2003 E320 Tire Pressures (26/32?)
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 293
Likes: 24
From: Toronto
C63
2003 E320 Tire Pressures (26/32?)
Hi,
The gas filler tank lists tire pressures for my E320 as 26 front 32 rear. I did some searching and it seems most people are running 29 front.
Is 26 front a mistake or something? I've never seen tire pressure being listed so low by the factory.
Is there a consensus as to what the best tire pressures are to run? I have 16" for winter and 17" for summer.
The gas filler tank lists tire pressures for my E320 as 26 front 32 rear. I did some searching and it seems most people are running 29 front.
Is 26 front a mistake or something? I've never seen tire pressure being listed so low by the factory.
Is there a consensus as to what the best tire pressures are to run? I have 16" for winter and 17" for summer.
Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 78
Likes: 15
Seat Alhambra
Before 2000 tire-pressure was calculated using the asumed load on the tire, maximum load of tire, reference-pressure wich is not the maximum pressure.
Speed and alighnment ( camber angle) also play a smaller role.
After 2000 , to my opinion because of the Ford/Firestone affaire, higher advices are given, as overreaction to the 100 death, mostly courced by tire-damage, that has falled because of this affaire.
But what they discovered is in that affaire is that the maximum load on sidewall on low AR tires ( Aspect ratio = Hight/width division for instance 40 in 235/40R16) is to high calculated to laws of nature.
To prefent me from doing the whole story again, read next topic on European Volvo forum where I made a calculation for 55% AR tires and it showed , because of the large reserve of the tires , to be allowed that low pressures, even when lowering the maximum load of tires to the max.
http://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showth...39#post1504139
So for every car configuration you have to make its own advice.
Read there wich data are needed and give them here, and I will do the 3 calculations. Then we will see if your low pressures are save for the tires.
Speed and alighnment ( camber angle) also play a smaller role.
After 2000 , to my opinion because of the Ford/Firestone affaire, higher advices are given, as overreaction to the 100 death, mostly courced by tire-damage, that has falled because of this affaire.
But what they discovered is in that affaire is that the maximum load on sidewall on low AR tires ( Aspect ratio = Hight/width division for instance 40 in 235/40R16) is to high calculated to laws of nature.
To prefent me from doing the whole story again, read next topic on European Volvo forum where I made a calculation for 55% AR tires and it showed , because of the large reserve of the tires , to be allowed that low pressures, even when lowering the maximum load of tires to the max.
http://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showth...39#post1504139
So for every car configuration you have to make its own advice.
Read there wich data are needed and give them here, and I will do the 3 calculations. Then we will see if your low pressures are save for the tires.
Last edited by jadatis; Oct 24, 2013 at 04:44 AM.
Junior Member
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 42
Likes: 4
From: Greenville, SC
2013 W166, 2014 W212, 2011 W212, 2004 W211
2004 Filler Door Label
Here is the label on my 2004 E320 (with 16" wheels)
I find it hard to believe that from 2003-2004 the front tire pressure recommendation would change that much.
Possibly a mis-print?
