My C sport has the staggered wheel setup, stock P2 17s. At 11K miles, there's no discernable tire wear, but as I look forward I'm expecting to have to replace these tires much sooner than I'd normally be comfortable with. So, I'm thinking about replacing the rears with a second set that is the same as the fronts.

These are 225/45 x 17s. According to jrct9454, the Lux model has 206/65 x 16s, which are a wee bit skinny for me, but I can see where he will get better gas mileage with them that I'm getting now or would get with 225/24s all around.

Does anyone know of any problems that might arise by switching out to 225/45s all around? Will the car handle any differently? will there be a significant visual change looking at the rears? Given that the offsets are different, as are the wheel widths, won't this just balance and look right?

Is this the "standard" setup for the sport 4Matic version?

 

I ran 225/45R17 all-round for the winter and didn't notice any significant handling changes to the car. The 4matic system seemed to have adapted to the change in traction levels fine.

Since it's only a minor reduction in width, you can't really notice the visual difference. Maybe it's mental, or maybe it's the rims, after putting the 245/40R17 back on for the summer, it does look a little more filled out in the rear wheel well.

 

No, the US Lux model has 225/45x17s all around, and if I had the sport model, I'd dump the staggered setup - I bought the Lux for two reasons - I don't do staggered wheels, and I hate the add-on body pieces of the American Sport.

What I DID say is that in MOST of the rest of the world, the car we get as a C300 Lux is actually the C280 Elegance, and that model gets 205/55x16s [same as most of the W203s]. Our USA Lux is an Elegance with the 17" wheels from the Avantgarde. Our USA Sport is the Avantgarde with the AMG body kit pieces, and different wheels from the WW catalog.

The Canadian C230 uses 205/55x16s - and some EU Classics still use 195/65x15s; in terms of rolling diameter, all of these and the 225/45/17s are within a few mm of each other, so they are all interchangeable without messing up the odo or speedo. Brake clearances may be an issue on the C350, but all models from the C180 on up through the C300 could theoretically run any of the sizes listed above interchangeably.

The wheels on our car are 7.5x17s with 47mm offset, and 225/45x17s. They are the same spec, but a different design, as the fronts on the staggered 17" Sports, so yes, running a Sport with the same-size wheels/tires all around should work just fine.

I do a 4-wheel rotation every 3k miles in our garage - RF-LR-LF-RR-RF. The two on the front go on the opposite side rear, and the two on the rear come forward on the same side. I've used this pattern for decades, and always get even wear and long tread life. When we had full size spares, I worked them into the rotation, and that was even better....never to be seen again, apparently....

I also avoid run-flats at all costs - it's the main reason I'm driving a W204 instead of an E90 BMW...the two cars otherwise were equally good in my mind, but this is a deal-breaker for me.

 

^^
Didn't your car come with directional tires?
if so, by doing tire rotation as you do, won't it go against the direction of tire?

i know it won't do much, just wondering.

 

The Lux doesn't use a unidirectional tread - once again, I will not buy a car with unidirectional tires. If they were standard, the first thing I'd do is change them.

I want a touring car, not a track burner or a "styler". The bias these days in this segment of the market [RWD based] is to go with giant low-profile, staggered sizes, and unidirectional designs. I refuse to play.

The ideal compromise for these cars would be the 205/55x16s, as fitted on the Canadian [and elsewhere] C230. But the perception from MB and BMW is that everybody wants the hairiest setup they can find....just not for me.....

The 45-profile 17's aren't awful, but they weigh more, have more drag, have a firmer ride, and cost more to replace than the 55-profile 16s. If I keep the car long enough to wear out the OEM tires, I am seriously considering going to 16s. The handling might take a very small hit, but not enough for me to notice compared with the benefits. Tire Rack has a number of compatible 16" wheel designs that would do just fine, one of which has the additional bonus of having only 5 spokes that are also a lot easier to keep clean.

I recognize that these are matters of personal taste, but the original question was about using a non-staggered setup on a Sport that came with staggered OEM wheels - and the answer is, sure, no problem, and it allows you flexibility that the staggered setup doesn't. Unless you regularly corner at other-worldly speeds, there is no way you would notice the difference.

 

I test drove a C Class with 45 profile tyres & found the ride unacceptable. The salesman then drove 50 km to our home with a demo car with 55 profile tyres & the ride & road noise was appreciably improved. In our conditions of sometimes encountering deep potholes in a tarred road 45 profile tyres & alloys can be very easily irrepairably damaged.I still think that the ride is still a little harsh in some conditions & would have been happier with a 65 profile .

 

I agree. the 45s thump more and really deliver very little extra, if any, real world cornering power.

I drove a rented MB with 55s in the UK this spring. Much quieter and no detectable difference in handling on their much twistier roads. But 45s do look the business.

OP - why do you feel your rear tires will wear out faster than normal 45s?

 

Call it a hunch. Being unable to rotate the tires suggests a useful life of maybe 25K miles. Many tires today can get 60-80K miles, if properly rotated and cared for. My concern is just that.

I priced (tirerack.com) a set of 16s with 55s at just under $1K while a replacement set of stock tires would be just $150 less. If they need replacing frequently, the move to rotate-able 55s would be a good move. Plus, I could put Goodyear Tripple Tred tires on them, a known good move in our rain.

 

Fair enough.

Personally I never rotate tires. Just let the wear prone pairs wear out (and sometimes triggered a mileage warranty) Rotating tires may make all 4 last longer, but I've never seen real proof that overall it saves you money, (over buying two earlier wear outs, plus the cost of rotating)

Hmm.. thats pretty ghastly english, but I hope you know what i mean.

 

Well, I think he [jstaneff] is on the right track, for all the reasons I mentioned, but only if you plan to keep the car awhile.

I'm happy to hear from the people who have had the chance to drive this car with 55 or higher profile tires - it confirms a long-held suspicion that I would like it even better with different tires. As it is, I can live with the 45s that are on there, but am itching to dump them in favor of the 205/55x16s.

Yes, for the US market, a complete new set of wheels, tires, and the [dreaded] TPMS wheel sensors in Michelin Primacy MXV4s would run about $1200 or so. I have to be sure I'm staying in the car for at least another 5-6 years to justify the expense, and so I'm still waffling.

And yeah, if you have to pay for tire rotations, the economics get dicey real quickly. I always do my own [I have 4 cheap floor jacks, so I can get all four corners up in the air at once], and some tire shops will do it gratis, but paying for it is indeed a questionable expense.