unclejim

Just put 4 new original equipment tires on my 2009 C300 4Matic Luxury model (Continental ContiProContact 225/45R17 91H), and tire shop wanted to do an alignment. Said ALWAYS should do alignment when replacing tires. I put same tires as originally on car, and old ones showed very even wear. Car has approx 30,000 miles (had tread life left, but one tire picked up nail in bad place and couldn't be repaired, so I opted to replace all 4 at once). There were no indications of alignment issues, such as wear, pulling to side, etc. with the old tires. Is an alignment necessary in my case?

sirius9

wouldnt think so.... as long as you have each wheel balanced...

unclejim

Thanks...that's what I thought (new tires/wheels were balanced before installation)

kevink2

no abnormal wear or mpg's, no alignment.

if it ain't broke don't fix it

.

steven1888

I would... 1. You dont know how the alignment is just by the eyes.
2. Even if you switch wheels, you should do it.
3. You spent so much money on new tires, im sure you want them to last so I dont see why not.

Just my .2¢

Sportstick

I think this is well intended, but perhaps not the optimal strategy. One does not need to base alignment on the eyes, and in fact, one cannot make such an assessment. However, a car which tracks straight AND has no signs of uneven tire wear when examined by the installer is, in all probability, within specs. The reason not to do an alignment when all indicators reveal one is not needed is 1) cost... a couple of hundred bucks for a proper front and rear wheel alignment when needed, and 2) the introduction of unknown variables...making changes when none are needed may introduce other variables which may worsen the situation. Some here will have experienced having an alignment, only to have the car pull even more severely to one side. This can happen when humans are involved.

On a related issue, I am struck the the OP was so satisfied with ContiProContacts that they purchased them again. Whether wanting smooth and quiet in his luxury model, or wanting improved handling, there are so many other choices one could make to fully experience the capability of the car. OP, were you really that pleased with this model of tire?

steven1888

i agree with what you are saying. im just thinking long term if it was me in his shoes. And to have the car pull pull even more severely to one side, this is a shop that everyone should stay away from.

C300CA

My ubderstanding is that alignment has nothing to do with wheels, meaning not taking wheel as a reference for alignment. If alignment is off, no matter old or new tire, it needs alignment; if aligmnent is right on, old or new tires, it doesn't need...

By the way, none of my cars needs alignment so far. I don't drive a lot. 94 Altima got nearly 100K miles (rear ended), Maxima got 50K (rear ended), RX300 got 67K (has it now) and my daily QX4 (now) got 87K miles, none has needed alignment. I'd think if cars are driven very aggressively or hit something seriously, aligmnent is needes.

will_w204

Circumference of tire/ride height/wheel angle to road changes with new tires. More rubber = more tire=change is orientation to the road, no matter how slight.

But take that away, and you're saying that you can spend $800 on tires, and aren't willing to pony up $100 in "insurance" to make sure you maximize your new tires' life from day 1?

I've never had a car (any make, model) that has remained in spec on alignment for more than 20k.

Do an alignment. And check your air pressure every 2 weeks when tires are cold.

EDIT: my ire is more directed at the subsequent posters who claim it's unnecessary, and not at you for asking. But, that's my answer. And what do I know, I can only get 40k out of Z-rated Michelins on V8 MBs.

kevink2

Not sure about what your saying, but just taking your words as-is.

1) An alignment " has everything to do with wheels" , as it starts off with setting measuring tools on all 4 wheels.

2) an alignment can be off slightly from "right on" , but still within the wide spec'n, and make the car handle better.

Sportstick

Please save your ire! This is not a bright line, right vs wrong issue, but where different folks are comfortable drawing the line to manage economic risk. I bet we don't all carry the same level of insurance deductible, either, for example. But, let's take your approach....although it's at the low end, let's assume you can find a high quality laser alignment for $100. That must be front wheels only at that price, but why stop there? Your logic would lead us to have the rears aligned as well, for a total of most likely $200-$250. So, for the price of almost two more tires, we are checking (with no symptoms such as uneven tire wear or pulling) for a problem that only might exist. Leave the shop and hit some rough pavement or a crack...or small pothole...large pothole? Back for another alignment each time? Where do you draw the line?

My key point is that there are different levels of tolerance for risk. I won't say one is wrong and the other right...one merely has to decide the level with which one is comfortable.

kevink2

What of the many angles are you talking about? And, what makes that angle change, and by what %??

Only if there is an observed basis for an alignment. Otherwise, if things are running well, don't let possible human error enter into the state of a good running set of tires.

Do you have alignment sheets, before and after, to support that claim?? No pot holes hit, etc?

I've spent $300-$400 dollars on an alignment on an old saab (didn't help that the old mechanic only had 2 fingers on one hand). The old front tires had "in spec" positive camber, but for better handling I wanted 1 deg neg camber. I supplied the new Saab shims, and let him slowly do the job. I also had measured excessive toe-in, so I wrote a spec for him (.03" - .06") total toe in (split even), and after my car rolled better and mpg's went up from 27 to 30.

I agree with checking your air pressure, with a quality gauge, but once a month is sufficient. But I frequently give a visual to be sure one is not going down with a bad valve or leaking nail.

.

will_w204

My god, are we talking USD here? The local MB dealer charges $99 for 4 wheel alignments. I've never paid a dime more.

I prefer optimal performance, which means if 3 tires read 35psi and one reads 34.5, I take the time to correct it.

"Spec" doesnt mean the car is in optimal alignment. And no, I don't go pothole diving. Maybe my *** is just more sensitive than some.

will_w204

Certainly camber. I've found toe to be the repeat offender as far as most of my MB alignments. Toe-out can be slight, and have a notable effect on treadwear (and noise)

kevink2

I agree on toe being a popular offender, that sticks out based on visual inspection of tire wear. But still based on your prior post, how would new tires Change the camber?

I don't go pot-hole hunting, but try to drive in Philly during the winter when you have dirty water all over the roads, and at night the potholes are hidden by a wealth of black water puddles.

Read what I posted. The $99 typically gets you F & R toe checks and adj'ts, within spec's. I went in for a $99 alignment special at a dealer, but wanted massive changes up front. This somehow voided the special, And I was on the clock with a handicaped man that was working 1/2 speed.

Note I only get an alignment when I know it needs it. And often I do my own, with plumb-bobs for camber, and strings for toe. Most people who race cars get to know these methods.

It would help to know a bit more about your situation:





______________ *** All Members, New and some Old *** _______________

please click on User CP at the top left of page, just below the thread title. Then add the following to either Profile and/or Signature , selecting buttons on the left side of that page:

year, model, if it's a diesel, Sport or Lux, 4MATIC or RWD, Location (city & state), and non-US country if applicable.

This helps others respond to issues, like tires, spring options, part sales, etc. Thanx

.