raise ur hand if u have DE-starggered ur clk500...and whats ur tire size?

 

really?

 

Didnt realize that was possible to do.

 

its not possible? why not?....it can be done in any car

 

what the hell is DE?

 

He is talking about removing the staggar of the wheels. I guess I am dumb because I have either never thought it was possible or just choose to work with what the car allowed.

 

Why are you asking anyway. If it can be done then do it.

 

I'm lost .

Andy

 

That's what I did!

I have two full sets of OEM wheels. 2x 7.5", and 2x 8.5". Normally staggered, that would small in front (225x45R17) big in back (245/40R17).

I found that the 245/40R17 tires wear VERY unevenly, with the centers wearing out quickly, wasting lots of expensive miles. The fronts wear out the sides quicker.

My plan is to run 245 tires w/ 8.5" on all corners for the summer, and 225 w/ 7.5" all corners with winter tires. (245 aren't good in winter - too wide.)

For now, to use up my tires, I currently remounted my 225x45 tires onto the 8.5" wheels for the front.

For what it's worth, I tried 255x40R17 on the 8.5" wheels on the front, and they clear, but I think there is some wear on the plastic wall from tight turns with it. It clears the strut just fine.

No doubt, the car handles better with wider tires in the front.

Visually, the 8.5" is probably too wide, in case you care what other people think. 8" would look better on the fronts, but 9.5" would look nicer still in the back. I'm married with kids, so I don't care what other people think of my funny looking wheels.

 

^^^^ nice

thinking about doing 8.5x18 with 225/40/18 tires all around

 

I think 235 would be a better size. 225 on 8.5 looks stretched, but 245 on 8.5 in the front looks getto like. Ideally, I would recommend 235 on 8".

That's what I would do, but I'm not buying new wheels.

 

WHY . The car is designed from factory like this because it is RWD. You'll just **** up your traction control system.

 

It will not affect your traction control at all. That would only be a problem if you changed the diameter of your tires.
There are actually some advantages with a "square" set-up. It creates more neutral handling and you can rotate your tires, both of which are great advantages if you track your car a lot.
Personally though, I do agree that a staggered set-up looks better on an MB.

 

Exactly why I went to 225/40/18 on all 4 corners. I got tired of replacing 2 tires at a time and never really having a solid new set on the car. Now I can rotate the tires and get maximum life from the entire set.

 

Thats what I had right now.

Andy

 

It was an option from the factory to mount de-staggered tires and I was interested in being able to rotate the tires but they only offered the 7.5" width. This is what is good about the aftermarket -you can pick whatever fits.

 

oc500, Do you live in Orange County? Email me at rsc337@yahoo.com. I drive a clk430 thats 3" of the ground! tucking 18"

 

I have a spare set of OEM CLK500 wheels. So I run 245's all the way around.

245/40/17 on all 4's.

 

wow, i guess you guys dont mind ridiculous tucking in the back.

this is why i usually stay in the amg forum...

 

What is tucking?

245 on all four corners reduces understeer. Much better handling.

 

 

I'm just poor white trash! I'm into customs/hot rods/lowriders! If it doesn't drag, it's not low enough. I've done alot of suspension work to make it this low and have factory correct alignment. So it's not exactly a hack job, but it rides a little stiff and tight? I'll probably catch **** for this but I don't care.....

 

I think this is a matter of "function over form". I definitely agree that a staggered set up looks better. However, if you want to apply the word "ridiculous" to anything, it would be the amount of understeer built into our cars (AMG included) - a safety feature, but which severely affects handling.
So I don't think its that hard to understand someone changing to a "square" set up, and I definitely don't think it looks "ridiculous"!!!!!!

 

when the rear wheel of the car is tucked two or three inched into the rear fender it looks ridiculous. Clk's can take up to a 10' rim in back. i am sorry but running 8.5" rims in the back looks silly. part of the reason MB runs a staggered set-up is for traction reasons. more rubber out back means less wheel spin. most CLK's have at least 302hp remember.

i have a front wheel drive VW GTI as well and i can tell you that our cars definitley are not set-up for understeer. if anything i would say they are pretty neutral. drive a Ferrari F430 or 355 and you will feel what understeer feels like.

Rcs i like my cars low too. i pretty much go with one finger gaps at all four corners.

 

The CLK's understeer. With some power on in a curve it gets more neutral but the factory is going to sell understeering cars because you won't end up in the center divider if you sneeze.

Running the same width tires front and back makes sense to me but I like driving with the ESP off and the feeling of the car as it goes around a curve with the rear drifting a little.

Cosmetics are a different issue. These days big wheels are fashionable so that's what you gotta do if you want to look up to date