Mercedes-Benz GLA Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

51 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
The journey.
the extreme long wait is over....
my WORK wheels from japan have finally arrived.

I ordered a set of WORK GNOSIS GR205s . lots of measuring, I decided to attempt to do the following:
1. add the widest tire possible
2. optional to lower H&R springs later
3. able to do front / rear tyer rotation (can this be done with 265s)
4. Tuck wheel in much as possible to reduce tyre sandblasting side panels.

Vehicle: GLA45 AMG stock height (for now)
The challenge. The rears have a ton of space inward, but a thick fender. The fronts have a lot more room to go outward towards fender... and a strut to consider inward.
There are lots to consider here. from Camber, (adjustable camber kitis do exist) to, staggered setups.

Here were my measurements. (using the weighted string taped on fender method and caliper for the rest)
Front Driver:

Front caliper to wheel spoke = 4.9mm
Inner fender lip to tire tread vertical difference = 26.35mm
Front wheel / tire to strut = 18.8mm
Hub = 7.74mm

Rear Driver:

Read Inner fender lip to tire tread vertical difference = 18.68mm
Rear Caliper to wheel spoke = 20.81mm
Rear wheel / tire to closest inside hit (fender covering / frame) = 27.49mm (shock is further away)
Hub = 8.68mm

detailed hub and caliper measurements:


The wheel:
Two Step Lip 20x9 ET41 A-disk all around. Lip = 50mm. tire rotation setup.

Select the TIRE
. Made a spreadsheet matrix so see tread width, section width, costs together. Price taken in Q12021 - CAD dollars.


Lug Bolts:
T70 Torx Titanium

After performing the measurements and results, one could easily fit a 10 or 10.5" wheel in the rear with some decent size tyres (275 plus) not lowered.
A052, which would be my alternate choice, is likely to interfere in the front (strut) for this setup.
having a staggered setup, would give additional options for tyres.

Ideal setup for staggered (assumption that the spokes clear the caliper) would be 42ET in the rear and 35ET in the front, to maximize room and flush look.

Spacers: I attempted to add 3mm spacer in the front, help bring the wheel out a bit and give clearance to strut. However, due to the tapering (45°), and the unlucky hub exposed of 4.4mm, fails to engage the wheel. not allowing me to mount the wheel safely.
Yes, there are ways around this, such as boring out the new wheels then using a 66.6 to 73 adaptor or such, replacing the hub etc...
I could have also went with a different offset wheel too... there are options is all you need to know.

I have a video with the wheels in motion... stand by - youtube.









51 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
More pictures:




This is required if one desires to drive in the rain. Rain collects in the center section of a two-piece or three piece wheel... this scraps the water out of the bowl (preventing balance vibrations if water happens to collect in the wheel bowl)






275 Posts
why not add to your table a column with the total diameter of the wheel vs the factory total diameter of the wheel and then percentage of error?
Closest within reason was 265/35/20. -0.4%. can work on 9" rims, probably best on 9.5.

The idea of the water deflector is .. so JDM.

51 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
why not add to your table a column with the total diameter of the wheel vs the factory total diameter of the wheel and then percentage of error?
Closest within reason was 265/35/20. -0.4%. can work on 9" rims, probably best on 9.5.

The idea of the water deflector is .. so JDM.
265s would work on a 9.5 or 10 or 10.5. 9.5 might be 'better' as far as utilizing the width of the 265 tyer, however, a 9.5 inch wheel would interfere in the front (inside strut) with an ET41 (9" wide wheel is exactly 10" wide when including the chrome lip. I also wanted to keep the good camber. Thus, you'd have to change the offset of the wheel by 7mm - ET 34, however, in doing so, means you lose out on the option to tire rotate because ET34 would interfere with the rear outer fender (especially when lowered) - the rear would need ET44 or more for the 9.5 wide wheel.
So, to make 9.5" wheel work, which you can, you'd have to run a staggered setup - i was trying to check all the boxes, including rotation and even resale value (easier with same ET all around). Also to note, if you run the fronts with ET34 - for these specific 2 step wheels, then the chrome 'lip' in the front would be 63mm and in the rear would be 53mm. This isnt esthetically pleasing to me. I much prefer a deeper dish look in the rear rather than the front having a deeper dish than the rear.
All of this of course, depends on what wheel you are also talking about. I like the GNOSIS GR205 look... then this is what you have for 20"s to play with.
Then there is also the exposure of the side of the car from being pelted by rocks / sandblasted the further you push out the fronts... this also was on my checklist... minimize that exposure best as possible.

I did contemplate the alternate of a 9 or 9.5 in front and go 10.5 in rear... (tons of room in rear to go inward...) but wouldn't attempt that with these particular wheels... it would have to be something else.

In the end, these cars have quite a bit of options and decent room to explore outside the factory 20x8 235 setup.


275 Posts
Every situation can be evaluated positively, or negatively.
With your rims measuring at 10”, being sold as 9”, you could definitely do 265 size tires on them and keep that important overall diameter within the smallest deviation from stock.
Unless you can reflash and enter the size that you use. Even then, with a larger diameter, the torque at the wheels will translate into a smaller tractive force, when the arm of the tractive force is increased in size.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts