What's the real reason why C63 tires wear so fast?
06-02-2011, 01:01 PM
#51
MBWorld Fanatic!
Sorry but I am not just talking about PZEROs.
I have the original PZEROs Asyms on my Mustang and they have a 140 treawear. The car makes more hp/trg and I drive it WAY harder. The tires have 4300 miles on them and have over half the tread left. My Cont DW have 1100 miles and they have a 340 treadwear and they have half the tread left.
So this isn't about "treadwear or soft tires".I know people with Maserati's and Panamera's that come with the exact same PZEROs (Although they are 20") and they are getting apprx 10-12k miles on their Rears.
I am telling you this isn't normal for our cars to get such short tread life.
I have the original PZEROs Asyms on my Mustang and they have a 140 treawear. The car makes more hp/trg and I drive it WAY harder. The tires have 4300 miles on them and have over half the tread left. My Cont DW have 1100 miles and they have a 340 treadwear and they have half the tread left.
So this isn't about "treadwear or soft tires".I know people with Maserati's and Panamera's that come with the exact same PZEROs (Although they are 20") and they are getting apprx 10-12k miles on their Rears.
I am telling you this isn't normal for our cars to get such short tread life.
By changing tires I get more miles out of the rears. The Pzero's have a very soft compound. At 4K miles on Pzero's you think "What is everyone talking about" Then at 6K miles they are are toast.
It is normal for our cars but I agree it could be better. Changing from Pzero's helps.
10K Jon? Not bad at all considering how you drive.
Better than 6K thats for sure!
06-02-2011, 10:45 PM
#53
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cclass
So you've dropped the suspension with H&R (spring or coil overs?) this will add both negative camber and toe in causing inner tire edge wear. If you dail out toe in you create more negative camber and visa vesa. You'll have to find a happy medium with your alignment shop. With just springs (.75 drop) and stock wheels/tires you should be able to get by with adding camber bolts to the front. With the drop and 295/25/20 rears wheel/tires (what's the offset compared to stock?) you prolly exceeded the limits of rear eccentric adjustment. You'll have to add an adjustable toe steer link, upper dog bones, or in the worst case both. Of course with that wide a wheel/tire you may be stuck with -2 or more negative camber to stop them from rubbing. Your other option is to run symetrical directional tires and swap them left to right every couple thousand miles.
The rear was only dropped with OEM spring pads. It had #3's (13mm) in it, I replaced them with #1's (5mm). I left the stock springs. So basically the rear was dropped 8mm (.31 inches).
The rear settings are neg 1.5 and 1.6 camber (still with-in factory limits) and the toe is set at .15 degress both sides (with-in factory range).
Rear tires DO NOT RUB.
To compensate for inside edge wear from neg camber, it is recommended to have a little more toe-in to help even tire wear. Since my tires were a hair more worn on the inside (5/32 inner tread vs 6/32 outer tread), this tells me I may not have enough toe-in. But if toe-in is contributing to tire scrub and wearing out the tires faster as someone suggested, it tells me I need rear camber bushings so I can take some neg camber out which means I can set the toe closer to zero.
Camber bushings are $300 but since this is the last summer I will own this car, I am not gonna waste my time/money. My current tires will last the rest of this year since I only put 1200 or so miles on it per year. Now if I was keeping it, I would for sure install the bushings. I am however gonna install them in the C300 since it also wears tires quicker than I think it should.
BTW, I do my own alignments and can mess with it as many times as I want.
06-02-2011, 10:49 PM
#54
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cclass
I'm guessing you also have a live rear axel under the Stang. When you step on it the entire axel moves up under the car, but the tire alignment stays relatively consistant. When you step on an IRS the wheels arch upward and inward creating more negative camber and hence more wear on the inside edge.
It is normal for a C63 to get poor rear tire wear due to;
1.IRS wear inner edges faster on any car.
2.Suspension geometry set up for rear tires that are too narrow.
(Hello MBZ punch out the rear wells and get some 305/315 on the back of this beast).
3.Lots of TQ from a dead stop that you don't even notice that partially spin very expensive grippy tires every time you take off even without punching it.
It is normal for a C63 to get poor rear tire wear due to;
1.IRS wear inner edges faster on any car.
2.Suspension geometry set up for rear tires that are too narrow.
(Hello MBZ punch out the rear wells and get some 305/315 on the back of this beast).
3.Lots of TQ from a dead stop that you don't even notice that partially spin very expensive grippy tires every time you take off even without punching it.
But this doesn't explain why other cars with independent rear suspension with just as much power or more doesn't chew tires up like the C.
06-02-2011, 10:57 PM
#56
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cclass
06-02-2011, 11:05 PM
#58
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cclass
06-03-2011, 01:31 AM
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
Here is some info that may be educational, though related to the NSX:
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/TireWheel/alignment.htm
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/TireWheel/alignment.htm
06-03-2011, 02:31 PM
#60
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cclass
Here is some info that may be educational, though related to the NSX:
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/TireWheel/alignment.htm
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/TireWheel/alignment.htm
Awesome read! Thanks for posting that. I am gonna re-align both car this weekend. I will post factory specs when I get them!
Thanks again!
06-03-2011, 03:06 PM
#62
Someone nailed it saying that it is the toe issue. Talked to a MB mechanic last month, he said that AMG purposely put alot of toe in the rear for safety as our cars is a small high hp car. He said keep in mind that MB have to come up with a setting that suite all type of drivers. I have since put my rear toe out to edge out of spec and have seen better wear.
06-03-2011, 06:37 PM
#63
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cclass
Someone nailed it saying that it is the toe issue. Talked to a MB mechanic last month, he said that AMG purposely put alot of toe in the rear for safety as our cars is a small high hp car. He said keep in mind that MB have to come up with a setting that suite all type of drivers. I have since put my rear toe out to edge out of spec and have seen better wear.
06-03-2011, 11:15 PM
#67
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2009 C63 with Eurocharged tune and charcoal delete
Someone nailed it saying that it is the toe issue. Talked to a MB mechanic last month, he said that AMG purposely put alot of toe in the rear for safety as our cars is a small high hp car. He said keep in mind that MB have to come up with a setting that suite all type of drivers. I have since put my rear toe out to edge out of spec and have seen better wear.
06-03-2011, 11:28 PM
#68
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cclass
Ok here it goes. Just re-aligned the C63. I was highly mistaken. What I thought I originally set the rear toe at was not what I thought tho it was in factory range.
This is going to be for people that understand alignment settings and what the numbers actually mean and it seems like a few of you seem to know from what I have seen some of you post.
First off I have to thank Palladin for making me think about having too much toe-in. My mind has always been stuck knowing that toe out is a bad thing especially with anything with a good amount of negative camber. It will absolutely chew up the inside edges faster than you can imagine. Also toe out in the rear will make any car extremely unstable at higher speeds. I have always been told toe out in the rear is a no no. So never did I think that toe-in could also be bad (for wear) considering everything I have ever driven had negative camber (besides the stang with a solid axle-no adjustments period). Now a little toe-in can't cause too much "tire scrub" but a lot most likely can. I say most likely because I am not sure but I will as soon as I log in some miles on my re-aligned car but I am willing to bet that too much can increase tire wear especially the research I have been doing the past few days.
Second I have to thank cyberorth for posting the link to the NSX alignment issues. If it hadn't been for reading that, I wasn't gonna bother re-aligning my car anytime soon but it made me more curious to know where I had previously set my car since I wasn't a 100% sure. And when something bothers me, I'll drop everything to satisfy my curiosity.
So here we go. I am only gonna post rear settings since it's the rear that's chewing up tires. I have front specs and I will post them if someone wants them. I just don't wanna make it too confusing.
My car before the re-alignment (My tires had only 1100 miles and were half worn 5/32's to 6/32's. Treadwear is 340 which is more than the stock pirellis):
Left rear camber NEGATIVE 1.5
Right rear camber NEGATIVE 1.5
Left rear TOE .44 (TOE IN)
Right rear TOE .35 (TOE IN)
I had previously thought I was toe-in apprx. .15 per side. I aligned it exactly a year ago so my memory must be shot
Now heres the kicker... THE FACTORY SPEC RANGES ARE (PER SIDE):
CAMBER: -.9 to -1.9
TOE: .28 to .52
The toe range to me is unbelievable. I don't know why I didn't notice this before. It was most likely that I was aligning it and just looking at the "red and green" on the alignment machine. Red means you are out of range and green is with-in.
So lets compare other cars out there.
w204 C300 (exact suspension geometry as the C63):
CAMBER: -.9 to -1.9
TOE: .09 to .33
w211 E63
CAMBER: -1.2 to -2.2
TOE: .05 to .29
997 Twin Turbo Porsche
CAMBER: -1.4 to -1.9
TOE: .08 to .25
So why do you suppose MB wants SO MUCH toe-in on the C63? I don't get it. Someone earlier mentioned it was a safety issue but I am not quite sure how toeing it in more would prevent oversteer. Now negative camber ABSOLUTELY does but toe in?
Anyway I re-aligned mine and it definitely is out of factory range now. I know personally I will never notice the difference on how the car handles because I DO NOT throw the car around like I am at the Nurburgring. I bought this car because I love TORQUE. If I wanted a car to drive on rails, I would've opted for the e92 M. So all I have to do now is wait and see if my tire wear will improve. This might be kinda hard since I only put 1300 miles on it the first year. But when I do have some miles to give some feedback, I will post my results here.
So I hope people with some alignment knowledge can give us some more insight with the numbers I posted!
Thanks for reading!
This is going to be for people that understand alignment settings and what the numbers actually mean and it seems like a few of you seem to know from what I have seen some of you post.
First off I have to thank Palladin for making me think about having too much toe-in. My mind has always been stuck knowing that toe out is a bad thing especially with anything with a good amount of negative camber. It will absolutely chew up the inside edges faster than you can imagine. Also toe out in the rear will make any car extremely unstable at higher speeds. I have always been told toe out in the rear is a no no. So never did I think that toe-in could also be bad (for wear) considering everything I have ever driven had negative camber (besides the stang with a solid axle-no adjustments period). Now a little toe-in can't cause too much "tire scrub" but a lot most likely can. I say most likely because I am not sure but I will as soon as I log in some miles on my re-aligned car but I am willing to bet that too much can increase tire wear especially the research I have been doing the past few days.
Second I have to thank cyberorth for posting the link to the NSX alignment issues. If it hadn't been for reading that, I wasn't gonna bother re-aligning my car anytime soon but it made me more curious to know where I had previously set my car since I wasn't a 100% sure. And when something bothers me, I'll drop everything to satisfy my curiosity.
So here we go. I am only gonna post rear settings since it's the rear that's chewing up tires. I have front specs and I will post them if someone wants them. I just don't wanna make it too confusing.
My car before the re-alignment (My tires had only 1100 miles and were half worn 5/32's to 6/32's. Treadwear is 340 which is more than the stock pirellis):
Left rear camber NEGATIVE 1.5
Right rear camber NEGATIVE 1.5
Left rear TOE .44 (TOE IN)
Right rear TOE .35 (TOE IN)
I had previously thought I was toe-in apprx. .15 per side. I aligned it exactly a year ago so my memory must be shot
Now heres the kicker... THE FACTORY SPEC RANGES ARE (PER SIDE):
CAMBER: -.9 to -1.9
TOE: .28 to .52
The toe range to me is unbelievable. I don't know why I didn't notice this before. It was most likely that I was aligning it and just looking at the "red and green" on the alignment machine. Red means you are out of range and green is with-in.
So lets compare other cars out there.
w204 C300 (exact suspension geometry as the C63):
CAMBER: -.9 to -1.9
TOE: .09 to .33
w211 E63
CAMBER: -1.2 to -2.2
TOE: .05 to .29
997 Twin Turbo Porsche
CAMBER: -1.4 to -1.9
TOE: .08 to .25
So why do you suppose MB wants SO MUCH toe-in on the C63? I don't get it. Someone earlier mentioned it was a safety issue but I am not quite sure how toeing it in more would prevent oversteer. Now negative camber ABSOLUTELY does but toe in?
Anyway I re-aligned mine and it definitely is out of factory range now.
I know personally I will never notice the difference on how the car handles because I DO NOT throw the car around like I am at the Nurburgring. I bought this car because I love TORQUE. If I wanted a car to drive on rails, I would've opted for the e92 M. So all I have to do now is wait and see if my tire wear will improve. This might be kinda hard since I only put 1300 miles on it the first year. But when I do have some miles to give some feedback, I will post my results here.So I hope people with some alignment knowledge can give us some more insight with the numbers I posted!
Thanks for reading!
06-04-2011, 12:15 AM
#70
MBWorld Fanatic!
Hey VTSNAKE, my pleasure.
Back in the day when I was into hondas, I used to know everything about them. Now that I can have better cars, I feel very inadequate about how much I know about them.
I think factory alignment settings are a combination of the following:
Safety requirements...(not safety itself)
drivability for the masses
compete with rivals, and
cover up compromises.
For example, if C63 has to have a particular tire because of a contract between MB and Pirelli, the alignment is tuned to cover the compromises thet tire brings in traction at the cost of wear.
I don't know. I am just making stuff up now!
Back in the day when I was into hondas, I used to know everything about them. Now that I can have better cars, I feel very inadequate about how much I know about them.
I think factory alignment settings are a combination of the following:
Safety requirements...(not safety itself)
drivability for the masses
compete with rivals, and
cover up compromises.
For example, if C63 has to have a particular tire because of a contract between MB and Pirelli, the alignment is tuned to cover the compromises thet tire brings in traction at the cost of wear.
I don't know. I am just making stuff up now!
06-04-2011, 01:10 AM
#71
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cclass
Hey VTSNAKE, my pleasure.
Back in the day when I was into hondas, I used to know everything about them. Now that I can have better cars, I feel very inadequate about how much I know about them.
I think factory alignment settings are a combination of the following:
Safety requirements...(not safety itself)
drivability for the masses
compete with rivals, and
cover up compromises.
For example, if C63 has to have a particular tire because of a contract between MB and Pirelli, the alignment is tuned to cover the compromises thet tire brings in traction at the cost of wear.
I don't know. I am just making stuff up now!
Back in the day when I was into hondas, I used to know everything about them. Now that I can have better cars, I feel very inadequate about how much I know about them.
I think factory alignment settings are a combination of the following:
Safety requirements...(not safety itself)
drivability for the masses
compete with rivals, and
cover up compromises.
For example, if C63 has to have a particular tire because of a contract between MB and Pirelli, the alignment is tuned to cover the compromises thet tire brings in traction at the cost of wear.
I don't know. I am just making stuff up now!
Well the Pirelli Pzero is actually not a bad tire for performance. Are there better ones? Absolutely.
As alignment settings being for safety, that is absolutely correct. But why is the C63 toe settings SO different vs other cars with similar power?
06-04-2011, 02:31 AM
#72
MBWorld Fanatic!
Ok here it goes. Just re-aligned the C63. I was highly mistaken. What I thought I originally set the rear toe at was not what I thought tho it was in factory range.
This is going to be for people that understand alignment settings and what the numbers actually mean and it seems like a few of you seem to know from what I have seen some of you post.
First off I have to thank Palladin for making me think about having too much toe-in. My mind has always been stuck knowing that toe out is a bad thing especially with anything with a good amount of negative camber. It will absolutely chew up the inside edges faster than you can imagine. Also toe out in the rear will make any car extremely unstable at higher speeds. I have always been told toe out in the rear is a no no. So never did I think that toe-in could also be bad (for wear) considering everything I have ever driven had negative camber (besides the stang with a solid axle-no adjustments period). Now a little toe-in can't cause too much "tire scrub" but a lot most likely can. I say most likely because I am not sure but I will as soon as I log in some miles on my re-aligned car but I am willing to bet that too much can increase tire wear especially the research I have been doing the past few days.
Second I have to thank cyberorth for posting the link to the NSX alignment issues. If it hadn't been for reading that, I wasn't gonna bother re-aligning my car anytime soon but it made me more curious to know where I had previously set my car since I wasn't a 100% sure. And when something bothers me, I'll drop everything to satisfy my curiosity.
So here we go. I am only gonna post rear settings since it's the rear that's chewing up tires. I have front specs and I will post them if someone wants them. I just don't wanna make it too confusing.
My car before the re-alignment (My tires had only 1100 miles and were half worn 5/32's to 6/32's. Treadwear is 340 which is more than the stock pirellis):
Left rear camber NEGATIVE 1.5
Right rear camber NEGATIVE 1.5
Left rear TOE .44 (TOE IN)
Right rear TOE .35 (TOE IN)
I had previously thought I was toe-in apprx. .15 per side. I aligned it exactly a year ago so my memory must be shot
Now heres the kicker... THE FACTORY SPEC RANGES ARE (PER SIDE):
CAMBER: -.9 to -1.9
TOE: .28 to .52
The toe range to me is unbelievable. I don't know why I didn't notice this before. It was most likely that I was aligning it and just looking at the "red and green" on the alignment machine. Red means you are out of range and green is with-in.
So lets compare other cars out there.
w204 C300 (exact suspension geometry as the C63):
CAMBER: -.9 to -1.9
TOE: .09 to .33
w211 E63
CAMBER: -1.2 to -2.2
TOE: .05 to .29
997 Twin Turbo Porsche
CAMBER: -1.4 to -1.9
TOE: .08 to .25
So why do you suppose MB wants SO MUCH toe-in on the C63? I don't get it. Someone earlier mentioned it was a safety issue but I am not quite sure how toeing it in more would prevent oversteer. Now negative camber ABSOLUTELY does but toe in?
Anyway I re-aligned mine and it definitely is out of factory range now. I know personally I will never notice the difference on how the car handles because I DO NOT throw the car around like I am at the Nurburgring. I bought this car because I love TORQUE. If I wanted a car to drive on rails, I would've opted for the e92 M. So all I have to do now is wait and see if my tire wear will improve. This might be kinda hard since I only put 1300 miles on it the first year. But when I do have some miles to give some feedback, I will post my results here.
So I hope people with some alignment knowledge can give us some more insight with the numbers I posted!
Thanks for reading!
This is going to be for people that understand alignment settings and what the numbers actually mean and it seems like a few of you seem to know from what I have seen some of you post.
First off I have to thank Palladin for making me think about having too much toe-in. My mind has always been stuck knowing that toe out is a bad thing especially with anything with a good amount of negative camber. It will absolutely chew up the inside edges faster than you can imagine. Also toe out in the rear will make any car extremely unstable at higher speeds. I have always been told toe out in the rear is a no no. So never did I think that toe-in could also be bad (for wear) considering everything I have ever driven had negative camber (besides the stang with a solid axle-no adjustments period). Now a little toe-in can't cause too much "tire scrub" but a lot most likely can. I say most likely because I am not sure but I will as soon as I log in some miles on my re-aligned car but I am willing to bet that too much can increase tire wear especially the research I have been doing the past few days.
Second I have to thank cyberorth for posting the link to the NSX alignment issues. If it hadn't been for reading that, I wasn't gonna bother re-aligning my car anytime soon but it made me more curious to know where I had previously set my car since I wasn't a 100% sure. And when something bothers me, I'll drop everything to satisfy my curiosity.
So here we go. I am only gonna post rear settings since it's the rear that's chewing up tires. I have front specs and I will post them if someone wants them. I just don't wanna make it too confusing.
My car before the re-alignment (My tires had only 1100 miles and were half worn 5/32's to 6/32's. Treadwear is 340 which is more than the stock pirellis):
Left rear camber NEGATIVE 1.5
Right rear camber NEGATIVE 1.5
Left rear TOE .44 (TOE IN)
Right rear TOE .35 (TOE IN)
I had previously thought I was toe-in apprx. .15 per side. I aligned it exactly a year ago so my memory must be shot
Now heres the kicker... THE FACTORY SPEC RANGES ARE (PER SIDE):
CAMBER: -.9 to -1.9
TOE: .28 to .52
The toe range to me is unbelievable. I don't know why I didn't notice this before. It was most likely that I was aligning it and just looking at the "red and green" on the alignment machine. Red means you are out of range and green is with-in.
So lets compare other cars out there.
w204 C300 (exact suspension geometry as the C63):
CAMBER: -.9 to -1.9
TOE: .09 to .33
w211 E63
CAMBER: -1.2 to -2.2
TOE: .05 to .29
997 Twin Turbo Porsche
CAMBER: -1.4 to -1.9
TOE: .08 to .25
So why do you suppose MB wants SO MUCH toe-in on the C63? I don't get it. Someone earlier mentioned it was a safety issue but I am not quite sure how toeing it in more would prevent oversteer. Now negative camber ABSOLUTELY does but toe in?
Anyway I re-aligned mine and it definitely is out of factory range now.
I know personally I will never notice the difference on how the car handles because I DO NOT throw the car around like I am at the Nurburgring. I bought this car because I love TORQUE. If I wanted a car to drive on rails, I would've opted for the e92 M. So all I have to do now is wait and see if my tire wear will improve. This might be kinda hard since I only put 1300 miles on it the first year. But when I do have some miles to give some feedback, I will post my results here.So I hope people with some alignment knowledge can give us some more insight with the numbers I posted!
Thanks for reading!
My C63 is on it third set of rears (second set of fronts) at 13k. I've not changed or checked the alignment. Wear was almost even across the backs so it's not too much camber or toe in. Must just be lots of torque put to good use.
Last edited by DuaneC63; 06-04-2011 at 02:35 AM.
06-04-2011, 06:29 AM
#74
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,589
Received 68 Likes
on
44 Posts
C63 507 AMG DA Car #19
My rear tires are not worn on the inside or outside edges.... they are worn evenly in 3K miles. Not sure if it is the toe issue you mention above.
Are others wearing unevenly? (Am I missing something?)
thx.
Are others wearing unevenly? (Am I missing something?)
thx.
06-04-2011, 08:04 AM
#75
MBWorld Fanatic!
Is this test being done with an LSD or without? Another factor of tread wear.
For a true test you need to have factory Pzero's with stock toe in and then a fresh set of rears with your settings and compare the two. You also need to get it on the slalom, skid pad, 0-60 and 1/4 mile and compare performance. Ill take terrible tread life for performance any day.
Last edited by propain; 06-04-2011 at 08:06 AM.
