Changes to Petrol this year - E10 compatibility

[Flyinspanner]

From uk govt website.

Mercedes-Benz​

E10 petrol is cleared for use in the vast majority of all Mercedes Benz vehicles with petrol engines, except:

• First generation direct injection C200 CGI (W203), CLK 200 CGI series (C209) of the years 2002 – 2005;
• Models not equipped with three-way catalysts, models retrofitted with three-way catalysts or produced with a carburettor. These are mainly vehicles older than 25 years.

 

[123andAway]

So for those of us with cars from the 1960/70/80s what are the main things to upgrade to avoid problems? I’ve noted the advice about not leaving the car for long periods undriven.

 

[merc85]

We Retail this,

Lucas Oil UK - Safeguard™ Ethanol Fuel Conditioner

Lucas Safeguard Ethanol Fuel Conditioner with Stabilizers contains effective additives to prevent rust and corrosion associated with the use of ethanol fuels.

www.lucasoil.co.uk

 

[Deleted member 126969]

Rubber fuel hose will rot with ethanol, if the carbs have brass floats, the solder dissolves so eventually they will leak and fill with fuel. Some gaskets and seals could be a problem too.

Just replaced the last bits of rubber hose on the Westfield with Gates Barricade rated for ethanol. Might be facing some issues in the future as the injection components are a bit if a mish-mash from various sources so finding out if they are all OK is tricky. The other kit I just finished should be OK as the engine donor is compatible.

I plan on feeding the cars on premium fuel to reduce the ethanol exposure.

 

[slade1]

There are plenty of protection additives. I have a bottle of Frosts Ethonix, endorsed by FBHVC, to use when required in my 1959 190B
It will increase cost but a few K miles a year is bearable.

 

[Nevello]

From uk govt website.

Mercedes-Benz​

E10 petrol is cleared for use in the vast majority of all Mercedes Benz vehicles with petrol engines, except:

• First generation direct injection C200 CGI (W203), CLK 200 CGI series (C209) of the years 2002 – 2005;
• Models not equipped with three-way catalysts, models retrofitted with three-way catalysts or produced with a carburettor. These are mainly vehicles older than 25 years.

Hi I have a 2005 CLK 2.8 convertible which I believe is a A209 or W209 any idea if this vehicle is compatible with E10 petrol? Thanks

 

[wimphot]

Is the W203 CGI the same as the W203 Kompressor?
A search of the web brings up:
"The CGI engine uses homogeneous direct injection with high-precision piezoelectric injectors combined with turbocharged for an increase in output from a small displacement engine. Alternatively, the Kompressor engine used a supercharger which drew its power from the engine, thereby increasing the petrol consumption"
Which I think tells me I can run my W(DB)203 Kompressor on E10 phewel
BUT...

 

[DSM10000]

How does that tell you can run E10 fuel in your car when the text clearly describes two different forced induction systems?

The two engines are a completely different design.

Check the Government website for compatibility with E10 fuel.

 

[190]

"The CGI engine uses homogeneous direct injection with high-precision piezoelectric injectors combined with turbocharged for an increase in output from a small displacement engine. Alternatively, the Kompressor engine used a supercharger which drew its power from the engine, thereby increasing the petrol consumption"
Which I think tells me I can run my W(DB)203 Kompressor on E10 phewel

You can't make that assumption as there was also a CGI version of the kompressor engine.

The guidance on the government web site seems clear that the early CGI engines in a W203 are not suitable for E10. Why they were OK for E5 but not E10 is a puzzle and if it's run fine on E5 it may not be catastrophic to run E10 although what you really need to know is what supposedly makes E10 unsuitable.

It could be like my 42 year old BMW motorcycle which has valve seats that are not suitable for unleaded fuel but I've run it for 14 years without any ill effects and valve clearances have been very stable. The mechanism that makes unleaded unsuitable is valve seat erosion but that only becomes a problem if you run flat out the whole time which I don't, so the theoretical problem doesn't manifest itself.

 

[wimphot]

You can't make that assumption as there was also a CGI version of the kompressor engine.

I am not making an assumption about anything - dangerous course of action. The gov't website specifically states W203CGI, It does not say W203 Kompressor which as @ DSM10000 states, is a completely different engine.
What I am not inclined to do is trust what I read on a gov't website.

A CGI version of the Kompressor engine sounds like a bit of a contradiction.
As I understand it; the Kompressor is driven off the engine - ie by connection to the crank/cam/drive-belt or similar. Whereas the CGI engine is turbocharged - ie driven by exhaust gas pressure.
Am I under a misunderstanding?

 

[slade1]

You can't make that assumption as there was also a CGI version of the kompressor engine.

The guidance on the government web site seems clear that the early CGI engines in a W203 are not suitable for E10. Why they were OK for E5 but not E10 is a puzzle and if it's run fine on E5 it may not be catastrophic to run E10 although what you really need to know is what supposedly makes E10 unsuitable.

It could be like my 42 year old BMW motorcycle which has valve seats that are not suitable for unleaded fuel but I've run it for 14 years without any ill effects and valve clearances have been very stable. The mechanism that makes unleaded unsuitable is valve seat erosion but that only becomes a problem if you run flat out the whole time which I don't, so the theoretical problem doesn't manifest itself.

Cars and motor cycles (?) with alloy heads usually can run on unleaded petrol. MB cars since 1950s are able to run on unleaded petrol. I will keep well clear of E10 for my 190B.

 

[190]

A CGI version of the Kompressor engine sounds like a bit of a contradiction.
As I understand it; the Kompressor is driven off the engine - ie by connection to the crank/cam/drive-belt or similar. Whereas the CGI engine is turbocharged - ie driven by exhaust gas pressure.
Am I under a misunderstanding?

The injection method and the forced induction method are quite separate entities. Direct injection and turbo charging do not necessarily go together.

I've got to admit it's very confusing mainly because when the the C class engines went CGI in 2010 they were most certainly turbo rather than Kompressor. So the assumption tends to be made that all CGI engines are turbo.

What we are talking about though is MB's brief foray into CGI between 2003 and 2005. These engines were designated M271 DE ML 271.942 If you look up the parts diagram for this engine it shows a supercharger. Although unlikely, I suppose it's possible that the parts diagram is wrong in which case just look at the engine to see if it's supercharged or turbo charged.

Mercedes-Benz EPC. M271 271.942 M - Engine, R4-SI-ENGINE M271 DE18 ML, Market Europe, North America, Japan, Group AIR CLEANER AND ENGINE CHARGING, Schema of COMPRESSOR.

 

[SW18]

Hi I have a 2005 CLK 2.8 convertible which I believe is a A209 or W209 any idea if this vehicle is compatible with E10 petrol? Thanks

This will be fine, it’s an M112 which is not in the affected engine series.

 

[PhantomF4]

The injection method and the forced induction method are quite separate entities. Direct injection and turbo charging do not necessarily go together.

I've got to admit it's very confusing mainly because when the the C class engines went CGI in 2010 they were most certainly turbo rather than Kompressor. So the assumption tends to be made that all CGI engines are turbo.

What we are talking about though is MB's brief foray into CGI between 2003 and 2005. These engines were designated M271 DE ML 271.942 If you look up the parts diagram for this engine it shows a supercharger. Although unlikely, I suppose it's possible that the parts diagram is wrong in which case just look at the engine to see if it's supercharged or turbo charged.

Mercedes-Benz EPC. M271 271.942 M - Engine, R4-SI-ENGINE M271 DE18 ML, Market Europe, North America, Japan, Group AIR CLEANER AND ENGINE CHARGING, Schema of COMPRESSOR.

I’m guessing the obvious question being “is there an easy way to tell which engine is sitting in my friend”s 2003 CLK Kompressor” ?

 

[DSM10000]

I’m guessing the obvious question being “is there an easy way to tell which engine is sitting in my friend”s 2003 CLK Kompressor” ?

Yes

Google the engine number.

 

[PhantomF4]

Yes

Google the engine number.

Lots of very confusing and conflicting info from Google

The engine number is 271940 30 154475

It definitely has a supercharger but can anyone give a definitive answer whether or not this is supercharged CGI engine (I always thought CGI came with turbos...)

 

[SW18]

Lots of very confusing and conflicting info from Google

The engine number is 271940 30 154475

It definitely has a supercharger but can anyone give a definitive answer whether or not this is supercharged CGI engine (I always thought CGI came with turbos...)

Might it not be possible to see the injector rails if it’s a CGI engine? They’re fairly distinctive on CDI engines.

 

[markjay]

Wikipedia lists which M271 engines has Kompressor and CGI:

Mercedes-Benz M271 engine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"DE18ML (271.942)
This engine had the same dimensions as E18ML and almost the same features, but used CGI (Stratified Charged Gasoline Injection) gasoline direct injection. It has been produced since 2003 in only one version, with an output of 170 PS (125 kW; 168 hp) at 5300 rpm. The production ceased in 2005.

Applications:

2003 Mercedes-Benz C-Class Sportcoupé C 200 CGI

2003 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (W203) C 200 CGI

2003 Mercedes-Benz CLK-Class (W209) CLK 200 CGI"

 

[PhantomF4]

Thanks everyone for your comments. My local Indy (Merparts) knows this particular vehicle inside out and has confirmed that it doesn’t have a CGI engine.

I also checked the CO2 emissions figure. The CLK 200 CGI is 190g/km whereas the Kompressor (non CGI) engine is 221g/km

 

[poormansporsche]

This will be fine, it’s an M112 which is not in the affected engine series.

There never was a clk with a 2.8 engine. The Clk280 was the 3.0 m272 engine. The m112 in the clk were either the 2.4 or 3.2 only. B