Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
'98 Mercedes SLK 230
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi there. I have a '98 SLK 230. Got it used - with about 20k miles and had those Continentals on it. I am not a rough driver, and these lasted around 20k miles - 'til 40k on the car. Read some stuff on this board, and ended up putting the Goodyear F1 GS-D3's on the rear and BF Goodrich (can't remember style) on the back. I know the Goodyear had a much higher tread rating than the Continentals, and I'm pretty sure the BFG were similar. Anyway, now my car has 51k miles, and the tire guy says I need four new tires. He did the alignment when I got them, and it drives fine (no pulling), but he says the inner edge is wearing thinner than the outer edge on some. I can't believe I supposedly bought better tires and have them wear out in much less time. Now I am so confused about what to do next. Any ideas and/or suggestions would be appreciated. By the way, I live in Orlando, FL.

Thanks,
Faith
 

·
Registered
SLK32, ML430
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Part of your frustration stems for your expectations of what better tires will deliver. You are at least partially defining better as longer tread life. Many people on this board define better as increased wet and dry grip and to a lesser extent noise.
 

·
Registered
1999 SLK230
Joined
·
592 Posts
I buy for treadwear as opposed to stickiness since I have a lil' 230. Falken Azenis ST-115's and Kumho ECSTA ASX both wear really well in an 18 inch size, at 360 and 420 respectively. If you need 17's or 16's there are a lot more choices out there. Always refer to UTQG rating ... the higher the number, the longer the treadlife.
 

·
Registered
2002 SLK 32 AMG, bone stock. 1987 190E 2.3-16 valve (destroyed). 2005 E320 new toy.
Joined
·
14,926 Posts
Check out Tire Rack's site, they can give you a good idea as to what to expect from a tire.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/types/maxperf.jsp
The Goodyears that you had were considered Maximum Performance Tires, and usually that equates to great traction and stopping ability, but poor tire life, they tend to wear out rapidly.
In Florida you should be able to run Summer tires all year, and unless you track the car, or drive like a nut case (that would be me) a lower tire rating will do nicely. Check out the Ultra High Performance Summer, and High Performance Summer tires. They cost less and usually last longer. The down side is that they can be somewhat noisier, and ride harder, as well as not sticking to the road quite as well.
I have Kumho ECSTA Supra 712's on my 16 Valve, and they seem to be pretty good tires, not as good as the F-1's you were running, but their life span is much better.
Use caution with the UTQG Treadwear Grades, they don't always translate from one manufacturer to another...
I quote:
The problem with UTQG Treadwear Grades is that they are open to some interpretation on the part of the tire manufacturer because they are assigned after the tire has only experienced a little treadwear as it runs the 7,200 miles. This means that the tire manufacturers need to extrapolate their raw wear data when they are assigning Treadwear Grades, and that their grades can to some extent reflect how conservative or optimistic their marketing department is. Typically, comparing the Treadwear Grades of tire lines within a single brand is somewhat helpful, while attempting to compare the grades between different brands is not as helpful.
See if you can find something you like, and if you have more questions, feel free to ask, someone here will be happy to help.
 

·
Registered
2001 SLK 230
Joined
·
1,226 Posts
I bought the nice Toyo's when I first bought my car. They lasted about 15k I now have some BF Goods on there I love em. I think they stick better than my toyo's did.

Depending on how you drive they will last longer or not. One small trick to test if you need new tires is to take a penny upside down and stick it in the tred. If you can see the top of abes head then you need new tires. Check your tire psi as well. Bad psi ratings can effect your tires a lot.
 

·
Registered
'98 Mercedes SLK 230
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Well, thanks for the replies. I know all about tirerack.com, and have looked there before. In fact, I know the tread rating was 340 for the Goodyears and is only like 160 for the Continentals which lasted twice as long, which of course doesn't make sense. I bought the Goodyears because I wanted a good sticky tire, but also one that would last a long time, which I didn't get. My problem is that the only guy who touched my car was the one who did the alignment/tires, etc. and I feel like that is the reason they wore so unevenly. If they wore evenly, they probably would have plenty of life in them (based on the 'good' edges). So, don't you think he should take some responsibility for ruining my tires due to the alignment? It's not like I kept the tires underinflated or stuff like that. So, why else would they have worn so unevenly?

THanks again...

P.S. Size of tires is 245/40/17 and 225/45/17 for an AMG - saw a post about Yokohama AVID A4s with 50k mileage guarantee, but they don't come in my size - any that do that anyone knows of?
 

·
Registered
'98 Mercedes SLK 230
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
p.p.s the BFGs were BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD, and the goodyears were Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3 - both a costlier tire than i'm willing to buy now...
 

·
Registered
'98 Mercedes SLK 230
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
What do you think of these?

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Kumho&tireModel=ECSTA+ASX&vehicleSearch=false&partnum=245WR7EASX&fromCompare1=yes
 

·
Registered
1999 SLK230
Joined
·
592 Posts
faithern - 2/11/2005 3:00 PM

What do you think of these?

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Kumho&tireModel=ECSTA+ASX&vehicleSearch=false&partnum=245WR7EASX&fromCompare1=yes
Those are the ones I referenced above. I have already driven a full summer season on mine (about 12,000 miles) and I can see they have at least one more season, if not more, left in them. The price was right too. I got mine from Discount Tire.

BTW, there are already several threads on here ... I have written a few myself about the UTQG "standard" not being a standardized test from manufacturer to manufacturer, or even tire to tire within the same brand. Unfortunately it is the end users best and only way to pass judgement on treadwear at this point. I find it to be much more accurate than polling other drivers due to the variation in car condition and driving styles.
 

·
Registered
2002 SLK 32 AMG, bone stock. 1987 190E 2.3-16 valve (destroyed). 2005 E320 new toy.
Joined
·
14,926 Posts
It would be very hard to point the finger at the guy who aligned the tires....

All he has to say is that you hit a pothole and he's in the clear, it doesn't matter if you did or not.... [B)]
If your tires are still reasonably useable consider pulling them off and reinstalling them reversed, so the good edge is on the inside. If they are as good as you say they are, you can still get some mileage out of them. The fact that the front and rear tires were/are mismatched could have caused an acceleration in wear in the fronts as well, it's hard to say. Toe-in would be the most likely problem, but if the original owner did some work on the car, it could be anything.
Kumho has a good reputation around here, and they are "cheap" at $90.00 a pop. It would be hard to do better on a cost per mile basis.
I suggest that you consider having the car aligned at a location that does track and race cars. Their equipment is usually better, and they can give you a full readout on the front end, it may prove helpful.
 

·
Registered
SLK32, ML430
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
faithern - 2/11/2005 2:01 PM

Well, thanks for the replies. I know all about tirerack.com, and have looked there before. In fact, I know the tread rating was 340 for the Goodyears and is only like 160 for the Continentals which lasted twice as long, which of course doesn't make sense. I bought the Goodyears because I wanted a good sticky tire, but also one that would last a long time, which
The Conti2's are 260 or 280, not 160. They are a fairly hard tire with fairly low grip.

The Good Year F1's are much lower than 340. They might be 240 if not lower.
 

·
Registered
2004 SLK32 AMG
Joined
·
807 Posts
430 - 2/12/2005 3:19 PM

The Conti2's are 260 or 280, not 160. They are a fairly hard tire with fairly low grip.

The Good Year F1's are much lower than 340. They might be 240 if not lower.
Not that it matters, the Conti2's and F1 GS-D3's both have ratings of 280 while the Pzero's, PS2's, and S03's have ratings of 220. Not that it matters since, like its been said already in this thread and many others, the tread wear ratings can't really be used for comparison between manufacturers...
 

·
Registered
'98 Mercedes SLK 230
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Thanks for all the replies...I am pretty sure I will go with the Kumho's via TireRack, and talked to a local installer that the site pointed me to, and he seemed great!

Faith
 

·
Registered
SLK230 Limited Editi
Joined
·
337 Posts
i have driven 124K in all conditions, on Michelin Pilot sport, bridgestone polepositions, and goodyear eagle F-1 GS-D3

The goodyear is the only tire to buy in my mind. They grip like glue in dry and wet, and don't hydroplane even in standing water at 70 mph, like those back road giant puddles i=on curves, etc.

They wear great....I got near 60k on my last set, which i replaced because because they were approaching thier wear bars and i wanted new tires for the season.

They are less expensive thatn the other when you consider wear. Besides, I'm not going to risk my life on lesser tires just to save a few bucks. I won't need an expensive casket if my tires fail at speed.

I got mine through Sears..I comparison shopped and went to them quote in hand. They beat it. I spent $180 per, about $900 installed, including road hazard.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top