Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
03G500,93400sel
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just received these from Fed-X, I was told they would fit a US 463. After looking at Harold’s rim list I think they are number 34.

They are some heavy steel rims
 

Attachments

·
Registered
03G500,93400sel
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
After going out and actually looking at them I think they are #2 on Harold’s list
6j x 16h2 with a ET 63

Sorry about the posting of two pics on my last post
 

Attachments

·
Registered
TJs, FJ40s, JGCs, G500
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
on second thought - if you like narrow wheel/tire combos and want to retain the stance of your G500 I recommend spacers.

Harald
 

·
Registered
230 G BGS 300G TDI
Joined
·
965 Posts
They will be great for cutting through soft surface or snow, but not sand. Handling could be interesting!
 

·
Registered
1980 LWB 280GE
Joined
·
3,504 Posts
What's correct ET by model?

The designed ET is determined by the axle design. By how far the wheel mounting flange is from the mid-point between the wheel bearings. In this I'm also presuming that "ET" is some abrviation that relates to the "offset" - or distance the mounting face is from the wheel width centerline.

I thought MB only had two basic designs of axles, one fitted to 460s and one fitted to 463s (can never remember which one the 461s had). And that while those two axle designs were different in the distance from hub face to bearing centerline, that there weren't variations on this distance within a particular vehicle series. I had thought that the "correct" ET for 460s was 63mm, and that for 463s it weas something smaller, like 48 or something (sorry, don't remember the number)

But the wheel list here:
http://www.rubicon-trail.com/G-Class/wheels/start.html
shows wheels with all kinds of ETs as being fitted to 460s AND 463s, and some really confusing things like the wheels with the same ET (63mm), some of them saying they're built for 460s, and others saying they require spacers for use on 460s.

HELP![:)]

I was about to say that the wheels shown in the picture were intended by MB for use on 460's, and that they'd need a spacer to properly (definition of properly being to put the tire centerline on the bearing centerline, in my case) fit the 463 that is designed for a wheel with less ET....but now I'm not sure.

Is there even a "majority" of 463s leaving the factory with a particular ET?

For purposes of this discussion I'd like to confine the things we're looking at to wheels that were designed by MB to be sold with each model so we don't get into splitting hairs on the definition of "fit".

-Dave G.
 

·
Registered
03G500,93400sel
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Just received these from Fed-X, I was told they would fit a US 463. After looking at Harold’s rim list I think they are number 34.

They are some heavy steel rims

Hey Mike just post the pictures and say you own the property and your gona break ground to turn it in to a shopping center next week

After going out and actually looking at them I think they are #2 on Harold’s list
6j x 16h2 with a ET 63


The people at tire rack said I could fit a 235/85/16, I think that is about a 31.7 inches high x 9.25 inches wide tire. My stock tire is 30.4 inches high & 10.4 inches wide… I think!
In that theory tires in this new rim should be 1.3 inches narrower???
Know my first thought was that the difference would be split between the inside and outside, meaning the tire would only sit inside a little more than a half inch. But I dint think that will be the case.
I got all 5 rims for $50 shipping (thought it could not hurt to try) even if I get them powder coated for $50 each I certainly cant complain about the cost.

I wont mind skinny BF MTs they will certainly improve my traction over stock tires.

Now its just the spacer issue I have to deal with.

Thanks for the help
 

·
Registered
1980 LWB 280GE
Joined
·
3,504 Posts
You're right, they're #2

You can see the part number 460 400 03 02 stamped in them at 3 o'clock in your close-up picture.

What it would take to make them "fit" a US-spec G500, depends on your definition of the term. Do they bolt up without any gross interference? I don't know - the main issue of concern would be one of brake caliper clearance, and bolt clearance - do your long lug bolts designed for thick aluminum wheels protrude through the hub flange and interfere with something on the back side of the hub - I know the bolts for alloy wheels foul the rear brake internals when used with steel wheels on a 460, but those have drum brakes and the interference issue might be aleviated on the 463 with rear discs.

Harald mentioned recommending you use a spacer to fit them on a 463. It seems that, with regard to a US spec 463 at least, the ET appears from Harald's wheel chart to be 43mm for that vehicle, so you'd need a 20 mm spacer in order for these 63mmET wheels to end up in the right place on the US 463 to not cause a change in handling characteristics.

But even that last bit is still a little up in the air in my mind, since I still don't understand the differences in the axle design between the 460, 463, and US spec 463 with regard to the ET that axle is designed for. I hope to be educated at least a little in this discussion.[:)]

-Dave G.
 

·
Registered
00 g500
Joined
·
2,289 Posts
RE: What's correct ET by model?

from memory...

all 460's all et37
all 463's all et63 (accept for MBUSA trucks... et43) which means there are 2 offsets available for the stock g500 18's. No change in axles... just rim offset.

That's why the MBUSA 7.5x18's "look" fine without spacers on the 460's.
 

·
Registered
1980 LWB 280GE
Joined
·
3,504 Posts
What were your old wheels?

I run 235/85s on this same wheel. The tires fit the wheels well, not a lot of stretching inward or outward of the sidewall between wheel and tread. And I can run reasonable street pressures (I think I ended up at 38 front and 36 rear) to get the tread flat on the road and wearing very evenly.

In order to tell what teh tire position will be in relation to your old tire is to know both the tire size, and which wheel, you're using on the truck now. (is it the #10 wheel on Harald's page?)

And all this is presuming you're talking about the '03G500 listed under your picture. My notes above are in relation to my '80 280 GE.

-Dave G.
 

·
Registered
1980 LWB 280GE
Joined
·
3,504 Posts
RE: What's correct ET by model?

ewalberg - 4/27/2005 5:13 PM

from memory...

all 460's all et37
all 463's all et63 (accept for MBUSA trucks... et43)....
Interesting. The steelies on my 460 sure seem to have a LOT more offset than 37mm. I'll have to check when I get home. Harald's page lists wheels with both 460 and 463 part numbers with 63mm offset, but only lists wheels with 460 part numbers (aluminum wheels) as 37/38 mm offset.

Curiouser and curiouser. :^)

-Dave G.
 

·
Registered
TJs, FJ40s, JGCs, G500
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
RE: What's correct ET by model?

all stock 460 steel wheels ET = 63 mm - 5.5" and 6" wide
all stock 460 alloy wheels ET = 37/38 mm - 5.5" and 7" wide

all stock 463 alloy wheels ET = 63 mm - 6" to 7.5" wide
all MBUSA 463 alloy wheels ET = 43 mm - 7.5" wide

AMG alloy wheels for 460 ET = 15 mm - 8" wide
AMG alloy wheels for 463 ET = 48/50 mm - 8" to 9.5" wide

all 460 axles have a track width of 1425 mm
all 463 axles have a track width of 1475 mm
all 463 (armored) axles have a track width of 1555 mm

why would you need spacers for some 463 wheels used on the 460?
If you use skinny tires like a 205R16 with a 6" wide wheel you won't need spacers.
If you use 7" or 7.5" wheels combined with wide tires you need spacers on the 460 because the tires would sit too far into the fender wells (due to the narrower axles - one inch narrower on each side than the 463) and would rub in turns. That's why the wider tires on the 460 were always combined with the 7" (ET 37 mm) alloy wheel.

Comprende?

Harald
 

Attachments

·
Registered
00 g500
Joined
·
2,289 Posts
RE: What's correct ET by model?

I want the wider armoured axles!!! That would be a cool conversion. Get the fat tire/wide stance with stock offset wheels... and get even beefier axles and wheel bearings on top of it all. to bad it'd probably cost more than the truck to convert.

So it looks like they basically widened the design of the 463 axle to match the cosmetics of the 460 axle with et37 where they were really designed for et63?... i'm assuming there were no axle changes to account for the offset change on the 460's from et63 to 37?
 

·
Registered
03G500,93400sel
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
A difference of .8 inches on each side, this along with skinner tires would make for a goofy looking rig

Maybe I will just slap one of these rims on just to see how it looks if I get a chance tomorrow, or if it even fits
 

·
Registered
G500, Land Rover Defender 110, Ford Mustang Boss 302, BMW R100GSPD Classic
Joined
·
53 Posts
These rims should bolt on directly to an older 463, but I don't think they will clear the front calipers on your G500 without spacers.

George
 

·
Registered
TJs, FJ40s, JGCs, G500
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
Since the G500 sits in front of my office window, I had to run the test.
It is exactly as George wrote: The 460 steel wheel do not fit over the 463 front calipers. The shape of the steel wheels (see cross section below) is very different than the 16" alloy wheels (they do fit fine). However, as proposed, add 50 mm spacers to the steel wheels to create enough clearance and move the narrower tires about flush with the fender flares.

First image shows the steel wheel cross section - image 2 shows a typical ally wheel cross section.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
G560, GSR 500
Joined
·
190 Posts
RE: What's correct ET by model?

4x4abc - 4/27/2005 6:35 PM

all 460 axles have a track width of 1425 mm
all 463 axles have a track width of 1475 mm
all 463 (armored) axles have a track width of 1555 mm

Harald
hmm, not to sure about that all.
first 463's without fenderflares came with a narrow axle (1425 mm), but 463 style. this is what i'm certain about. i've seen those axles myself.
furthermore the XXL G'S (frames with various bodyforms) based on 460 and 461 in 3120 mm and 3400 mm wheelbase have 1555 mm axles, but 460ty style (diffs and rotation direction). i'll check my armored one, but i'm sure it's only 1475 mm, and it's original mercedes.

this is what is known to public, but there are various other versions out there, i'm sure.

rgds
flo
 

·
Registered
03G500,93400sel
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Tanks for saving me the time Harold, I am sure there is some place I could just order the spacers or even have them made, and I don’t even mind the look of these steel rims, but I think it would just be easer to get a set of Chuck’s wheels. Even though I hate scraping the clear coat of new rims every time I sink a little. My current rims have a nice circular pattern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
RE: What's correct ET by model?

If you use 7" or 7.5" wheels combined with wide tires you need spacers on the 460 because the tires would sit too far into the fender wells (due to the narrower axles - one inch narrower on each side than the 463) and would rub in turns. That's why the wider tires on the 460 were always combined with the 7" (ET 37 mm) alloy wheel.
Comprende?
Harald
I dont get this this theory!

I use the stock 5,5"/16" rims to run 315/75/16 tires and would never eaven think about using spacers!

The difference is that instead of mounting the bigger tires on far to narrow rim and then fight some of the bad results by using spacers (that in my opinion should only exist as a emergency device to get home on 460 with a 463 spare)I widened the 5.5" rim on the outside to 9,5" and that is an ideal size for eaven wear and good handling of the 315 tire.
The wider rim also moves the inside of the thread outward relative to stock width rim of same backspace without using spacers.
This setup and no suspension or body lift result in same higway comfort as on the 205 tires.
The tires rub the anti sway bar and radius arm at full turn and some winding but that is a little price relative to fighting wrong steering and rim/tire geometry.

I recomend you to use rim/tire setup that gives you similar proportion of the thread on either side of the steering axis as you find it on the hub drawing that Harald posted here.
And avoid mounting a big tire on those skinny rims.
(there is no such thing as 205/120/16 [}:)] and if it were, -I would stay out of it!)

I noticed that the drawing did not show the lover part of the hub/tire. but that picture is availibel if you search under lift and/or caster
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top