When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Greetings from Switzerland. I have read many wide tire posts for the W220 but have failed to get all the info in one place and really never got the complete picture. I did very much appreciate the info from Welwynnick who posts some of the more detailed material I have read on this topic. Nick by the way inspired me to try 275s up front.
RIMS: I feel 19 inch is the absolute best compromise between style, comfort and maintaining your rim in decent shape. 20" might look just a bit nicer but you will be very unhappy every time you damage them, something that WILL happen very often because of the necessarily really low profile tires needed for 20"s, which by the way will also make comfort suffer. Comfort with 19" is pretty decent (I have Air-matic on a 2004 cdi 320), but only with slightly lower tire pressure like 2,1 or 2,2. Additionally I also feel that staggered does not look as good as four equal rims, particularly when you have a lip or a concave rim. Then the width size difference is highly apparent. But the good news is that, as Nick already pointed out, there is quite a lot of space up front so if you go 19X9.5 all around you will be absolutely fine. The trick is in the off-set (the ET). Here I have found that 19X9.5 ET40 front and rear will work fine with absolutely no rubbing issues or need for fender rolling (see my pics attached). ET 40 will give you about 1 cm from complete flush at the front (I could fit a pencil) while about 1,5 cm from complete flush at the back (I could fit a finger) with the tires I mention below. This is one point where I disagree with Nick who often mentions ET 43 or 44 (so the rim and tire being further in). In fact in the back to have an even closer flush you could go with ET37 or 38. But honestly the fact of having four equal rims (19x9.5 ET40) gives you the option of rotating rims, particularly if one of them is not perfectly balanced or has a slight wobble....then having the option of putting it at the back is usually very useful to avoid steering wheel vibration. This you cannot do with staggered wheels.
TIRES: For 19" all we see on most threads is 275/35 rear and 245/40 front, repeated over and over. Is that the end of the road on max width? After reading Nick I proceeded to install my rear 275/35/19 Falken on the front and they fit no problem (the turned tire photo shows the 275 up front). On the rear I placed some massive 285/35/19 Hankook's (see back of car photo)...and what do you know no rubbing front or rear....BUT again the trick is the off-set of the rim, and with these tires ET 40 works perfectly. Now talking of "rim saving properties" the back 285 has some margin to the 9.5 rim and will save you on the sidewalk parking. On the other hand the 275 up front is only as wide as the rim and leaves almost no protection against the curb....but putting a 285 up front to save your rims up front is also, I think, not a good idea. In fact handling is my next point. While the 285 at the back did not change the feel of the car compared to having 275s at the back, the front is a different story. And here again I don't want to disagree with Nick but I just want to say that it's probably a question of driving styles and engine weight (he has an S600). I feel that with the 275s up front my car got a bit heavier and harder to steer quickly (I have also been trying desperately to get a smaller diameter steering wheel, but that's another story) . I also have the feeling that the suspension and ball joints might be a tad more under stress with 275 in front. On the other hand the power steering seems to have no issues at all in moving the bigger set up during parking. Now there is also talk of ECU issues with different overall wheel diameters, not to mention cars with 4matic where it's extremely important that if there is any difference between front and rear rotation diameter, then it really has to be minimal. Here are the overall diameters:
-- 245/40/19 front 679 cm & 275/35/19 rear 675 cm = difference of 4mm
-- 245/40/19 front 679 cm & 285/35/19 rear 682 cm = difference of 3mm
-- 275/35/19 front 675 cm & 285/35/19 rear 682 cm = difference of 7mm
I am currently running the third set up with the 7 mm difference and I have no ECU or other code error on my screen, so all good there. But again I don't have a 4Matic vehicle. If I did I would rather opt for the first or second set-up, just to minimize the overall circumference difference of the outer diameter, as having more difference may damage the all wheel drive system. In my case I will be trying the second set up soon as I want to try and improve the agility in corners. Will update once I do that.
Here are the promised photos:
I owned a 2006 W220 S65 for 9 years and drove it 70,000 miles. I kept the factory 19" wheels but after the first tire change I put 255/40-19 on the front and 285/35-19 on the rear. They fit with no problems, the front was very close but only at full lock. The car rode and handled better than with the stock sizes. Tire pressures were critical to the best combination of ride and handling. The S65 weighed 4,900 lb. I used 45psi front, 38psi rear. Your 320CDi likely needs slightly different pressures (I will let you convert them to Bars), but these S class cars all steer and handle much better with higher front pressures than rear. Higher front pressures also help slightly with the tendency to hydroplane on wet roads. I happened to use Continental tires and liked them, I am sure the equivalent Michelins would also be fine.
Your car looks a lot like mine which was Bordeaux with a Java interior. Yours might be Claret, hard to be sure from the pictures on the computer screen.
Yes, I settled on 275-30-20, but that was largely down to the availability of wheels (I used ML63 wheels on both cars) but I would have preferred 19's. 30 profile is rather low.
I don't think I would have gone all the way to 275's at the front with an airmatic car. The only reason I did it was because of ABC. 4 x 275-30-20 x ABC is a magic combination.
with 255 up front you have a difference of 5 mm on the circumference vs the 285 on the rear. See:
So that would also work well for our 2WD cars , on the other hand with the 4WD cars maybe the 3mm difference might be safer. My issue is more with the comfort as 45 psi equals a whooping 3,1 bar and already with 2,5 I had an uncomfortable ride which dramatically improved when I dropped to 2,1....however - as you say - the handling has suffered in the sense that on a roundabout one really has to manhandle that big steering to get the car to turn quick ....so will have to experiment between agility/handling vs. comfort.
Nick, pleasure to make you acquaintance....I've read all your posts (also elsewhere) and they were all very informative...thank you very much. I am now curious about why you think the air-matic is less apt to work well with the wider tire than ABC? What would be your suggestion? Many thanks, Pierre
Hi Pierre, my comments about ABC are down to roll angle. ABC keeps the car nearly horizontal and the wheels vertical in corners. That means the tire tread stays flat on the ground, and it grips better.
Nick has done extensive on the road testing with different wheel/tire combo's and I always look forward to learning something from Nick's posts. As regards my experience with the S65 keep in mind that the front is heavy and the tires were MB spec (Y) rated tires. Y rated tires are for speeds up to 186mph, when the Y is in brackets, (Y), the tires are rated for vehicle specific speeds in excess of 186MPH. These tires have very stiff sidewalls. The best ride with these tires is achieved when they have enough pressure to put more of the load on the tire center than on the sidewalls. Interestingly when the fronts were dropped below 40psi there was no ride improvement and the car handled awful. The MB spec (Y) rated tires are also extended load rated tires rather than standard load rated for their size. A Z rated tire will ride better at lower pressures that the (Y) rated tires. The W220 S65 also has different brakes and hubs than all the other S class cars and the stock wheel offsets are different than the 40/40 in the posting above. This can affect the clearances with the larger tires. My new W222 S65 came with 255/40-20F and 285/35-20R, it weighs 100lb more than the W220 but the best pressure setup is 44F, 36R. That is close to the MB recommendation. The 20" tires have a higher load rating than the 19's, likely causing the lower pressure settings.
All four of my current AMG's have (Y) tires, three cars have Conti's and one car has Michelin. I have the same staggered front/rear setup but each car optimizes at slightly different tire pressures.
I have no experience with an AWD with a square wheel/tire setup. Our E63S is AWD with staggered sizes, 265/35-20 front and 295/30-20 rear. It weighs 4,600lb, with a relatively light V8 in front. I think the wheels are a half inch wider than the S class wheels. Putting 40% of the power through the front wheels has a big impact on the feel of the car but I ended up at almost the same pressures as on the old S65. MB recommends 51F/42Rpsi for speeds in excess of 155 on the E63S, I tried it, the ride is unacceptable in daily driving.
Thanks Tom, yes you're right, aside from the actual size of the tire speed (letter) and load (number) ratings are important though I fear that going with (Y) tires for the highest speed rating possible results also, as you yourself say, in the stiffest sidewall which in my mind means also a harsher ride. My front 275/35 Falken tires are 96 Y (photos further down to compare) and as I said, even with lower pressure, the ride is harsh and the steering is heavy. I can imagine that (Y) is even harsher. So from the table below I rather opt for V, Z or W.
As promised for the front I therefore went back down to 245/40/19 in my quest for agility and comfort, yet not compromising too much on the wide and flush look. The results are positive. . I'm happy to report that with 245/40 tires on the 9.5 rim the stretch is minimal and the flush remains good thanks to the ET40. See photos below. Though I lost in width I gained in tire height (from 35 sidewall back to 40) and the rating is 98 W XL so for slightly lower speeds. The tire is a Delinte Thunder (as I like the directional V design which seems less commonly available these days). Anyway I can report that with this combo and 2,2 bar (31 psi) comfort is back to normal and agility is restored yet the wide look is not compromised. For other readers keep in mind that Tom's S 65 had a V12 engine while I have a straight 6 diesel and even if LWB it's obvious that I have much less weight on my tires. In other words the V8 versions would probably fall somewhere in between my car and Tom's in terms of required tire load index and air pressure requirements.
245/45/19 on 9.5 ET40 rim - minimal stretch 245/40/19 on 9.5 ET40 rim - still gives good flush
Tom, that sign sure put a smile on my face. And by the way I notice your list of current and former vehicles.... in moving from 140 to 220 to 221 to 222 would you always say newer is always better or not necessarily?
Austin, nice lowered ride you have there, very nice in fact, ...can you tell us the off-set (ET) of your rims and if you had to fender roll or not.
Tom, that sign sure put a smile on my face. And by the way I notice your list of current and former vehicles.... in moving from 140 to 220 to 221 to 222 would you always say newer is always better or not necessarily?
Austin, nice lowered ride you have there, very nice in fact, ...can you tell us the off-set (ET) of your rims and if you had to fender roll or not.
Thank you!
I believe the offset is +40 or close to that. I didn't have to roll the fenders but I am running 10mm spacers all the way around to achieve my desired flushness.
Thanks, so if you have 10 mm spacers with ET 40, that would mean you actually are running an ET 30 off-set which is pretty extreme for non rolled fenders. Appreciate if the next time you remove a rim you actually let us know the exact ET (should be stamped on the inside). It may even be on the papers you may have gotten when you bought the rims. Let us also know the size of the tires please.
Thanks, so if you have 10 mm spacers with ET 40, that would mean you actually are running an ET 30 off-set which is pretty extreme for non rolled fenders. Appreciate if the next time you remove a rim you actually let us know the exact ET (should be stamped on the inside). It may even be on the papers you may have gotten when you bought the rims. Let us also know the size of the tires please.
I'll be sure to get that offset measurement next time I'm working on the car.
The tires are 245/30/20
Pier873, we have owned in S class only a W220 and a W222. The W222 S65 is a great improvement over the W220 2006 S65. However in an absolute sense there was nothing bad about the 2006 that I would be unhappy owning it today.
Our first SL was an R129 SL600, next was an R230 SL600. Absolutely no comparison, the 2005 was far better in every way, would not want the R129 back. We have both a 2009 R230 and a 2017 R231 in the garage right now. I would say the improvements were evolutionary, all for the better but I still enjoy driving the 2009. Both are V12's. The 2017 SL65 is the car I drive most of the time.
The E class AMG's were a different story. We really liked our 2007 E63 with the 6.2L NA engine. We sold it and bought a 2014 E63S. The only thing better about that car was the AWD system. Every day we drove it we wished we still had the 2007. It was the only car in 15 years we had leased and were happy the day we gave it back. The 2018 E63S is a mixed bag. It is a vastly improved technological marvel. It is a brute of a performance car. The problem is it is always a brute of a performance car, there is no setting that allows it to be a luxury performance car. Four out of five times my wife goes somewhere she takes the 2009 SL600 rather than the E63S.
07-29-2020, 02:49 PM
