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

Check Engine Light: 6 CODES!!!!!!!!!!!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 02-14-2011, 09:11 PM
  #76  
Member
 
vert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Hers - 2003 C320. His - 2004 330i zhp 6 speed.
Originally Posted by pcy
C320 has M112 engine. This problem is relevant for M272 engine.
Cool, it was an interesting read regardless. Without these forums many of us, myself included, would not be able to own these cars due to dealer repair costs.
Old 02-15-2011, 07:03 AM
  #77  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
slammer111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 207 Likes on 198 Posts
2003 C230K Coupe Orion Blue
Lightbulb

Originally Posted by pcy
When you actually compare the cost of 100 miles with 93 octane vs. cost of 100 miles with 87 octane, it comes out about the same. Let me explain. The above is true because the MPG you'd get when you use 93 octane is about 2 to 3 MPG more than if you were to use 87 octane. When you use 87 octane knock sensor will detect the engine knocking and the ECU will retard the timing accordingly - as a result, fuel efficiency goes down. You will not 'hear' anything unusual because the knock sensor is doing it's job.

Summary - people think they are saving money by pouring 87 gas in to a car that REQUIRES [by the manufacturer] 93 octane gas due to high compression ratio. In the long run, you are actually ruining the engine. This is NOT a debate. If you'd like to pour 83 octane (or kerosene) in your MB engine, please continue. :-)
I know this is adding fuel to the fire (no pun intended), but a few years ago I ran an experiment on this. Tried a few (consecutive) tankfuls of 87 then a few tanks of 89, all while clocking my mileage between fill-ups. To be honest, I didn't notice any difference at all between mileage AT ALL. Mind you, I also drive like a granny (no more than 1/4 throttle ever), so maybe that explains the close results. Oh, and the car was driven 99% in the city over the course of the experiment, so that takes out the highway efficiency factor. Stupid hippies here didn't want highways here in the 1970s and now we're totally screwed.

So I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but imo the "regular gives you less mileage than premium" is bunk. With that said, I'm not condoning running your car off 87.

The cars CAN run in 87, if you check your manual. It just states not to race your engine or go past 2/3 throttle iirc. Here in North America (though it's getting increasingly rare) not every place out there will have 91, if you're out in the sticks. I'd imagine that all production cars here MUST run off 87 without blowing up by law.

Lastly, why is everyone saying 93? Maybe in Canada it's different, but over here my manual says 91. Only 1 company that I know of (Chevron) sells 94 around here, and only riceboys driving Skylines and Civic Type Rs (okay, maybe the occasional Lambo too) use it.

Last edited by slammer111; 02-15-2011 at 07:12 AM.
Old 02-15-2011, 07:35 AM
  #78  
Super Moderator

 
Glyn M Ruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 19,941
Received 177 Likes on 144 Posts
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
Standard off the showroom floor these cars run a very mild timing advance map because Benz know that around the world they will have crap gas put in them & want no trouble. If they do knock the ECU will immediately retard the timing at the onset of that knock & you will end up running retarded most of the time. Not ideal for efficiency. The Star allows one to select higher octane setting to use a more aggressive map. If you set up to run on higher octane then you must use that. When doing one of my octane lectures on the W204 forum a Benz programmer came on the thread & confirmed my comments.

The M272 quad cam engine has far more efficient breathing than earlier designs & a high CR. Running it on low octane gas makes no sense. At the same time if you were in Europe you would select 95 RON Eurograde. No need to run 98 RON because you would have octane giveaway. Running higher octane than required is also a waste of time unless the fuel happens to be more dense = higher energy value.

The answer for max efficiency is to run what the engine was designed to run on as Johnand says.

You will not blow up an engine as long as the knock detecting programme can retard the timing sufficiently - However knock, pinging, precombustion, detonation by whatever name you know it can be very destructive.

As engines get older & foul themselves a little their octane requirement will rise.

You will never achieve optimum fuel consumption running with retarded timing - easily proved on a decent dyno with controlled IAT etc.
Old 02-15-2011, 08:07 AM
  #79  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
LILBENZ230's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,384
Received 795 Likes on 598 Posts
2019 G70 6MT & 2022 Ford Maverick XL
Great info, Glyn, as usual. I use 93 because no stations around here have 91. I just get frustrated at the attempts to tie 87 octane fuel to unrelated problems, like the cam magnets. It's overboard.
Old 02-15-2011, 10:20 AM
  #80  
Super Moderator
 
samaritrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: VA
Posts: 5,295
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes on 20 Posts
THE C350
Here on the east coast from Maryland down all i really see is 87 89 93 so of course i use 93.
Old 02-15-2011, 10:27 AM
  #81  
Super Moderator

 
Glyn M Ruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 19,941
Received 177 Likes on 144 Posts
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
I run my car on our 97 RON which is approx your 93 AKI.

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: Check Engine Light: 6 CODES!!!!!!!!!!!



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:25 PM.