Originally Posted by red308

OK. All you experts. You are wrong. Here is why.

The owners manual in the CL63 says it is ok to run 91 octane. Yes, that is ok. But the engine management allows you to do that because it retards the spark so that you do not damage the engine by detonation.

That is the case with many cars that are sold in California. They have to in order to sell them because 91 octane is all you can get in most areas. I have owned several cars that nominally require 93 octane but are approved for operation in California at 91 octane. I owned a 2001 Corvette which fell into this category.

But.....you do not get the maximum performance!!!!!!!!

If any of you have any one of the cars that have the 6.3 motor would please go out to your car and open the gas tank cap. You will find that it calls for minimum 93 octane gasoline. In fact, it actually asks for 98 octane using the European calculation. Those of you who do not own one of these cars, please travel to your nearest MB dealer and find a car for sale that has the 6.3 motor. Open the gas filler cap. Guess what! Yup...it calls for 93 octane.

I have talked to three different MB service departments and the sales department at the MB-owned dealership in Manhattan. I have also talked with the MB central phone support group. They confirm the following:

The 6.3 motor, while it is specified to operate at its maximum rating using 93
octane gas, it is also certified to be safe to operate in the US at 91 octane.

I find it unacceptable that the US MB marketing info claims that you get the full performance spec for HP and torque while using 91 octane. The US written owners manual is an example. But that is simply not the case. The marketing people are stumped when they are asked about this. The technical people just shrug and blame the marketing people.

I, too, fell into this trap. I was surprised and was almost ready to not take delivery of the car. Marketing crap wins.

In Europe in and in most Eastern US states, 93 octane is readily available. In California and many Western US states it is not. The car is designed to take advantage of gasoline that is readily available in most of the world.

Also, I have experienced emperical evidence over and over again in several cars and now in the CL63. If you put in a tank of 93 octane fuel, you will experience substantial and extremely noticeable performance improvement.

Try it. Go out and run the test yourself before you start calling BS.

Mark

Originally Posted by WSH

We can endlessly debate micro-diffces in octane and mfg variances, etc....

But would observe that I prob drive my CL63 faster...and more aggressively accelerate...prob 99% of time on real-world CA roads vs my prior '07 SL65 b/c of its poor traction on uneven and/or wet pavement...and its awful brake pedal feel....admittedly, subjective, qualitative impressions...

But, IMO, even objective accel data on a smooth, dry private track/dragstrip w/100oct means very little in real-world accel/driving.....

Originally Posted by red308

OK. All you experts. You are wrong. Here is why.

The owners manual in the CL63 says it is ok to run 91 octane. Yes, that is ok. But the engine management allows you to do that because it retards the spark so that you do not damage the engine by detonation.

That is the case with many cars that are sold in California. They have to in order to sell them because 91 octane is all you can get in most areas. I have owned several cars that nominally require 93 octane but are approved for operation in California at 91 octane. I owned a 2001 Corvette which fell into this category.

But.....you do not get the maximum performance!!!!!!!!

If any of you have any one of the cars that have the 6.3 motor would please go out to your car and open the gas tank cap. You will find that it calls for minimum 93 octane gasoline. In fact, it actually asks for 98 octane using the European calculation. Those of you who do not own one of these cars, please travel to your nearest MB dealer and find a car for sale that has the 6.3 motor. Open the gas filler cap. Guess what! Yup...it calls for 93 octane.

I have talked to three different MB service departments and the sales department at the MB-owned dealership in Manhattan. I have also talked with the MB central phone support group. They confirm the following:

The 6.3 motor, while it is specified to operate at its maximum rating using 93
octane gas, it is also certified to be safe to operate in the US at 91 octane.

I find it unacceptable that the US MB marketing info claims that you get the full performance spec for HP and torque while using 91 octane. The US written owners manual is an example. But that is simply not the case. The marketing people are stumped when they are asked about this. The technical people just shrug and blame the marketing people.

I, too, fell into this trap. I was surprised and was almost ready to not take delivery of the car. Marketing crap wins.

In Europe in and in most Eastern US states, 93 octane is readily available. In California and many Western US states it is not. The car is designed to take advantage of gasoline that is readily available in most of the world.

Also, I have experienced emperical evidence over and over again in several cars and now in the CL63. If you put in a tank of 93 octane fuel, you will experience substantial and extremely noticeable performance improvement.

Try it. Go out and run the test yourself before you start calling BS.

Mark

Originally Posted by NY_SG

Ok I was in my friend's CL63 he has about 5k miles in it.

An S55 pulled up and off we went.

First round lost. Second round lost. third round lost.

His S55 was stock and so was my friends CL63.

I was like ****!!!! The power of the 55 motor. I am just indicating the end result.

CL63 lost 3 times in a row.

Originally Posted by juicee63

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeG7r...eature=related

Guess the 63 in Asia runs differently here it looks like it hangs with the S55 little brother the E55.

Originally Posted by Zod

Are you serious
If you have owned a 55 which i belive you have previously stated (currect me if i am wrong) then you would hear the sound of ESP...you do not knwo what it sound likes?

It goes like this vrr....vrrr......vrrrrrrrrrrom that my friend is ESP cutting power (listen to the click you gave ), so advantage 6

3. 55 is so damn hard to get traction in :-/, but when you do

Originally Posted by juicee63

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeG7r...eature=related

Guess the 63 in Asia runs differently here it looks like it hangs with the S55 little brother the E55.

Originally Posted by E55JAY

has anyone pondered the thought that this may have been a W216 vs a W220, that says alot as there is a big weigh dif

Originally Posted by juicee63

I agree 1000%

I have dynoed on 91 406 rwhp on 93 423 hp. The proof is really on the track where on 91 my car traps 112 mph on 93 115mph. It makes a difference. The 55 is always going to be a difficult race but different day outcome here could easily be reversed.

AMG tuned, mapped the cars for 93 octane ALL OF THEM(6.2LV8). California's gas slows the 63 for sure. Read your gas flap is CLEAR AS DAY!

Originally Posted by Zod

Are you serious
If you have owned a 55 which i belive you have previously stated (currect me if i am wrong) ,then you should be able to hear the sound of ESP...you do not know what that sounds likes?

It goes like this ''vrr....vrrr......vrrrrrrrrrrom'' that my friend is ESP cutting power (listen to the clip you gave ), so advantage 63. 55 is so damn hard to get traction in, look at the c6 vs E55 vid where ESP is off for the 55 , but when you do get traction in it

Originally Posted by Timeless

Still not the claimed 50 HP difference though.

Originally Posted by juicee63

..........FYI ability to change octane requirement in the ECU has been available since at least 2003 and is not unique to the 63. It is the same for the 65, E55 etc. You actually get better performance by setting your ECU to the lower octane setting and then using higher octane gas.
Ted

Ted ,

What are you referring to in the first piece of this response?

This is the problem, the FACTORY SETTING IS 93 not 91.

As you admit in your post an ECU tuned for 93 will not run at peak hp and torque on lesser octane . This is what happens , the car falls flat when WOT due to this 93 tune in States where the fuel is NOT AVAILABLE.

Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin

............no biggie. Both cars require 91 octane according to their manuals. some 55 owners have changed their Ecu octane to 93 only to discover that it did not help. What the 63 crowd seem to be saying is that the reason the 63 is slower is because eventhough just like the 55 the manual says use 93 octane, that Mercedes left the Ecu at 93 octane for car being sold widely in the United states where 93 octane is not universally available. Ok, if that is the case then you have point. The problem still is that it would represent a short coming of the 63 cars and not something to use as an excuse. It would be like saying that "the only reason I'm shorter than you is because my mother did not take her prenatal vitamins." Ted

Originally Posted by juicee63

This applies to 55's and 63's.

The E55 is slower where 93 is not available. The 63 lacking a supercharger is handicapped far worse by the AMG settings in the ECU.

I do not think any 55 driver is laughing at the 63, if they are so be it,

Originally Posted by Havoc

I lived in the Hollywood Hills a few years back and there were a few 76 stations that carried 93 octane. Have you ever found any? I remember the 76 on Santa Monica Blvd. one block east of Highland Ave. had 100 octane for a short time. Not sure if it was real, but it was Real Expensive. I didn't notice a difference with all the stop and slow go traffic though. You know how that is.

Originally Posted by juicee63

There is 100 octane at the 76 at Pico and Barrington, I get 75.00 worth everytime I go to the track its a mere 3.50 more per gallon.

Originally Posted by Havoc

I knew you would find something!! We don't call you the Juice for nothing. LOL!!

Originally Posted by juicee63

Hey you coming out Thursday evening to watch The Evosport BS run the 1/8th mile. I will be coaching on what excuses to make afterhe is beaten by a Civic

Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin

..........I don't understand how the CL63 was in California and the 65 was in another state and yet they raced each other at the same time on the same road with each car in a different state during the race Is this some new technology?

..........FYI ability to change octane requirement in the ECU has been available since at least 2003 and is not unique to the 63. It is the same for the 65, E55 etc. You actually get better performance by setting your ECU to the lower octane setting and then using higher octane gas. Your ECU pulls timming when you have the higher octane setting and then use lower octane gas. Therefore, the CL63 has already been optimized from factory. Changing your ECU to use 93 octane will slow your car down

Ted

Originally Posted by MB_Forever

All 63 engines are designed for use with 93 octane or higher, which means 93 is the minimum required octane rating for proper performance. I have verified this with AMG Germany and MBUSA and one more time through my local Shop Forman who is also the head AMG tech at the dealer. In an e-mail response to my inquiry, AMG Germany stated that it is okay to run 91, but the car will suffer a slight decrease in performance.

Notice that this is different than all previous Mercedes models including the E55. All other Mercedes models are tuned for 91 octane while the 63 models require 93 minimum (probably due to the very high compression ratio).

Originally Posted by juicee63

.............what people are laughing at are the somewhat absurd excuses. No one is laughing that you have a 63. However Your recent post talks about the 55 being less affected by octane because it has a supercharger. it is what it is. It would be like a V6 car owner complaining that they lost a race because the rival car has a V8. Imagine hearing, "Well if my car had a V8 like yours, I would have won the race." . I don't even own a W211 E55. Mine is a G55 and even at 12.7 secs 1/4 mile it is only faster than a few CLS63's. Maybe I should complain that if my car didn't weigh so much it will beat yours.......what sense would that make? A car is either faster or slower than the rival and that is it.....but I don't expect you to agree. You are about to bring out the calculator and hit me with Da calculations.

Ted

The ignorant remain blind forever.

After I posted the race of a CL 63 beating an E55 all I read was excuses for traction? Weather is real, you pretending ATMOSPHERE has no effect on the motor is just plain IDIOTIC. All the racers that take this sport seriously USE A WEATHER STATION. I can tell each driver what he or she should run within a few hundreths based on the weather if I have data on the car. I can assure you your G55 wouldnt beat any CLS 63 on the track. I have no idea why you hate this motor, your views are yours and hopefully yours alone



Now you are calling the 55 a "rival" LOL.. The 575 RWHP Cobra should have destroyed the E55, its faster based on many things, full slicks,better gearing trailored because it is NOT STREET LEGAL. guess what TED, THE E55 RAPED the Cobra. In a perfect World with robot drivers that Cobra wins but too bad so sad Ted it takes a driver to squeeze off a win, I do not care if you have 1600 hp or 180 hp anything can happen

Following your logic there is no sense even lining the cars up.

Cars matter not brah , its all about the driver.