I put 91 in mine, but can anyone tell me why MB (and most other Euro cars) need 91+.

The CTS has the same size motor, same output, similar C/R , similar mileage rating (I know they're not very accurate, but they are set by goverments, not the maker) yet it only needs regular gas.

Even the 304bhp version still only needs regular.

So why do the relatively conservative MB motors need it?

Any ideas

 

Because we're snobs!

Actually, I don't know.

 

It's actually surprising that the CTS Direct Injection V6 doesnt require premium....its not even "recommended". It has an 11.3:1 compression ratio too, just like the C300.

Theres more than just compression ratio that determines how much knock-resistance an engine needs, but I'm not sure what that "more" is

 

Couldn't possible be.........Could it.........Nah.......maybe.

 

Reliability and durability of the engine and its associated components could be a big reason.

I see many 190E w201's on the road still today, and I can honestly say, I have not seen many other brands of cars that can run after 20 years as a daily driver. I don't see many 20+ year Caddy's.

Here is a snipplet from the 190E w201 users manual:
http://web.archive.org/web/200609030.../PDF/90006.pdf

Fuel tank
including a reserve of
Cooling system
approx. 14.5 US gal (55 I) Premium unleaded gasoline: Posted
approx. 1.6 US gal (6.0 I) Octane 91 (Average of 96 RON/86 MON)

 

I can see you have never owned one.

I bought an '85 190E new and it was easily the worst car I have ever owned. It was as reliable as a five-dollar atomic bomb and had so many warranty repairs that I can only recall the major ones. And among my friends there were six of the things and only one went the distance. All of the others were just like mine, one failure after another. I traded it at 49K miles on an '89 190E 2.6 which was better but still required major engine work at 70K miles, paid for by MB.

The poor woman who bought the '85 at the dealer called me several months later and asked if I had gotten rid of it under the Lemon Law.

That's why I am still so amazed at the reliability of the new Cs. All of you people who are first time MB buyers have no idea what those of us who are long time MB customers have experienced.

 

You don't even know how glad I am to read this. I've read about/seen/experienced so much M-B reliability problems over the years that I was quite reluctant to purchase this car, my first M-B. Only the unrivaled looks of the car made me close my eyes and sign on the dotted line. Even now, every time I hear anything (probably, hopefully nothing) I panic about what might be breaking somewhere in the car.

No problems so far though. I keep my fingers crossed.

 

[QUOTE=imboom;2946362].

I see many 190E w201's on the road still today, and I can honestly say, I have not seen many other brands of cars that can run after 20 years as a daily driver. I don't see many 20+ year Caddy's.

Another brand of car that has run well for me is the 1979 Peugeot 504 .( 4 cyl petrol rear wheel drive) When I sold it this year it had done 450,000 km without any major repair .The cylinder head had not been removed & the gearbox & diff. were original. The secret behind this reliability I think is that this car always ran on the required 95 octane , the engine oil was changed every 7,500 km, coolant every 12 months & the GB & diff oil every 30,000km.

I sold it for $1000 to an Egyptian who was to cut it up , & ship it to Egypt for spares. Unfortunately he did not remember that he was in Australia when driving it to his depot & had a head on smash on the first blind corner he encounted as he was driving it on the wrong side of the road. It was a sorry sight .

 

No need to be quick on assumptions RLE. Our family has both a 300E, '84 190E, and a '76 350SL. All three runs fine.

Just because you had a lemon doesn't mean that "I don't know what I'm talking about".

 

Why did yo get the new C if you had such bad experience with MB? just curious.