lol is all I have to say. How is my example irrelevant? You’re talking about saving money. The price of the oil might be the same but in theory you’ll be saving in money because your thinner oil will make your engine work less harder thus saving you in fuel costs. Makes sense?

congrats. We all worked hard to get where we are. I am the biggest stickler when it comes to spending money on useless stuff. However, I bought a house that costs $650,000, and not one that costs a million. Can I afford a million dollar house? Yes. Would I ever buy one in the current situation I’m in? No. Why? Because I’d live like a homeless person gathering every penny trying to afford that million dollar house. Does that make sense? Kind of like what you’re doing with your Mercedes. You bought a $70,000 car that requires 91+ octane fuel and you’re putting in 89 because you’re going to save maybe $500-$1000 a year. Why not just buy something that you can afford to not tear apart after x amount of miles. Because any mechanic you ask will tell you that you’re putting wear and tear on your engine by putting in less octane fuel.

and your windshield wiper analogy tells me everything about how you think. You’re talking about something that goes on your windshield vs something that goes inside of your engine. That’s like comparing face wash vs what you eat that goes into your body. I’m pretty sure you can use milk as your windshield wiper fluid and it wouldn’t make a difference from what you can buy at Costco for $2 a gallon.

again, do ever you want and what makes your boat float. But like I said, most of us who buy a Mercedes Audi bmw Bentley etc don’t really care about saving $500 a year. If we did, we’d drive Prius’s as I’ve mentioned.

 

Um... or just use water if the climate doesn't freeze in around the corner you live.

 

yes, that works. I put water in the summer time in Europe when I drove from Switzerland to Croatia. No washer fluid and the bugs were insane that summer. It worked until I got to a gas station to buy some fluid.

i wouldn’t actually put milk in there 🤣 i was just saying that to be funny.

 

Because with oil you do not save any money going from 5W - 40 to 10W-30. Going from 93 to 87 saves over 4 years as I posted $2,000. Maybe not to you, but to me $2,000 is still a lot of money.

Nope not at all: Do not know your finances, but to live in a $650K house and drive a $70K car makes no sense to me: a car worth 10% of your house? You may be in over year head driving a Mercedes.



Do not even go there: my house is worth north of $2 million, fully paid for no mortgage, and is only a fraction of my total assets. I use 87 octane because it does not harm my car and saves money. You keep talking about wear and tear on the engine: if you knew anything about octane, which is nothing more than a measure of the ability of a fuel to resist pre-ignition or pre-detonation, than you would not make that statement. Additives are added to gasoline to raise the octane. But you knew this already, correct.



Speak for yourself. Most of the people I know do care about saving $2,000 over 5 years and yes they do live in house north of $2million and do drive cars as you discribe.

Perhaps next time instead of buy a 4 cylinder which you describe as a "laggier", spend the extra money and get a real Mercedes with the 6 cylinder engine!

 

bro what are you smoking…. My E300 is my beater car. I have a GT63, an S class, and 4 other cars in America and in Europe. I’m not talking about who’s richer and who has more sh*t. Congrats on your 2 million dollar house, no one cares. I hope you buy an even more expensive house in the future. But youre on here complaining about $2000 worth of gas a year. Go buy a 1.5 liter sh*t box if you’re worried about your MPG. Jesus. What aren’t you understanding about what you’re saying that just mind boggling.

let me go put 87 octane in Switzerland because a GALLON of gasoline in Europe is well over $6+. If I or anyone else buying a 6.2 liter car were worried about gas mileage we’d all ride bicycles.

and my “4 cylinder” isn’t “laggy”. It’s “laggy” after I put in 87 octane. Because of the lower grade octane that I tested. Read a little.

 

I see.

 

Surprised to hear anyone would want to save some money doing something that could hurt their engine and certainly reduces its performance. If I was paying 6 a gallon I would have more incentive. Just because you do not hear a problem does not mean it is not happening. But it is good to know that this is something I could try if I get too cheap to enjoy my car and don't want to sell. Other cars are designedcbetter for eco cruising.

 

When you assume your conclusion you are always right! I have never read that using 87 octane will hurt your engine. If you have documentation to show otherwise please post.

Octane is nothing more than the measure of how much compression gasoline will take before it pre-detonates. Delaying pre-detonation permits the engine to generate more power. All modern cars have electronic sensors that detect pre-detonation so no damage will ever occur using 87 octane. As I posted the loss of power using 87 octane is 5% to 7%. My E450 produces 365 HP. Using 87 octane I lose at most 23 HP. I am fine with 332 HP! I will never miss the 23 HP.

 

It's uncommon to have common sense these days.

 

You my friend are more hard headed than @Massimo Here . Seriously. Are you guys related or something? All you have to do is Google the downsides of using a lower octane fuel.

Tells you how you'll actually not save any money by putting in 87 vs 93. You're wasting your time and hurting your engine.
https://www.thedrive.com/cars-101/36...-a-premium-car

Ask ChatGBT:


Another website:
https://www.enginebuildermag.com/202...e-performance/

Theres literally 100 different websites explaining how what you're doing is not saving you money and how you're ruining your engine and turbo. But what do I (or Mercedes engineers) know. you're definitely smarter than all of us. Maybe you should work at AMG and engineer cars instead of them.

 

The ECU logs can easily tell the dealership if you were using lower octane gas and void any related warranty claims. It adjusts to reduce knock and also logs these adjustments.
​​​​​​

 

I'm not going to tell anyone what fuel to use. It's a tiring argument that has been debated for many years on this and other car and motorcycle forums. Use what you want. However, if you look in the manual I think you will find similar language to the below which is taken from the MY24_E Sedan Owners Manual. I've outlined the relevant parts related to octane, but it's useful to read the whole section on fuel to get the full context. It seems that MB is trying to stress the importance of using at least 91 octane in their engine. They go so far as to say that if you must use lower than 91 then you should only fill the tank half way and find a station with 91 as soon as possible to refuel with.

 

I doubt anyone from MB is actually monitoring this forum, but it amazes me what people feel is okay to share in public, not considering the potential consequences. I hope no one is encouraged to see how they can flaunt the rules and avoid the repercussions.

It's also a safety issue. I would hate to have to drive on a busy road knowing that I could not floor it to get out of trouble, to avoid an accident for instance, or to relieve some boredom (lol).

 

Put me in the live and let live camp. I use premium in our W213 but not in our 6.2L K2XX. I take both in for service to the dealer regularly and haven't received in queries about fuel use or engine issues. It might help me to pick a side if there were actual cases presented of warranty work being denied due to fuel use.

ps - JTK44 is no Massimo.

 

I'm pretty sure what @wildta was trying to say about the computer logs having to do with warranty is if something actually happened to the engine (ie. the engine blowing up, piston melting, cylinder scoring, etc). If that happened, and MB took a look at your computer to see what might've caused it, they would deny the warranty claim if they saw you used lower than 91 octane.

ps - I know he's not Massimo. but he's acting like a real Karen/Massimo. Take some constructive criticism and move on. Not everyone out there is out to get him.

 

Personally, I'd say it's unlikely any related engine issues would happen in the first four years/50k miles but just want people to be aware that the trail of breadcrumbs are there for the dealer to see. Everyone has their own level of risk taking/aversion but it helps to be more informed so each individual can make their own assessments. For example, there are a subset of owners who fear even just ILS+ coding as a means of voiding the warranty.

 

Mercedes already told buyers what fuels to use, some feel they could save a few hundred dollars a year by out smarting Mercedes and the oil companies. Feeding a race horse twinkies is not a good idea

 

Back on topic:

On Monday March 17 I drove from Long Island to Vermont. The drive was both local and interstate. The speed on I 95 and I 91 was between 70 and 75 mph. Average speed was about 64 mph. This is the best I have ever seen: over 700 miles of range.

Tires: Pirelli Centurato P 7 run flat
Tire pressure: cold 35 psi
Temperature: 47 degrees
Conditions: dry
Gas: Shell regular
Weight: Driver plus about 100 lbs of ski equipment
AC: off
Average mpg: 35

 

I pay extra for premium electrons with top-tier contactor cleaner. But I drive an EV so guess I'm off topic. Back to your stone-age transportation issues.

 

For winter driving to Vermont, if time of travel is important, than range is important.

This past week a fellow skier drove up in a Ford Lighting pick up truck. The drive was also from Long Island, to Ludlow, Vermont, Okemo mountain, about 260 miles.. He had to stop in Springfield Mass, 160 miles of driving, for 45 minutes to get enough of charge to make it to our ski house. Then he had to leave it at the slopes for 7 hours at a level 2 charger to get enough of a charge to get back to Springfield and then again wait another 45 minutes to get enough of a charge to get back to Long Island. (There are no level 3 charges within 40 miles of Ludlow) If the weather was colder, it was in the mid 40's/low 50's, the range would have decreased and he would have had to make two, not just one stop in Springfield, to make it up and again two stops to get home. That would have added another 30 minutes, total 75 minutes for charging. The total trip is only 4 hours 10 minutes driving, 250 minutes, so the charging added over an another 1 hour and 15 minutes to a 4 hours trip: that is more than 25%. That is like going from 65 mph to just under 50 mph!

EV's are great when used properly. But with the present technology which limits both charging time and range, they are not for everyone, especially long travel in cold temperatures..

 

In China they're using the term "new energy vehicle" (NEV) to differentiate hybrids that use the gas engine solely as a generator verses hybrids like in the USA which still use the gas engine to power the wheels. Some manufacturers, most notably Scout, are calling them "range extenders".

In any case, I can't argue that charging infrastructure is woefully lacking in America, but that's not the case elsewhere:

 

Yes the lack of a robust charging infrastructure in the US was being addressed by the Biden administration. I suspect that the Trump administration will put a "hold" on this project.

IMO, we will eventually move to EV's and the sooner the better. But it is like the chicken and the egg: without a robust charging infrastructure EV sales will lag, and without EV's, a build out of the charging infrastructure will lag. That is why the government must step in.

Just my $.02

 

Whatever Trump does for EV infrastructure will be superior to the Biden EV charging station project.

 

Ua549 posted:

Whatever Trump does for EV infrastructure will be superior to the Biden EV charging station project.
Quote:
U.S. Rep. Michael Rulli, R-Ohio posted on X "Pete Buttigieg will leave his post as Transportation Secretary having spent $7.5 BILLION to build 8 EV charging stations"


This had me wondering why the Trump administration has not been touting this failure: The reason is quite simple: It a completely false statement;

Anyone interested can learn the truth:

see:

No, the Biden administration has not spent $7.5B to build 8 EV charging stations

https://www.9news.com/article/news/v...a-9e701276ad81

and

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ev-charging-3/

 

Just watched the video: All I can say is WOW! Many thanks for posting.