CLS500 is really underpowered! Why only 306BHP?

[Mcobinad]

long thread, just wondered if power was critical to you on purchase... if you had budget why did you not buy 2007MY with 388bhp?

Because at the time of purchase, i did not see any '57' reg with 388 bhp available. I will still repeat myself, i wanted a '55' at the initial stage but the ones i was after had far lesser options than my present 500 which has all the options i want. CLS Options here

 

[johno2004]

Does it mean as well that the 3.2 krompressor engines in certain merc models will be faster than 500?

My SLK32 AMG puts out 349BHP and would make you even more miserable if you tried to race me, sorry !

 

[television]

So this thread is still going and not running out of forum power

 

[Mcobinad]

My SLK32 AMG puts out 349BHP and would make you even more miserable if you tried to race me, sorry !

Gracious goodness :Oops:! Please am not trying to race you and never will i try! I have been embarrassed once by a car putting out lesser (hp) and i do not want to add more insult to an injury Am just quietly recuperating from the insult !

 

[Mcobinad]

So this thread is still going and not running out of forum power

Hey Malcolm, is this not a forum to share knowledge? How is this thread running out of forum veto

 

[3Star]

Have a turbo fitted professionally.

 

[47p2]

Any time I've driven a CL500 they never felt underpowered to me

 

[Mcobinad]

Any time I've driven a CL500 they never felt underpowered to me

The old ones with 306 (hp) or the new ones with 388 (hp)?

 

[Mcobinad]

Have a turbo fitted professionally.

Remap @ a later date may be worth considering. On a second thought, the power gain 18 to 20 (hp) is not really much !

 

[television]

Remap @ a later date may be worth considering. On a second thought, the power gain 18 to 20 (hp) is not really much !

If you do you must use 98 ron fuel as well

 

[Mcobinad]

If you do you must use 98 ron fuel as well

Am already running '98'. I don't compromise quality fuel. Guess the V8 needs it to stay refined !

 

[S500 Pete]

Am already running '98'. I don't compromise quality fuel. Guess the V8 needs it to stay refined !

Hi,

I always run 98 after reading an article some time ago that it actually gives more bang per pound so given identical use will actually be more economic. This was when the difference was 85p instead of 80p. Given that the difference is still only 5p the percentage difference is even less so the benefit should be greater.

I don't think that the difference will ever be felt from the drivers seat unless you are sitting on your wallet.

 

[television]

Am already running '98'. I don't compromise quality fuel. Guess the V8 needs it to stay refined !

You are just wasting your money and this has been proved many time, fuel quality, now what is that may I ask , the 113 lump in your car is not tuned in any way at all, it is also possible to use fuel as low as 91 ron in it. Many test have shown that the consumption can be worse on 98 ron fuel.

You can use it as a cleaner from time to time, but more effective to use a injection cleaner.

 

[television]

Hi,

I always run 98 after reading an article some time ago that it actually gives more bang per pound so given identical use will actually be more economic. This was when the difference was 85p instead of 80p. Given that the difference is still only 5p the percentage difference is even less so the benefit should be greater.

I don't think that the difference will ever be felt from the drivers seat unless you are sitting on your wallet.

Just reading an article does not mean its fact, no more than it does here. there is nothing to be gained as the compression is too low on a unblown engine to get any benefit at all from it.

 

[Mcobinad]

Am just so confused now! A friend told me once that buying fuel from 'Shell company' was just a waste of money because similar fuel could be bought at third party fuel suppliers like Morrison & Tesco for cheap. I listened to him and resorted to buying from Morrison as 'Petrol Prices.com' proves it to be the cheapest in my area. Another acquaintance oneday told me the contrary as to why fuel emanating from Morrison & Tesco could be as bad quality stating that water is used to dilute their fuel.

A journal article & BBC news last 6 years denounced the bad quality of fuel from Tesco & Morrison and other third party fuel supliers stating that all cars that were filled up @ Tesco & Morrison back in 2006/2007 had engine problems and indemnities were claimed from these individuals with cars still on warranty. I decided to go back to Shell. So why is '98 ron' a premium fuel and '95' not I guess there is something which the '98' Ron does that the latter does not.

Article

 

[Silver_Star]

So why is '98 ron' a premium fuel and '95' not I guess there is something which the '98' Ron does that the latter does not.

The higher the Ron or octane rating, the more compression the fuel can take before being combusted.

Its pretty pointless paying the extra on a N/A standard engine.

 

[SSR S500]

There are certain cars that need to run on 98 octane fuel. quite often top end highly tuned engines will see benefit and run better. Mitsubishi stated that their top of the range evo 9 iirc should only use shell optimax. Whether this was just because of the higher grade I'm not sure as you could get 98 octane from other stations too.

May just be a commercial agreement between Mitsubishi and Shell?

 

[television]

As the 2 post above,, any blown engine will need the 98 ron.

The Tesco thing was a one off mistake. I have used it for the past 15 years in all of my cars including my very fast V70R, a 2.3 liter car that is as fast as my 5 liter SL500 and always the 95 ron

 

[JBell]

N/A cars don't generally need "super" unleaded, although there are some exceptions to this, Porsche for example specify you must use at lease 98Ron fuel with Shell being 99Ron.

Forced induction is a different thing and higher Ron fuels will make a difference.

No point in paying out for something not needed

 

[Mcobinad]

I have used it for the past 15 years in all of my cars including my very fast V70R, a 2.3 liter car that is as fast as my 5 liter SL500 and always the 95 ron

People who have noticed a significant decline in power after filling up with '95' ron are on the verge on certain forums. Or is it just a psychological feeling going from '98' to '95'? Am all about saving myself some few (£) if someone can explain further on this issue of '95' vs '98'. I know this debate is an issue likely to propagate controversy as different people have different experiences with these fuel categories.

If i may have to resort to '95', then i guess i must really know why it is really fuel efficient and how this can give me a better 'MPG' compared to the latter. Or significant difference in MPG depends on how light footed an individual is. Don't know if i have answered my own question?