 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / November 2006195/65/15 vs 185/65/15 winters on 190E
I've got to put some new winter tires on my 190E .... it uses 185/65/15 tires .... however, been thinking of using 195/65/15 because these will also be good on my 300E in future.... will the slightly wider tires be OK on the 190E? or would the slightly narrower tires be better on the 300E later? - thanks for any pointers guenter 195-65R15 is an acceptable tire size when compared to factory 185-65R15. Dimensionwise it is 2.12% larger than original size... and is within 3% limit. >195-65R15 is an acceptable tire size when compared to factory 185-65R15. >Dimensionwise it is 2.12% larger than original size... and is within 3% >limit. I've heard 2% not 3% as the limit to stay within but it's probbaly not that critical. Size Sidewall Radius Diameter Circumference Revs/mi Revs/km Diff 185/65-15 4.73/120mm 12.23/310mm 24.47/621mm 76.87/1952mm 824 512 195/65-15 4.99/126mm 12.49/317mm 24.98/634mm 78.48/1993mm 807 501 2.05% 195/60-15 4.61/117mm 12.11/307mm 24.21/615mm 76.07/1932mm 832 517 -1.06%  SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >195-65R15 is an acceptable tire size when compared to factory 185-65R15. >Dimensionwise it is 2.12% larger than original size... and is within 3% >limit. ..... good to know Tiger! Thanks for that cheers, guenter >I've got to put some new winter tires on my 190E .... it uses 185/65/15 >tires .... however, been thinking of using 195/65/15 because these will also >be good on my 300E in future.... will the slightly wider tires be OK on the >190E? or would the slightly narrower tires be better on the 300E later? You want more narrow, if anything, snow tires than your regular tires, not wider. The 10 mm bewteeen 185/65-15 and 195/65-15 isn't going to make much difference though. Go for it. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >>I've got to put some new winter tires on my 190E .... it uses 185/65/15 >>tires .... however, been thinking of using 195/65/15 because these will also [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The 10 mm bewteeen 185/65-15 and 195/65-15 isn't going to make much difference >though. Go for it. OK, I will - thanks. re narrower being better in snow.... still a bit uncertain though. Narrower (more force/area) will 'cut' through snow better OTOH, surely Wider tires may provide more friction on ice (I'm guessing that the friction coefficient may be greater - ie. coeff x weight = Frict Force) .....maybe it's just wishful thinking. cheers, guenter If you buy the Nokian Snow tires... you don't have to go narrower... they are that awesome. I think stock size of older MBs is narrow enough. I prefer to go wider for other three seasons. >If you buy the Nokian Snow tires... you don't have to go narrower... they >are that awesome. I think stock size of older MBs is narrow enough. > >I prefer to go wider for other three seasons. Agreed. Blizzaks are almost as good, they're just noisier on dry roads. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >>The 10 mm bewteeen 185/65-15 and 195/65-15 isn't going to make much difference >>though. Go for it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the friction coefficient may be greater - ie. coeff x weight = Frict Force) >.....maybe it's just wishful thinking. Well, that's the theory anyway. I have 235/55-16 Blizzak on my 126 way-stupid wide and they stull cut through snow just fine - as long as it was fresh powder. They were rock solid then but on wet slushy stuff not as good. And in the rain not much better than stock MXV4s (which are particularly good in the wet) SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >Well, that's the theory anyway. I have 235/55-16 Blizzak on my 126 >way-stupid wide and they stull cut through snow just fine - as long >as it was fresh powder. They were rock solid then but on wet slushy >stuff not as good. And in the rain not much better than stock MXV4s >(which are particularly good in the wet) I am a bit suprised at your observations... the wider tire should have (from theory) better traction on slushy/wet stuff I would have thought because there are more 'sipes' (spelling?) exposed. Isn't it these sipes that provide the friction - ie traction in slush/ice etc - and the more sipes the larger the friction coefficient between tires and road. cheers, guenter > OK, I will - thanks. re narrower being better in snow.... still a bit > uncertain though. Narrower (more force/area) will 'cut' through snow better > OTOH, surely Wider tires may provide more friction on ice (I'm guessing that > the friction coefficient may be greater - ie. coeff x weight = Frict Force) > .....maybe it's just wishful thinking. You want narrower tires all around for winter driving. You don't get more traction on ice from wider tires, because the vehicle still weighs the same. In effect, you get less traction because the weight of the vehicle is spread over a wider area, therefore the "weight per square inch" or whatever is less. I ran the Michelin non-performance studless (Artic Alpin or something like that) for a couple of winters and they seemed fine. I didn't wreck my car, at least. ;) > I am a bit suprised at your observations... the wider tire should > have (from theory) better traction on slushy/wet stuff I would have thought > because there are more 'sipes' (spelling?) exposed. Isn't it these sipes > that provide the friction - ie traction in slush/ice etc - and the more sipes > the larger the friction coefficient between tires and road. The sipes provide traction by changing the surface of the tire to effectively reduce the surface area of the tire. -tom! -- >> I am a bit suprised at your observations... the wider tire should >> have (from theory) better traction on slushy/wet stuff I would have thought [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The sipes provide traction by changing the surface of the tire to >effectively reduce the surface area of the tire. Aha! didn't know that .... thought that these 'sipes' were kind of like little 'suction cups' ... sort of. Can't quite see though why these squiggly 'cuts' in the rubber - which the sipes essentially are - would effectively reduce the tires surface area..... would have thought the opposite in fact. cheers, guenter > Aha! didn't know that .... thought that these 'sipes' were kind of like > little 'suction cups' ... sort of. Can't quite see though why these squiggly > 'cuts' in the rubber - which the sipes essentially are - would effectively > reduce the tires surface area..... would have thought the opposite in fact. Well, it depends on the road surface, but if we're talking about ice, then assume it's "perfectly smooth". Then realize that the sipes allow the tire tread to "flex", so the tire surface isn't smooth anymore, but in profile looks more like a saw. At this point, the contact between the saw-like tire tread and the perfectly-smooth ice has very little contact area, so the tires can actually cut in. Again, though, if you have more surface on the tire to begin with, the number of sipes that need to cut in is increased, and each of them individually gets less weight, so they don't cut in as well. I hope that makes some sense. -tom! -- Wrong on all counts. The sipes are designed to capture the snow or water... Traction comes from snow on snow... so by trapping snow in the sipes, it will grab onto snow. On ice, because tires tend to be warmer... it suck the water from surface and enable traction... sort of like tongue on fire hydrant. >Wrong on all counts. The sipes are designed to capture the snow or water... >Traction comes from snow on snow... so by trapping snow in the sipes, it >will grab onto snow. On ice, because tires tend to be warmer... it suck the >water from surface and enable traction... sort of like tongue on fire >hydrant. Tiger, makes sense. But that would mean that tires with more sipes, ie wider tires, would be better in snow/ice. But isn't it commonly accepted that winter tires should be narrower? still confused cheers, guenter > Wrong on all counts. The sipes are designed to capture the snow or water... > Traction comes from snow on snow... Huh, http://www.websitecontentarticles.com/Article/Snow-Tires---A-Canadian-Must-Have/9613 http://www.generaltire.com/generator/www/us/en/generaltire/automobile/general/ne ws/conti_launch_052005_en.html http://www.carbibles.com/tyre_bible.html seem to indicate otherwise. None of the pages that popped up in my google search suggested that "snow on snow" was the way to create traction. -tom! -- >> Wrong on all counts. The sipes are designed to capture the snow or >> water... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -tom! The open tread on snow tires traps snow. Snow has greater traction on snow than rubber. Sipes do not capture snow or water. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.