What's the real reason why C63 tires wear so fast?
03-13-2012, 11:40 PM
#101
Do you guys that are running a wider wheel tire set up see an improvement in premature ware? Also what do you feel are the longest lasting tire out there or best bang for buck. Ours is a daily driver so I don't feel the need for soft sticky tires that will only last a few trips to the grocery store and back.
Check out the Nexen 3000 of the Achillies ART sport.
Ive used the nexens. Im just mounting the ARTs now... Should last longer then a 200 TW tire.
03-14-2012, 01:27 PM
#102
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Battle Ground WA
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
C63AMG, NIssan NX2000, Pontiac Fiero GT
The term "flat" used by discount tire suggests camber. My 63 bald Pirellis were worn flat and even down to the bone in 6000. No track days. Only a winding uphill drive home. IMO it's torque put out in prodigious amounts even in "gentle" driving.
03-14-2012, 01:52 PM
#103
MBWorld Fanatic!
All I know is the awful consequences of bald tires (https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w...ed-advice.html). I wish the police could understand.
03-14-2012, 02:04 PM
#104
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
home the point
Ton of good information in this thread. I don't think toe in is the problem with mine since the majority of the wear seems to be located near inner walls of rear tires. If I'm not mistaken, toe in wears out the outer section? I will have to re-check chamber however.
03-25-2012, 03:41 PM
#105
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!
My tires NOW currently have 4/32's across the whole tread width.
So to summarize my "rear tire wear/alignment experience"...
With the car setup with "factory" alignment specs (LOTS of TOE-IN), my rear tires wore down apprx 5/32's in 1100 miles.
Since the re-alignment (LESS TOE-IN) my rear tires wore down another (apprx) 2/32's in 1700 miles.
In conclusion since my re-alignment, my tires wore 60% slower even though I had logged 600 MORE miles.
This proves to me that less toe-in definitely helps rear tire wear.
Hope this isn't too confusing...
03-25-2012, 03:48 PM
#106
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cclass
Yes this is true to some extent but keep in mind, negative camber is a big factor too.
03-25-2012, 08:54 PM
#108
Super Member
just FYI. Negative toe (in) helps keep the car in a straight line but less steering and Positive toe (out) gives more steering but is less stable in straight. Toe in is ideal for rear wheel drive and for front or 4 wheel drive, 0 degree is ideal.
Negative camber gives stability and control while opposite makes a car more aggressive and less control. Ideally cars are set up on negative side and varies by degree. Very unusual to give it a positive camber set-up.
Negative camber gives stability and control while opposite makes a car more aggressive and less control. Ideally cars are set up on negative side and varies by degree. Very unusual to give it a positive camber set-up.
03-25-2012, 09:37 PM
#109
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cclass
High speed in a straight line feels the same. As for cornering, you are asking the wrong guy.
. I didn't buy this car that. That's what an Evo is for 
If I was concerned about "handling", I wouldn't have put 20" boat anchor's on it... But I can say, it definitely oversteers more at corner exits (on throttle). I kinda expected that (from what I've read) and now honestly believe Mercedes wants so much rear toe-in to combat that. The rear of the C can't handle that much torque (too light). The C300's alignment specs want a lot less toe-in do to the fact it only has something like 50 ft. lbs. or torque
Last edited by vtsnake; 03-26-2012 at 08:33 AM.
03-27-2012, 12:58 AM
#110
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 395
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2009 C63 ///Amg
Ok... I have since logged another 1700 miles since my alignment change. One thing I didn't mention is I had my rear tires "flipped" right before I aligned it. This was to help the uneven side to side wear. The inner edges were 4/32 and the outer edges were 6/32.
My tires NOW currently have 4/32's across the whole tread width.
So to summarize my "rear tire wear/alignment experience"...
With the car setup with "factory" alignment specs (LOTS of TOE-IN), my rear tires wore down apprx 5/32's in 1100 miles.
Since the re-alignment (LESS TOE-IN) my rear tires wore down another (apprx) 2/32's in 1700 miles.
In conclusion since my re-alignment, my tires wore 60% slower even though I had logged 600 MORE miles.
This proves to me that less toe-in definitely helps rear tire wear.
Hope this isn't too confusing...
My tires NOW currently have 4/32's across the whole tread width.
So to summarize my "rear tire wear/alignment experience"...
With the car setup with "factory" alignment specs (LOTS of TOE-IN), my rear tires wore down apprx 5/32's in 1100 miles.
Since the re-alignment (LESS TOE-IN) my rear tires wore down another (apprx) 2/32's in 1700 miles.
In conclusion since my re-alignment, my tires wore 60% slower even though I had logged 600 MORE miles.
This proves to me that less toe-in definitely helps rear tire wear.
Hope this isn't too confusing...
so what did u end up setting your toe in to, and did it affect performance at all for day to day driving or was it unnoticeable? very excited that this could get us all alot more miles out of our tires!!!
03-27-2012, 08:09 AM
#111
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2013 Chevy 427 Torch Red
I had my rear toe set to nearly neutral about 2 years ago when I had the LSD installed. While the car is more prone to over steer while accelerating out of a corner, it is MUCH easier to manage the process. Just a slight bit of counter steer and you can drive right through it without the "snap back" experience that the car exhibits in stock sans LSD trim.
And by the way I am replacing my rear 265/35 Star Specs this week after nearly 10,000 miles and perfectly even tire wear.
And by the way I am replacing my rear 265/35 Star Specs this week after nearly 10,000 miles and perfectly even tire wear.
03-27-2012, 02:40 PM
#112
I had my rear toe set to nearly neutral about 2 years ago when I had the LSD installed. While the car is more prone to over steer while accelerating out of a corner, it is MUCH easier to manage the process. Just a slight bit of counter steer and you can drive right through it without the "snap back" experience that the car exhibits in stock sans LSD trim.
And by the way I am replacing my rear 265/35 Star Specs this week after nearly 10,000 miles and perfectly even tire wear.
And by the way I am replacing my rear 265/35 Star Specs this week after nearly 10,000 miles and perfectly even tire wear.
Hmmm this is very interesting.. Its not the damn over steer that is dangerous in my experience. Its the SNAP back to the opposite side when you counter that is unsettling.
So by changing JUST the rear toe to neutral you got a better response in terms of that snap back and tire wear is much better?
Do you drive with ESP on all the time? I have it constantly off..
03-28-2012, 12:13 AM
#114
02-07-2013, 07:21 PM
#118
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney.
Posts: 325
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003-E55 2011-C63 2016-C63S
I have recently purchased my C63 having only racked up approx 8,000 km (5,000 miles) and my rear tyres are almost bald. Now I have come from an E55 also with loads of grunt, so while I admit the transition of power going through the tires is great there is obviously other factors contributing to the C63s short tyre life expectancy as the E55 was good for 25,000km (15,500 miles). 3 times more!!!!
Having read this thread I have decided to have an alignment to adjust the TOE to MB's recommended minimum setting of 0.28 which should increase tyre life and make the rear a little more predictable according to other members experiences here.
My question, should the TOE for the front geometry also be reset if I reset the rears or can I leave the fronts setup untouched. If the fronts must also be done can anyone with experience please advise of settings.
Cheers
James
02-08-2013, 03:05 AM
#120
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney.
Posts: 325
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003-E55 2011-C63 2016-C63S
Yeah its rediculous. Do you have any idea of settings or will you just leave it up to the guys at the indy shop?
02-08-2013, 06:59 AM
#123
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
09 C63 AMG, 03 C320 Sport Coupe 96 Mustang
I had toe on mine set to .21 in the rears last june when I put on some new Contis. When I took them off in Nov with about 8000 kms on them they looked new. The P zeros I had on b4 were to the cords in 8000 kms. I also had the fronts set to .28.
Car feels great, I noticed a tiny bit more understeer, or it may just have been a little different body roll in cornering, it was that insignificant that after about an hour I forgot about it and just drove like heck
Car feels great, I noticed a tiny bit more understeer, or it may just have been a little different body roll in cornering, it was that insignificant that after about an hour I forgot about it and just drove like heck
02-08-2013, 10:28 AM
#124
