W245 tyre choice

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

danclyon

Active Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Messages
178
Location
Longstanton, Cambridge
Car
W245 B180 CDI w/COMAND
SWMBO's B will shortly be needing new fronts. It's been running Falken ZE912's which have been a breath of fresh air compared to the cheese-like noisy Conti's that MB supplied it with - and have lasted almost twice as many miles....however, 912's are history and 914's are now the norm (and I read even more good things about them).

Got me to thinking though, looking at the way the load sits over the front tyres, even inflated to the correct pressures, there's a lot of outward pressure on the side-walls which tends to make the tyre look like it is very under-inflated.

Anyone got any views on running them on XL rated tyres with stiffer side-walls? Would it make a massive difference to the handling? (not that imho you could make it much worse!)

I've been looking at Hankook Ventus Prime 2 (come in normal and XL versions) that seem to be better on fuel economy and wet grip than the new Falkens (only slightly) but want to change all 4 to be the same tyres so it's stick with or move. Opinions welcome.....

Cheers,
Dan.
 
tyres with stiffer side-walls? Would it make a massive difference to the handling?

Stronger sidewall will provide more of an instant turn in together with more feel through the wheel, on the rear it will prevent the rear from wondering around (sway/shuffle) when on a motorway or twisty A road, also less likely to go misshaped & more progressive when on its limit, however, it will provide a slightly more bumpy ride...

You need to compare the load rating as this will also effect the strength of the walls..
 
Stronger sidewall will provide more of an instant turn in together with more feel through the wheel, on the rear it will prevent the rear from wondering around (sway/shuffle) when on a motorway or twisty A road, also less likely to go misshaped & more progressive when on its limit, however, it will provide a slightly more bumpy ride...

You need to compare the load rating as this will also effect the strength of the walls..

Given the ride on all B-Class is at best un-refined, I don't think I'm too worried about that - it's crashy and noisy anyway - and it's not the sport!

Load rating I have covered, the Falkens are more than the Conti's anyway and the others i've been looking at are the same or better....

Cheers for the input.

Dan.
 
I ran both Falkens and the Hankook Ventus on my Saab 9-5, the Hankook were a better tyre overall, the 97 rated sidewall gave a much better steering feel and more stability on the motorway. I found them to be a very good tyre in all conditions.
 
Thanks for the feedback - think we've got a couple of thousand miles max before I need to make the decision, but the steering on the B is wallowy at best, so the stiffer sides and load rating should go together to make it much more responsive :)
 
Previously run Falken 452s on my W245 and they lasted well and worked really well in rain and even snow. However next switch will probably be to hankook when the current rft tyres on the w246 wear out. Simply as their ratings are better.,
 
Given the ride on all B-Class is at best un-refined, I don't think I'm too worried about that - it's crashy and noisy anyway - and it's not the sport!

Dan.

Interesting! I am currently driving the Sport W245 180CDi and yes, the suspension is a bit stiff, but far from crashy, considering the number of pot holes in our current roads. My last set on the front were Pirelli Nero Zero and weren't bad, my current tyres are Uniroyal and are certainly equal to the Pirelli's. The sizes are 215/45/17, guessing yours are 16".
 
I have to agree my w245 was 200CDI Sport with the AMG 18" wheels and while a bit noisier then previous cars ride was pretty good. But then historically both my cars in the house always run quite firm setups.

If anything being now in 18" RFT the ride is far harsher and having to play dodge the pothole is a right pain.
 
Simply as their ratings are better.,

Question is, who's result's are you going to believe, as to date manufactures have carried out there own tests without an independent been involved...
 
True point I alwasy use event tyres who post the official ratings while I take them with a pinch of salt its a basic indicator kind like cars mpg official values. At same time I have compared them recently as friend fitted a set of kumhos to his a4 and going from his previous tyres the kumhos certianly have better grip, lower noise , time will tell on wear rate.

Another I'm a fan of are contis but at a price level falkens /kumhos work out better when you chew through tyres the way I do
 
Eagles

Anyone used the goodyear eagle F1's ? Any good? I need some new shoes soon and thinking of getting these instead of the usual Mich's!
 
Anyone used the goodyear eagle F1's ? Any good? I need some new shoes soon and thinking of getting these instead of the usual Mich's!

I've used them, excellent tyre but sadly does not last long.

Russ
 
+1 used F1s in past but they dont last very long. a Good alternative if you want goodyear are the NCT5 used them in past on my vags and lasted a long time plus gave good grip wet/dry
 
Have a look at the Kumho KU31s in 245. I've been running them on my C230 V6 sport pack for the last 7 years and on the wife's SLK230. They used to be competitively price but the prices have crept up in recent years as they've acquired a decent reputation. I can just about squeeze 20K out of the rears compared to 14K on the original Contis.
 
I always used Conti sport contact 2 on my old car (B170 sport) and have just put 4 Michelin CrossClimate+ on the "new" B180. Very early days, but they are quiet and smooth on the pockmarked roads of South London.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom