A week or so ago I started gettiing the "check oil level as next refueling" message in the dash. It takes me a while to get to empty since my typical commute is 1 mile each way to daycare. So I go check the service manual looking for the oil weight and notice there *IS* a mandatory LSD fluid change at 2k miles, even though they originally told me there wasn't.

I schedule a visit and ask them to check the oil while they're at it. They call back as I'm on the way to pick it up and ask if they can keep it an extra day as there's a TSB to replace the oil level indicator. No problem, I'll give my wife the loaner and drive her Odyssey for a day.

So I get there and as we're signing the release for the loaner the tech happens to mention

"Have you seen your tires?"
<blank stare> "Um, no, why?"
"The rear tires are bald."
<blank stare> "Uh, that's impossible, I only have 3500 miles on the car."
"Yeah, you should take a look at them."
"He is always sliding it all over the place." (the wife)

Honestly, I don't really "slide it all over the place" but sure enough, we come to pick the car up and the rears are mostly gone. So now I'm looking for replacements.

What is everyone else's experience with tire wear? I'll admit I do put ESC into sport every so often, but I don't do burnouts, I don't do track days, and this is less than half the mileage I got out of my 911 which is a notorious tire eater. On another forum I read, everyone swears it is either a) overinflation or b) camber (not enough negative camber). I checked the pressure and they're okay - in fact, I keep having to add air to the left rear.

So I'm a little bummed about the prospect of replacing tires 2x/year and wondering if I should swap the P Zero's for some ContiSportContact3 with a higher treadwear rating. I want some grip since the car is very tail happy anyhow, so I'm not real thrilled about the idea of the Contis over the Pirellis.

 

I almost forgot, here's pictures.

 

those look a bit over inflated to me.

 

I agree with Oliverk...lol

 

+1. what pressure are you running in rear?

 

+3. Too much air. Looks like you inflated to Max Occupant. I am currently running 38F 40R

 

I have never inflated the tires, other than adding some air to the low left rear - they have been running on stock/factory pressure since purchase. Last measurement was 42R.

 

Updated: I just checked and here are the pressures cold (left rear still needs air):

F: 39/38
R: 37/42.5

North, you said you run 40R...would 2-3 lbs too much cause them to wear at double the rate? I was expecting at least 8k miles from the rear - or is that too much to expect? I've never had a car this heavy.

 

42R isn't out of whack. Must be just the wear pattern from so much torque. Thinking back my C55 wore like that as well. Mine are wearing fairly evenly and I am at about 3500 Klm. Down about 25-30%

 

my rears are balder than yours, im at 4.3k now, and i'm still driving on them.

i will have all tires switched to nitto invos this friday, and see how it goes.

good luck!

 

MB Canada suggest 41R and 39F for 19" with 2 or 3 people in the car. What is MB US suggesting??

Sorry for the poor iPhone picture . Its cold and raining here....

 

Welcome to the club. Search for tire wear and you'll find the range for going through the stock rear tires goes from about 1000 miles to 8000 miles. I remember seeing a video (5th gear maybe?) where the C63 went through the rear tires in one track session - course they beat up on the car.

Let me guess, the front tire treads look almost new.

I went through mine in about 3000 so you're right near the middle range like me. The pattern may be due to pressure, but the overall wear is the tire/torque combination. Although I did several short burnouts and one huge one so there you go.

 

gravedgr: I just had to replace my rears at 5100 miles, WTF? I do not do burnouts and was bummed out. I had a set of rear tires from my E55 that only had 2K miles stored in my garage and had these mounted (they are Bridgestone RE050 Pole Position 2:65 X 35's). Holy ****! they are way better than the Pirelli's that came stock and I mean this when the car was new with no miles. As can be guessed the E55 with it's massive torque should have wasted these tires quickly but they are relatively new still so I put them on the C63.

I am going to switch out the fronts with the same when when I have about 10K miles on the car and stay with the Bridgestone's.

As for traction I honestly feel the difference between the two brands and I think the Bridgestones have way better traction than the Pirelli's.

Good luck!

Phil

 

I'm going with the crowd that are saying it looks like the tires are overinflated.

It seems like you definitely need to get new tires but the outer and inner edge don't look nearly as worn.

Get new tires ... I crashed my E55, in light rain, with tires like that.

 

Put your tire dealer on speed dial

 

Get used to it. The car has over 400 ft-lbs of torque and most of that is available in the lower half of the rpm band. Unless you are putting lots of steady cruising miles on the car, it is hard to get long mileage out of the rears. My C32 (which is a bunch less powerful than your car) ate thru the rear Pirelli Pzero's in a grand total of 3.5 months and ~5k miles.

My little Turbo car (not a MB) is light in the rear, very powerful and basicly is hazing the tires anytime I am on the gas enough to make boost, eats thru rear tires in as low as 2k mi but I abuse it alot.

If your typical drive involves accellerate, decellerate, accellerate over and over with little cruise miles in between then it will eat them faster. Even when you don't feel you are running hard, that car is putting some serious torque thru the rear contact patch. If you like to gas it hard, like many of us do, it just gets worse, lol. If you had 42 psi and go to 40 or 38, it may improve how even the wear is but it will still be a short life.

I cannot say how they would do on your car but my first AMG was a C36 and I had Bridgestone made Fusion tires on it and while they did not last all that long, they are half the price of comparable Bridgestone or Pirelli tires. The Fusions had outstanding wet and dry traction and low road noise. On my C32 I went with Bridgestone Re050 PP's but that was cause I was planning a track event. Having driven both, I cannot tell much if any difference between the Re050's and the Fusions. Both were way way better than the Pirellis. I think the Fusions are made in Korea and target the younger, poorer tuner market crowd with a lower price point low profile performance tire. They are quite a bargain but lack the pedigree of the Bridgestone name. I used the fusions in a couple of track events with the turbo car and they stick like race rubber once heated up. Good enough for 1st place in class in a street tuner challenge event two years ago at Mid Ohio. My only caution is that MB/AMG specifies the tires for our cars so anything else is an experiment. You pay your money and take your chances.

Irish

 

Sorry, thats ridiculous. My mustang, with the crappiest rear suspension known to man, gets 15k miles out of DRAG RADIALS with over 700lb ft of torque.

This is not a "power" problem. its either a compound problem, a psycho driver problem, or an alignment problem.

 

+1 I agree with Oliver. My car has more torque than the c63 and my tires last longer even with R compound tires.

 

www.1010tires.com if you are from Canada. Cheapest place you will find!

I just got some Kuhmo's delivered to my door for $1220. I'd go with 275 for the rear.

 

I only heard of this 3000 - 3500 miles lifespan in the early '90s with the Acura NSX Yokohama soft compound tires.

So, if i drive the car everyday (and i average 1000-1200 miles per month), I have to budget for a new set of tires once every 3 months? Sounds excessive to me. Since I don't burnout everyday, I was able to get 40K miles on a set of Michilin PS2 (running on a M3) before i have to change the rear tires. I know there is a big torque difference but cannot be that much on wear and tear. Are these people smoking the tires each day because it is fun to do it? I also had a vette running on michilin PS2. not as good, but still get 35K-36K miles on the rear set. Anything under 10K miles sound extreme to me. maybe it is just the Pirelli PZero.

 

I got around 4K on my OEM Pirelli Pzeros and I've never had the car out of regular ESP mode (I'm a wuss, I know) and I've never done a burnout. Most of my miles are commuting to work and back and some errands.

 

Generally agree that the stock tires on the C63 suck as far as durability. This has been a well established fact if you search this forum on the subject.

Not sure the HP/torque alone explains it, although the C63 does produce more than 360 lb-ft starting at 2000 rpm - meaning compared to some cars with higher torque (but available only at high rpm) with a C63 even just daily driving without intentionally goosing the throttle you are constantly delivering huge amounts of torque.

I'm curious about that mustang with insane hp/torque - at what rpm do you start to get 360+ lb-ft?

I'm also curious to see the longest that anyone has gone on these tires on a C63. I've seen 8k I think. Never seen anything close to 15k.

 

Seems like the pirelli just suck. I drive my car every day and put about 12k miles on the car a year. Torque wise ... my supercharger is on all the time so I have huge torque at low RPM.

With Michelin PS2s I was getting around 12-15k miles. TW = around 250
With Goodyear GSD3s a bit more. TW = around 300
With Michelin PScups I was getting around 6k miles TW = 80
With MT drag radials ... I don't know yet but I bet around 3k miles. TW = 0

So far my favorites are the Michelin PScups and obviously the MTs for drag racing.

 

I have over 9000 miles on my original Pirelli tires and they are nowhere near the cords. Plenty of tread left! I do 90-95% freeway cruising though.

Signed,
Wuss-in-Chief

 

Interstate is your friend. My miles are almost exclusively short starts and stops in the city with lots of lights. Sigh.