I guess I drive like an old man...

jwkim80

Sorry to hi-jack your thread but, is there thinner spring pads to lower the rear???

SL63AMG

Weight of the car, Torque/hp , negative camber, and skinny tires = not the best combo.

vtsnake

My Mustang's lighter withmore trg/hp but it has a solid axle so no neg. camber

Well I wouldn't consider my 295s skinny lol

cyberorth

One thing I noticed is that almost at every stop corner the inside tire spins no matter how gentle I am accelerating.

If this was an alignment issue, the guys who do a lot of highway miles would see high wear, but they don't. The city stop and go driving is likely where the car burns through the rears.

Sincity

Just leave full traction control on and don't hammer the gas pedal; especially while turning. Wait....you are able to go 295s in the rear? What is the width and offset?

vtsnake

20x10 et 54. I hear slight rubbing but I think it's the front but only on hard bumps. (its so slight I cant see where it's rubbing)

The cont dw is pretty skinny for a 295.


Don't hammer the pedal? What fun is that?

Sincity

Thanks!

vtsnake

Now that I think about it, it has to be suspension geometry.

I have a C300 4matic. The factory staggered 17" rear tires (245/40R17 Cont. ContiPro AS) had 10K miles before I swapped for different wheels. They had maybe 4/32s on them so basically they might have gone 15K at best. Keep in mind, this is a 60,000 mile tire. And no, I DO NOT drive this car hard at all.

So now what?

edit:

Ok so I searched in the w204 forums on tire wear. Seems like there are guys out there getting 40K miles on tires while others are getting 15 to 20k on rears. Now I am really confused since my C300 chewed up rear tires but I know I don't drive it hard at all... ugh

C63newdude

You almost got it right but like I said, almost. Thread wear my friend!!!!! and how about tie preassure? aaahhhhh!!!

C63newdude

It depends on the road surface, road condition and driving style as well. I could go and hop on the HWY and go straight on I-10 for 2000 miles, then trun around and do that over and over and it will probably last longer than someone acceleration from a traffic light 1000 times and turning corners on every city block/street.

DuaneC63

This pretty much sums it up, unless you have too really heavy people sitting the back seats on the time.

DuaneC63

The different thickness spring pads are made to allow the car to have a consistant ride height corner to corner due to the weight of different options or the ride height requirements of different countries. However many people use them to lower ride height. The pad are both in the front and the back. Be aware using thinner pads does change your alignment.

betrezra

No one mentioned the wear rating of the stock tires which are pretty sticky and soft. I'll bet your mustang does not have the same wear rating compound tires as the c63 does stock for stock.

Our sumo's are lasting much longer than the stockers.

rory breaker

Toe-out is likely causing the inner wear moreso than camber settings...from the factory. As the guy above says....this car just has the perfect storm of attributes to eat tires. Weight, power, toe, camber, soft tires.

jwkim80

What is the part # for thinnest spring pads? Where can I get them?
My car is Euro-spec and wondering if it is thinnest already?


TIA

propain

wow... If your engine could get out of the car and smack you it would..

Why buy a performance car and drive it like an old lady? All I do is hard launches. Some burnouts of course leaving the line. No melts. 6K max.


What do you do? Drive in C and shift up to 3rd every time and never get on it? I cant imagine getting 12K out of the Pzero's.

ATL_MB

I don't think negative camber plays a role. I have not seen a lot of people complain about uneven wear - if camber was an issue, then the inside of the tires would wear faster, but they don't seem to. At least not on my car.

I think that the rear toe settings are causing the wear, as the tire wears very evenly across the tread. I will also be the first to posit the hypothesis that engine braking is contributing to the rear tire wear. On a lot of stops at lights, I don't apply the brakes until the end of the stop b/c the engine slows the car (through the rear wheels) quite a bit. Several times I have pushed the transmission out of drive when slowing and the difference is significant. The car will coast some distance when out of gear. I think this is where the weight of the car has something to do with it. There are many cars that weigh as much or more that don't have these issues, but I doubt many of them use engine braking like the C63.

Yuille36

Nobody seems to have the correct answer to the ultimate question. I don't think that answer is that simple, because if it were, this wouldn't be an ongoing issue. I think that a combination of; camber, toe, caster, hp and torque contribute to this. As I don't have this issue with E63, and it has 56 more horses and 22 ft/lbs more torque.

emericr

I have always asked myself the same question and cannot come to an easy answer.
For ex, the Mustang GT500 has softer tires and more hp and they get 30 to 40K miles out of their tires.
The E63 as previously pointed does not have that issue. My feeling is that there is some engineering issue on our cars and MB is not about to tell us what it is.

AMGTTV8

Emericr - "My feeling is that there is some engineering issue on our cars and MB is not about to tell us what it is."

maybe i'm missing something...

how would the engineering of the vehicle itself have any effect whatsoever on the tire compounds' innate durability???

what could Mercedes be hiding?



kind of a stupid philosophy - just my 2 cents

vtsnake

Ok my CONTINENTAL DW's have a 340 treadwear rating.

I have the ORIGINAL PZERO ASYM on my Mustang. They have a 140 treadwear


I am not comparing the stockies. I did my reasearch and guys even with Mich Pilot AS are only getting 10K ish. Those have a 500 treadwear rating.

There has to be something with the setup on our cars....PERIOD. It is not just about trq/hp.

I measured my tires today with a depth gauge. 5/32 on the inside and 6/32 on the outside. My toe is toe in 1/32 per side. Camber is apprx 1.5. The inner wear is from the camber since I do not take corners hard (too scared to bend my wheels lol). So basically my tires are half worn since they started with 10/32s. They will be completely bald around 2200 miles. They fail safety inspection at 2/32s so that means they will really only go roughly 1800 miles. If I drove the car like my C300 I'd probably get 5000 to 6000 miles (pure guess tho). To me this is unexceptable. Most people's TT porsches rear tires last 8 to 12k. 5K if you drive it like you stole it. I would be willing to live with that.

Palladin

Totally agree with you. I did a lot of research on this topic since I use my car as a daily driver and do about 25K miles per year. It was getting really annoying and expensive. The C63 comes with very extreme toe-in at the rear (spec is .48 degrees total toe-in at rear, compared to only .20 degrees at the front) which means you are essentially draging the rear tires down the road even when you are just cruising. Anything higher than .20 degrees total toe-in is considered unusually high. By the way, the camber spec is virtually the same front and rear at about -1.3 degrees. I do 90% highway miles and still only got about 4K miles out of the OEM pirellis. I switched to a 275 width tire with a much higher treadwear rating (Yokohama Avid Envigor in case anybody cares) and had the dealers alignment guy dial out as much toe-in as possible while remaining within MB safety specs (about .20 degrees total, just like the fronts). Now getting about 15K out of the rears with totally even wear from side to side and can't tell any difference in ride and handling. Sure there are a lot of factors that contribute to the horrible tire wear on this car (as discussed above) but I guaranty you the major one is the extreme toe-in setting from the factory.

vtsnake

EXACTLY! One thing is that maybe the back end is too light and the car is more susceptible to wheel spin.


Another thing is as I mentioned before, my C300 with the stock staggered wheels HAD 245/40R17 Cont. ContiPros rear tires. The tires have 10K on them and they have 6/32s (just measured them, they're sitting in my garage). So basically they would've lasted a total of 18K. This tire has a 60,000 tread rating (mileage warranty up to 60K). So this tells me that hp/trq is part of the reason on the 63 but it is only part of the equation because the only difference on the suspension on the 63 vs the 300 is spring rates and shocks/struts. Everything else is the same.

So you saying there might be some engineering issues have some merit.

You guys have to stop blaming the POWER on the fast wear. SL63, E63, S63, CLS63 all have tons of power too. The only difference is that they are all heavier and maybe don't have as much wheel spin. Tires on those cars avg 8 to 12K on the rears.

So what gives?