bud4ya

I am planning on trying 255-40-17 and 235-45-17 on my stock C32 AMG rims. I know the side wall will be taller than what they are for the 245-40 and 225-45.

So my question is was it noticable with the eye the difference in height with the 255's and the 235's over the stock set up?

Second question is am I really gaining that much more traction with bumping up to the 255's? Also from the rear will the 255's really show a noticable difference in width when looking at it from behind. If not I may just stick with the stock set up. If I am going to get a lot more trac and a nice wider stance from the rear I will pull the trigger on the 255's.

Thanks All

e1000

1.3% difference, you should be fine, although someone here may have tried the sizes.

360_iti

To calculate the difference between the two, do this math:

255-40-17 sidewall = 40% x 255mm = 102mm
245-40-17 sidewall = 40% x 245mm = 98mm
Only 4mm difference in sidewall height, but the overall diameter difference is 8mm. Not a big deal if you asked me.

Regarding the tire width appearance from behind, I'd say 10mm is noticeable. But it also depends on the brand. One thing that I know, Nitto tires always look wider than other brands within the same size, due to its sidewall design.

Illegal Machine

You should try 285's....

e1000

285's won't fit without surgery

redfarsi

I tried 9.5 inch wide rim in the rear with 285's. The tires were way to wide. No go, although I heard that same rim with 255's should be fine.

wawy

When I had my C32 I went with the following on my stock 17''s:

Tire type: Falken - Azenis 615s
Front: 225/45/R17
Rear: 255/40/R17

"So my question is was it noticable with the eye the difference in height with the 255's and the 235's over the stock set up?"

---- The fronts were still the stock size no difference there. I don't think there was a very noticeable difference in height in the rear tire size over stock. The best way to describe them were "beefy"??

"Second question is am I really gaining that much more traction with bumping up to the 255's?"

--- Well, there was an improvement over the stock size Hankook Ventus K104 I had on. The Azenis are a pseudo track tire...

"Also from the rear will the 255's really show a noticable difference in width when looking at it from behind. If not I may just stick with the stock set up. If I am going to get a lot more trac and a nice wider stance from the rear I will pull the trigger on the 255's."

Yes! Between the size increase on the rears and one of the most crazy tread patterns I've ever seen on a tire I was quite pleased.......

Here are some pics and you can judge for yourself:

MRAMG1

I have them in Brigdstone 050 PP's on my car. You won't notice a thing my friend. Other then it sticks BETTER, and LOOKS better in the fenderwells. Espically from the rear, which is what MOST people see

See yeah

Hjartarson

I have 255/35 18", no problems and they look great!

bud4ya

Why did you decide to keep the 225's on the front? I am just curious. I just trhough out 235's beause I was increasing teh size in the back.

timberman

I went with this exact set up!

tyres used were goodyear eagle F1' GS D3's and I had no problems with fitment,

there's little difference height wise and my speedo still reads over slightly ( GPS verified).

I would say that the grip improved a little on the rear and there was a notable increase in tyre width, but I found that the fronts rubbed slightly when taking tight turns especially when leaving my drive which I found annoying so I recently changed them back to the stock 225's.

incidently the tyres I am now running on are Goodyear eagle F1 asymmetrics and are supposed to be a replacement for the eagle F1's DS G3's over here in the UK .
I don't know if their available to you guys in the US but If they are you should try them,
these are easily the best tyre I have ever used

bud4ya

So there is no noticable difference in handling and ride if I just stay with the 225's on the front and 255's in the rear. Probally save me some money too.

wawy

"Why did you decide to keep the 225's on the front? I am just curious. I just trhough out 235's beause I was increasing teh size in the back."

Because it was lowered more in the front than in the back and I wanted to avoid any rubbing issues. You should note though that increasing the width in the back and not the front could increase understeer....

bud4ya

Thats the input I was looking for TY. So if my car is not lowered and I change the back to 255's it is a good idea to change fronts to 235's it sounds like.

johnand

I just recently replaced my OEM rear tires with Goodyear Eagle F1 All-Seasons in a 255/40-17. IMO, the 255's look better as they fill out the wheelwell more, and don't have the stretched on look that the OEM Michelin 245's had. Here is a thread where I posted pics: https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....&postcount=119

You definitely notice the difference in width when viewing the rear of the car.

c32used

I have new Kumho 225 17" fronts and 255 17" rears on my summer setup...currently I am using 235 all around and my front tires do rub only when deep cornering.

bud4ya

C32used what model Kumho do you have? There were many to choose from at pretty low price on discount tire. I want something that grips cornering and mashing the gas. Plus something that is good in the rain and is not noisy. I guess I am sounding like the guy with the champagne appetite and beer pocket book.

bud4ya

Thanks pics are always great. When I had my 265's on my BMW 540 you could really a nice stance from the rear. I know the rim is not as wide on the MB but the 255's has to look better than the 245's


Thanks

c32used

Kumho SPT