eagle_lex

so i originally was looking at the Conti DWS for my next set of tires. but i noticed they have a lower load rating then recommended. is this an issue for a car that is NEVER on a track? or does that part even matter (track/non track)?

i noticed the Yoko Avid Envigors meet the recommended load rating so i might go with them. what do you guys think or does anyone here know if i should even pay attention to load rating?? thanks a ton!

baabootoo

Short answer no. Those tires will be my first choice too; bigger, which will even up the load rating. The key is NOT to overload, by weight, the tires at maximum rating at max pressure. Tire Rack explains it well under Load Range/Ply Rating. Unless you run very undersized tires, this will not be an issue on a street car. Considering these cars can carry hundreds of more pounds, and they're still not maxed out, it's a moot point on most street cars with standard tires.

eagle_lex

ok thanks a ton. so are you considering the Contis or the Yokos.

baabootoo

The Continental DWS.

Multispeed

I agree it should'nt make much if any difference but twice I have found it seems to.
Last summer just for playing around and burning off I put a pair of Federal 595's (LI 90W) on the back of the C63. One of the few times I bought some tires without looking closely at the specs because the tire shop said they would be fine. Then I made the mistake of going on a two day trip before I had tried the new tires at speed. That thing drove me nuts for two days with the back end swaying around. Felt like I had two marshmallows on the back. Once I got back and looked more closely at the specs of the tires the only difference was the weight rating. Put the Pirelli's (97Y) back on and the car was rock solid. Same thing with an 07 Dodge Ram 3500. Four tires with a slightly lower weight rating and that thing would sway side to side when on the highway.
Just my experience anyway...

TEXC63

Continental makes a DWS with the same load rating as the p-zero's. I have 2K on the set I have and I like them. No road noise and they hook up much better then the p-zero's. I went to 275 in the rear as well. Fronts are 95Y and the rears are 99Y.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....CDWS&tab=Specs

eagle_lex

i think because you went 275 in the rear is why you got the extra load rating. the standard... and dont quote me but i think OEMs are 255 on the rear are not as high on the load rating..... i do not want to go 275 so the load rating is the only thing that is making me lean towards the Yokohamas..

Pzeros are 94y rear
Conti DWS are 90y
Yokohama AVIDs are 94w

someone help me decide......

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....&autoModel=C63 AMG&autoModClar=

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....&autoModel=C63 AMG&autoModClar=

GBlansten

I went to a 265/35/18 in the rear in a DW not a DWS so you get a load rating of 97 with that tire. The DWS in that size is also a 97. I love these tires but I think they are slightly more comfortable than Pzeros and in a 255 with a load rating of 90 in a DWS (all-season) you will get some softness in the sidewall and less support than you want in driving around. With 443 ft/lbs of torque you will want a better load rating.

I plan on getting the DWS tires for my wife's car. Great tires. This is my layperson's opinion and if someone else knows a lot more on the topic then have at it.

eagle_lex

@GBlansten - i agree on the softer sidewall being a negative most probably. thats why im leaning towards the Yokohamas.....