GLS63 not very AMG - Anyone Else Agree
SPONSOR
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,702
Likes: 178
Mercedes-Benz CLK 550
I agree, but 20 inchers aren't enough tire for that car.
Further, I don't like staggered because of the inability to rotate tires.
Even further, my car needs more front tire to balance the rear traction in the twisties.
It'll probably cost me several thousand dollars over the life of the car, because of the staggered setup and the differential wear, but that's what I signed up for so I'll live with it.
Further, I don't like staggered because of the inability to rotate tires.
Even further, my car needs more front tire to balance the rear traction in the twisties.
It'll probably cost me several thousand dollars over the life of the car, because of the staggered setup and the differential wear, but that's what I signed up for so I'll live with it.
Simple solution - RE INSTATE ONCE AGAIN THE ABILITY FOR "FRONT AND REAR WHEEL ALIGNMENT" allowing to adjust Camber (tire contact angles) to spread load more evenly.
Currently today's models there is only one fixed "showroom height" Camber setting ! No longer ongoing adjustment capability for varying conditions encountered in day to day commuting ! (see #40 above).
Last edited by K-Mac; Apr 6, 2024 at 11:20 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,987
Likes: 2,187
From: Colorado
'21 AMG53 wDPP & ARC, 19 GLC300 - Former-03 C240,2 ML BlueTecs,20 GLE450 E-ABC,15 Cayenne D,17 Macan
Simple solution - RE INSTATE ONCE AGAIN THE ABILITY FOR "FRONT AND REAR WHEEL ALIGNMENT" allowing to adjust Camber (tire contact angles) to spread load more evenly.
Currently today's models there is only one fixed "showroom height" Camber setting ! No longer ongoing adjustment capability for varying conditions encountered in day to day commuting ! (see #40 above).
Currently today's models there is only one fixed "showroom height" Camber setting ! No longer ongoing adjustment capability for varying conditions encountered in day to day commuting ! (see #40 above).
That's the reason they're set up that way.
There are trade-offs with decreased negative camber.
I wish you'd state those in your advertising posts.
Among them: you lose grip if you enjoy driving.
I agree that if you do mostly highway driving, you'll have more inner shoulder wear on your rear tires, and you will lose 3 - 5,000 mi of tire life, according to my measurements over several sets of tires.
I'm fine with that. I don't like the trade-offs.
SPONSOR
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,702
Likes: 178
Mercedes-Benz CLK 550
Yes fully agree - its not about reducing essential factory negative Camber !
It is about most owners under impression surely such a expensive auto with a long history simply must have basic front and rear ongoing Camber (and Caster) adjustment to resolve “EXCESS” edge tire wear leading to costly, premature replacement !
Yet OEM cost saving / increasing speed of assembly lines it has been deleted - “now owners” having to fund this premature tire replacement.
Thinking not dispelled “by dealers”. They often reassuring this belief - by stating “Will Carry Out A Full Front & Rear ‘4’ Wheel Alignment”.
Owners then bewildered - with dealers trying to placate by stating “IS WITHIN FACTORY SPECS” - when clearly it is not (neglecting to advise that “Yes it is but only at showroom height conditions”).
Example one or two passengers. But No adjustability for - Load carrying, No high cambered roads with excess passengers side edge wear, No wide profile tires, No curb knock damage and not for owners that do not take their SUV offroad and instead lower vehicle “roll center / height” - to improve Handling / Safety (many accidents result of swerving and “over correcting” due to height and excess roll).
It is about most owners under impression surely such a expensive auto with a long history simply must have basic front and rear ongoing Camber (and Caster) adjustment to resolve “EXCESS” edge tire wear leading to costly, premature replacement !
Yet OEM cost saving / increasing speed of assembly lines it has been deleted - “now owners” having to fund this premature tire replacement.
Thinking not dispelled “by dealers”. They often reassuring this belief - by stating “Will Carry Out A Full Front & Rear ‘4’ Wheel Alignment”.
Owners then bewildered - with dealers trying to placate by stating “IS WITHIN FACTORY SPECS” - when clearly it is not (neglecting to advise that “Yes it is but only at showroom height conditions”).
Example one or two passengers. But No adjustability for - Load carrying, No high cambered roads with excess passengers side edge wear, No wide profile tires, No curb knock damage and not for owners that do not take their SUV offroad and instead lower vehicle “roll center / height” - to improve Handling / Safety (many accidents result of swerving and “over correcting” due to height and excess roll).
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,987
Likes: 2,187
From: Colorado
'21 AMG53 wDPP & ARC, 19 GLC300 - Former-03 C240,2 ML BlueTecs,20 GLE450 E-ABC,15 Cayenne D,17 Macan
Yes fully agree - its not about reducing essential factory negative Camber !
It is about most owners under impression surely such a expensive auto with a long history simply must have basic front and rear ongoing Camber (and Caster) adjustment to resolve “EXCESS” edge tire wear leading to costly, premature replacement !
Yet OEM cost saving / increasing speed of assembly lines it has been deleted - “now owners” having to fund this premature tire replacement.
Thinking not dispelled “by dealers”. They often reassuring this belief - by stating “Will Carry Out A Full Front & Rear ‘4’ Wheel Alignment”.
Owners then bewildered - with dealers trying to placate by stating “IS WITHIN FACTORY SPECS” - when clearly it is not (neglecting to advise that “Yes it is but only at showroom height conditions”).
Example one or two passengers. But No adjustability for - Load carrying, No high cambered roads with excess passengers side edge wear, No wide profile tires, No curb knock damage and not for owners that do not take their SUV offroad and instead lower vehicle “roll center / height” - to improve Handling / Safety (many accidents result of swerving and “over correcting” due to height and excess roll).
It is about most owners under impression surely such a expensive auto with a long history simply must have basic front and rear ongoing Camber (and Caster) adjustment to resolve “EXCESS” edge tire wear leading to costly, premature replacement !
Yet OEM cost saving / increasing speed of assembly lines it has been deleted - “now owners” having to fund this premature tire replacement.
Thinking not dispelled “by dealers”. They often reassuring this belief - by stating “Will Carry Out A Full Front & Rear ‘4’ Wheel Alignment”.
Owners then bewildered - with dealers trying to placate by stating “IS WITHIN FACTORY SPECS” - when clearly it is not (neglecting to advise that “Yes it is but only at showroom height conditions”).
Example one or two passengers. But No adjustability for - Load carrying, No high cambered roads with excess passengers side edge wear, No wide profile tires, No curb knock damage and not for owners that do not take their SUV offroad and instead lower vehicle “roll center / height” - to improve Handling / Safety (many accidents result of swerving and “over correcting” due to height and excess roll).
But to your point, reducing camber would increase the likelihood of oversteer, which, in the hands of most drivers, would be the wrong response from an automobile.
I don't know if "Speed of Assembly" has anything to do with handling design.
It's only in the last 10 years or so, that Mercedes has paid much attention to their rear suspensions.
In previous years, it seemed that they only used the rear suspenses to keep the bumper off the ground (overstatement), but now the rear suspension actually contributes significantly to handling.
By feel, it seems like the 167 chassis has incorporated a lot more rear roll stiffness than previous versions.
That's actually a big reason I own one - both ends of the car grip the road in a balanced manner, which is new to this chassis.
Otherwise, I would be in a different brand.
Last edited by mikapen; Apr 9, 2024 at 12:29 PM.
SPONSOR
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,702
Likes: 178
Mercedes-Benz CLK 550
As set out / explained above - it is not about changing factory / OEM specs. NO IT IS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO “RESTORE / GO BACK” TO THESE SPECS !
Re "Speed of assembly" versus "handling design" - can assure cost plays a major role - Stopping to carry out front Camber (and Caster) along with rear Camber is no longer a option (a secret not readily passed onto owners they now having to prematurely fund purchase of new tires).
Some AMG models to placate owners (Rear suspension only) wedge plates are fitted. Which does not entail stopping of assembly line. Then “offset” plates can be purchased - but inaccurate / not adjustable. Allowing only 3/16" (4mm) one degree Camber change.
We saw the need to FIX IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. Manufacturing "replacement kits" for all these AMG models and including extra rear Toe adjustment to compensate.
Up to 4 times adjustment range Positive or Negative and PRECISE EASILY ACCESSIBLE SINGLE WRENCH - ULTIMATE direct on ALIGNMENT RACK / UNDER LOAD.
Like all K-MAC kits no special tools or need for arm removal.
AUDI to VOLVO - K-MAC Experience Of Resolving OEM Suspension Shortcomings Since 1964 !
Re "Speed of assembly" versus "handling design" - can assure cost plays a major role - Stopping to carry out front Camber (and Caster) along with rear Camber is no longer a option (a secret not readily passed onto owners they now having to prematurely fund purchase of new tires).
Some AMG models to placate owners (Rear suspension only) wedge plates are fitted. Which does not entail stopping of assembly line. Then “offset” plates can be purchased - but inaccurate / not adjustable. Allowing only 3/16" (4mm) one degree Camber change.
We saw the need to FIX IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. Manufacturing "replacement kits" for all these AMG models and including extra rear Toe adjustment to compensate.
Up to 4 times adjustment range Positive or Negative and PRECISE EASILY ACCESSIBLE SINGLE WRENCH - ULTIMATE direct on ALIGNMENT RACK / UNDER LOAD.
Like all K-MAC kits no special tools or need for arm removal.
AUDI to VOLVO - K-MAC Experience Of Resolving OEM Suspension Shortcomings Since 1964 !
Last edited by K-Mac; Apr 10, 2024 at 05:24 AM.
Newbie
Joined: Apr 2025
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
GLS 63, GLE 53
Im sure its a technically better suspension set up but mine wanders around the road if it’s remotely windy, needing constant steering correction, the crosswind assist thingy worked way better in the 166 or the larger staggered tyres, bigger car etc are not doing the 167 any favours.
I agree it’s powerful but isn’t responsively powerful, it has to be wound up, so the MHEV isn’t providing that instant power they’re meant to, and the exhaust whilst loud isnt AMG pop and bang theatre like it was in the 166, probably because of emissions regs and MHEV.
It just doesn’t feel dynamic, it isnt plush enough to be luxurious at the very pinnacle of luxury SUV ownership so it feels a bit undecided what it wants to be, and for me here in the UK the staggered tyre set up isn’t working, far too fidgety.
I expected this to be my best AMG by miles, but so far it’s my worst by miles.
Carl
I agree it’s powerful but isn’t responsively powerful, it has to be wound up, so the MHEV isn’t providing that instant power they’re meant to, and the exhaust whilst loud isnt AMG pop and bang theatre like it was in the 166, probably because of emissions regs and MHEV.
It just doesn’t feel dynamic, it isnt plush enough to be luxurious at the very pinnacle of luxury SUV ownership so it feels a bit undecided what it wants to be, and for me here in the UK the staggered tyre set up isn’t working, far too fidgety.
I expected this to be my best AMG by miles, but so far it’s my worst by miles.
Carl
