Mercedes offers its lighter 20" AMG wheels for the '08 S63/CL63 with the $7K AMG Performance Option. However, the standard 20" AMG wheels are the only wheels offered to US customers on the heavier '07/'08 S65/CL65 models. Do any of you know for a fact if the higher weight up-front of the Bi-Turbo V12s is the reason why these lighter AMG 20" wheels are not offered by Mercedes on these other models? Because these optional wheels might have difficult staying undamaged in normal used due to weight issues? Thus, if that is true, this is one MODIFICATION one should NOT do - install the lighter 20" AMG wheels on a S65/CL65 or the equally heavy S600/CL600 - for SAFETY reasons. Correct? Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. Z356

 

The old S65 had 19" Wheels because its brakes were too big for 18".

S63 Curb weight 4,663 lb (estimated)
S65 Curb weight 5,035 lb (estimated)

Using that logic, basically if Rosie O Donnell and Roseanne Barr (easily more than 400lbds between them) took a lift in an S63 it would just be as dangerous as an S65 or indeed more so as killing yourself would likely be preferably to having them in the car for any length of time.

I suspect it might just be marketing ?

 

Mmmm: R & R - now that is dangerous...and not only because they each weight a ton! Their banter would be enough to drive one off the road...on purpose! Back to AMG wheels, I don't think its marketing. If anything, they should put the more unique & expensive wheels on their top of the line S65 or CL65, not their mid-tier S63. I think its a 'warranty' related issue. They don't want to replace these costly wheels when hairline fractures on the heavier V12 vehicles are found in routine inspections at dealers after some miles are put on these cars. Or the liability if one is cracked and blamed for an accident! They must have done extensive testing with various wheels/tires on their test mules before making these critical decisions. But I want other 'experts' in this forum to chime in with their opinions. Z356

 

Interesting question....

Would observe '08 CL65 in all the published test reviews I saw had the CL63 030 wheels....MBUSA mysteriously chose the S65 wheels (a deal-killer for a couple of repeat CL63/65 buyers I know) for CL65 in US....(and the wood steering wheel for US mkt).....

Doubt the wt issue is valid....passenger and cargo wt variances are signif....and any wheels would need to be strong enough to withstand often poor US urban pavement (where prob 60%+ of world's S/CL63/65s are driven)....and US' capitalist lawyers would enjoy targeting MB if failure rates are unusual....and/or result in accidents w/higher net worth drivers being litigated....

I suspect the larger unknown is what is shape of decay curves of these perf tires/wheels/brakes under typical use on urban US pavement.....i.e., to what degree is a CL63/65 w/10-15K mis and original factory-installed tires/wheels/brakes less adept in emergent handling/braking (and avoiding a collision) than same car w/<5K mis???

Recall in late '90s, when mfrs were then first putting ?17" wheels on sedans while warning buyers in NYC region to avoid such wheels b/c of high risk of wheel deformation vs poor NYC pavement/potholes? Would suspect tech/strength/resilience of both perf tires and wheels has advanced signif in past 5yrs or so.....

Know many guys who commute daily w/cars w/20" perf tires/wheels (S/CL63/65 and Ferrari 599)....and haven't heard anecdotally of a higher incidence of flat tires/bent wheels vs late 90s when guys drove sportscars w/16"-17" girlie wheels/tires of that era....biggest complaint is that, if flat tire/wheel damage occurs, neither Ferrari nor AMG (nor Porsche) seems to reliably have replacement tires/wheels available overnt in CA (or in US) at any price