195/65/15 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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%
--
Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

cheers, guenter
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard Sexton <See http://rs79.vrx.net for address> wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agreed. Blizzaks are almost as good, they're just noisier on dry roads.
--
Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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)
--
Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard Sexton <See http://rs79.vrx.net for address> wrote:

    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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guenter Scholz wrote:

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. ;)

The sipes provide traction by changing the surface of the tire to effectively reduce the surface area of the tire.
-tom!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guenter Scholz wrote:

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!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

wider tires, would be better in snow/ice. But isn't it commonly accepted that winter tires should be narrower?
still confused
cheers, guenter
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tiger wrote:

Huh,
http://www.websitecontentarticles.com/Article/Snow-Tires---A-Canadian-Must-Have/9613
http://www.generaltire.com/generator/www/us/en/generaltire/automobile/general/news/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!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.websitecontentarticles.com/Article/Snow-Tires---A-Canadian-Must-Have/9613
http://www.generaltire.com/generator/www/us/en/generaltire/automobile/general/news/conti_launch_052005_en.html
The open tread on snow tires traps snow. Snow has greater traction on snow than rubber. Sipes do not capture snow or water.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.