Mcfancy14

I have the 21's on my GLE but the fronts are smaller profile than the rears. Thus cannot rotate fronts to rear. I had rotated left to right on each axle but one tire place told me it's not necessary as you're really not getting any benefit of tread longevity. I can see his rationale ...has anyone else recvd credible feedback from a professional for this?

chassis

There is some logic to rotating tires on the same axle, if one believes (I do) that modern traffic flow prioritizes right turns and discourages left turns. The benefit of rotating on the same axle is likely small.

mikapen

Unless you have high negative camber. The V167 chassis sports LESS negative camber than the W166, so a same-axle swap may not be as unimportant as on the 166. With the 166, a same-axle rotation increased life by 25%, but it required dismounting tires if they are directional.

I'm watching tread wear to decide if it will be worth a dismount/rotation as the miles go on.

Mcfancy14

As an aside, I had a slow leak (screw from driveway) and went to have it patched....apparently these perellis have a foam liner inside the tire for noise deadening.... Sheesh

mikapen

That's a relatively new standard, and many manufacturers are building them.
On Mercedes MO tires they are designated MO-S (silent).

TexAg91

It's not just the 21's, it's the 20's too. I have the 20 inch, 10-spoke rims and they have the same tire size on all 4 corners...but have different wheel offsets front to rear. So to rotate front-to-rear, the tires still have to be dismounted and re-balanced - I did not know that when I purchased. That's not the case with the 19 inch rims (which I think look too small). For the life of me, I can't understand why MB would design in different front to rear wheel offsets. I mean, I get it with different width tires front to rear, but the same size? Love everything else about the GLE...but that one makes me scratch my head.

mikapen

I'm going to take a stab at this.
In the past, M-B has specified higher tire pressure in the rear, typically indicating that their designs prefer higher roll stiffness at the rear. This has been my experience at the track, too. And IMO negative rear camber was somewhat excessive for a highway vehicle, but also indicating a need for more cornering bite at the rear.

Now, they specify higher tire pressures in the front. It also appears that the negative rear camber has decreased with the new model. Together, this may indicate an increased roll stiffness up front, and the offset (tires more outward on the 167's) is part of that.

Taken together, the new chassis is such an improvement over the old, that I'll accept the differing offsets.
But all else being the same, I haven't liked staggered wheels, or different offsets, because of the tire rotation issues.

My hope is that the rears won't wear the inside of the tread as fast with less camber, which was my limiting tire life issue.

Mcfancy14

i noticed too that the gas cap settings for rear and front are same.... Given the price of these tires I'll be interesting to see if I can push at least 50k miles out of them given inability to rotate