1993 400E AMG Wheels

[Blacklightning]

Gentlemen:

I've treated my 1993 400E (with 11,000 Miles) to a new set of Shoes in the form of four mid-1990's AMG 2-Piece Wheels and a set of Michelin Pilot Sport All Season 225/45ZR17 Tires. The wheels were sourced from the UK several months ago and were refurbished there by a specialist before they were sent to me. They are the correct size and offset for the 124 chassis, 17 x 7.5 x 42 mm Offset, in accordance with all of the published information on the subject.

I'm finally getting around to installing them on the car and to my dismay the front calipers foul the back side of the center-section even after assurances from the chaps in the UK that this wheel would mount right up without any mods at all.

I recall several years ago that I inquired of the Mercedes dealer here in Atlanta about fitting a wider set of OEM 15" MB Wheels to this chassis and the answer was that I'd have to change out the Calipers to the later 1994/1995 version 124 Chassis components to avoid this interference. Does anyone on the Forum have any experience with a similar issue trying to fit these wheels to a 1992 or 1993 400E? Did the later Brake Calipers cure the problem?

There's also the possibility of using Spacers, but I don't want to chance having the tires foul the inner fenders.

Any advice would be graciously received.

Cheers,

George Jr.

 

[sheward]

Hi, George. Good to hear from you. Unfortunate about the wheels. How much additional clearance is needed? I'm sure others here will know if there is a dimensional difference in late vs. early calipers. Outside of that, 2 or 3mm spacers can be used while still having enough hub length to center the wheel. I have some and you are welcome to try them if there is no difference in the calipers.

 

[Blacklightning]

Hi Drew - I will ring you Friday to discuss.

Cheers,

George Jr

 

[Jlaa]

Gentlemen:

I've treated my 1993 400E (with 11,000 Miles) to a new set of Shoes in the form of four mid-1990's AMG 2-Piece Wheels and a set of Michelin Pilot Sport All Season 225/45ZR17 Tires. The wheels were sourced from the UK several months ago and were refurbished there by a specialist before they were sent to me. They are the correct size and offset for the 124 chassis, 17 x 7.5 x 42 mm Offset, in accordance with all of the published information on the subject.

I'm finally getting around to installing them on the car and to my dismay the front calipers foul the back side of the center-section even after assurances from the chaps in the UK that this wheel would mount right up without any mods at all.

I recall several years ago that I inquired of the Mercedes dealer here in Atlanta about fitting a wider set of OEM 15" MB Wheels to this chassis and the answer was that I'd have to change out the Calipers to the later 1994/1995 version 124 Chassis components to avoid this interference. Does anyone on the Forum have any experience with a similar issue trying to fit these wheels to a 1992 or 1993 400E? Did the later Brake Calipers cure the problem?

There's also the possibility of using Spacers, but I don't want to chance having the tires foul the inner fenders.

Any advice would be graciously received.

Cheers,

George Jr.

Didn’t @kegmankipp just run into this issue in his own 400E which required 3mm flat spacers to correct?

 

[sheward]

There is this discussion Anyone ever run 17x8”et42 on 400E420? | 400E / E420 Discussions that questions wheel/tire to fender clearance. Georges problem seems wheel to caliper. Note: wheel to caliper clearance is dependent on the design of the backside of the wheel face. Not exclusively wheel et.

 

[2phast]

Gentlemen:

I've treated my 1993 400E (with 11,000 Miles) to a new set of Shoes in the form of four mid-1990's AMG 2-Piece Wheels and a set of Michelin Pilot Sport All Season 225/45ZR17 Tires. The wheels were sourced from the UK several months ago and were refurbished there by a specialist before they were sent to me. They are the correct size and offset for the 124 chassis, 17 x 7.5 x 42 mm Offset, in accordance with all of the published information on the subject.

I'm finally getting around to installing them on the car and to my dismay the front calipers foul the back side of the center-section even after assurances from the chaps in the UK that this wheel would mount right up without any mods at all.

I recall several years ago that I inquired of the Mercedes dealer here in Atlanta about fitting a wider set of OEM 15" MB Wheels to this chassis and the answer was that I'd have to change out the Calipers to the later 1994/1995 version 124 Chassis components to avoid this interference. Does anyone on the Forum have any experience with a similar issue trying to fit these wheels to a 1992 or 1993 400E? Did the later Brake Calipers cure the problem?

There's also the possibility of using Spacers, but I don't want to chance having the tires foul the inner fenders.

Any advice would be graciously received.

Cheers,

George Jr.

I believe only the 1992 400E had the different front brake setup, 93-95, the rotors and calipers were the same

 

[kegmankipp]

On my 94’ E420 I had a custom set of AMG Aero3 wheels built that are 17x7.5 ET37 so I wouldn’t have rubbing issues mobbing on dipping freeways at any speed. But I needed an additional 2mm to clear the front calipers.

My mechanic placed different thickness washers between the rotor and wheel to determine that 2mm of clearance was needed.

I ended up buying a set of H&R 3mm hubcentric spacers that are Made in Germany. They are made and work quite well, and I have no issues. Thanks @Jlaa and @gsxr for the recommendations.

Note that I have the AMG fender spacer kit installed and I rolled the fender lips per the AMG wheel install docs posted on w124performace.com thanks again @gsxr

I’m running 225-45-17 Michelin PS4S tires and have zero rubbing issues.

@Blacklightning I would highly recommend test fitting front wheels with different washers to find how much clearance you need. Don’t drive on them on the washers! Hopefully 3mm will work so the spacers will be hubcentric. 5-10 mm is not hubcentric.

 

[Blacklightning]

Guys:

Sorry I've been offline recently with other priorities. I did get a set of the 3mm thick H&R Spacers and installed one on one of the front wheels and as it so happened the wheel wasn't rubbing on the caliper, it was the inboard tire sidewall that was rubbing on the front strut. With the spacer installed, there is minimal clearance between the tire and strut with the car sitting on all 4 wheels, maybe 1.5 mm, there is also clearance with the wheel off the ground which I recall it somewhat more than with the car on all fours.

On the other original front wheel I can get a finger in between the tire/wheel rim and the strut. The protrusion of the tire on the outside of the AMG wheel appears to be just marginally more than the original stock wheel so I am probably OK on no fender rubbing if in fact the 3 mm spacers will serve to keep the inside tire from rubbing on the strut. I've not taken the car out yet to prove this theory.

If any of you chaps have experience with a similar setup I'd be most grateful for your knowledge!

Cheers,

George Jr.

 

[gsxr]

I'm really surprised that a 17x7.5 ET42 wheel, with 225/45 tire, would come anywhere near the strut. This combination should fit with zero issues.

Are you 100% certain about the width & offsets? And also that the 2-piece wheels have the original barrels, with an unmodified mounting/hub surface?

Glad to hear it's sorted out with the 3mm spacers though!

 

[Blacklightning]

Well, all of the Center Sections are stamped with the Made by BBS information and the sizing information as shown above and the hub mounting surface seems original and identical on all 4 wheels.. Are there any charts showing the correct Barrel Measurement information so I can verify that question? Chris with Alloy Wheels Direct in the UK acted as my Technical Advisor on this quest, but they were not the actual seller. Chris did pack them up and ship them to me and he raised no questions about the originality of the wheels.

Thanks again for the insight!

Cheers,

George Jr.

 

[Blacklightning]

The plot thickens! Attached is a marked-up wheel drawing showing the various dimensions of my wheels as closely as I could measure them. The center section positioning on the drawing is not correct, it is much further forward towards the "Curb Side". The barrel mounting flange diameter is definitely 17" and the flange-to-flange width is calculated to be right at 191 mm or 7.51" with the presumption that the total "tire overhang" amount on both sides is 38 mm per my measurements, which is subtracted from the total height of the wheel/tire assembly of 229 mm with the wheel lying on a hard flat surface.

The calculations show that the positive offset is thus 54.5 mm, not 42mm as the charts show. With the front wheel mounted up with a 3 mm thick H&R Spacer, the wheel spins freely but the clearance between the tire and strut is mimimal, perhaps 2 mm. I intend to put a pair of Wheel Dollies under both front wheels so I can turn them lock to lock and check for interference with the wheels both on the ground and fully off the ground. I don't have any good way of checking for "jounce clearance" however.

AMG only made a couple of 17" diameter wheels as I remember from their chart so I have a hard time believing these barrels aren't the proper ones given that the flange to flange width is correct. Measuring another known correct set of wheels from the inside outer flange face to the center section mounting flange would certainly provide helpful information.

What running clearance between the inside tire wall and the vertical surface of the struts is proper, certainly I need more than what the 3 mm spacer is currently providing. Additional 5 mm, 10 mm, 12 mm, and 15 mm spacers are available from both H&R and Bonoss.

Again thanks for your wisdom and insight into this issue!

Cheers,

George Jr.

 

[Jlaa]

The plot thickens! Attached is a marked-up wheel drawing showing the various dimensions of my wheels as closely as I could measure them. The center section positioning on the drawing is not correct, it is much further forward towards the "Curb Side". The barrel mounting flange diameter is definitely 17" and the flange-to-flange width is calculated to be right at 191 mm or 7.51" with the presumption that the total "tire overhang" amount on both sides is 38 mm per my measurements, which is subtracted from the total height of the wheel/tire assembly of 229 mm with the wheel lying on a hard flat surface.

The calculations show that the positive offset is thus 54.5 mm, not 42mm as the charts show. With the front wheel mounted up with a 3 mm thick H&R Spacer, the wheel spins freely but the clearance between the tire and strut is mimimal, perhaps 2 mm. I intend to put a pair of Wheel Dollies under both front wheels so I can turn them lock to lock and check for interference with the wheels both on the ground and fully off the ground. I don't have any good way of checking for "jounce clearance" however.

AMG only made a couple of 17" diameter wheels as I remember from their chart so I have a hard time believing these barrels aren't the proper ones given that the flange to flange width is correct. Measuring another known correct set of wheels from the inside outer flange face to the center section mounting flange would certainly provide helpful information.

What running clearance between the inside tire wall and the vertical surface of the struts is proper, certainly I need more than what the 3 mm spacer is currently providing. Additional 5 mm, 10 mm, 12 mm, and 15 mm spacers are available from both H&R and Bonoss.

Again thanks for your wisdom and insight into this issue!

Cheers,

George Jr.

Interesting. AMG wheels used 76mm center bores instead of MB 66.56mm?!!!?!?!

Also is it possible someone machined 12.5mm the mounting flange to go from 42mm to 54.5mm offset?

 

[gsxr]

With the front wheel mounted up with a 3 mm thick H&R Spacer, the wheel spins freely but the clearance between the tire and strut is mimimal, perhaps 2 mm. I intend to put a pair of Wheel Dollies under both front wheels so I can turn them lock to lock and check for interference with the wheels both on the ground and fully off the ground. I don't have any good way of checking for "jounce clearance" however.

Clearance to the strut can be pretty tight, as this gap does not change much (if at all), as the suspension compresses/extends.

What running clearance between the inside tire wall and the vertical surface of the struts is proper, certainly I need more than what the 3 mm spacer is currently providing. Additional 5 mm, 10 mm, 12 mm, and 15 mm spacers are available from both H&R and Bonoss.

I don't know the minimum but I want to say I've had 4-5mm air gap to the strut without issues, on some combinations. Start with measuring the gap.

Note that for H&R spacers, you can use 3mm with longer lug bolts, but then you have to jump up to 15mm. The 5-10mm spacers won't clear the dust cap for the wheel bearing, while allowing a centering bore. This is why the H&R catalog doesn't show 5mm or 10mm as an option for the 124. I've heard of other brands offering spacers that may work, however these might require removal or modification of the dust cap for the wheel bearing, which is another can of worms.

 

[outrbnks]

Are there any part numbers cast into the back sides? I've been following wheel sales for years, and whenever I've seen a set of this type come up, they have always had ET's for S class cars, which is what you are experiencing.

But I just went back to the old website, (probably the same you used, Alloy Wheels Direct), and they no longer show this type wheel as a W140 wheel as well, and I'm sure it used too. But it is there for W124's as you mentioned @et42. Here is an excerpt from a list of 124 wheels I downloaded years ago, it's in French.

Your wheels are at the bottom, with notes 6, 9, 10 & 11, whatever they mean. This list is actually a blowup of just one portion of the original page, in an attempt to be able to read it better. I'll include the original larger complete page as well. I think this came from a French 124 catalog.

Having problems with the attachments, here is the full page instead, the middle of the page has the wheels you have. You should be able to enlarge the page attachment it in your browser enough to read it.. The page also shows EVO II's in the lower left for 500E's......good luck..

 

[Blacklightning]

Gentlemen:

In answer to the latest questions posed:

* Yes, the Center Bores are indeed 76 mm all the way through the Center Section

* The Mounting Flange of the Center Section shows no signs of post-manufacturing machining of the mounting face to reduce the thickness of the mounting flange, i.e. no telltale machined rings on the face of the flange, just the markings where these rims were at one time bolted up to the hubs of another car before I got them.

* I measured the thickness of the center section in the area of the mounting bolts and came up with 11.93 mm which certainly appears to be sufficient to handle the loading on the wheels. I haven't measured this dimension on a standard MB Alloy wheel. I can't imagine that BBS/AMG would have produced this wheel with an additional 12 mm flange thickness which was then subsequently machined away.

* Glad to hear that the spacing between the Tire and Struts doesn't wander all over during the suspension travel. I have some 5 mm thick H&R Spacers in addition to the 3 mm spacers on the car now (which are supposed to be Hubcentric) so I'll try those next and measure the differences in spacing between the two thicknesses.

* Thanks for the Wheel Chart that can actually be read. AMG only produced two versions of their 2-piece Wheels, the Version I and Version II, mine are the Version II with just one barrel size listed, the 7.5J x 17 x ET42 which is the size barrel on my wheels. The Version I shows different barrel widths and diameters so apparently I have the correct barrel on the correctly-marked center section. I am attaching 5 photos of the back side of these rims, the numbers are really hard to read with the glossy powdercoated finish but I believe you can make out the AMG and BBS markings along with the size designation.

Thanks again for your collective input on a topic that becomes more elusive with the passage of time!

Cheers,

George Jr.

 

[Jlaa]

@Blacklightning --- I apologize as this does not get us closer to solving the mystery. However I feel compelled to point out that a center bore of 76mm will make any discussion of hubcentricity a pointless exercise. If your car is a "normal MB" with 66.56mm center bore, then fitting 76mm centerbore wheels without hub-adapter-rings will result in an assembly that is lug-centric and not hubcentric.

There might be vibrations. I am moderately familiar with chasing vibrations in this chassis.

BTW - the HR 3mm spacers have marketing copy that call it "hubcentric" but those spacers aren't really hubcentric in and of themselves. Those are flat spacers (I have a pair too). What happens is that those 3mm HR spacers still leave juuuuuuuuuusssst enough of the hub lip exposed on your car for a wheel to engage with the remaining micro-amount of hub. Its a very small amount. VERY VERY small. Wheels will engage with the remaining hub lip but will disengage and "fall off" the with the slightest lateral push from your hand if the wheel bolts are not engaged.

5mm spacers are DEFINITELY not hubcentric.

I have a pair of 8mm spacers too. I got them from China and amazingly they actually have a lip for wheels to engage with. I will find pictures. I have never tried them.

 

[gsxr]

I had assumed (I know, I know) the 76mm bore was a typo. If it really is 76mm, these are modified wheels. AFAIK, they were never produced or offered with 76mm bore. Should be 66.67±mm center bore.

You might be able to use rings to adapt 76mm if that is a common size, but the fit needs to be snug, or at least have near zero play, to keep them hubcentric. Otherwise there *will* be vibration, regardless of clearance to strut or caliper.

 

[Blacklightning]

Thanks for bringing up the subject of the Hub Adapter Rings, I actually have a set coming that are 76 mm OD and 65.6 mm ID but then realized that with any degree of spacer thickness there wouldn't be anything for the ID of the Ring to center onto in which case you are totally correct, I'd be dealing with Lug-Centric but figured that the rounded-end mounting bolts (ACER Racing Titanium in my case) would keep the wheel centered in relation to the hub given the proper wheel torquing procedure.

H&R do offer some thicker spacers which have the "Closed Cap" machined into them which I presume are used to center into the center hole of the wheel or the adapter rings, I recall they start at 15 mm thick. The Bonoss spacers (made in China) have an open style centering flange which presumably centers into the center section and clears the wheel bearing cap (?) but I don't recall the minimum thickness spacers that incorporate this feature.

Thanks again,

George Jr.

 

[gsxr]

... figured that the rounded-end mounting bolts (ACER Racing Titanium in my case) would keep the wheel centered in relation to the hub given the proper wheel torquing procedure.

Nope. The bolts WILL NOT keep the wheel centered. Period. Without hub centering, you will end up with vibration. The bigger question now is why these wheels have 76mm bore, and what else isn't "stock" about them?

H&R do offer some thicker spacers which have the "Closed Cap" machined into them which I presume are used to center into the center hole of the wheel or the adapter rings, I recall they start at 15 mm thick.

Correct, the H&R's with closed cap start at 15mm thick, although I'm not sure if they have one which adapts 67mm hub to 76mm wheel bore.

 

[Jlaa]

H&R do offer some thicker spacers which have the "Closed Cap" machined into them which I presume are used to center into the center hole of the wheel or the adapter rings, I recall they start at 15 mm thick. The Bonoss spacers (made in China) have an open style centering flange which presumably centers into the center section and clears the wheel bearing cap (?) but I don't recall the minimum thickness spacers that incorporate this feature.

I had a long discussion with @5thscaleracer about wheel spacers. Apparently he has lots of experience with all kinds of spacers on MB platforms, and of course he's the one manufacturing Flieben exhausts and racing his 190E-16V around the track.

Anyways what he told me before was that:

• Those spacers with the "closed cap" are not desirable. In his experience, he told me the reason why is because the seal between the spacer and the hub is imperfect, and therefore water can get into the hub where the grease is, and grease can also leak out.

Here is a picture of the BONOSS China 8mm spacers that I have. I have never used them. The marketing copy is of course completely absurd (forged active cooling??!?!?!? 2 million times fatigue tested?!?!!?!?) but I bought them just because I wanted to see what these were like.

You can see that these are almost exactly 8mm thick (7.91mm), the center bore is very very very good, and that the flange of the "hub extension" is 0.51mm. I am not sure if 0.51mm is enough thickness to prevent cracking over time.

I originally bought these to push out a set of 8.5" wide 18" wheels that I have, but after I put the wheels on the car, I felt that an 8mm spacer was not needed. Further, with my experience of chasing vibrations, I concluded that I want to KISS and not introduce any other variable vibe-inducing components on the car.

I'd be happy to sell these (brand new) for a little less than what I paid for them if you want to experiment with them & aren't willing to wait the umpteen weeks for these to arrive from China. Regardless, these were a good educational exercise for me and I felt that the $ I paid to get these was worth the education.

 

[sheward]

I'll add a bit of information that may help.
The actual thickness of the centering lip / ring / hub extension (the lip that measures .51mm in Jlaa's description) is of little concern. Once the wheel is properly centered the clamping force of the wheel bolts will hold it there. This is why companies sell centering rings made of plastic. Not my choice but they work.

The problem with all centering rings is they are manufactured with a bevel to facilitate wheel mounting. If you attempt to use them with, say a 3mm spacer there is not enough hub remaining to extend past the bevel.

There is a solution. A custom machined centering ring without the bevel. This will make wheel mounting a bit more of a delicate procedure.
There is a machine shop close to me that has the expertise to make these. The question is are you committed to using these wheels?

I can tell you that due to some non-standard 2-piece rotors on one of my 036 cars I needed 3mms of clearance to run 9 inch wheels on the front to alleviate the same issue you are experiencing (standard monoblocks with no centering rings). The 3mms have proven to be enough. I have no rubbing between tire and strut.

It may even have been 2mm. I cannot recall anymore. It was not more than 3mm. This car is lowered so this should not be taken as definitive proof.

 

[Blacklightning]

Gents:

Thanks for the offer of the 8 mm Bonoss Spacers, I need to first verify whether either the current 3 mm thick H&R or the 5 mm version will be sufficient to alleviate any rubbing of the tire sidewall on the struts or if I need to go all the way up to 8 mm. Whatever the outcome I'm convinced that Centering Rings should be used to get the wheel centered on the hub so that the Wheel Bolts can clamp the wheel firmly onto the hub where it will stay put.

Drew, your idea of custom-machined Centering Rings is certainly interesting what with my larger than standard center hole, which is also powder=coated internally so an off-the-shelf solution might not be ideal. Glad to know that a minimal spacer thickness under race conditions seems to offer sufficient non-rubbing clearance because I am committed to using these wheels as hard as they were to source!

Cheers,

George Jr.

 

[sheward]

Should it be helpful, I have 2 sets of centering rings 79mm x 66.67mm. I had a friend make them for some Carlsson wheels I no longer own. You can use these to machine down to your 76+/- mm vs. starting from scratch.

 

[Jlaa]

Should it be helpful, I have 2 sets of centering rings 79mm x 66.67mm. I had a friend make them for some Carlsson wheels I no longer own. You can use these to machine down to your 76+/- mm vs. starting from scratch.

@sheward can you post a pictures of these if it is convenient? It would be fascinating to see what these look like and would add to our tribal knowledge. Thanks.

 

[Blacklightning]

SOLD!!

Cheers,

George Jr.

 

[sheward]

@sheward can you post a pictures of these if it is convenient? It would be fascinating to see what these look like and would add to our tribal knowledge. Thanks.

Sure

These were made by a friend who has access to a machine shop. He used to post here under the name Silverbenz or something close. He was very generous to do so and charged me nothing other than a request that I keep a set for him. (Michael, I still have them).

He chose to leave a small lip on the topside. Some manufacturers do this, and some do not. The lip is not necessary and prevents the ring from being used with the chamfer or bevel inside which provides another mm or 2 of centering. The bevel IS important when using a centering ring over a centering spacer as most centering spacers have a positive bevel for strength in contrast to what I will call a negative bevel as seen on the centering ring.

The last picture shows a name of one of many companies that produce centering rings.

 

[Blacklightning]

Eureka! Finally got all the bits and pieces to talk nice to each other - 5 mm thick Bonoss Spacers in the "good" aluminum, custom-made Hub Rings that eliminate all play between the center bore of the wheel and the Bonoss flange that mounts up to the wheel hub. Using Acer Racing Titanium Lug bolts, I had to shorten the 40 mm long bolts to approximately 33 mm for the rear wheels so as not to foul the parking brake. I have no rubbing between the tire and the Struts, with about 2 mm clearance between these. No issues on the rear tires either. No untoward noises, the steering is a bit heavier than with the original skinny Michelins.

Careful break-in miles coming to be sure there are no interference issues, but for now all seems good.

Thanks for all the collective help with this

Cheers,

George Jr.