For You Guys That Went 255's
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 1
From: New Hampshire
2003 C32 AMG, 2003 E39 M5
For You Guys That Went 255's
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
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
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,255
Likes: 0
From: Bloomfield Hills, MI
W203, W211, W219, W212
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.
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 28
From: Western Canada
2013 C63 AMG P31, 2014 GMC Sierra (6.2)
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:
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:
Trending Topics
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,342
Likes: 11
From: PA
S600, GL450, GLC 43
See yeah
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 1
From: New Hampshire
2003 C32 AMG, 2003 E39 M5
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.
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:
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:
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: nottingham / uk
silver 2002 c32 amg
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
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
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 1
From: New Hampshire
2003 C32 AMG, 2003 E39 M5
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 28
From: Western Canada
2013 C63 AMG P31, 2014 GMC Sierra (6.2)
"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....
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....
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 1
From: New Hampshire
2003 C32 AMG, 2003 E39 M5
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.
"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....
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....
Super Moderator
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,403
Likes: 64
From: Camas, WA
2007 C230SS; 2014 ML350 BT
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.
You definitely notice the difference in width when viewing the rear of the car.
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 1
From: New Hampshire
2003 C32 AMG, 2003 E39 M5
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.
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 1
From: New Hampshire
2003 C32 AMG, 2003 E39 M5
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
Thanks
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.
You definitely notice the difference in width when viewing the rear of the car.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,213
Likes: 8
LET C32 2002
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.
