I just got back home from a storm with 5 inches of snow and I didn't think I was going to make it.

I put 150 lbs. over wheeel wells.

Any other ideas

 

Get some Blizzak WS-50's and you'll be all set. No need for the additional weight besides a full tank of fuel.

 

I put a set of Michelin Alpine snow tires (for winter use only) several years ago on my 98 E320 and it handles like it's on drive pavement in the snow and on the ice.

I had my snow tires mounted on a set of Mercedes knock-off rims (purchased from Bekers) so switching from winter tires to summer tires can be done at home.

 

hmmm........I driven on snow, don't they have good weight distribution on the Benz, with a near 50/50?

 

The type of tire makes the difference.

I purchased my 98 E320 from San Diago, the previous owner put a set of Michelin Pilot XGT V4's on. When winter came in Chicago I could not make it from my driveway to my garage with 2" of snow and ice on my driveway. Since I put on snow tires, it's like driving on dry pavement.

There is also a difference between driving in 1" of snow and 5" of snow.

 

Thanks for your input.

Dose 4Matic make much of a difference on the newer cars?

 

That scenario reminded me when my car was new,7 mos. and six inches on the ground.5 people in it,and the thing was like a serpent down the road.(OEM Contis,,,crap)
Went thru some new Turnaza's ,little better but still hairy in the snow.Now its the Pirelli Snowsport 240's and they are smooth,even doing 130,recommended
I think all the major brands are worthy snows,to each his own.

 

I really like your serpent descrition

 

in a rear wheel drive car, you better use good snow tires.

all season radials cannot compare to real snow tires.

if you get a new MB, get a 4matic, but again you need to use good snow tires.

 

The combination of all wheel drive with dedicated snow/ice tires would offer you the best possible severe weather performance. Keep in mind that all-season tires are a compromise at best.

 

I got the chance to try out my 4Matic for the 1st time - and I have Blizzaks that are in their last year of life - and all I can say is WOWSER! I went to a huge parking lot that the local Tech uses for law enforement classes, and it was covered with ice, snow and slushy gunk: I couldn't go fast enough to get any bad things to happen. Sometimes I wish I lived where I wouldn't have to worry about such things, but that's not going to happen any time soon, in the mean time this is fabulous. I can't wait to try 'er out next year with the Nokian snow tires I plan on getting to replace the Blizzaks.

 

I've tried a few, and I believe the Blizzaks are the best coupled with 100lb of weight in the trunk. Here in New England (no 4matic on my 2000 E320) that is a problem with rwd cars for sure.

I have Blizzaks mounted on the OEM wheels, and nice Touranza's on some nice AMG lower profile wheels for the Spring/Summer/Fall. Easy to just swap them when it's time.

Bob

 

Blizzaks

 

Is everyone using their "W" position for the transmission?

That might help just a little?

 

If you could please elaborate how using the "W" position for the transmission is going to help a little? If one has no traction to begin with will this engagement restore or create traction?

Looks like a sneaky trick the MB engineers must have added?

 

The "W" just helps when starting out - higher gear/less torque=less wheel spin. Other than that, I don't believe it's gonna do much with traction while moving. As to the Blizzaks, I'm not dissatisfied with them in the snow, they're just a hard riding, noisy tire. Last year I had 'em on knock-off rims, but this year they're on the OEMs; I'm planning on keeping them on the OEM rims and putting the summer tires on new rims altogether.

 

There is some traction there at all times. Even under borderline conditions it is there,
but not as much as is there when conditions are perfect.
The idea is to be able to apply as little turning twisting force to the rear wheels as is necessary to get
you moving, but not so much as to cause a complete loss of any traction.

As you say, "a sneaky trick," but doesn't it work?
We have little need for it out here, but I do use it all the time to get a smoother take off from rest.
It did get me out of some deep mud just the other day.
As you know, the diesels do have maximum torque just off idle when compared to the gassers.

In years gone by, the engineers always had the automatics starting off from rest in second gear.
Perhaps this switchable feature is a carryover from those days?

The idea the engineers added to our cars was to force the transmission to start off from rest in a higher gear, in this case, second gear, to apply less torque to the rear wheels for better traction on slippery surfaces.
This feature also raises the gear ratio of reverse which is already considerably higher than first or second to begin with.
Mine doesn't like to start up from rest in reverse if I stop on my slightly inclined driveway while backing into my garage
should I forget to throw the switch back to "S" before engaging the lower reverse side.
Unlike the forward engagement, the transmission must be in neutral for the ratios to be changed.

To test this out while stopped on an uphill incline, release the foot brake, and your car will start creeping forward when in "S."
Throw the switch to "W" and it will usually stop creeping. Switching back to "S" and it'll start clawling forward again.
This demonstrates that there is indeed less torque multiplication in second gear than there is in first gear.

Clear as mud? HTHs.

 

I bought the Perrelli Winter sports 210 for my 1997 E320. Too new to tell if they are going to make a difference. I will let you know in the next snow storm

 

Blizzak's with 185 lbs of weight in the trunk. I drive to the ski resorts in Vermont from Boston every weekend for the last 5 years with my rear wheel E320 and laugh at all the Cherokee's, Tahoe's, Hummer's, Explorers, etc in the ditches all the way up. I think the key is to have some good snow tires an don't drive like an idiot.