Good evening to all

I just picked up my 2012 ML 350 4Matic this evening.
White w/tan interior
fully loaded with P2 package! Very Nice!



Anyways, I know this ML 350 isn't a sports car and that it is naturally aspirated, however I wanted to know if there were any performance upgrades that I could do the the car to make it faster, more efficient, better MPG and just overall perform better.

I read something about using a K & N air filter to improve MPG and performance, however idk if thats true or not.


Thanks for all the help!

 

A K & N filter is not going to doing anything as far as gas mileage or power, otherwise, Mercedes would have install it from the factory. What you need is a tune, new intake or exhaust.

 

I'm familiar with tuning etc but I wasn't aware you could tune the ML 350?

If so could you show me a site that provides this and other modifications.

Thanks

 

google this, it has some good reviews https://www.racechip-usa.com/chiptun...BlueTEC-190kw/

 

That's for the diesel version. I have the 4 MATIC gasoline one

 

I guess checking website will help
https://www.racechip-usa.com/chiptun...66)/400-245kw/

 

Don't f*** with it. If there was any "free" power to be had to be had or an increase in efficiency, Mercedes would have certainly given it to you already. I really don't get the whole "two guys with some $0.02 resistors and a soldering iron know better than MB engineers" crap any why people are so gullible that they actually end up drinking the Koolaid.

 

Several tuners have files for this. It's basically the SLK350 file, which was allowed to make more from the factory.

 

Looks like we have a factory Mercedes rep here. The FACT is that Mercedes frequently de-tunes "lower end" models with artificial software limitations in order to sell what is, essentially, the identical car with an "S" or "P" package down the road as a performance "upgrade".

Take the C350 and the SLK350, for example. In the C, that engine makes 268 HP. In the SLK, it makes 300 ... do you really think Mercedes went to the trouble of developing an all-new set of intakes, heads, valves, etc. to make "all the power they could", or is it a software change? (Hint: it's a software change)

These are marketing games, and you can take advantage of them by boosting power (in some cases) while still maintaining factory levels of reliability.

 

And it looks like we have an ignorant aftermarket snake oil sales rep here. While I don't work for Mercedes, I am an engineer with experinece in the automotive industry... so yeah, good luck there, Bunkie.

In your example between the C350 and the SLK350... yes, the M272 motor has different heads, intake manifold, exhaust system along with various other components between those two cars. In the SL350, the M272 engine also has different cams and valves in addition to the ECU tune, which gives it the ability to reliably rev to 7200 rpm.

While *some* MB vehicles are in fact artificially detuned (or in certain cases the claimed power output is lower than actual) for marketing purposes, this is not the norm nor the case here. Can you get a non-P31 M156 motor to produce the same power output as a P31 engine? Sure. Is it goign to last as long as the P31 engine? Not even in your dreams if you actually use it in such a way where you start tapping into the extra power released by the tune... and it sure as hell ain't going to make it more fuel efficient. The only fact here is that you're peddling half-truths and Koolaid to everyone without telling them about the down side... assuming that you actually know that there are some.

 

100% agree with your statement re: more power/load produces more wear on an engine. That's always what tuners are doing, trading against that built-in reliability. There's an expression, "GO FAST, GO FAR, GO CHEAP ... choose any two" that we used to have on a banner back when we were building electric cars at Mosler in the 90s. That mantra has ALWAYS applied, but that's not what I'm selling here. You can absolutely bump a C350 (or E350, or GLK350) to produce near SLK levels of power with SLK levels of reliability.

That said, there are a number of different part numbers out there that are ... let's say "different for the sake of shipping and organizing to different factories" since you seem averse to using the term "marketing ploy" in relation to Mercedes. More often than you might think, different part numbers are completely interchangeable because there is almost no material difference. So, will a tuned C350 be as responsive as the SLK or rev as freely at higher RPM due to the "different" heads and intake/exhaust packaging? Maybe. Is it fair to call that "snake oil"? Absolutely not.

 

Now we're much closer to the truth and furthermore appear to be on the same page. I completley agree with the "GO FAST, GO FAR, GO CHEAP ... choose any two" slogan, with the emphasis on TWO - because any two necessarily come at the expense of the third. The OP was asking about having all three, and I merely pointed out that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I have no issues whatsoever with using the word marketing ploy where it is fully warranted, including Mercedes. Listing the P31 C63 as having 481 hp and then once the CLS, E and S models that previously used the same engine moved to the 5.5L TT motor, the exact same C63 car became the "507", is 110% a marketing ploy. On the other hand, the factory "detuned" non-P31 C63s with 451 hp were not necessarlily detuned for marketing reasons - the P31 brought forged pistonos, crank and other bits from the SLS motor that resulted in 7 lbs less of reciprocating mass, so the power bump was warranted - but as a perfect example to your point, if EXACTLY the same engine and all associated components could be reliably tuned to produce 507 hp two years down the road, why did MB only market the P31 C63 as having 481 hp? You're abolsutley right - 100% marketing. The interesting thing is that the P31 was actually not detuned... it was mis-represented on paper while the entire time it was putting out ~500 hp.

Anyway - I don't have any beef whatsoever with you, aftermarket tunes, parts, vendors or anything else for that matter - for as long as the "GO FAST, GO FAR, GO CHEAP ... choose any two" rule is communicated to the consumer. I have probably built, tuned and blown up more engines that I've had girlfliends, and I'm all in favour of getting every single last iota of performance from any given motor. The only beef I have is when people insist that it's "free" and doesn't come at the expense of something else. Looking for more performance and better MPG in a used 5,000 lb mule (and the weight of the car does affect the longevity of the engine - an ML isn't an SLK) and expecting that for a couple of hundred bucks it will be magically transformed into part ML500, part Toyota Prius, which will then proivide many thousands of trouble-free miles of motoring bliss without any issues... it's just NOT going to happen.

 

You're awesome, and I want to be your friend.

 

X2!!! HEHEH!What is it with you 'Diabolis'? I've read probably a dozen threads where you come off as being some kind of 'Guru' with MB products!!! Always downgrading people's thoughts/suggestions/questions with your own 'King of the Road' attitude That is, until you meet someone else 'knowledgeable' in the field... then you belly up and agree! Yes... I'm calling you out!@ I'll admit, I'm not a 'guru' with MB. That said, there are plenty of examples of factory tuning/detuning of same engine to make interested parties question whether there may be extra horses in said engine. Perhaps you need to reread some of your posts before hitting the 'submit' tab. You may be knowledgeable, but you come off as an ***!
There, took me awhile, but I wrote what many have been reading.... attitude needs an adjustment.... well maybe just a slap!
\go ahead... have at it! LOL!

 

I think you've missed the point of the post completely (mine as well as Speedriven1's), and if you re-read what I wrote, I haven't back-tracked at all. When someone is asking for the impossible - as was the case here - I point that out. We BOTH agreed that performace, longevity / durabilty, efficiency and low cost are mutually exclusive, which is what IMHO was missing from the Speedriven1's original reply as I interpeted it. Once he acknowledged that you can't have all three which is what the OP was lookign for, everything got resolved. I really don't understnad what your problem is... when it turns out that an argument is a result of a miscommunication and that we are saying the same thing, then said argument is no longer an argument.

And, here's another hint for you - if you don't like my attitude, don't read my posts... or at lest offer something constructive like Speedriven1 and others have so that we can all learn form each other instead of getting your panties in a twist without actually contiributing anything of any substance. This way I can't help but think that you got yoru period this morning and just need to vent. Talk about attitude...