"87" Octane Anyone ???
11-12-2018, 08:39 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
"87" Octane Anyone ???
Hi everyone" ..who here has been Using "87" Octane on their MB ..Any imputs greatly appreciated" ..please Share with us
11-12-2018, 10:45 AM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Cool..Thanx for Sharing..What year is your GL ? ..I have been Sampling this year on my R350 on 87 Octane and its been pretty ok' ..knock on wood ...back when i had a E320 only Premium Mobil and Shell touched my gas tank..but that was years ago...and gas was much cheaper...if i was to throw premium now ..it seems like a waste
11-12-2018, 12:13 PM
#4
Member
For me, it is nowhere cheaper to use regular gas on my 550.
I tried it before and consumption takes a 10-20% hit when I use regular gas instead of premium.
The performance is similar as I don't push the limits on my daily life but average consumption goes up from 12,5l / 100km to 15l / 100km almost immediately.
From my perspective, its the same thing and I find premium to be more logical as the range is higher and I need fewer stops to the station = even less money spent on gas overall.
I tried it before and consumption takes a 10-20% hit when I use regular gas instead of premium.
The performance is similar as I don't push the limits on my daily life but average consumption goes up from 12,5l / 100km to 15l / 100km almost immediately.
From my perspective, its the same thing and I find premium to be more logical as the range is higher and I need fewer stops to the station = even less money spent on gas overall.
11-12-2018, 12:40 PM
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
For me, it is nowhere cheaper to use regular gas on my 550.
I tried it before and consumption takes a 10-20% hit when I use regular gas instead of premium.
The performance is similar as I don't push the limits on my daily life but average consumption goes up from 12,5l / 100km to 15l / 100km almost immediately.
From my perspective, its the same thing and I find premium to be more logical as the range is higher and I need fewer stops to the station = even less money spent on gas overall.
I tried it before and consumption takes a 10-20% hit when I use regular gas instead of premium.
The performance is similar as I don't push the limits on my daily life but average consumption goes up from 12,5l / 100km to 15l / 100km almost immediately.
From my perspective, its the same thing and I find premium to be more logical as the range is higher and I need fewer stops to the station = even less money spent on gas overall.
Thanx for your input...ironicaly the opposite is happening to me...Premium gets drunk so freakin fast i was get pissed the first week...thus why i started dabing slowly to use 87 and have been for a while...but my engine is slightly diffrent i own a R350 ..but yea i see what ur saying...is just i was having the opposite effect...no lie
11-12-2018, 12:42 PM
#6
Member
Compression and characteristics can differ hugely so your case might still stand valid.
Mine is a plain V8. I was tempted to switch on many occasions but always ended up coming back to 91.
Mine is a plain V8. I was tempted to switch on many occasions but always ended up coming back to 91.
11-12-2018, 07:43 PM
#7
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my garage
Posts: 8,424
Received 1,003 Likes
on
810 Posts
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
Mine is a 2007. Regular has more energy than premium but knock and ignition retard may be an issue for some. I would not recommend using it in the 550. The 450 handles it just fine. I wouldn't recommend it for any 166 GL.
Trending Topics
11-12-2018, 10:03 PM
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Yea me too brother...mine drinks Premium wayy too fast ..then threw in 87 to try to balance the darn thing off and its been proceeding fairly well...but either way i wanted to see if any of yoou guys have years experience with using 87 octane and maybe is not so crazy as it seems..
11-13-2018, 09:36 AM
#9
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Emmett, ID, USA
Posts: 2,577
Received 573 Likes
on
482 Posts
2007 GL450
Run an extended mileage test. I ran premium for 1,000 miles, followed by regular for the same interval. I was careful to note that the driving habits were similar, e.g. no long trips in either case. Similar time of year, too; they were consecutive.
I reckoned that the knock sensors would prevent any predetonation, but with retarded timing the mileage (fuel economy) would suffer.
I found in fact the opposite: With premium, mileage was slightly worse.
I went to regular and have now for about 100k miles. No issues.
I reckoned that the knock sensors would prevent any predetonation, but with retarded timing the mileage (fuel economy) would suffer.
I found in fact the opposite: With premium, mileage was slightly worse.
I went to regular and have now for about 100k miles. No issues.
11-13-2018, 10:10 AM
#10
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Run an extended mileage test. I ran premium for 1,000 miles, followed by regular for the same interval. I was careful to note that the driving habits were similar, e.g. no long trips in either case. Similar time of year, too; they were consecutive.
I reckoned that the knock sensors would prevent any predetonation, but with retarded timing the mileage (fuel economy) would suffer.
I found in fact the opposite: With premium, mileage was slightly worse.
I went to regular and have now for about 100k miles. No issues.
I reckoned that the knock sensors would prevent any predetonation, but with retarded timing the mileage (fuel economy) would suffer.
I found in fact the opposite: With premium, mileage was slightly worse.
I went to regular and have now for about 100k miles. No issues.
My friend !!! Thank you ..this is exactly what im talking about...With Premium my car would guzzle that crap like sweet liquor no lie ...i know in other models like a E320 i had, Premium would give wayy better fuel economy, that was wayy visible as the fuel needle would not take any hits that were visible on the road or after flooring it...heck i thought id be crazy throwing 87 and have my engine burn it all up fast....but on My case now with my R350 and your GL we are getting better results this way...if im not mistaken GL and Rclass have alot in common in the engine ..either it was the GL or The ML had the engine with a few similar Specs..all in all im glad on your answer and lookin foward to hearing you hit another 100k+ and more your car...in fact im in love with the GL320 diesel and been tempted to switch...anyone care to share whats the best Most Reliable GL Class ? And what year ?
11-13-2018, 11:05 AM
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
The premium vs regular debate is always an interesting one as there never seems to be a finite answer - even looking at reputable websites that discuss the differences, it's still a bit up in the air. I do think that there's no question, anymore, about being able to "safely" run regular in an engine that was originally spec'd for premium. The newer computers and systems can adapt well enough. Unlike in the older cars where you would definitely get pinging - especially going uphill. If you're worried about the "safe" aspect, just carry a bottle of octane boost with you until you gain a comfort level.
There's another variable that comes into play, too. Age of the engine. There's no doubt that an engine (more-so/more readily in a gasser than a diesel) may lose a little bit of compression as it ages. The slightly lower compression will make it even easier to run lower octane.
However, one of things that I found interesting regarding this subject is that power and fuel economy don't necessarily share a common "bell curve", so to say. Sometimes they are inverse to each other. Which, quite honestly, does sound counter-intuitive. But the more I researched, it definitely seems to be true - at least most of the time (back to nothing "finite" again). But the difference in power may not be readily available by most... may only be noticeable at higher RPM's... and may only be noticeable with credible testing/date. For most people, they would probably never know a difference.
There's another variable that comes into play, too. Age of the engine. There's no doubt that an engine (more-so/more readily in a gasser than a diesel) may lose a little bit of compression as it ages. The slightly lower compression will make it even easier to run lower octane.
However, one of things that I found interesting regarding this subject is that power and fuel economy don't necessarily share a common "bell curve", so to say. Sometimes they are inverse to each other. Which, quite honestly, does sound counter-intuitive. But the more I researched, it definitely seems to be true - at least most of the time (back to nothing "finite" again). But the difference in power may not be readily available by most... may only be noticeable at higher RPM's... and may only be noticeable with credible testing/date. For most people, they would probably never know a difference.
11-13-2018, 06:31 PM
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
The premium vs regular debate is always an interesting one as there never seems to be a finite answer - even looking at reputable websites that discuss the differences, it's still a bit up in the air. I do think that there's no question, anymore, about being able to "safely" run regular in an engine that was originally spec'd for premium. The newer computers and systems can adapt well enough. Unlike in the older cars where you would definitely get pinging - especially going uphill. If you're worried about the "safe" aspect, just carry a bottle of octane boost with you until you gain a comfort level.
There's another variable that comes into play, too. Age of the engine. There's no doubt that an engine (more-so/more readily in a gasser than a diesel) may lose a little bit of compression as it ages. The slightly lower compression will make it even easier to run lower octane.
However, one of things that I found interesting regarding this subject is that power and fuel economy don't necessarily share a common "bell curve", so to say. Sometimes they are inverse to each other. Which, quite honestly, does sound counter-intuitive. But the more I researched, it definitely seems to be true - at least most of the time (back to nothing "finite" again). But the difference in power may not be readily available by most... may only be noticeable at higher RPM's... and may only be noticeable with credible testing/date. For most people, they would probably never know a difference.
There's another variable that comes into play, too. Age of the engine. There's no doubt that an engine (more-so/more readily in a gasser than a diesel) may lose a little bit of compression as it ages. The slightly lower compression will make it even easier to run lower octane.
However, one of things that I found interesting regarding this subject is that power and fuel economy don't necessarily share a common "bell curve", so to say. Sometimes they are inverse to each other. Which, quite honestly, does sound counter-intuitive. But the more I researched, it definitely seems to be true - at least most of the time (back to nothing "finite" again). But the difference in power may not be readily available by most... may only be noticeable at higher RPM's... and may only be noticeable with credible testing/date. For most people, they would probably never know a difference.
Yea as far as performance wise..i speak on behalf of the SUV drivers of MB drivers that are not necessarily Drag racing or looking to drag Race..or maybe even if you are looking to Pull a very big boat..Then yeah for sure use your Premium...but for regular driving with only you or a couple of passengers..i would hate to think that this would be such a bad idea....its a strong debate but im looking for people to come out like some few i talked to that has been goin 100k+ strong on 87 octane and some that have been using it for years....the point is ..depends on what MB Engine and Year of vehicle determines its usability to accept 87 " ..thanks for your reply im hoping to hear feedback from all..
11-13-2018, 06:39 PM
#13
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Emmett, ID, USA
Posts: 2,577
Received 573 Likes
on
482 Posts
2007 GL450
Bottom line is you really ought to do your own experiment, like I did. Who's to say the engine management software didn't change from year to year, making one year more sensitive than another to lower octane. Furthermore, aren't you going to feel stupid if it turns out to harm your engine and you took some internet a-hole's word that it would be okay.
What you can feel comfortable with is that the motor won't blow up if you try 87 octane for one tank.
I did notice a light pinging in certain part throttle, low rpm situations. I don't remember but it seemed like it happened with either grade of gas. In any event, a part throttle ping won't hurt much of anything. You're worried about the full throttle knock-knock-who's-there.
What you can feel comfortable with is that the motor won't blow up if you try 87 octane for one tank.
I did notice a light pinging in certain part throttle, low rpm situations. I don't remember but it seemed like it happened with either grade of gas. In any event, a part throttle ping won't hurt much of anything. You're worried about the full throttle knock-knock-who's-there.
11-13-2018, 07:00 PM
#14
Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MB CL500 2006
I have used regular in several high end cars including Mercedez CL500, BMW 750 and Land Rover and always got better mileage with regular. Did not notice and impact on performance and the savings is significant.
11-13-2018, 07:32 PM
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
I've been using 89 octane in my BMW 5-series for 100K miles (I believe it originally called for 91). I've never done any performance testing (0-60, 50 to 70, etc), but I do keep very accurate MPG records and they are right in line with anyone else I've compared to - sometimes a tad bit better. I'm thinking of trying out 87 octane and just follow my own advice of keeping a bottle of octane boost with me for a while.
11-13-2018, 10:12 PM
#16
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Thanks for sharing..yea it is significant...enough to Lease a Tesla..
11-13-2018, 10:19 PM
#17
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I've been using 89 octane in my BMW 5-series for 100K miles (I believe it originally called for 91). I've never done any performance testing (0-60, 50 to 70, etc), but I do keep very accurate MPG records and they are right in line with anyone else I've compared to - sometimes a tad bit better. I'm thinking of trying out 87 octane and just follow my own advice of keeping a bottle of octane boost with me for a while.
11-14-2018, 07:23 AM
#18
For me, it is nowhere cheaper to use regular gas on my 550.
I tried it before and consumption takes a 10-20% hit when I use regular gas instead of premium.
The performance is similar as I don't push the limits on my daily life but average consumption goes up from 12,5l / 100km to 15l / 100km almost immediately.
I tried it before and consumption takes a 10-20% hit when I use regular gas instead of premium.
The performance is similar as I don't push the limits on my daily life but average consumption goes up from 12,5l / 100km to 15l / 100km almost immediately.
11-14-2018, 10:16 AM
#19
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Emmett, ID, USA
Posts: 2,577
Received 573 Likes
on
482 Posts
2007 GL450
Try it out' ..im telling you ..you will know right away if its for you...again on my E320 it was night and day diffrence' as Premium gas lasted soo much longer and 87 was like rubing alcohol evaporated right away..would **** me off...but on my RClass its the other way arround...Premium gas made no sense...very little mpg comparing it to 87" octane
If your mileage is noticeably worse with 87, don't use it. That is an indication that the knock sensors are retarding the timing. You really shouldn't be using an engine outside its design parameters. Carbon deposits build up faster, there is more unburned fuel in the exhaust, your catalytic converters overheat ... it's just not worth it.
11-14-2018, 10:25 AM
#20
Hello All,
I came to this thread and since reading it, it make sense to me why you should stick to the manufacture's recommended grade.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/...gular-gasoline
I came to this thread and since reading it, it make sense to me why you should stick to the manufacture's recommended grade.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/...gular-gasoline
11-14-2018, 10:33 AM
#21
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Emmett, ID, USA
Posts: 2,577
Received 573 Likes
on
482 Posts
2007 GL450
Hello All,
I came to this thread and since reading it, it make sense to me why you should stick to the manufacture's recommended grade.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/...gular-gasoline
I came to this thread and since reading it, it make sense to me why you should stick to the manufacture's recommended grade.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/...gular-gasoline
11-14-2018, 10:46 AM
#22
No I am not that kind of person, I would love to use 87 just because it is cheaper.
Friend of mine has 2007 GL450 and has check engine light on, took to the dealership and they diagnosed and told him that he needs new catalytic converter. The repair adviser stated that the reason is that the vehicle has been using 87 which clogs up the converter. Now I don't know if the cause is because of using 87 which has 10% ethanol or maybe converters were at the end of their life. (now my friend stated that he had been using 91 lol, not sure that if he just didn't want to admit that he was using 87 or not)
Friend of mine has 2007 GL450 and has check engine light on, took to the dealership and they diagnosed and told him that he needs new catalytic converter. The repair adviser stated that the reason is that the vehicle has been using 87 which clogs up the converter. Now I don't know if the cause is because of using 87 which has 10% ethanol or maybe converters were at the end of their life. (now my friend stated that he had been using 91 lol, not sure that if he just didn't want to admit that he was using 87 or not)
11-14-2018, 11:07 AM
#23
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Emmett, ID, USA
Posts: 2,577
Received 573 Likes
on
482 Posts
2007 GL450
Then try it, like I advised repeatedly.
Hahahaha that's a new one! Complete nonsense. Dealerships are weird; they'll say anything to put you on the defensive so you accept their stratospheric labor rates. They lie. Sad but true.
Now, I suspect that in some engines, unburned 87 octane fuel could overheat the cats, as I noted previously. If the engine's mileage is the same, I don't believe that is a possible explanation.
Possibly the service adviser was confused between 87 and leaded. They're not the brightest bulbs in the tree.
It is difficult to find any gasoline in the U.S. that does not have 10% ethanol in it.
There does not seem to be clear information on what causes catalytic converter failure. My guess is that hard (hot) driving accelerates cat wear. Fouling, as in oil in the exhaust, may also cause it. I have not found good info on how much oil can cause premature fouling. Apparently anywhere from 100k miles up is the expected lifetime.
I bet he looked nervous, and so they figured he was lying, and figured they'd lie right back.
I hope he didn't pay the dealership to change the cats; it can be done for much cheaper.
Yes, you are. If you read more than the U.S. News puff piece, you would have found that most of what you were concerned about was already addressed. I don't mean to be harsh, but it's tiring to see people who are apparently curious - coming to a forum to exchange ideas - and yet don't bother to read. DAFS and all that.
Now, I suspect that in some engines, unburned 87 octane fuel could overheat the cats, as I noted previously. If the engine's mileage is the same, I don't believe that is a possible explanation.
Possibly the service adviser was confused between 87 and leaded. They're not the brightest bulbs in the tree.
There does not seem to be clear information on what causes catalytic converter failure. My guess is that hard (hot) driving accelerates cat wear. Fouling, as in oil in the exhaust, may also cause it. I have not found good info on how much oil can cause premature fouling. Apparently anywhere from 100k miles up is the expected lifetime.
I hope he didn't pay the dealership to change the cats; it can be done for much cheaper.
Yes, you are. If you read more than the U.S. News puff piece, you would have found that most of what you were concerned about was already addressed. I don't mean to be harsh, but it's tiring to see people who are apparently curious - coming to a forum to exchange ideas - and yet don't bother to read. DAFS and all that.
