Horrgakx
Active Member
Is there any harm to be done by running "regular" 95?
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
kwakdonut
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 2,744
- Location
- Highworth, Wiltshire
- Car
- Frod Mundano TDCi, Kawasaki z650
Probably not but I believe the AMG's are designed to be run on the Super stuff.....
harry_dhuga
Active Member
I don't think it will cause any harm, I reckon the super unleaded makes the car smoother though - well it does on mine, isn't so lumpy on idle and slightly better fuel consumption.
OP
OP
Horrgakx
Active Member
I put £90 worth of regular in on Sunday, dread to think what Super costs
(and that £90 got me only 230 miles!!!)
(and that £90 got me only 230 miles!!!)
kwakdonut
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 2,744
- Location
- Highworth, Wiltshire
- Car
- Frod Mundano TDCi, Kawasaki z650
What does the label on the inside of the fuel flap say? 95min or 97min??
rees_A
Banned
I use super as it makes it run more smoothly and is designed to run on it although it works with 95 just not as good.
OP
OP
Horrgakx
Active Member
Good Q, I haven't noticed it, I'll check!
DRBC43AMG
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,118
- Location
- Switzerland, Locarno (TI)
- Car
- 2013 C63 AMG coupe "T-Rex", 1999 C43 AMG saloon "Grandma" (sold), Ultima Sports Can-Am (sold)
I believe on the flap it says "super 95 octane". Its what I use except that in Switzerland its called "normal" petrol. Super petrol here is 98 octane. You can also find 100 octane at most Shell stations, but the price 
The lowest consumption I got was obtained with the 100 octane (only one tank worth). the 98 is not bad with also a slightly better consumption than the 95 but I havn't tried it with several tanks and yet to notice a significant improvement. I'll see in a couple of months time. The performance seems better and much smoother with the 98 over the 95. Must admit that the V8 growls better with the 98
The lowest consumption I got was obtained with the 100 octane (only one tank worth). the 98 is not bad with also a slightly better consumption than the 95 but I havn't tried it with several tanks and yet to notice a significant improvement. I'll see in a couple of months time. The performance seems better and much smoother with the 98 over the 95. Must admit that the V8 growls better with the 98
EDZ649
MB Enthusiast
You must have a very heavy right foot, I get more than that out of my 600 V12!
I agree - must be lead feet and round town only? £90 @ £1.20 a litre = 75 litres = 16.48 gallons.
230 miles over 16.48 gallons is less than 14mpg. The '55s will do twice that on a normal run and high teens around town even when driven quite briskly.
My '55 doesn't get used for commuting etc - it normally comes out for a bit of fun and I don't tend to hang about. But I've still been getting between 19-20mpg combined over the last 1200 odd miles. On motorway runs, 27/28mpg is more like it, but Peter (previous owner of my '55) had 33mpg on some very sedate driving
If I drove it like a nun I'm sure that would be a few mpg better.
DRBC43AMG
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,118
- Location
- Switzerland, Locarno (TI)
- Car
- 2013 C63 AMG coupe "T-Rex", 1999 C43 AMG saloon "Grandma" (sold), Ultima Sports Can-Am (sold)
Consumption
My C43 averages 11,21lt/100km whatever that represents in mpg (I'm lousy with numbers) with spirited driving up and down mountains and normal speed respectful motorway driving.
My C43 averages 11,21lt/100km whatever that represents in mpg (I'm lousy with numbers) with spirited driving up and down mountains and normal speed respectful motorway driving.
BaldGuy
MB Enthusiast
Super only for me....
Me too, V-power all the way
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,627
- Location
- London\Essex
- Car
- E63s s213 2019, E55 2004 Silver-SOLD, E63 w212 Weistec AMG-SOLD, E55 2004-SOLD, C36 1997-SOLD
super for the 55. c36 said normal unleaded in the book but again i only used super in it
If you are worried about engine damage, then dont worry, neither fuel type will do any damage.
I used to have a C230K which said it needed super on the fuel cap, and arguably probably made more use of it than a naturally aspirated engine because of the higher compression ratio and other engine management related factors. But at best it probably gave me slightly better fuel consumption (20 miles to the whole tank), and the car felt more spirited and eager to go, but only very slightly.
So it all depends on if you are willing to pay that extra £10-odd at the pump per tank for something that may not be as useful or as beneficial as it really sounds!
I used to have a C230K which said it needed super on the fuel cap, and arguably probably made more use of it than a naturally aspirated engine because of the higher compression ratio and other engine management related factors. But at best it probably gave me slightly better fuel consumption (20 miles to the whole tank), and the car felt more spirited and eager to go, but only very slightly.
So it all depends on if you are willing to pay that extra £10-odd at the pump per tank for something that may not be as useful or as beneficial as it really sounds!
rees_A
Banned
I think super is only 6p more per litre x 60 litres = £3.60 or about a pint and a half of beer...No brainer really
Where I fill up its 7p more, and for Horrgakx, he seems to be driving an E-class (because he said it takes £90 to fill up), so he has a bigger tank than your CLK, so it would be a bit more... but I know what you mean, there isn't much in it.
Barbanasos
Active Member
V-power for me too.
