C-Class (W203) 2001-2007, C160, C180, C200, C220, C230, C240, C270, C280, C300, C320, C230K, C350, Coupe

Stage 3 settings results

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 08-22-2002, 11:28 AM
  #26  
Super Member
 
mdp c230k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
2002 c230k
Originally posted by renncpe


We have all checked this out. The computer setting states " RON values at least 93 octane" do you think that they lost something in the translation? One way you could look at is that they mean a ron of 97 min.
Remember, we don't use just RON numbers . We use Motor octane + Research Octane Number(RON) divided by two to get our ratings. RON is much higher than Motor octane for the same gas. If you set for 93RON it is comparable to our 87 octane gas. That would account for the loss in power the Buellwinkle had when he set it for 93 octane. Why on earth he changed the setting God only knows! I think that Buellwinkle might have lost something in the translation.
Old 08-22-2002, 01:04 PM
  #27  
Super Member
 
renncpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
w203 c230K 2002
Originally posted by mdp c230k


Remember, we don't use just RON numbers . We use Motor octane + Research Octane Number(RON) divided by two to get our ratings. RON is much higher than Motor octane for the same gas. If you set for 93RON it is comparable to our 87 octane gas. That would account for the loss in power the Buellwinkle had when he set it for 93 octane. Why on earth he changed the setting God only knows! I think that Buellwinkle might have lost something in the translation.
Ive made the same mistake then because I was reading it to min of 93 motor octane. I will try and get some more information from Mercedes.
Old 08-22-2002, 05:02 PM
  #28  
Super Member
 
mdp c230k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
2002 c230k
My info comes from a MB tech with over 20 years as a factory trained tech. I have the utmost in confidence in him knowing what is really going on with the settings. He said to leave the timing alone and use stage 2 fuel unless you are really hard on the car then stage 3 is best. He also said the stock plugs are fine as is.
Old 08-22-2002, 06:34 PM
  #29  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
Buellwinkle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Posts: 6,211
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by mdp c230k

That would account for the loss in power the Buellwinkle had when he set it for 93 octane. Why on earth he changed the setting God only knows! I think that Buellwinkle might have lost something in the translation.
Renncpe and Kleemann both claimed to be using the Octane settings, that's why I used that. They either didn't test what they preach or didn't want to release numbers that weren't as good as they had before.
Old 08-22-2002, 07:57 PM
  #30  
Former Vendor of MBWorld
 
BlackC230Coupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 12,403
Received 21 Likes on 17 Posts
Fast Cars!
Originally posted by mdp c230k
My info comes from a MB tech with over 20 years as a factory trained tech. I have the utmost in confidence in him knowing what is really going on with the settings. He said to leave the timing alone and use stage 2 fuel unless you are really hard on the car then stage 3 is best. He also said the stock plugs are fine as is.
so even if i only put 93 octance in my car i should leave my fuel setting to base?

and also which stage will give me better performance and more gains? stage II or stage III ?

i floor my car alot and at least a cupple times a day usually so which setting is better?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: Stage 3 settings results



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:30 PM.