What is your FC

[Guest Pumper]

achuafc wrote:

Pumper's mileage per L acheived is highly desirable (7.6-8L/100km)! That is quite close to the technical specs. But strangely, the rest of responses from other forumers are registering a lower mileage acheived so far, which leads me to suggest that everyone has a different driving pattern, perhaps.

So pumper, have you done anything to your C180 CGI so far? What's your driving pattern like (light-footed)?

Can anyone also share any opinions on whether how you "treat" your car during the initial 1000km (running in, if MB cars actually do need that?) could determine the future of your car's appetite in the long run?

Cheers guys! :hand:

Mine is fully stock. But I do alot of expressway way cruising at 80-90km/h and use the cruise control whenever possible. I mainly travel early am or late at night where traffic is light. Quite light-footed and always on C mode.

Anyway 7.6L/100km was my personal best. :becky: Normally will be ard 8-8.2L. Will try the S mode one of these days to see how it will affect the FC.

[Guest io5885]

Any bros here pump SPC 95?

currently on shell 95 or V-power when on offer.

Contemplating a change as AMEX offers pretty attractive discounts for SPC.

Any comments, bro?

[Guest mile]

In my opinion, SPC's fuel quality is better than Shell's.

I know many cars have problem using Shell 95 .... some service advisors tell their customers not to use Shell 95 if they must pump RON95.... SPC, Caltex and Esso are ok. But RON98 all are fine.

[Guest vt5sport]

mile wrote:

I know many cars have problem using Shell 95 .... some service advisors tell their customers not to use Shell 95 if they must pump RON95.... SPC, Caltex and Esso are ok. But RON98 all are fine.

Any rationale to that?

[Guest mile]

vt5sport wrote:

Any rationale to that?

Dont know.... Shell 95 fuel quality apparently not good.... stalls engines that cannot take below RON95 fuel....

[Guest skoder]

I would still run in the car progressively till the next oil change, although most engines are "run-in" in factory, that does not include hundreds of other moving parts which requires certain mileage. ^^

[Guest kepiting1sg]

mile wrote:

Dont know.... Shell 95 fuel quality apparently not good.... stalls engines that cannot take below RON95 fuel....

I run on Shell 95 for 3 years on my W124 - never has problem

I alternate between Shell 95 (75% of the time) & Shell V-Power on my previous W203 for 5 years - Never has problem of stalling or "rough engine"

I alternate between Shell 95 (75% of the time) & Shell V-Power on my previous FL W211 E200K - Never has problem of stalling or "rough engine"

My right foot can be very light

Currently I am running Shell 95 on my W212 E250CGI and only on V-Power when there's offer of V-Power @ Shell 98 price :becky:

Never has problem!

skoder wrote:

I would still run in the car progressively till the next oil change, although most engines are "run-in" in factory, that does not include hundreds of other moving parts which requires certain mileage. ^^

Also good to know when the car is new, it's important to bed in the brakes - no sudden jamming on the brakes. Be gentle on them and they will serve U long. :becky:

[Guest mile]

Good to hear that MB never have issue with Shell 95 fuel.

The issues i heard (and experience myself) with Shell fuel are the following cars,

VW (esp GTi), Ford, Honda, Opel....

[Guest vt5sport]

Performance-oriented cars like the GTi confirm muz run RON98.

[Guest kepiting1sg]

vt5sport wrote:

Performance-oriented cars like the GTi confirm muz run RON98.

IMHO,

On the contrary stock GTIs can technically run on lower RON fuel unless the owners have remapped their ECU.

I ran Shell 95 on my stk Audi Q5 2.0 TFSI Quattro and only I changed it to 98 & V-Power when I remapped the ECU to mTm Stage 1.

My stk Audi A4 B8 2.0 TFSI Quattro, I ran it on Shell 95 without problems too.

[Guest vt5sport]

kepiting1sg wrote:

IMHO,

On the contrary stock GTIs can technically run on lower RON fuel unless the owners have remapped their ECU.

I ran Shell 95 on my stk Audi Q5 2.0 TFSI Quattro and only I changed it to 98 & V-Power when I remapped the ECU to mTm Stage 1.

My stk Audi A4 B8 2.0 TFSI Quattro, I ran it on Shell 95 without problems too.

Not saying TC car cannot run on RON95. On RON92 oso can run without knocking as the ECU will simply retard the ignition but as a result, performance will oso drop.

[keltanky]

what uncle said is true..

RON95 all cars can run no issues...

if want to go for RON92 also can as most cars are made for RON91 and above..., just that some cars will need to remap their ECUs to cater for the lower RON..

even REX also can use RON92, I had seen some pumping it... and its real REX lor... not those FAKES...

[Guest kepiting1sg]

vt5sport wrote:

Not saying TC car cannot run on RON95. On RON92 oso can run without knocking as the ECU will simply retard the ignition but as a result, performance will oso drop.

IMHO,

We are talking about Ron 95 and not Ron 92

The W212 min is RON92 and running Ron95 & Ron98 has no noticeable diff in performance.

Volkswagen better known as People Car is designed to run at "all conditions"

Whether it's the 1.4TSI GTI or 2.0L Gti Mark VI except GtiR min is Ron92 and takes Ron 95 or Ron98 with no noticeable diff in perf!

[Guest io5885]

So bros,

any diff for the same grade diff brands?

Eg, 95shell, 95SPC, 95Caltex or 95Mobile..

[Guest ACSLK]

keltanky wrote:

what uncle said is true..

RON95 all cars can run no issues...

if want to go for RON92 also can as most cars are made for RON91 and above..., just that some cars will need to remap their ECUs to cater for the lower RON..

even REX also can use RON92, I had seen some pumping it... and its real REX lor... not those FAKES...

oh i see........ok, i better go tune my ECU soon

cheers

[Guest ACSLK]

kepiting1sg wrote:

IMHO,

We are talking about Ron 95 and not Ron 92

The W212 min is RON92 and running Ron95 & Ron98 has no noticeable diff in performance.

Volkswagen better known as People Car is designed to run at "all conditions"

Whether it's the 1.4TSI GTI or 2.0L Gti Mark VI except GtiR min is Ron92 and takes Ron 95 or Ron98 with no noticeable diff in perf!

oh, i didnt know VW are people's car ya................

i thought is Toyota...

cheers

[Guest vt5sport]

kepiting1sg wrote:

IMHO,

We are talking about Ron 95 and not Ron 92

The W212 min is RON92 and running Ron95 & Ron98 has no noticeable diff in performance.

Volkswagen better known as People Car is designed to run at "all conditions"

Whether it's the 1.4TSI GTI or 2.0L Gti Mark VI except GtiR min is Ron92 and takes Ron 95 or Ron98 with no noticeable diff in perf!

For people's car, maybe you're rite.

But for my other TC cars, certainly got diff.

[Guest skoder]

Volks - people

Wagon - car/carriage

suppose to be affordable too... but its sold with high premium here...

[Guest chiaster]

Reviving this thread a little...

C180 CGI, just over 4000km, lights come on at around 600km mark, managed 660km before hitting the pumps, been on Esso 5000 since day 1, FC now 8.6litres/100km, 'C' mode most of the time, light-footed, 80/20 highway/city, FC seems to be getting better with each pump (or maybe it's just my personal challenge to keep dropping that number with each full tank)...

[Guest ACSLK]

apple088 wrote:

I am running at 11.4/100km

not very good.........

cheers

[Guest apple088]

ACSLK wrote:

not very good.........

cheers

Now running at 10.6L/100km

Morning traffic sucks!!

[Guest mile]

chiaster wrote:

Reviving this thread a little...

C180 CGI, just over 4000km, lights come on at around 600km mark, managed 660km before hitting the pumps, been on Esso 5000 since day 1, FC now 8.6litres/100km, 'C' mode most of the time, light-footed, 80/20 highway/city, FC seems to be getting better with each pump (or maybe it's just my personal challenge to keep dropping that number with each full tank)...

Wow!

This is fantastic.

i never manage to get anything better than 10.5L/100km. Max 580km per fulltank. Or about 9km/L. But I am on C180K BE

[Guest alex123]

I get about 8km/litre, using Shell 95, tyre pressure 36psi, front 225, rear 245, usually 1 person in the car, W203 Sport Edition, coming to 4 years old. My trips are short, 2km to the office and 2.5 km return. That probably accounts for the atrocious result but since I do so little mileage, I am not so concerned. Weekends I prefer to ride my motorcycles, my fixie bicycles (1 litre sweat/10km) and be driven in. :becky:

But I think it is not good to drive your cars in a light-foot-manner, low RPM all the time. Must rev it once in a while to help it breathe better.

[Guest chiaster]

chiaster wrote:

Reviving this thread a little...

C180 CGI, just over 4000km, lights come on at around 600km mark, managed 660km before hitting the pumps, been on Esso 5000 since day 1, FC now 8.6litres/100km, 'C' mode most of the time, light-footed, 80/20 highway/city, FC seems to be getting better with each pump (or maybe it's just my personal challenge to keep dropping that number with each full tank)...

Just to add, I am on 19" wheels, 235/35/19, no passengers most of the time other than my girlfriend, not too sure about air pressure after changing the wheels though, trips to work and back are usually 23km each way, I do floor it once in a while to clear carbon build-up and also to hear the engine roar...

[Guest lightning]

chiaster wrote:

Just to add, I am on 19" wheels, 235/35/19, no passengers most of the time other than my girlfriend, not too sure about air pressure after changing the wheels though, trips to work and back are usually 23km each way, I do floor it once in a while to clear carbon build-up and also to hear the engine roar...

...just wondering can we actually clear carbon on SG road? thot we need to travel at least 160kph and for at least 10 ~ 15 mins or more?...i may be wrong :becky: